Fortinbras

Thanks everyone... that's plenty to get me going... I found some at Boots and Tracks as well.

I apologize if this info is out there already, but I'm just getting back to playing this... can someone tell me/post links to websites that have scenarios/mods for CMAK kind of like what I remember using for CMBO where you could find all of Madd Matt's progression of downloads? Thanks in advance. RJ

Agreed... Market-Garden was the kind of brilliance Monty came up with when he was sitting behind a desk.

OK, all this "let her win" talk is fine... but what if SHE DOESN'T LOSE!?!?!?! You will then be the first official "CM Cuckold," sitting in the corner watching your new bride taking on other men, so to speak.

My gigantic oversimplification of the Second World War is that three things won the war: Soviet manpower, Chinese manpower, and US industry. I'm an American and don't mean to slight anyone, but honestly, everything in the west, and everything in the Pacific except the submarine warfare which in the end really strangled Japan, was a side show to the eastern front and the asian mainland.

Mike, I sent you an email stating that I'm availalbe to play either side if a need still exists. I've never played at this level in CMBO, but am "assuming" that I could hang in there. Let me know. RJ

This debate about the M4 series vs. the T-34 series is pretty interesting and reminds me of the zillions of arguments I've heard over the the last 15 or so years regarding the M1A1/A2 vs the Leopard 2 series. I think the biggest thing to keep in mind in both of these arguments is that if you had a head to head fight, you would need to do a "best out of 7" type series where they fought on steppe, forest, snow, jungle, desert... By that I mean that with both the M4 and M1 series of tanks, we (i.e., America) had to design something that would function "good enough" in ALL environments, and the M4 did that while obviously the M1 series has worked better than "good enough" in almost every environment. Obviously the Germans had only western Europe (and hopefully eastern Europe ) to worry about with the Leo, and the Soviets had Europe and, to a lesser extent, the Far East (but that was "steppe like" as well) with the T34. Whether you are talking M4 or T34, both were phenomenally functional and successful given what needed to be accomplished. I would argue that ALL German designs were "sexier" in just about every way (except probably mobility, which isn't sexy), but just like the real world, there are a lot more ugly girls (i.e., T34 and M4)out there than super models!

Dandelion, I've let the BHD issue go, but here is a quick, maybe incomplete, answer regarding "crew guards" in the turret of the M1 series as they relate to recoil, not elevation/depression changes. If all crewmembers have their guards installed correctly, and do their job correctly, there should NEVER be an incident on any M1 series tank. However, we all know that out of convenience, people don't always do what they are supposed to! On the original M1 and M1IP, the breech for the M68 (British 105mm) is MUCH smaller than that of the M256 (German 120MM)... I mean a LOT smaller, and therefore was not that big an issue for the tank commander (TC) and gunner, and of some issue to the loader. Actually, of greater concern with the M68 is the 105mm talbots banging around and lying hot on the floor (hot through the boots) in a mounting pile. The M1/M1IP carries a total of 55 rounds to the A1/A2s 40, but after firing about 15 rounds of 105, you start having a problem with the size of the talbot pile. On ranges at Graf or Bergen, you would routinely see the talbots fly out the hatches between engagements to make room, especially in section or higher gunnery (like CAT). For the M256, the guard system is MUCH more extensive and there is no concern for the gunner at all, but if the TC has a "flying" left elbow, he had better watch out because the breech will catch him hard in recoil. Talbots are not an issue with the 120 as only an afcap remains (shell is combustible cellulose and goes out the tube). In 13 years on M1's, I never saw a serious incident involving recoil and the loader as he is VERY aware of the breach. However, I did see a few (and hear of a few more) broken/dislocated left arms of TC's on A1/A2s who were not paying attention (i.e., an idiot!). On the issue of elevation/depression while on the move or when "coupling/uncoupling" the cannon from the sights, I have heard of other, very ugly (involving death), accidents where either the loader or the TC was a) out of position, and over the breech block when the cannon depressed thus the breech jumped up pinning/crushing the crewmember to the roof. Not pretty! Obviously this should never happen and is not a design flaw, but an operator flaw!

