Buq-Buq

[slaps forhead] ~DOH!~

[slaps forhead] ~DOH!~

Yeah, I think that I'd have to agree with Andreas here . . . although by the looks of it, the Major should be demoted. His work isn't that good here. The idea prolly comes from the Yugoslavian "PaK40 on M3A3" conversions that they did. Jason: wouldn't this be based on an M5 light tank, rather than a M8 HMC? The bow machine gun mount and lack of drivers' and co-drivers' vision flaps points towards the M5, I think . . . Mark

Yeah, I think that I'd have to agree with Andreas here . . . although by the looks of it, the Major should be demoted. His work isn't that good here. The idea prolly comes from the Yugoslavian "PaK40 on M3A3" conversions that they did. Jason: wouldn't this be based on an M5 light tank, rather than a M8 HMC? The bow machine gun mount and lack of drivers' and co-drivers' vision flaps points towards the M5, I think . . . Mark

Mikey: Classic, classic story. I love it. Sometimes, the planets just line up. I can't wait to see the Grants & Lees . . . Mark

~Ah, well, perhaps next time~ I totally follow on the "prime-time TV" comment. I never turn it on myself, except to watch a DVD. By the by, I'm guessing that your work has also graced the pages of a couple Hunnicutt books. Great work there, too. I have the whole set, and man, I do miss not having the drawings in "Bradley". Thanks again — Mark Lees & Grants Lees & Grants Lees & Grants

Mikey: I'm hoping for members of the M3 Medium family: Lee & Grant. A redo of that vehicle — tuned as your M4-series was — would rock! There are great opportunities for fun camo schemes with 8th Army Grants & Lees, and of course the mud-camoed Lees of U.S. 1st Armored Div in 1943 (ala Wicky's earlier mod); colorful markings; Lees with side doors; Lees without. The hull rear presents a challenge, of course, since it is incorrect for the radial-engined tanks. If you wanted to get REALLY detailed, you could do the welded M3A3 Grants (without all the rivets — the rear hull is already correct for the diesel engine). Oh! And don't forget to leave a door open for Lees & Grants in Burma, to go with junk2drive's CM:PTO stuff. Here's hoping . . . Mark Oh, I forgot: your Shermans & Stuarts are quite exquisite. Thanks for sharing your passion with the CM community! My games look better for it. Thanks again!

Kingfish: Are you looking at The Last Offensive by Charles MacDonald? If not, I would suggest checking it out for info on the FlaK belts in the ground role. Naturally, this is from the American point of view. There is a little bit on the German forces involved, but really nothing more than that which you've already described. American armor came out on the short end in several engagements vs FlaK belts towards the end of the war, but it looks like Leipzig was not one of those situations. The American units involved came up with interesting tactics to circumvent the threat of the FlaK units — reminiscent of the 30th Infantry Division advances at the end of February 1945 closing up to the Rhine — which could possibly make for an interesting Operation. Mark

Steven Zaloga, in the New Vanguard books M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97 and M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 charts this breakdown for M10-M18-M36 TDs in the ETO, by month: --------------M10--------M18--------M36 June44------691--------146----------0 July44-------743--------141----------0 Aug44-------758--------176----------0 Sept44------763--------170----------0 Oct44--------486--------189---------170 Nov44-------573--------252---------183 Dec44-------790--------306---------236 Jan45--------760--------312---------365 Feb45--------686--------448---------826 Mar45--------684--------540---------884 Apr45---------427*------427*--------1054 May45--------427*----- 427*--------1029 {Arghhhh! No effing tabs!!!} Another thing to bear in mind when looking at those production figures for the M10 is that they include the M10A1; the lion's share production of M10A1s went to conversion into M36 TDs. Some 200 M10A1s were also converted to M35 Prime Movers. Finally, that 6700 figure for M10 production is also reduced by Lend-Lease vehicles; Hunnicutt's Sherman gives that number as 1855. Some 6 battalions of M10s went to the PTO; an unknown number served in the MTO. Still, it is interesting to see that of the 3000-odd M10s left, monthly quantities in the ETO never exceeded 800. Zaloga gives a total of 540 combat losses of M10s in the ETO. Mark *It is interesting to note that the figures for both M10s and M18s are identical for the last two months of the war; I wonder if there is an error in the charts here.

