Buq-Buq
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Buq-Buq
-
-
The author of German Tanks of World War II: The Complete Illustrated History of German Armoured Fighting Vehicles, 1926-1945 himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Maria_von_Senger_und_Etterlin
and his father:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin_von_Senger_und_Etterlin
Rather apropos for the forum on CMFI.
Mark
-
There was a late-war U.S. project to mount the lightweight M3A1 105mm howitzer on the M5A1 Light Tank chassis: the T82 Howitzer Motor Carriage. It was, in effect — and very much in looks — a miniature M7 (HMC) Priest. The gun was the lightweight version of the gun pictured above by MikeyD. The vehicle appeared as several pilot models only, and never was standardized and did not go into production. There are two pages on it and some pictures in Hunnicutt’s Stuart.
Since it never saw action, I doubt if this is the vehicle that you were thinking of, Sequoia.
Mark
sort-of Edit: Sgt Schultz: I think that was a different war.
-
Battlefront:
I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for getting this project launched. I lost my Boot Camp Windows partition some time ago, and have really missed visits with CMSF. I appreciate this great Christmas present.
Thanks very much!
Mark
-
James:
I cannot find any appropriate Italian armor references at the moment (what’s with that?), but I believe that the hatch & radio change that you mention was a German modification; I think that Italian versions of the vehicle were unchanged from their original form. I’m pretty certain that you are seeing an Italian R-35 in that screen shot, rather than a German R-35.
The white cupola is most likely a vehicle marking; I seem to recall a common type of Italian AFV marking was a white circle on the turret (or superstructure) roof.
Childress:
The playing card symbols were common tactical markings for French vehicles. Someone else will need to explain their exact function, but it probably had something to do with platoons of a company or companies of a battalion (e.g., all first platoon vehicles were marked with spades, all second platoons AFVs were marked with hearts, etc.) or something like that.
Actually, Erwin probably has it right, come to think of it.
Mark
-
I just finished my first CMBN scenario, and iTunes was playing "The Cemetery" by Jerry Goldsmith from the movie "Patton" as I scanned across the battlefield. It was a rather fitting soundtrack piece to wrap up my first CMBN experience.
I usually play selected pieces from the soundtrack from "The Battle of the Bulge" by Benjamin Frankel (yes, the movie was awful, but the soundtrack is excellent), "Patton", and a couple tunes from the "Kelly's Heroes" soundtrack ("Tiger Tank" & "Quick Draw Kelly", of course).
Great work, BFC.
Mark
-
I once talked to an aging 'spook' who spun a very interesting story. It was about U.S. tanks regularly engaging with North Vietnamese along the DMZ. They were regular slug-fests, set-piece battles across open ground. He even described one M48 being holed right through beneath the turret basket. Not one word about these battles has emerged in the historical accounts. There's two conclusions for us to choose from. Either the aging 'spook' was pulling a Baron Von Munchausen on me, OR the engagements were real but weren't quite successful enough for publication. M48 does not exactly dominate T55 technologically. The "official" story still is we never lost a battle in Vietnam.
The truth is far more mundane than you are supposing: U.S.-built tanks . . . M48A3s of the ARVN 20th Tank regiment . . . engaged in "regular slug-fests, set-piece battles across open ground" against NVA tanks during the Easter Offensive in the spring of 1972. The engagements were real, and they did make it into plenty of publications, including Donn Starry's Armoured [sic] Combat in Vietnam, Simon Dunstan's Vietnam Tracks, Gerald Turley's The Easter Offensive and Dale Andradé's Trail By Fire. These are all great books, and if you have any interest in the history of armored combat, they should be in your library and these engagements in your lexicon.
The short version is this: in the spring of 1972, the North Vietnamese Army invaded South Vietnam with a substantial conventional army, including armor, artillery and anti-air assets, in an effort to gain additional bargaining power at the on-going Paris Peace Talks, and to show Nixon's Vietnamization policy as a farce. The NVA struck in all four Vietnamese Tactical Zones (I Corps, II Corps, III Corps and IV Corps), but the biggest battles were in the I, II and III Corps zones, with the NVA striking through Quang Tri City towards Hue (I Corps), through Dak To towards Kontum (II Corps), and through Loc Ninh towards An Loc (III Corps), respectively. Initially, the NVA outfought the ARVN, and gained numerous successes; however, the ARVN troops, with the aid of their American advisors and a considerable dose of American airpower (including air cavalry and ArcLight strikes), ultimately prevailed and defeated the NVA on the ground, recapturing most of the lost ground by the end of the summer of 1972.
