Buq-Buq

Gee, for a moment I thought that perhaps "les Grognards" WAS CMX2 . . . Mark

Gee, for a moment I thought that perhaps "les Grognards" WAS CMX2 . . . Mark

Admiral Keth: Congratulations on your new job, and best of luck in your new endeavor! I hope that it brings many challenges, as well as much joy & satisfaction. I bet that it feels good to be back in the saddle. Bummer about The Scenario Depot. I thank you very much for all of your hard work on that project. It was an incredible resource; it deeply enhanced my enjoyment of this game system. I think that its deepest impact for me was that it got me to look at situations — and consider playing . . . & designing — situations that I might not normally have considered. My one regret? I won't ever be able to say "I had a scenario posted at The Scenario Depot." I thank you so much for your incredible contribution to this hobby. Mark The average gamer . . . uses only about 10% of his . . . Combat Mission . . .

Hey, since we're talking Allied North Africa mods . . . right? maybe someone can answer a question that I have. What's the deal with the lack of sandshields on the Lend-Lease M3 Grant? I see that the early Lend-Lease Sherman II (M4A1) has them. Did BFC just decide to not do the extra work to put them on (presumably because they already had the U.S. M3 Lee finished)? Is there a way to add the sandshields? Likewise, is there a way to leave the sandshields OFF the British Crusader-series? (Also, is there a way to fix that anaemic-looking 6-pdr. barrel on the Crusader III?) I noticed that the new CMBB King Tiger by Gordon Molek has the option of having the track guards on or off; I've also seen some PzIV mods with partial Schürzen — is this sort of optional fitting available to all vehicles, or was this just a bone to the Germanocentric leanings of a large portion of the gaming community? Last night, during my first experimentations into modding, I fiddled with trying to give the Grant sandshields. Due to my inexperience, I may not have been approaching the problem in the correct manner. I tried painting sandshields directly over the Grant running gear/suspension. I believe that you can actually add partial sandshields to the vehicle (the front and rear fenders look to be impossible to create), but there are several drawbacks: 1. Both sides of the Grant running gear apparently uses the same .bmp file, so any camouflage pattern on the sandshields will be the same on both sides of the vehicle; and 2. Even with these partial sandshields in place, the top run of the tracks is still seen — in essence, breaking apart the sandshield/vehicle body connection. This just looks wrong. Can anyone answer any of these questions? Are these options just not available? How much does this have to do with this being an Allied (as opposed to a German) vehicle? Mark

David I: I just wanted to write a short note and thank you for putting together the CMETO project. I downloaded your CMETO package and installed a new [second] version of CMAK last weekend, as suggested. I would guess that — overall — at least half of the CMAK games that I play are set in Northwest Europe, so this really impacts my game-play. The visual difference is stunning; the mods really do give the sense that one is fighting in a different theater. The ease of use is really great — I like the idea of two different versions of the same game to represent the two different theaters. Great concept that actually works in execution. Wonderful! I understand that I probably could have taken the time to do what you did, which is essentially swapping out art files. Personally, I just don't have the time to do it, so finding it all in one package was a wonderful timesaver. I never would have gotten 'round to doing it myself, but this has changed my enjoyment of the game for the better. My only (hesitant) gripe would be that I would enjoy it even more if I didn't have to hunt down a bunch of white-washed .bmp files for various Pz IVs and Shermans! Again, I don't have much time or patience for that, so it might never get done . . . which is why it would have been nice if the winter mods had been included. Oh, one other gripe — not your issue, this is a BFC-gripe (are you listening?) — now that France and Germany look so good, it sure would be fun to have those M36s, Royal Tigers, Comets, Cromwells, Pershings, Challengers, etc. available for play! I know, I know; I understand the reason . . . I'm just reacting from my gut-feeling. And now — and I can't believe that I'm saying this, because I previously had NO desire to play this stuff — if someone would just do the same thing for the 1940-1941 scenarios that continue to pop up. Is that Greece package that someone was doing ever going to see the light of day? How about the Sealion pack? If these were available, I would happily install CMAK a THIRD time just to have the option to play those France 1940 scenarios that Wayne and others keep doing. OK, that's it. David, I thank you so much for your hard work. You have truly changed my outlook on the game in a positive way, and I was a serious CMAK supporter before. Mark