I would have thought that the general in question was Hasso von Manteuffel. I know that he participated in the post-war de-briefs (in my memory he figures prominently in Liddell Hart's "The German Generals Talk"). However, an online bio has him commanding 3. Panzer Armee at the time of the surrender in May 1945; his having been offered command of Armee Gruppe Weichsel several weeks previously doesn't quite fit the qualification, since he turned down the Army Group. I don't know much about Raus, except that his work seems to be the main source for that KV-2-tale from the early days of Barbarossa. Mark

John, et al: The 380mm rocket launcher of the Sturmtiger was indeed designed as a depth-charge projector. TankPower #16, "PzKpfw VI, vol. IV, Tiger/Sturmtiger"* has this to say about the weapon (p. 28): "The 38 cm Raketen-Tauchgranatenwerfer L/5,4 (38 cm RTgW L/5,4) was a breech-loaded rocket depth charge (38 cm Raketen-Tauchgranate, 38 cm RTg) launcher, designed for the Kriegsmarine by Rheinmetall-Borsig of Duesseldorf at their Soemmerda ammunition plant. The 38 cm RTgW L/5,4 was designed to defend protected harbors and naval bases against submarines and assault submersibles, and thus had been designed with a view to its being mounted on the ground, in concrete bunkers overlooking the harbor entrances, rather than on board naval vessels. Its short range, not exceeding 3 000 meters, meant that the field of fire was rather on the smallish side so the Navy had already, in late 1941 and early 1942, planned to design a tracked chassis to mount the 38 cm RTgW L/5,4 in order to extend the zone defended by each launchers [sic] by making them mobile." Mark * This issue of TankPower is probably the definitive source on the Sturmtiger. There are 30 pages (8" X 11" format) of English and Polish text on Sturmtiger genesis, development, production, technical details and combat use (including the most comprehensive accounting of the actions for each of the three Panzersturmmoerserkompanies/batteries — to include the combat testing of the prototype in Warsaw in August 1944 — that I have ever seen). Additionally, for the technically minded, there are a further 28 pages of Sturmtiger line drawings, mainly consisting of 5-view spreads of individual Sturmtiger, showing the various differences between 9 (out of a total of 18!) individual production vehicles. Finally, for those with a modelling-bent, there are 8 pages of beautiful side, top, front and rear color renderings of Sturmtiger showing various color schemes of existing vehicles, and a "3D" computer rendering of a 38 cm projectile. This work is a "must-have" for any serious Sturmtiger buff.

Simon: Son or Zon, I think that this is great subject matter for CMAK scenarios. It seems to me that there has been a distinct lack of Market-Garden scenarios for CMAK (CMETO). I believe that someone just posted one to The Scenario Depot II (yes: "Arnhem Mayhem" by Gen. Failure) . . . other than that, I don't recall having any Market-Garden scenarios in my scenario folder. Drive on! Drive on! Mark

I found this link over on the TankNet Forum (tip o' the hat to mcantu) to a cool U.S. Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) movie. 'beg pardon if this has been all over this Forum already . . . http://www.army.mil/professionalvideo/movies/fcs2005_movie.html Mark