The battles of the Easter Offensive saw considerable armor action, since the NVA fielded hundreds of tanks in the various battles. In fact, the battles during the spring of 1972 should have been an indication of the way that tank combat would be fought during the rest of the decade and into the next, if anyone had been paying attention. In the north, on the approaches to Dong Ha and Quang Tri City, the ARVN 20th Tank Regiment fought fierce tank versus tank engagements against NVA armor, including T-54s and Type 59s, as well as PT-76 and Type 63 amphibious tanks. In their first engagement, at ranges of 2500 - 3200 meters, the ARVN tankers killed 11 NVA tanks with no losses to themselves. The AT-3 Sagger ATGM made its combat debut that spring against ARVN armor, but after initial success, the ARVN tankers learned drills to counter the Sagger, including sudden movement and counter-fire to throw off the aim of the Sagger gunner. In the Central Highlands, the NVA tanks were countered again by American air power and the introduction of TOW ATGMs, to include a TOW Jeep-borne element of the 82nd Airborne Division airlifted into the battle zone. The battlefield around Kontum also saw the first combat use of anti-tank helicopters: American TOW-firing UH-1 Hueys of the 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team. Finally, in the siege of An Loc in the III Corps Zone, ARVN troops equipped with personal anti-tank weapons (M72 LAWs) overcame their fear of tanks and blunted the NVA armor probes into the city, proving that brave infantrymen could stand against unsupported armor.
All of these facets of armored warfare* would be brought to light in the Yom Kippur War when the military world would be shocked into believing that "the tank is dead." In fact, all of the lessons learned at such cost in October of 1973 had been highlighted in Vietnam in the spring of 1972. All of this has been written . . . and it is a great story, an important part of the history of armored warfare. I highly recommend it.
Mark
* The possible exception here is the anti-tank helicopter, which really came into its own in the 1980s in Lebanon and Iraq and Iran, rather than proving itself to the world during the Yom Kippur War.
-
Yeah, well, there's a can of worms that I've opened.
And, Vark, I hate to say it, but if you can't figure out a way to get more than a few shots off at the King Tigers, you're doing something . . . well, you should be trying something different. And if you're taking shots at the front, that's the first thing to change. You've gotta think like Oddball; there's more than one way to skin three big cats.
Heinrich:
Yup, I have really liked this one for a long time. I still have my review that I did when it was back on the original Scenario Depot. (If Steve would oblige us, I'd post it again.) It is a very fun scenario . . . one of my more memorable. Very tense.
I get the feeling that Mad Russian didn't re-post it when The Scenario Depot II came out because he says that it is not historical, with regard to the map/terrain. But then again, if that were the reason, he never would have re-posted Cats and Crocs or A Tiger By The Tail either, so maybe I'm reading the situation wrong.
;^)
Anyway, whatever. Everybody try it out. See what you think.
Mark
-
Try replicating that little encounter in CM, result one very dead T-34 and the paint a little bit chipped on one of the King Tigers.
Actually, this situation was recreated in a scenario called HF Death Match, and was quite playable and very fun. I don't recall who designed it (although if I were to venture a guess MAD RUSSIAN's name would pop up first), but it was a very fun — and winnable, from the Soviet POV — situation. It was designed to be played as Soviets vs German AI, but I have also played it as Head-to Head, and it works pretty good that way too.
If I recall correctly, the scenario is not available at The Scenario Depot II as a regular upload; however, it looks as if it can be found in the Scenario Pack "SORTED_SCENARIOS_14_SUMMER_44_PHILIPPE.ZIP" that was rescued from CMMODS by Der Alte Fritz . . . look for "Death Match.cme" . . . I'm pretty sure that is the correct situation.
Mark
-
cool breeze
Have you never considered the possibility that "vumpsh" was just speaking that way to make it appear that he knew more than the other posters on that thread?? That perhaps he was just being boastful? And using perceived knowledge to silence the other voices? My God, but you're gullible.
You haven't a clue, do you?
And the only fool more stupid than you is me, 'cause here I am waist-deep in mud, right where I said I wouldn't go. Serves me right.