Vuco: I did a bit of digging. Classic AFVs No2, Their History and How to Model Them: Lee & Grant by Ken Jones and Peter Chamberlain has this to say about the 75mm gun as mounted on the M3 Medium (Lee & Grant): "The gun was electrically fired with a solenoid switch operating the firing trigger. The solenoid button was fitted to the traverse wheel center. A mechanical firing device was fitted to the mounting for use in case the solenoid switch failed. Later a foot switch was fitted for firing the solenoid." Hunnicutt's Sherman has a photo of the M3 Medium 75mm gunner's controls, and the solenoid firing button is clearly visible at the center of the traversing handwheel, as is the manual firing button just above it. The Classic AFVs No2 text is not as specific about the 37mm and coaxial MG, stating simply "It was fired by solenoid, as the 75mm gun, or manually if this system failed." A diagram of the power traverse system shows the 37mm Traverse Control Grip with its 37mm Gun Firing Switch and .30cal MG Firing Switch, along with the grip-mounted trigger. The text appears to indicate that this 'trigger' is merely the lock for the traverse spade grip, which must be engaged to unlock the turret for traverse. If the M3 firing circuitry design is laid out like modern U.S. AFVs, the two firing toggle switches are used by the gunner to choose which weapon will fire when the trigger is engaged. I don't have a -10 manual for an M3 Medium, so this is the best that I can do on this question. You've piqued my interest: what prompted the question? Mark

Ahhhhhh . . . yes, Cromwells, would be correct . . . DOH!! I had to look up the B Squadron part, and looked right at the Cromwells . . . which obviously went right past me. :-[ About ten years ago from . . . well, from right now, I worked on a project using "No Triumphant Procession". I found John Russell's book to be a riveting tale, and still revisit it from time to time, dreaming away the hours, thinking about scenarios for CMAK. Much to my chagrin, most of the good stuff (Comets, Challengers, Cromwells, Locusts, etc.) got left out of CMAK, it being the Mediterranean Theater and all. I'm looking forward to CMX2 . . . Mark

Dandelion: Surely the Shermans & Fireflies you refer to actually belonged to B Squadron, 5 RTR, rather than 2 Mons . . . Mark

I like using the soundtrack to "The Battle of the Bulge" (1965) when I play Combat Mission. Sure, the movie generally sucked, but Benjamin Frankel's score was superb. For you Germanophiles out there, it even includes the famous Tanker's Chorus doing "Panzerlied". In the 1970s, I used to have the vinyl LP (extremely hard to find, even back then) -- which I 'inherited' from my brother. As per the norm of soundtracks of that era, only the main music cues were used on the LP. A couple years ago (2000), CPO released the complete score, with Werner Andreas Albert conducting the Queensland Symphony Orchestra. This new CD version also sports a wonderful set of liner notes. Once again, my brother spotted this rare beauty in one of his filmscore magazines and ordered it up for me. I was in tears hearing Frankel's wonderfully uplifting music again. Of course, I have some favorite pieces. The 'Prelude' and 'Victory and Postlude' -- the Overture of the work, so to speak, are incredible bits of music. 'Massacre at Malmady' nicely captures the spirit of dejection and defeat. 'The Attack on the Fuel Depot Fails and Hessler is Killed' revisits many of the themes used throughout the score, ending in a fiery climax. My favorites, however, are the pairing of 'The German Tanks Emerge and Break Through' and 'First Tank Battle': both are wonderful pieces to choreograph a battle by, and lend a wonderful ambience to many of the scenarios and operations that I play. Mark

I think it's funny that Kingfish's scenario, "If at first . . ." is listed twice at The Scenario Depot. :-D Mark