Michael: Yes, I imagine that taking an existing Ram and cutting it down to built a Sexton would have been way more work than was necessary, especially given the cast upper hull. I think that it would be far less expensive to build from the ground up. That having been said, of course, there is the example of the Australian 25-pdr. SP that they converted from existing M3 Medium Tanks in the late 1940s (the Yeramba), but I think that only about a dozen of these were converted. On the other hand, "existing chassis were mostly converted to other roles" would be correct as far as it goes. Again, to use the Grant as an example, the British certainly used existing Grant chassis' for converting to the Grant ARV MkI (armoured recovery vehicle), the Grant Scorpion III mine flail, and the Grant CDL (Canal Defence Light). I'm uncertain as to the numbers of Grant ARV MkIs or Grant Scorpions converted, but if memory serves me correctly, over 300 Grants were converted to Grant CDLs. As for the Americans, they also did actually use 509 M3 Medium Tanks for conversion to M31 Tank Recovery Vehicles, an example of the Americans not purpose building a vehicle type — although, tank recovery vehicles usually require far less radical reconstruction of the existing tanks' armor shell. In addition to the M31 TRVs mentioned, almost 500 M3 Mediums were converted to T10 Shop Tractors, the American version of the Grant CDL. Mark

enigma: The Churchill Is that you find in Italy in 1944 were still being used as Close Support tanks in the Army Tank Brigades to which they were attached. I believe that these vehicles were issued to the various units, and the units just kept them until they were worn out or destroyed. Some Churchill Is underwent interesting field modifications while serving in Italy; a few had their 2-pdr. and 3-in. howitzer transposed, so that the bigger gun was in the turret (as Jason points out, a much more useful application), while others had the 2-pdr. replaced with a second 3-in. howitzer in the turret. This conversion would also have the advantage of having only one ammunition type to stow. There was also at least one Churchill I that was fitted with a PzKpfw III commander's cupola. See David Fletcher's "Mr. Churchill's Tank", as well as the North Irish Horse website for more info on these interesting Churchill I conversions: http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/Articles/1-1.html Jason: To say that "Most Grant chassis ended up as hulls for SP artillery . . . as Priests mostly" is misleading. I doubt that any production fully-tracked American SP guns were conversions of existing tanks. Pilot models were possibly constructed from torn down existing tanks. However, once an American design was standardized, it normally was built from the ground up — from scratch — in one of the various tank plants, thus not requiring an existing tank to be removed from inventory. The M7 Priest is a good example, and the vehicle has a built-in 'tell' that shows they were purpose-built. The Priest pilots, 105mm Gun Motor Carriage T32, were built in late 1941, possibly from cut-down existing M3 Medium tanks (although I even doubt that: M3 Mediums were just too much in demand at the end of 1941 to divert them to other uses). But the standardized M7 Howitzer Motor Carriage, which entered production in April of 1942, had 'soft' steel hull sides, not armor plate, which is what it would have had if it had actually been a conversion of existing 'Grant chassis'. Most Grants (the M3 Medium model with the 'British' turret) probably ended up in the Far East as gun tanks; by April 1943, 901 of the approximately 1655 Grants built had been shipped to Australia or India. What happened to the 754 Grants that went to the United Kingdom or the Middle East is unknown to me [edit: In "M3 Lee/Grant Medium Tank 1941-45" Steven Zaloga writes on M3 Mediums in British service in North Africa: "In total, 350 Grants and Lees were lost in combat in 1942." So, that would account for a goodly number of the remaining 700+ Grants.]. See http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm for more info. Mark [ December 04, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Buq-Buq ]

Steve: That's a great idea; the Finns could substitute as Soviets while the Soviets are substituting as the Poles. I've only done a cursory first glance at the Finn OB — mainly looking at AFVs, since I know those best — and you're right, the Finns have almost all that you would need to represent the Soviets in 1939. Actually, all you'd have to do to convert the Finns to Soviets is renumber the .bmp & .wav files for the various items. What an excellent way to get the Soviets into the Expansion as well! I had been thinking of trying to use the (Axis) Romanians as the Poles in Poles vs Soviets scenarios. Now that is getting WAY confusing! It would probably work in a pinch, but there would be the issue of vehicles. Not much crossover, only the R-35. Didn't the Poles have a battalion of R-35s? Nope, Finns as Soviets in 1939 Poland scenarios is the way to go. Pat! Are you up for more work? Great idea, Steve. Mark