Mark
-
cool breeze:
If you want an explanation, go back and read Post #9 of this thread.
If you believe that "vumpsh" said that he had actually been to the factory and looked at the drawings based on what he said in his YouTube post, then your logic is faulty as well.
Read it. It says nothing about his ability to access the factory, or that he has actually done such a thing. There is a huge difference between what "vumpsh" wrote and what John (in his original post) says he wrote. John's representations are false and misleading. Read it!
S**t! I've getting mud all over now!
Mark
-
John:
Bud! Don't take it so hard! It's only my opinion . . . and hell, I've only got 60 posts here, compared to your what? Six thousand? And your resumé; well that speaks volumes. What is one guy that has no respect for your opinion, compared to all those other people?
My advice to you — if you value your reputation in my eyes so much — is to not say stupid things. Don't make leaps that can't be substantiated, and then present them as fact.
I didn't attempt a line-by-line rebuttal of your points in Post #10 because it was a fools' errand. It would be a ridiculous situation; you would only go on and on about how your assumptions are the only possible interpretation of his comments, and I would continue to bash my head against the rock of your obstinance. What's the point? I would end up just getting down into the mud with you.
"I'd like to have an argument, please."
The thing that disturbs me about your assumptions is that apparently you were at one time a "Soviet Threat Analyst" . . . well, that and the fact that you can't see anything wrong with the leap that you made between what "vumpsh" actually said and your summation thereof. My opinion is that your logic is faulty. So my bottom line is this: I've seen an example of how you interpret information; your defense of your position has only put you deeper into the hole. In my book, unfortunately, you have no credibility whatsoever. Other people — to include Combat Mission Forum members, and the various company officers, admirals, generals and spooks that you impressed with your abilities in the past — are free to think differently about the situation; I'm sure that they can draw their own conclusions based on the information available.
Damn, now look at that: I've got mud on my pants . . .
Mark
-
John:
I wouldn't put too much time into worrying about your "perceived overall credibility" with me. Your initial post, and now your reply to my "heavy flak", have convinced me that your ability to draw reasonable conclusions from available information is wacked. Not in a good way.
Enjoy your gaming experience!
Mark
-
John Kettler:
I'm not here to bash hell out of you, especially since I don't know you from Adam, and you sound like a well-meaning sort of guy. But you appear to be stating something as fact in your original post
Someone in one of the comment threads on a YouTube modern Russian tank video took someone else's head off in the debate with a withering first person observation. The decapitating poster had been to the T-72 factory in Nizhniy Tagil, gone to the design offices, pulled the specs and carefully compared the export models, feature for feature, with the homeland models. Not even close! Much equipment standard on the homeland models wasn't even fitted, and what was, was clearly inferior in performance. The above Wiki says there's about a 50% difference in KE armor penetration alone for a monkey model T-72 vs. a homeland one.that stretches what is actually said in your link so far that it completely changes its meaning. At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYFcIK7m0o4, poster "vumpsh" states:
"You don't have to "believe stories", smart one. If you look at the Nizhny Tagil Ural Vagon Zavod factory records and specs, you see that there are special T-72 modifications for export, and they do not carry the same electronics and equipment as the russian tanks. Their guns are of older models and don't fire the same range of ammo. Some can't fire missiles. They aren't truly downgradings-just stuff like laser rangefinders, IR targeting, ERA, were mounted only on domestic models. Thats a fact."
No where in this quote does it say that he personally walked into the Nizhny Tagil factory and viewed plans for the T-72. No where. His post is just so much hearsay — his own opinion. And it says nothing about his ability to access to the Nizhny Tagil factory, or that he has actually done such a thing.
Now I'm not commenting on the other things that you've spoke at great length about in your post, because I haven't had the time to track them all down and view/read them for what they actually say. But honestly, after discovering how you have twisted what this guy actually said, I'll be treating your posts with considerable caution, if I read them at all. You have truly blown your credibility out of the water, at least with me.
Mark
-
umlaut:
I stand corrected again: these mods look WAY better as roofless buildings.
Well . . . perhaps I'll have to modify my playing style when using your mod.
Anyway, great job, especially considering the confines imposed on you. There are an awful lot of .bmp files there. That's a lot of work.
Mark
-
umlaut:
DOH!
I did try to read the READ ME files that came with these, but obviously I missed your pertinent notes! It looks like you have all of my issues/concerns covered quite thoroughly!