Don't let Darkmath see that website, or he'll never let go! I think that website perhaps has some incomplete information. According to "Tigers in Combat I" (Wolfgang Schneider), the crews of 1. Kompanie/504. schwere Panzerabteilung did go to Vienna for 'familiarization training with the Tiger II' on 14 September 1944. It looks like what they really got was a break from the combat zone. Kompanie 1. isn't mentioned again until 30 November 1944, when they replaced the crews of 3. Kompanie in situ at a place named Lamone. The 3. Kompanie crews are then sent 'to the maintenance facility in Vienna', and do not reappear until the end of January 1945 when they return 'without tanks'. A number of individual Tiger companies were rotated back for refitting during that time-frame: 3./503 sPzAbt. and 1./101 sSSPzAbt. both were pulled out of France for re-equipping with Tiger IIs in August. I would guess that 1./504 sPzAbt. went back for the same purpose, until someone came to their senses -- realized where they were deployed [italy] and decided that a 68 ton tank was not a good choice for the theater. (I note that didn't stop them from sending 1./653. sPzJgAbt. with their Elefants, however. Of course, in the wake of the Anzio landings, I imagine that all the stops were out.) Mark

Simon: Krzysztof Barbarski's "Polish Armor 1939-45" (Osprey) has a photo of a Polish Challenger on page 23. The pictures caption reads: "Challenger of 2 Sqn., 10th Mounted Rifles, moving forward with men of the 3rd Rifle Bde. in Holland, November 1944. The regiment received the Challenger early in that month, in sufficient quantities to equip one platoon of each squadron." So much for "tank troops consisting of three Cromwells and a Challenger"! :-D The 10th Mounted Rifles was the armoured recce regiment of the 1st (Polish) Armoured Division. Mark

Kingfish: That was probably a Challenger of the 15/19th King's Royal Hussars, the Armoured Recce Regiment of the British 11th Armored Division. The 11th Armoured Division made attacks in and around Flers on or about 16-17 August 1944. "The Black Bull", Patrick Delaforce's history of the 11th, has a number of photos of Challengers in service with the 15/19th Hussars -- although none during that period. Challengers were initially issued the same way that Sherman Fireflys were: one vehicle per tank troop; therefore, the 15/19th Hussars had full-strength tank troops consisting of three Cromwells and a Challenger. I believe that there would have been only three British armoured regiments that used Challengers in Northwest Europe: the 15/19th Hussars [11th Armoured Division], 8th Hussars [7th Armoured Division], and 2nd Batttalion (Armoured) Welsh Guards [Guards Armoured Division]. All of these units were the armoured recce regiments for their respective divisions. I believe that the Poles also had Challengers in NWE, probably in the same sort of formation & issued in the same way as the Brits. Here's a question that I've never seen satisfactorily answered: when the 11th Armoured Division turned in their Shermans and Cromwells (from 15/19th Hussars) for Comets in March of 1945, did the 15/19th Hussars also turn in their Challengers for Comets? Mark

I have a friend from central CA (a CMBB player) who was also a part of that event. I'll see if I can get him to post about it. He was a member of the other team. They go all out, with uniforms, [de-miled] weapons, Partisan chick re-enactors, and as you can see, vis-mod vehicles. These 12th SS guys even have Panzerfäuste that launch, firing a rubber (or plastic?) warhead about 20 or so meters. Ha! Panzerfaust 20. He told me about an ambush that they set up to try'n nail one of the M8 Greyhounds at an event in the fall. Apparently, the M8 crew was cagey, and wouldn't get sucked in. Someone with more knowledge jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. I like the mock-up SdKfz 221 (or 222?) armored car. At the event in the fall, someone had an 8-wheeled A/C mock-up; way too small, but you have to admire the guy for his attempt. That M5A1 Stuart turret looks like a mock-up. Mark