Pat: Please please please consider releasing this as a single download. The convenience factor of a single download (alá CMETO) as opposed to a list of mods to find and download (and install) makes a single download very enticing. For some players, the convenience could mean the difference between using the expansion and not using it. I speak from experience on this point. In addition to CMETO, I also have a CM:Pacific and CM:Blitzkrieg installation for CMAK on my machine. Both CM:Pacific and CM:Blitzkrieg (aka Sealion) were done by tracking down mods from various lists. It can be done — and I have to say that I really like the results. CM:Pacific and CM:Blitzkrieg are really cool, fun additions to my Combat Mission gaming experience. But I don't know if I ever want to do a "search for these mods from this site" installation of a CM Expansion again. It was a lot of work and time to find all of that stuff. And quite frankly, there are probably other things that I could be doing with my time. I understand about the Soviets vs Polish bit. Anyway, thanks for doing this stuff. I look forward to trying it out — in whatever format I have to download it. It looks like it will be fun, and add a great new dimension to CMBB. Good job. Oh, by the way, I'd like to thank everyone involved in the efforts to make the CM:Pacific and CM:Blitzkrieg (aka Sealion) expansions, especially junk2drive and Andreas, who got me excited about the concepts with their postings in this Forum. And I hope that I do not appear ungrateful to all the modders who expend a heckuva lot of their own time and work to create these beautiful mods that make our gaming experience richer. That is definitely not my intent. But to have these great resources available as an easily accessible single download . . . heaven. All my ranting about searching for mods aside, I have really enjoyed these expansions — and would encourage others to try them as well. Mark

patboy: I like the idea. I installed a second copy of CMAK to implement DavidI's CMETO, and I have really enjoyed the flexibility that it gives with regard to mods and just the general look and feel of the game. I hope that you will have the ability to make this FALL WEISS . . . expansion(?) . . . to CMBB as an all-in-one download (or, perhaps three downloads as DavidI did with CMETO). I understand that hosting & bandwidth gets very problematical with such a large download, but the convenience factor is pretty high. You probably would want to contact DavidI with respect to including scenarios in this set. I suppose that there is no chance of Soviet vs Polish actions in FALL WEISS, due to the troop restrictions of CMBB . . . Mark

Guys: As an FYI, there is an interesting discussion on other aspects of the actions involved in this "sniper explodes ATGM" thread over on TankNet. Here is the web address (I'm not sure if this'll work as a link or not): http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?s=85b59d66b68232fb20a79cacca781d13&showforum=18 Click on the subject "Merkava receiving a beating from Hezbollah". In addition to a sniper taking out an ATGM team, there were apparently multiple attacks against several outposts. At one of the outposts, a Merkava Mk2 sustained 7 ATGM hits, variously attributed as AT-4, TOW or Milan. In the thread, there is a link to a video that purportedly shows three of these ATGM hits. Not surprisingly, the video quality isn't great, but it gives a good sense of what is happening on the receiving end. While ATGMs are probably not normal weapon loadout for terrorists, the use of these sophisticated and expensive weapons has been on the increase. Several of these ATGM attacks on the Northern border resulted in the deaths of Merkava crewmen while under armor, and created a crisis of sorts in the IDF armor (and social) community, since Merkava crewmen were believed to be virtually invulnerable while in the AFV. Additionally, there has been considerable speculation as to the source(s) of these ATGMs for these attacks. As an aside on the subject of ATGM vulnerability while in the launch tube, I have a friend who was a Bradley commander in Iraq during Gulf War I. His BFV was hit by two (friendly) DPICM bomblets. One bomblet put a hole in the glacis, and created a puddle of melted armor on the BFV transmission, without further damage. The second bomblet penetrated the TOW Launcher. He told me that they didn't removed the ATGMs to examine them for damage, but that the missile in the uppermost launch tube later became the only TOW misfire experienced by the squadron during the war. Mark

