Zalgiris 1410

I agree mortars certainly can inflict gun damage and immobilize tanks, although I must admit that I've never seen a 50mm mortar do either. Furthermore I would be extremely surprised if such things resulted from 45-50mm mortar hits upon tanks. Has anyone actually seen this happen? I wouldn't expect a 50mm round to damage a 75-76.2mm tank gun, even with a hit directly landed upon it! :eek: IME I find that even 50mm mortars seem to be high priority targets for those tanks yws is trying to target fire at and I would say that get off one round a minute is the most that I would expect an exposed crew to do since they would normally been very quickly surpressed each minute if not knocked out which is what I would usually expect to happen under the ercumstances. Hence the mention by MeatEtr of employing the technique of using a HQ team in spotting for an out of line of sight mortar.

I agree with Cassidy, when you've got some points left the best thing to get are snipers over Tankhunter, LMG, ATR, Flamethrower and rocketeer Teams etc. Even if you can only afford low quality, they are very useful for LP / OP sentinel duty with the advantages of being stealthy, good spotting ability being equipt with binoculars and being the hardest unit to kill. (Although I like to make sure that I've got plenty of HMG Teams for the fire power and good quality snipers first of all.)

In relation to your first querry Lt Beavis about the sniper inccident happenning or having been notice before, the answer is yes by me. The answer in got in respose to this post was that when a tank is knocked out all previous crew casualties are transferred to the tank killing unit in the stats records. I've since noticed this quite a few more times since, wheither the earlier crew casualties were inflicted by a sniper, a HMG, HE, a gun or another tank, etc. Similarly I think even that if you have two tanks or guns or whatever firing at a tank the kill and crew casualties will go to the last AT gunner to hit and KO that tank just as or before the crew abandoned the vehicle, even if the other tank or gun has made an orrigional KO hit against that enemy tank before the latter hitting one. Even if the first hitter had of caused crew casualties and the crew to actually begin the process to bail out of the tank, then the second and final KO hitter still is gonna get all the credit just the same, IME.

My games against the AI rarely go over 40 turns so I like 40+ or so (max when on the defense) while important things are usually still happenning at around turn 30 IME. At 15 to 20 I've just got started during my battles usually not having fired a shot except for some off board artillery even if just spotting rounds!

I second this; HMG42 "at 700 meters is really combat inneffective in CMBB terms and a waste of ammo. Usually small arms should be used at 250 meters range and below for rifles and also for heavy machineguns." For HMG's supporting fire from up to 400 meters is fine but remember that it is just support fire, although I think HMG34/42's are able to perforate Russian gun shields at least up tp 500 meters and may be as far as 550 meters! :cool: Personally when I started out I only played defensive battles against the AI, spending over half my time setting up my deployment and then letting the CPU opponent do most of the work and face most of the tough troubles & touchy problems that I'd created and inflicted upon it. I learnt alot about what not to do from the AI that way and how to go about things during my end of game counter attacks that finished him off. It feels slightly better making any mistakes and having unexpected things occur when you've already got the battle in the bag for sure. I also play larger force size battles so that I've got enough of everything to go around and to lose a few things here and there along the way. I don't like the smaller scale battles of less than 2000 points because of those kind of things that you describe happenning. I recommend that you check out Jason C's posts on tactics on the forum to immprove your CMBB tactics. My other piece of advice is save your games before every turn so that you can re-play the WTF's especially when important stuff gets KOed - thereby so that you can cheat basically! [ December 26, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

That might account for some of the examples that I had in mind, captured 81mm mortar rounds not fitting in British 3 inch mortars because of firing mechanism not size. I can understand that. Any idea on when the Mark 5 barrels with the adroit striker stud were introduced and distributed? I can think of two examples off the top of my head, firstly in "Tobruk", by Chester Wilmot and possibly also from in "Tobruk, the Birth of a Legend", by Frank Harrison somewhere where the Aussies complain about being out ranged by Axis mortars, although thinking about that one it might be more a case of a comparison between 51mm to 81mm mortars. Quite a few others might also have this confussion to them as well, may be I'm also thinking at least of a British Divisional histroy book or two by Patrick Delaforce? A very good exampe I have comes from "Cassino, Portait of a Battle", by Fred Majdalany, which incidentally is a very good book on Cassino IMHO. During the 3rd Battle of Cassino the 4th Indian Division had to borrow some Texian US 81mm mortars to fire the large stockpile of captured German 81mm mortars rounds nearby specifically because they couldn't be fired from their 3 inch mortars. May be this happenned before the introduction of the Mark 5 barrel? Thanx John for that detail.