But Dandy, let me tell you what I really think... Here is why we, Americans that is, want it as a documentary... it's because, unlike your country, we are not in the habit of losing or taking loss lightly. Nor are we in the habit of worrying about whether everyone else agrees with us or not when we KNOW we are doing is the right thing. Therefore, when we set out to feed a nation, then have a Commander in Chief change the mission but reduce the force package, and wind up with 18 dead, we don't like it, and sometime we need to be reminded of what happens when we don't fully commit to something. Maybe if the "Lucky Battalion" and her EU allies would have committed to the Balkans 10 years ago, the United States wouldn't still have troops there. But don't worry, we'll pick up Europe's slack, we always do. Finally, as a former soldier, I laughed a lot too. There were clearly points that were humurous (e.g., making fun of CPT Steele, who was an ass). However, I am curiouse to know what parts you laughed at?

Dandelion, I don't get it... every post I've ever seen from you is well thought out and reasoned, so I'm having trouble understanding your take on Black Hawk Down. Of course it's a movie, but before you give me some nostalgic crap about Cross of Iron or Stalingrad, what is your beef with BHD in terms of realism? Does it down play the politics? Yes! Does it down play the tactical blunders made that day? A bit. Does it over play the rift between some of the Delta vs. Batt boys personalities? Yes. It's a movie! But in terms of the fighthing, the movie does a pretty damn good job of showing the basic fire discipline that happened that day on the ground. Had there been indiscriminate spraying of bullets on the ground, they would have been out of 5.56 in the first three hours. As for your reference about serving in Bosnia, is that a sign of insecurity? Never seen it there before? Big deal. I've been to Bosnia twice! Woo Hoo! SO WHAT!? Instead of talking about my money and my wife, why don't you tell me what you're issue with the movie or the mission is/was?

Just two things... Cpl Dodge, the Humvee mounts a 7.62, not a .50 cal. There is a huge difference. They would have mounted the .50 if they could have. Dandelion... what movie did you laugh your way through? I have several friends who were in Mogadishu that day and they said the biggest differences between the movie and reality was that the streets in Mogadishu were much narrower and there were a lot more dead bodies than in the movie. As for firing wildly, it didn't happen that day. Probably the single most incredible thing that day was the fire discipline of the troops involved.

The crew issue is pretty critical... get 'em off the map or hide, but don't let them die or use them as scouts.

On the Stuart note, I've seen all kinds of crazy, unrealistic things happen. For instance, in Wild Bill's "Maastricht Tanks" scenario (a tiny, armor only scenario), the American player is given two Stuarts. Naturally I used these to scout ahead on the flanks. Well, imagine my surprise when not only did I work my way around the Germans to rear oblique shots, but my Stuart on the left flank knocked out everything the Germans had (e.g., a Panther or two, at Mk IV or two...). I'll take the win, but as someone who spent 13 years on the M3, M3A1, M3A2 CFV, and the M1, M1IP, M1A1, and M1A2 in terrain all over the world, I found the "reality" very suspect. I've also seen opponents deliberately buy tons of Stuarts to overwhelm the slow rotating German turrets and the game flaw of "hyper target acquisition." I HATE people who play the game that way, but it is very very effective.

Thanks to all of you for your comments. PS I love sifting through these threads and plan on becoming a lot more active... there are a lot of subjects in here that I could add to, especially for you Europeans who are mystified by our strange American ways.

I just bought both games, but am playing CMBO for now. My question comes from controlling Wittmann's tank at Villers Bocage. My question is, "Is there anyway to override or ignore the way units acquire and engage targets?" For instance, when I "wade" Wittmann's tank into the fray, it will "hyper" acquire and reacquire relatively low value targets while half-tracks get away and Allied tanks start pinging away at me. As a former cavalryman and tanker, and as Wittmann did that day, most of these targets would be ignored as one/he sought out higher value/threat "most dangerous" targets. Is this just a "have to live with" problem? I am sure that Wittmann didn't have his turret slewing over the back deck to engage a Vickers MG while he knew he was hunting armor to his front. Thanks.