I'm pretty certain that the M1A1 in the photo with the Iraqi TV reporter is B24, 3/7 CAV. The vehicle was damaged by friendly fire (25mm from Bradley Fighting Vehicle) and abandoned on 26 March 2003 near An Najaf. The clue to the identity of the vehicle is the 'skull-in-CVC' cartoon on the left turret face, and the '/92' formation sign on the side skirts (visible in other views). The vehicle was subsequently recaptured by U.S. forces, and has appeared in commonly-available photo-references of Abrams' damage (including the Abrams Tank Systems' AAR). From photos of the tank taken after its recapture, it would appear that the vehicle was not "destroyed to prevent use by enemy forces" — although, as sgtgoody (esq) points out, the insides are not seen. Certainly, at a minimum, I would suppose the vehicle would have required a new power pack, given the damage to the rear from the 25mm fire. Mark

Tom: Off the top of my head, HSG has a couple recreations of the 4th Armored Division action at Singling (06 December 1944) that are pretty good — and loads of fun. They are (if I haven't changed the file names): HSG Singling vs AI.cmg; and HSG Singling Battle 2.cmg Although both have a few elements that are not historically accurate*, they both are pretty good reproductions of the actual battle, especially for the overall feel of the action. You should find plenty of "Shermans vs Panthers" fighting waiting you in either of these battles. Additionally, the German AI does tend to put up a pretty good fight in both as well. Mark *Different designers worked on each of these, so it is interesting to see the take that each person had on the action, given the sources that they used. I think that the first scenario listed relies a bit too much on Kenneth Macksey's rendering of this battle in Tank Versus Tank, which gives a nice overview but is incomplete and somewhat misleading on some points. As a result, it includes a platoon (or so) of TD support of the 704th TD Battalion; in the event, the TDs were neutralized by the German artillery, and did not contribute to the action — and certainly did not join in the assault into the town. I feel that the map suffers somewhat from conjecture around its periphery (although the town itself is pretty good, given the limits of CMx1 maps). A minor point: the Americans have "Easy Eight" Shermans in one platoon, when these wouldn't have been available until after Christmas of 1944. I think these probably creep in since Macksey indicates a platoon of "M4A3 E2 models with the 76.2 mm gun firing the latest HVAP shot" [sic] as being present; I think that these should be plain-vanilla M4A3(76)W tanks (I've seen nothing to indicate any M4A3E2 Assault Tanks participating in the Singling fight). I prefer the second scenario by a nose; it seems to be slightly more historically accurate, and feels like the designer used the ultimate source for this battle (the CMH Small Unit Action, written from on-the-spot AARs done just days after the fighting). As a minor quibble, Sgt. Grimm, the American assault gun commander, is saddled with an M7 Priest instead of an M4(105) or M4A3(105). Go into your Scenario Editor to change that minor error, and I think that you'll have a pretty accurate historical scenario of this action.

Distortion Through Omission: In dismissing the effectiveness of the M1A1/M1A2 main gun because of the limited number of SABOT (APFSDS) engagements, the contributions of the other 120mm main gun rounds — HEAT, MPAT and HE-OR-T — have been ignored. These have become the "rounds of choice" for engaging the majority of targets in the Iraqi Theater of Operations. In many cases they are preferred to the .50 cal. AAMG, due to the lessened effects of collateral damage: the standard .50 cal. API round penetrates, on average, six buildings before being spent (increasing the chances of danger to innocents in the path of fire), whereas 120mm HEAT normally damages only two buildings. A further advantage of 120mm HEAT is that it usually causes catastrophic destruction at the point of detonation. See the last two years of Armor (The Professional Development Bulletin of the Armor Branch) for further illumination on these points. Mark

John: ~ No comment ~ Mike: Go back and have a look at the first page of this topic to see why the difference between a Hollow Charge and HEAT is important. It took less than a dozen posts after Kingfish said "shaped charge" for the acronyms to start flying. Mark