Wow -- looking at the numbers, I wouldn't have thought I would have to change my mind about using M10s more often, but perhaps a re-assessment is in order! ("There's more to war than numbers, son . . .") CombinedArms, I found one thread mentioning M10s (there was a quote by Rexford about the effective armor of the 75mm Sherman turrets) -- but it didn't appear to have any numbers quantifying your findings. In lieu of that, I conducted my own unscientific survey tonight using the 75mm L/48 gun using normal AP ammo against hull down M10s, and came up with results very similar to those you describe. Granted, my sampling wasn't nearly large enough to use these as hard percentages, but they are impressive, nonetheless. I tested the opponents at 600m and 700m, since these figures were specifically mentioned by both you and Panzer76. At 600m, the M10 held up rather well, shrugging off almost a quarter of the hits to the turret front as ricochets. As if that wasn't bad enough, I found a sharp decrease in the capabilities of the 75mm against the [hull down] M10 when going from 600m to 700m, where a full 50% of the turret front hits ricocheted! If it weren't for the [relatively] small chance of still obtaining an upper hull hit on a hull down vehicle, the M10 would be a very tough target (in the entire sampling, front upper hull penetrations accounted for almost 30% of the total hits). Again, as stated by CombinedArms, the front hull armor of the M10 is quite weak; almost a third of the penetrations of the front upper hull resulted in the immediate loss of the tank, either through crew abandonment or brew-up. OK, so what is the up-shot of this little experiment? Two things spring to mind. Firstly, I probably will be using more M10s (and its Commonwealth sister, the SP, 17-pdr,, M10, aka Achilles IIC) when I get the opportunity while playing CMAK. As Panzer76 pointed out, the 75mm L/48 gun "(in form of the Stug) is the most numerous armoured enemy you will find", and the M10 can potentially take some of the sting out of their capability. Secondly, and a bit more unsettling, is the question: "Is the 75mm L/48 gun -- and the M10 turret front -- appropriately modeled in CMAK?" I'm not sure that I know the answer to that question. I can tell you -- in agreement with CombinedArms and Panzer76 -- what experience CMAK will give you. Whether that experience is correct or not is a question I'm not sure that I'm qualified to answer. But I can certainly ask. So! Back to Archers! Given that -- in CMAK -- my experience leads me to agree with Panzer76 and CombinedArms on the M10, I will amend my statement to read: "Most Allied armor in 1944-45 isn't going to be able to stand up to a Panther's 75mm (or even a 75mm L/48 on a PzKpfw IV or a StuG IIIG, for that matter) -- so the question of armor thickness is relatively moot (excepting the case of a hull down M10 or SP, 17-pdr, M10 at > 500m)." That having been said, the comment by Ian Hogg about the Archer and how its configuration influenced its use remains -- to my mind -- the crux of this entire thread. It is, in fact, a wonderful distillation of Mr. Renaud's excellent 10 Points for using Marders as quoted by CombinedArms (and seconded by Grimthane) earlier. It bears pointing out that these 10 points generally do not describe the handling of tanks on the battlefield (although you could certainly use tanks in that manner as well, you just wouldn't be particularly offensive with them). I believe that if players would bear these ideas in mind when employing thinned-skinned anti-armor AFVs, the experience of their use would tend to be more positive in nature. Mark

Oh bloody hell! I've been outed!

Panzer 76: Whoa! I almost choked on my morning muffin when I read your post. Perhaps I've been playing with the wrong vehicles, and need to use M10s WAY more often! When I did the math, it didn't work that way for me. Maybe I've got this wrong, so follow along and correct me where I falter: M10 GMC turret front (Mantlet): 2.25 inches @ 45 degrees (from Hunnicutt's "Sherman") 2.25 inches x 25.4mm/inch = about 57mm 58mm @ 45 degrees = about 81mm (57mm divided by inverse cosine of 45 degrees or .7071) So, at 0 degrees obliquity, the M10 GMC has about 81mm of armor protection on its turret front. CMAK gives a penetration of 116mm @ 0 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters for the German 75mm L/48 gun. That's a considerable overmatch. I understand that individual results may vary, but I still don't have the same confidence that you do in the M10. Have I missed something? What am I not seeing? Mark

JonS: CMAKdb shows M7 Priest (105mm) available as of July 1942 (??? huh? I thought they were first used at 2nd Alamein). I'm not looking at the game. I imagine that they were withdrawn from British use in 1944 -- at least they were in NWE -- and replaced by Sextons. Perhaps that is not the case in the MTO. Mark