I believe the discussion rum is why the Russians chose calibers of 7.62/76.2/82/122mm etc, in the first place, and what the implications are of having done so!

I helped someone else out on this subject on an earlier thread called: Newbie needed help w/ demo. Likes it a lot!, specifically it was with using HQs as spotters for mortats and Arty spotter teams, although Parabellum's screenie is way better and clearer than mine, good work. [ December 23, 2005, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Just my 2 cents, IIRC the Russian Imperial system was definately responsible for the 7.62mm rifle & later MG rounds because it was a tenth of 76.2mm and referred to as a grain I think, and hence by extension the 76.2mm guns.

Back when I was a Newbie I tried to use Arty Spotters on the defense as I had read that the Germans did (somewhere) to break up a Soviet attack and separate their infantry from their tanks by firing at them as they approached. I found this method or rather my employment of it didn't really work at all, because I would end up having fired off all my Arty support and have nothing left for reactive fire support later on when I needed it the most! On the defense against the AI it is pretty easy to use your arty to break up his infantry since it funnells them through terrain. I hit them as they mass through that last bit of cover (hopefully trees for airburst) while whatever survives that gets cleaned up by a multitude of my infantry squads, HMGs and guns firing from as close enough as possible, the more the merrier! It's always a good slaughter. So on the defense IME reactive defensive fire is much more effective than prep fire although I must admit that I'm against the idea of firing on the start line or set up zone. IMO reactive fire on the attack is just as effective as on the defense especially for taking out or suppressing guns and HMGs but best used for properly preping fortified zones just before immediately following up with an infantry assault. That said, I'm in the middle of playing that huge operation senario "To the Volga" and I'm still in battle one especially cos I gave the Russians a 100% increase in force size which means that I'm attacking against 6 infantry btlns, 2 Engineer & 2 SMG Companies, 34 tanks and 58 guns. I set up with everthing thing hiden so the AI didn't have any targets while I used all of my eleven arty spotters on the furtherest 20% of the map specifically to hit as many of those guns as possible while my 32 Panzers, 6 SPs, 6 20mm Armoured cars and 27 out of my 29 guns have provided me with direct fire preparation in lieu of all that indirect stuff. A slight variation I allowed myself but it's a game who needs to stick to a single formular!

That last one reminds me of one experience, I had a PzIVF taken out by a 3 man Russian Infantry Platoon HQ team with a single handgrenade while that Panzer and 2 PzIIIH's were area firing at the creater the team were in roughly speaking but definately accurate enough! I mean it was a bloody handgrenade while three Panzers were firing at the HQ team even with MG's & or main guns, how do ya figure WTF?

I really like this one; I don't understand why the BFC's couldn't do a CMx2 'Korea' that is US centric if they are really so serious about being so myopic or in a positive sence manage CMx2 through such a limited scale and scope. Then do a CMx3 WWII ETO 44-45 that has at the very lest British & Canadian Forces that the player can go besides going the US, although going the Germans might be actually really be cool too!!! :cool:

(How is being made to go the US not also Anglo-centric I say?) Not really, it would be something different to have though like the Hidden & Dangerous series which is British WWII SAS only, although you don't get to go the Germans or Italians in that unless you're inpersonating one! No I have two beefs, firstly the US centricity and secondly with the apparent restrictions for playing the other side, the Syrians. That said, the latter issue is definately the lesser of the two cos I can understand the language problem getting in the way of the multi-player developments etc, which by the way DO NOT bother me in the slightest. I hope the AI does have any problems with the language barrier!

John_d that's a good read, I'm sorry it had to happen to you mate!

The point about complaining about CM:SF being US Forces centric is just that juan, the lack of choice. I'm not particularly concerned about having my home country included or not, although I think that the Diggers would be interesting to go in a near future Middle Eastern conflict simulation, especially since I've never ever come across a single bloody one! However for all anybody knows particular other nations Forces might be extremely interesting and fun to go such as the British, even alot of Americans might find that they would go the Brits more than their own home country, you never know. (While I'm thinking about it, I demand the BFC include the defunct Blackwatch Regiment to be included in this near future Middle Eastern conflict setting!)