I think that one thing that might be getting in the way of this discussion is the terminology in use. Be aware that while a High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead is a Hollow Charge device, a Hollow Charge device is not necessarily a HEAT warhead. HEAT warheads (i.e., a warhead using the hollow charge principle) are purpose-built for defeating armor. They are built using a metallic cone (a concave surface) surrounded by explosive; the proper detonation of said explosive converts the metallic cone into a fluid kinetic energy penetrator, moving at a velocity upwards of 5 kilometers per second. On the other hand, a Hollow Charge can be almost any type of explosive device that is built with a concave surface. The Monroe Effect dictates that an overwhelming portion of the blast from the explosion of said device will be directed towards that concave face. These Hollow Charge explosive devices do not have to be sophisticated: when I was in the Army, our Cavalry Scouts were trained to build Hollow Charges for cratering roads by filling locally-procured better-quality wine bottles with C4 — the sediment-trap in the bottle served to form a nice concave surface to direct the blast. I have done a quick search amongst my material on the Churchill AVRE and the Spigot Mortar here, and have come up with little more information than has already been presented. The weapon from which the Flying Dustbin (the projectile launched by the AVRE's Spigot Mortar) was developed, the Blacker Bombard, was originally intended as an anti-tank weapon, but I believe that it destroyed its target strictly through the sheer brute force of its 10-20 pound explosive charge, enhanced by being concave to take advantage of the Monroe Effect. As others have stated above, the Spigot Mortar had a hefty amount of explosive (Patrick Delaforce, in Churchill's Secret Weapons, says 26 pounds of explosives) in a 40 pound projectile. Delaforce continues: "This could be fired up to a range of 230 yards but the most effective range was about 80. Practically any target of steel, brick or concrete could be destroyed . . ." I think that it is quite safe to say that the Flying Dustbin was not a HEAT warhead; I think, however, given its reputation at destroying fortifications, that it must have employed a Hollow Charge of some sort. Someone will discover a cut-away of the Flying Dustbin in a month or two — once this discussion is long-forgotten — that will prove (or disprove!) the theory. Mark