I have enjoyed the comments about the Archer in this thread, especially with regard to the Egyptian use of the vehicle in the '56 War. As I recall, the Israelis regarded the Archers as the most threatening piece of equipment that the Egyptians fielded at Abu Ageila. JonS: I saw your incredulous response to the realization that there were Archers in CMAK -- and of course, I decided that your next thought was "Damn! I'd best check to see if they made the same mistake with Challengers, too!" Alas, if there are Challengers, I haven't found them. I DID, however, remember seeing an article on SP, 17-pdr,, M10 (aka Achilles IIC) vehicles in the M.T.O. that mentioned Archers. I dug through some old copies of AFV News, and sure enough, in an article by Dick Harley (Vol. 28, No. 1: Jan-Apr. 1993) Archers do crop up. In speaking about the 105th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery (a British Corps-level anti-tank regiment, assigned to 13 Corps in Italy), Mr. Harley states: "The 105th received its first SP 17-pdrs in October 1944, but these were Valentine Archers, 5 of them, which replaced 4 of the M10s . . . By December it had 4 towed 6-pdr, 8 x towed 17-pdrs, 24 x 3" M10s, 12 Archers, 9 x Stuarts and 8 x portees to carry the 6-pdrs." In the notes for the table (TABLE 5: M10 equipped British & Allied Anti-Tank Regiments in Italy), Mr. Harley comments about Archers as well: "For the record, Archers were issued to the 93rd, 105th, and 7th Polish Anti-Tank Regiments, but as far as I know none were issued to the other units [listed on the Table] during 1944 at least. Further information on the use of Archers in Italy would be welcome. In spite of an exhaustive search, I could find no IWM [imperial War Museum] photos of Archers during the Italian Campaign." It is interesting that even a researcher of Mr. Harley's caliber is hard-pressed to find information on Archers in the M.T.O. As for whether the troops liked them or not, only this was mentioned, regarding their use by the 93rd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery (again a Corps-level anti-tank regiment, assigned to 5 Corps): "The first SP 17-pdrs received by the 93rd were a number of Archers. On 2nd Sept. 1944 the diarist recorded that 151 Battery was to have 4 Valentine 17-pdrs . . . which were issued to H Troop . . . The Archers do not seem to have been a success, for on Sept. 22 the CCRA (Commander, Corps Royal Artillery) informed the 93rd's CO that his Regiment would be getting eight '17-pdr Shermans' to replace four 'Valentines' and 'four captured Mark IV Specials*'" I have played with Archers in CMAK a couple times, and I would agree that they do take some getting used to. Overall, I would agree with the assessments that place the Archer into the 'deadly if used properly' category. Most Allied armor in 1944-45 isn't going to be able to stand up to a Panther's 75mm (or even a 75mm L/48 on a PzKpfw IV or a StuG IIIG, for that matter) -- so the question of armor thickness is relatively moot. Most of the Western tank destroyers had no overhead protection, so the Archer doesn't suffer any more than the M10 in this respect, either. It has no secondary armament, but then again, neither does a 17-pdr AT Gun (or an SU-100 for that matter). Mobility? Well, it certainly is not a Hellcat, but in most situations it is probably easier to more around the battlefield than a towed 17-pdr. Now, that backwards-facing gun is a pain, but perhaps this isn't such a bad thing, if you change the way that you look at things: ". . . it had the advantage that the vehicle was pointed in the right direction for a quick getaway if anything went wrong. It also had the advantage that the crew were not tempted to pretend that they were a tank and try their luck in a moving battle, a temptation which was the downfall of many of the more conventional-looking tank destroyers." ("Armor in Conflict", by Ian V. Hogg) I kind of like that last sentence; I think that it could account for the experiences that we see surfacing in this thread. Perhaps those with sour memories of Archers in action could benefit from this sage advice? What we really need is a scenario or two using the Archer, so that we can all get into practice. I remember a scenario that I traded out some turreted TDs for Archers -- CMF The Cats, I think it was, and I had great fun trying to learn how to use them. I lost a couple Archers, but they gave more than they got. Mark * In an interesting comment on the use of unauthorized material, Mr. Harley goes on about the Mark IV Specials mentioned above: "Strangely I could find no earlier reference to these captured PzKpfw IV tanks during the first half of 1944, but they are a perfect example of what some units would do to boost their firepower. Of course, captured tanks were not meant to be on the order of battle of a Corps anti-tank regiment, but this was Italy and all sorts of liberties were taken in the M.T.O., which would seldom have been allowed in 21st Army Group. For example, a battery of five 20mm Flakvierling 38s towed by Quads was not a normal thing for an armoured car regiment to have - but the King's Dragoon Guards did!"