Uh, what does bloody mean?</font>

This gives me a thought, may be the BFC ought to expand Shock Force in scope if not scale and develop it to encompass other First World contingents especially the British, but also others such as France, Germany, Italy, Canada and other NATO Countries as well as Australia, South Korea and Japan. Israel too. In doing so BFC then would be able to rename it to something like 'The Mother of All Wars." I know what would sell well with them kids and RTS jockeys - "The Mother****er of All Wars." BFC oughta get some Mass appeal out of that one.Whadya recon?

O'h, fair point again JasonC: 75mm Field Guns "used for direct fire, at ranges out to 2-3 km but with line of sight." I see where you are coming from here but if it is done with all the field guns then there is no indirect fire support and concentrations of defensive shell fires are going to be significantly retarded. I know that especially ever since I read Herbert Sulzbach memoir "With the German Guns Four Years on the Western Front". Herb Sulzbach was a commander of a 77mm field gun batterie and describes such an arangement during 1918, of IIRC two guns forward per batterie! That said that's all fine for a static front with plenty of extra artillery in the rear, while OTOH the smaller caliber ATG's require less set up time and were slightly more manuoevreable etc, and I'm assuming more suited to mobile or fluid operations which the Polish campaigne was. Otherwise another way to look at it is this: after the German Howiters hand suppressed or knocked out those all those Polish 75mm field guns firing direct LOS then they ought to still have their 37mm ATG's to deal with Panzers and protect the infantry... [ December 07, 2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

An improved StratAI/CPU opponent is the only reason that I would get this absolute Shyte Farce. I really wont be buying it if that isn't improved and I don't apologise for that since there are bloody plenty of other Pox Americana simulations out there that...I desist!

Duh, a 75mm ATG is better than a 37mm ATG of course. My point of emphasis is in relation to considerations of how technically obsolette those Polish 37mm ATG's were facing thin armoured early Panzers. You seemed to imply that they were hopelessly if not completely outclassed and ineffective. I agree with your point JasonC about the benefits of 75mm field guns over 37mm ATG's and in my fantasy TO&E I imagine that each WWII Division had an artillery Brigade of two Regiments, one of Howitzers and the other of Field Guns... :cool: especially long barrelled and with high velocity performanced!

Question: were you testing Hotseat or against the AI?

While I've sacrificed LMG & ATR teams as scouts at times, especially for minefields I don't recomend using either as scouts as a matter of course. Predominately most CM gamey gamers use snipers as their scouts because they have binos and are the hardest unit for the enemy to see and kill, tank hunter teams or platoon HQ's are the better second option over split squads or full squads for obvious reasons. Actually I like to use LMG teams for OP duty / standing patrols in concealed positions to cover flanks etc, I think I get more out of them that way than trying to use them as scouts. Personally my table of preference for scouting is sniper, Pltn HQ, Tank Hunter team, Coy HQ, & at 5 a full squad if I must!

I love the German Rifle Grenades and I for one have a problem with the ammo load in CM for them being under modelled, since it was usual for the Rifle Grenadier to carry at least one basic load of 5 AT & 10 HE RGs AIUI.

Definately the short barrelled version since the French only started putting the longer ones in their inproved H-35's, the H-39's from late 1939 IIRC but never in any of even their own R-35's AIUI. This 'Fall Weiss' / Polish campainge thing is a bloody good idea, all the best Patboy.

JasonC is essential correct, the Poles got there Brownings from the US from after WWI, French 75mm & Russian 76mm light field guns from WWI and after, (not ZIS-3's exactly though but the 1902 version which they, the Poles had converted to 75mm in 1926 AIUI) also they had 100mm howitzers and 120 fortress guns from Austro-Hungarian stocks. The French tried to help to build Poland up to some extent as a repacement for Russia on Germany's East by ensuring that it had 81mm Brandt mortars, some 155mm howitzers, 40mm bofors AAG's, and a few Renault 35 light tanks. The British also supplied them with some Vicker tanks from with the Poles developed their on version during the 30's similar to the Russian T-26. The Poles had some kind of Rodom pistol of their own and a 7.92mm ATR that fired tungsten, which the Germans later picked up upon and I have a higher oppinion of their 37mm ATGs than JasonC considering the thinness of all those early Panzers but as with everything else the Poles just didn't have enough of them to go all around their boarders. Sorry I don't have anything on the organisation side of the tables but I'll be watching this space.