These are tough, because — of course — as I wrote I thought of so many other things I wanted to throw in here. I've attempted to keep to the topic at hand, and not get too specific (comments about Australian Matildas notwithstanding!). I hope that I've been clear in my descriptions. Things to Change (or add on . . .) 1. Pick your Command Level I would like to be able to choose to play any scenario/campaign as EITHER a squad leader/vehicle commander, a platoon commander, a company commander, or a regimental commander. Playing as a regimental commander, play would proceed basically as it does in CMX1: you give orders to all of your units to do most things (an exception to this is that the AI oft-times chooses whom to fire upon, and when, by itself). In CMX2, however, if I chose to play as a platoon commander in a battle, for example, I would be able to directly control only the units in my platoon — and those units under my command would act like units do in CMX1. The gameplay — the tactical decisions — for the rest of your force, would be handled entirely by the AI. Perhaps the player would be allowed to be 'regimental commander' in a very general sense . . . telling his side to push harder over here, or to fall back over there . . . but again, only in a very general sense. I'm picturing big arrows being drawn on the map (maybe in a grease-pencil sort of looking graphic) to indicate where and how your side would apply the focus of battle. Then the AI for your side would create its own orders for the units not in your command, following your general concept. But again, the only thing you directly control as a platoon commander is your platoon; as a company commander: your company, etc. There are a couple things I like about this. #1 is that it takes you out of that ability to control everything your side is doing. Few commanders have that capability in battle. Secondly, you can play immersed within a much larger picture, without having to be concerned about every aspect of that picture. It would also allow you to play much larger battles than you might normally be pre-disposed to take on, either due to time constraints, ability, etc. Another element that might be introduced with this is an increase in Fog of War: perhaps you wouldn't even be allowed to see what your own troops can't see — or the view of the total battlefield might be diminished, unclear. 2. Scripting of Events/Victory Conditions By this I mean the ability to have more flexibility with things such as Victory Conditions, Reinforcements, events, etc. when building scenarios. I think that some people have described this as having SOPs for units. I think that would be good, but I'd like to see it go far beyond the SOP solution. I'm thinking that allowing "If/Then" statements to govern certain circumstances might do the trick. For example: "If the Attacker looses > 5 tanks, then reinforcements will arrive the next turn", or "If Engineer Platoon Leader A sees an enemy AFV within 100 meters of the bridge, then Engineer Squad A under his command may attempt to destroy the bridge with his explosives", or "If the Attacker has more than 2/3rds of the squads in Panicked Morale State (or worse) at any given time, then the Defender wins immediately". Part of this comes about due to frustration with the standard 'capture the flag' Victory Conditions in CMX1. I understand that a points system allows for a wide range of results, but sometimes wouldn't it just be nice to have a Black or White Victory Condition once and a while? "Hold this building or you loose." Directly tied to this is the complete inability under the current system to build situations that would resemble a reconnaissance mission, or a raid, because you have to hold the flag at the end in order to get the points. Allow the scenario designer to place flags that give points ONLY to one side, and also allow them to designate that certain flags can be removed from play once they are captured by the other side (and the points held without the possibility of loss by that side). Way more flexible; way more possibilities. 3. Command Relationships, higher to lower I like what Michael Emrys suggested here; I think that it would be good to have a Battalion Commander perform his function of commanding his battalion, rather than having him as a glorified squad leader. Allow this to work for vehicles as well (i.e., AFV company commanders, etc.). 4. A better OoB Editor Again, seconding what someone else has said, in this case, JonS. Make the OoB Editor easier to use, and while you're at it, allow you to create your own command relationships and platoon make-ups (like a tank troop consisting of 3 Cromwells and one Firefly). Also, a bit more flexibility in allowing 'things that just weren't so' to be done would be a nice touch: the hoops I had to jump through to get HE for Australian Matildas for some PTO scenarios were outrageous. Oh, and while we're at it . . . once a vehicle/unit is in the game, wire it so that it can be used anywhere, by anyone. In the above example, British Matildas had to stand in for the Australians, because Australian Matildas just didn't happen in the MTO, so they weren't in CMAK. Likewise, those great Pz38(t)s that were in CMBB are unavailable in CMAK, and thus are nowhere to be seen in those great France 1940 scenarios that a few people have done. Come on. Just let me give my Matildas Australian crews . . . 5. A better combat environment & a more user-friendly Map Editor I fret over using my last 'wish' for a better map editor (rather than crying for a follow command — or PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE a way better handling of night combat) — especially since it appears that maps will be significantly changed for the better already . . . but this one does cause me considerable anguish in CMX1. Those roads! 90 degrees or 45 degrees. Ugh! I'm hoping for some sort of more real-world look, curving lines, realistic contours, etc. Also, the editor just isn't incredibly easy to use. Something's gotta be done about that. A lot has happened in the computer interface arena in the past five or so years; I'm hoping that you can take advantage of that. Things to keep 1. I really like the whole camera look-at-any-spot-on-the-battlefield thing, and the way that the current game flows: we both give orders, we hit go, the units carry them out (or not!). I guess I'm saying I like WeGo. 2. I like that there is enough eye-candy to keep things interesting, the attention to detail, and the nods to both the modeling community as well as the wargaming community. I generally lose track of that eye-candy once the game starts, but hey! priorities! Priorities! 3. I like that we the users can build our own Battles and Operations — and that we use the same device to do that as you (the original game designers) did. 4. The focus of the game: in general terms, tactical combat. 5. The level of excitement that this game system generates in me. As an aside, I would have to say that this game has hands down given me more for my money than any game I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to that tradition being continued in CMX2, and I am also looking forward to many purchases of the forthcoming CMX2 modules. Mark