It is really too bad that the buildings use multiple copies of the same file to make up a roof. I agree that having symmetrical damage patterns appear on the roof would create considerable distraction. I think that I'll try putting the original roofs (again: rooves) back on and see what that looks like. Thanks much for providing the file names for that purpose.
By the way, kudos to you for your work on this mod; it really adds to the ambience of situations when it is used. And I have to say that ambience — how a scenario looks and feels — is very important to my enjoyment of the Combat Mission experience. Thanks for your time and creative manipulation of the existing system.
Mark
-
umlaut:
I saw your post about this a bit ago on The Scenario Depot II. I was intrigued by the concept and your description. I downloaded the mods the other day and — rather than loading them back and forth — I just did a dedicated install of CMBB with your mods substituted.
I ran into a couple issues.
First, and I think the most disappointing to me, is that the distressed buildings appear to lose their backsides — the two walls the farthest from the camera location — for some reason. The walls are still there, but you can't see them. The result is that it looks like the buildings are literally missing half of their walls. Interestingly enough, all of the walls are visible if you are actually in the building.
Hmmmm, now that I'm writing this out, it is starting to make sense . . . could it be happening because all of the buildings are missing their roofs (rooves)? i.e., when a normal building has a roof, you cannot actually see the other walls (the walls farthest away from you). The game probably doesn't render all of the walls of any given building, since they wouldn't normally be seen anyway (I'll bet that vehicles don't actually have a backside until you "walk 'round to the other side" either).
Interesting.
If the above is actually the case, I would vote for putting the roofs (rooves) back on your distressed buildings. They look quite nice, but it is terribly disconcerting to have half of the building not rendered. Put the roofs (rooves) back on . . . I'd say go ahead and distress them as you've done the walls, blow holes in them, whatever, but at least there wouldn't be this very distracting issue with the backsides of the buildings.
The large craters-to-rubble idea seems to work well; it has the added advantage of still maintaining some of the utility of the terrain-type as cover . . . which you would think would be possible with rubble. It is too bad that there aren't vertical standing doodads in there to take advantage of. Perhaps Aco4bn187inf's idea about rough terrain bears some looking into.
As for the pine woods/road-to-telephone poles: another innovative idea in concept. In practice . . . I feel it has more drawbacks than the [small] visual appeal that it provides. The catch is that the computer, of course, still sees the telephone poles as pine woods/road. There are penalties to movement, line of sight, concealment, cover and direct fire combat that shouldn't exist for telephone poles.
I also was upset that woods terrain got 'paved' when using one of these mods (the 'full'-telephone poles?). That, in effect, rules out the use of any woods in an urban environment. I removed that version of the mod, and got my trees back.
Anyway, I don't mean to sound hyper-critical; my intent is merely to provide feedback on what I've seen. I really like the idea, and will certainly use this mod for some of my game-play (I have a 1945 knock-down, drag-out city assault that is just begging for this treatment). I would encourage you to put the roofs (OK, one more time: rooves) back on the buildings. The rest I would leave as is: it is then my choice to use pine woods/road-to-telephone poles or craters-to-rubble. To me, though, the visual of the missing walls is too distracting to not be fixed.
By the way, for those of you that haven't tried umlaut's mod, you really would probably want to make some adjustment of your scenario in the Editor before playing with these mods. I think that you would also want to include a warning that the scenario was designed to use these mods, and to expect some odd situations if they are not used (having dozens of large craters around the base of buildings is the main one that springs to mind).
Overall, good job. Let me know if you decide to straighten out the issue with the building walls.
Mark
P.S. I think that the issue with Aco4bn187inf having two different sized telephone poles was possibly caused by using woods terrain, as opposed to tall pines. I think that there are several different sized trees rendered in woods, probably using the same artwork.
-
KGB50:
The graphic that you've posted is — at best — misleading with regard to HEAT warheads. The graphic gives the impression that HEAT burns through armor, which is definitely not the case. Upon detonation, the liner of the HEAT warhead, deformed by the detonation wave, is translated into a very high velocity piece of ductile material, and in essence becomes a kinetic energy penetrator with an absurdly high velocity and length/diameter ratio.* The difference between HEAT and APFSDS is that HEAT does not have to be delivered to the target at high velocity (which is why it is ideal for ATGMs and shoulder-fired rockets): velocity is imparted to the penetrator of a HEAT warhead by the detonation of its inherent explosive once it has arrived at the target.