HVAP: I'm guessing that you mean the M3 Medium Tank. To my knowledge, U.S. forces never fielded any version of the M3 Grant, either in combat, or in training. They always used the "General Lee" turret -- the tall turret with the MG cupola and without the radio & turret bustle. This "American turret" was generally inferior to the "British turret", being taller, and sporting an inch of armor less on the front (2 inches frontal armor on the Lee vs 3 inches frontal armor on the Grant). That having been said, three American tank crews fought for 'several days' with the British 1st Battalion, Royal Tank Regiment during the Gazala battles, on or about 11 June 1942. These crews, under Major Henry Cabot Lodge, were from the 2nd Armored Division, and used M3 Grant tanks. During the fighting, the American crews accounted for nine German tanks. As a technical aside, the U.S. DID field an M3 Medium variant with a British turret: the T10 Shop Tractor, better know as the Grant CDL (Canal Defense Light). This AFV was intended as a specialist night-fighting vehicle, and had the normal turret replaced with an armored turret mounting an extremely powerful searchlight under armor. The light beam was focused through a narrow slit in the turret armor, and was said to be so brilliant as to cause sickness and disorientation when it was shown on troops and the special 'flicker' feature was used. The Americans built some 350+ of these super-secret vehicles, and formed special tank battalions for their use. These tank battalions were converted back to regular tank battalions in the fall of 1944, after losses demanded more tank units be made available. The American 740th Tank Battalion -- Rubel's 'Daredevils' of Stoumont Station fame (Battle of the Bulge) -- is one such unit. T10 Shop Tractors (and their British cousins, the Grant CDLs) were used in small numbers during the Rhine crossing in March 1945 -- not in their intended role, but to provide night illumination for the crossing sites. Mark

Actually, the Schürzen, or skirts -- both in plate-form and wire mesh -- were designed solely with the idea of cutting down losses from Soviet ATRs. This passage from Walter J. Spielberger's "Sturmgeschütz & Its Variants" discusses their design and intent: "The previously mentioned Schürzen side-skirts became a topic of discussion during the Führer's conference on 6 and 7 February 1943. Hitler was quite in agreement with mounting skirts on the Panzer III, IV and Sturmgeschütz to provide protection against Russian anti-tank rifles. "Test firings on Schürzen protective skirts (wire and steel plates) were reported on February 20, 1943. Firing tests utilizing the Russian 14.5mm anti-tank rifle at a distance of 100m (90 degrees) showed no tears or penetrations of the 30mm side armor, when protected either by plates or wire mesh. When testing was conducted with the 75mm high explosive shell (Charge 2) from a field gun, there was no damage to the sides of the hull armor when protected by the wire or plates. Wire mesh and plates had indeed been penetrated and even torn away, but, they still remained usable. "The decision to utilize the plates as opposed to the wire mesh (although both had proven effective and the mesh was lighter) was based on the fact that the wire mesh required the design of a new mount, which would have required additional time to be developed. "Additionally, the procurement of wire mesh for the side skirts was difficult. The skirts were not tested against shaped charges, nor were they intended as protection against this type of shaped charge (HEAT) shells." Thomas L. Jentz' "Germany's Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy" echoes this position on Schürzen (because both Spielberger and Jentz use the same source material). Jentz points out that the lower hull sides of the Panther -- 40mm armor plate -- had proved vulnerable to Soviet ATRs firing from close range. He also mentions that if Schürzen had not provided the level of protection it did against ATRs, the Panther would have been replaced in production by the Panther II (with a lower hull side armor of 60mm) -- an indication of the level of danger the Germans felt that Soviet ATRs posed. That having been said, it does remain that Schürzen would have certainly provided some degree of protection for HEAT warheads due to the stand-off that they provided. I find it interesting that the quote mentions the benefit of the skirts against standard HE warheads -- something that I don't think I have ever seen modeled in a wargame. Mark

Mr. Franko: At The Scenario Depot, your operation is listed under CMBO. I would imagine that you might want to clarify this, being that it is a CMAK Operation and all. My download went OK; I'm on a Mac. I don't remember if I had to "Option-Click" to download it or not. But it works in CMAK! And quite the impressive bit of work it is, too . . . Mark