The spalling effect that flamingknives is describing ("rip lots of metal off the back-face of armour and whizz it around the inside of the tank") is a function of most armor-piercing projectiles, to include HEAT and APFSDS. Upon penetration, chunks of the perforated armor plate (in addition to the remnants of the penetrator itself) are hurled at high velocity throughout the interior of the vehicle, causing damage to equipment and personnel.
He [flamingknives] knows what he's talking about.
Mark
*I would refer you to an excellent article by Giorgio Ferrari, The "Hows" and "Whys" of Armour Penetration, in Volume XII, Issue 10 (1988) of Military Technology, pages 81-96 for a more detailed analysis of the subject. I am unaware if this article is available online or not.
-
Antman:
I finished renumbering the 669 .wav files last night. I haven't had the chance to try them out yet, however, so I don't know how this will turn out. I'd offer to e-mail them to you, but the Zipped folder of the Italian files alone comes out to 10 MB. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that CCMODS can handle or not.
Let me know if you manage to come up with some additional Japanese Voice files.
Mark
-
Antman:
I found the CMBO Japanese Voices files at ccmods.com . . . I used the search feature in the CMBO section: I just typed in "japanese" and 5 hits came up. One was for the Japanese Voice files, and another was for assorted sounds, including the Japanese medium & heavy machine guns, I think.
The bad news is that there are only 86 CMBO .wav files featuring the Japanese voices, and CMAK has slots for about 245 Italian voice files. Additionally, if you want the option of using Germans as Japanese as well as Italians, the Germans have 424 voice slots. Since I can't tell one Japanese phrase from another, I'm going to just duplicate the 86 CMBO files over and over again to get the required number of Italian & German voices. If anyone has another, simpler, option, feel free to jump in here and enlighten me — and the sooner the better: I'm only about half-way through re-numbering the 424 files for German-to-Japanese, and I haven't started the Italians yet! It is a long and tedious process . . .
On a related note, does anyone happen to know the .bmp numbers for the German Tank-Hunter teams? I think that at one point I downloaded modified German-to-Japanese uniforms, but they don't seem to have included the Tank-Hunter teams. I wanted to renumber some Japanese uniforms/equipment for them, but I don't know the proper .bmp numbers. Junk2Drive? Anyone?
Kingfish, the scenario looks great!
Mark
-
Pat:
Have you done the do-dads for this rough terrain mod yet? I really like the look of the mod, but the do-dads look goofy not matching your modified art.
Also, just an administrative note here about your upload at ccmods.com . . . it looks as if you have several different variations of the same art. There is also an extra file included for only one variation (I think it is the five-digit file) — I was left wondering why this file had only the one version. I feel that it would be more clear if you were to include a short README file that explains the differences, and why that five-digit file is all by its lonesome.
OK, that's it for the moment. I think that the screen shots of this mod are beautiful, which is why I'm writing. I don't normally go chasing after every grass mod that comes out, but I thought that these mods make the game look so much better than how it appears in its un-modded state, I had to install them. Thanks a lot . . .
Mark
-
Mine arrived just a bit ago, too.
Now, too bad that it doesn't work on a Macintosh . . .
-
I'm guessing that the reason that there isn't a separate CM:SF Scenarios Forum yet is that they're working their little tails off trying to get the 1.02 Patch ready (and then after that probably the follow-on 1.03 Patch).
I have no doubt that there will be a CM:SF Scenarios Forum . . . priorities, priorities . . .
Mark
Edited because — apparently — my age IS catching up with me.
[ August 10, 2007, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: Buq-Buq ]
-
It does.
Mark
-
*cough*
(misspelled "Britain" whenever it is used throughout the Gallery)
*cough cough*
[spelling grog?]
CMSF in Cavalry & Armor Journal
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
There is an article about using CMSF at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff School in the latest issue of The Cavalry & Armor Journal (November - December 2012). Sections of the article include “Appreciation for the effects of terrain,” “Appreciation for time & space relationships,” “Understanding battlefield geometry,” “Awareness of sustainment constraints,” and “ Tangible examples of unit advantages and disadvantages.” A couple color screen shots are also printed with the article.
Unfortunately, this latest issue is not yet available online (or at least I have not yet been able to find it), so I cannot include a link.
Mark