McIvan

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached. As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from? Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards? Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down. [ February 26, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached. As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from? Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards? Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down. [ February 26, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

If someone inflicts enough damage on a ship that it no longer floats, then surely they sank it. The ship sank until it hit something firmer than water to support it. The only reason the sinking did not lead to total loss because the water was very shallow. I don't see how that means it wasn't sunk. It just didn't sink very far. What a ridiculous piece of pedantry this is, quibbling on the basis of whether water has to be washing over the deck, and how long it was before they could jury-rig some use out of the remaining turrets. [ February 26, 2007, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

If someone inflicts enough damage on a ship that it no longer floats, then surely they sank it. The ship sank until it hit something firmer than water to support it. The only reason the sinking did not lead to total loss because the water was very shallow. I don't see how that means it wasn't sunk. It just didn't sink very far. What a ridiculous piece of pedantry this is, quibbling on the basis of whether water has to be washing over the deck, and how long it was before they could jury-rig some use out of the remaining turrets. [ February 26, 2007, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

Thing is, 15mm isn't really that thin. That's quite a solid chunk of steel. Even if it wouldn't stop much hitting it head on, the point is that it's not actually going to be hit head on. Rounds rattling between the pavement and the belly aren't going to beat 15mm or more of plate. It seems to me you'd be more likely to get rounds through the top armour than the bottom armour, if at all.

I dunno....I doubt very much that they did in combat, but I was quite prepared to accept that on their way to the front they might well have towed trailers with extra gas. It sounded quite a sensible idea, but I have nothing to confirm it one way or the other (not that I looked).

No, he meant to say they knocked em out that way (edit: I have no idea why I missed the obviously tongue in cheek nature of your comments ). In addition, iirc he was convinced that they knocked out Tigers (everything was a Tiger in that clip) by flaming the fuel trailers they were towing. [ February 12, 2007, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

But Johm, how do you square your conclusions with the fact that the average crew casualties in tanks hit in the Western ETO, by presumably substantially bigger than 37mm APHE on average, resulted in one kill and one wound per crew, and not complete crew incapacitation by any means?

I was watching a clip of a Thunderbolt strafing some German armour, with an old pilot doing a voiceover claiming they were Tigers and they knocked them out by bouncing .50 cal rounds off the road into the belly. I had a think about this, which seemed an excellent idea in principle, and decided it was bogus. Even if .50 cal AP bounced in the first place, would it, presumably tumbling, misshapen and with much less energy, be able to pentrate any sort of armour plate at all, let alone 20mm(?) at what must have been a very shallow angle? Apologies if this has been covered before but, if not, what do the grogs think of these sorts of claims?

Interesting that you feel it was too difficult for the Germans to win as standard. I sort of felt it was the other way around! At the Blitz it has been played 27 times for 8 Russian wins, 11 german wins and 8 draws. It went down for me as one of the best scenarios I have ever played. This is just one person's opinion of course, and I would like to stress that your changes sound very interesting and playable....more or less a completely new game. Great stuff!!

To attempt to help out here a bit, John, although whether it will help is yet to be seen, let's break down the quote: No problem so far, right? Ok...now, while the "normal" German AP round might contain HE, this does not mean all of them did. In fact the use of the word "normal" implies more than one type. So it is not specified here whether penetration is achieved by AP shot or AP-HE. (Ok, ok, it probably is referring to APHE. Just not certainly.) Hence you don't know exactly what is causing this damage. Furthermore, even if we accepted that what is being talked about is exclusively AP-HE, there is no comparison given between the effects of APHE and AP shot, making the quote, on its own, meaningless as a comparison, because there simply isn't one. Lastly, the quote says damage was "frequent". That is a rather elastic term. It could range from "sometimes" for 37mm, to "nearly always" for 88mm, giving an overall term used by the author of "frequent". You cannot take the statement to imply equal performance for all calibres; there is simply no basis for it. The quote may have been intended to mean exactly what you think it does. But it does not conclusively say it, on a number of levels.

And that was against a pretty good opponent too. I dunno about "dominant", but I would certainly put them in the category of "bloody useful". The 2/3 inch combo is ok, but the 2 inch mortars don't have enough HE ammo, and their smoke ammo, which might with different smoke modelling be very very useful...easy to see why they liked it in "real life", isn't useful in CM at all really. A US infantry coy is often a good pick, specially in 1945 with the 2xBAR per squad.

In respect to the specific scenario, my advice would be: ********SPOILER ALERT************* . . . . . . . . . . ATR's for the armoured cars. They can't really hurt you anyway, not in that scen. The closer they come, the more effective the ATRs will be. My bet is that your ATRs will keep them out of effectve range all game and may not even be spotted. 2pdr and Grant cross fire at closer range for the PIIIs. Let them get closer...you don't need to fire until the German infantry gets to within assault range anyway. Give em and the infantry a little 25pdr arty if desired. Suggest you use the big scattered tree block to conceal your Grants and minimize exposure. The bogging chance, in this context, is I think worth it. Ignore the Tigers completely, other than to the extent of keeping out of their way, or taking an infantry assault if offered. You have enough troops to strip the Tigers of protection, whereupon they are essentially useless....if they come forward they will be taken out in time by the infantry which you have doubtless left concealed for such an eventuality. The British usually win this scenario, so it can not only be done, but is usually done.

Stuff all muzzle rise in that video too...quite surprising (to me, anyway)......looked reasonably accurate for what it was. My idea of bullets being sprayed all over the place took a bit of a hit.

Pardon me for saying so, but wouldn't someone hopping out of the turret and using the .50 cal against German infantry be exceptionally vulnerable and prone to a rather short life-expectancy? Sort of like wearing a large "snipe me" signboard. Interested to hear if it was or wasn't. Hadn't really thought about it before. I suspect that CM, in happily applying all the .50cal ammo against whatever you're firing against, might be a little unrealistic....?

I often think that the real problem is spotting.....AT guns are noticed in the game too easily. Result being they get muderous counterfire way out of proportion to real life. I've read an account where a company of Shermans in Italy spent hours trying to figure out where incoming AT fire originated from, finally giving up and laying smoke in the general direction to cover their tanks getting past the exposed piece of road. Have read other accounts of a simlar nature...the big problem being simply to see where the fire is coming from, even with something as big as a Tiger tank. The other thing about accounts of 88mm in the desert is that tanks and AT guns quite routinely shot off their full ammo loads, sometimes several times in a day. I get the feel that a lot of shooting occurred at very long range. There was a heck of a lot of ammo flying about the place hitting nary a thing. You have to read accounts of uber-88mm in that context....ie they're hitting once in twenty shots type of thing, if that. Which, over the course of a full ammo load, multiplied by the life of the AT gun, is extremely effective. That simply doesn't happen in CM....if anything they are more accurate in CM than real life. It's just that the counter-measures latch on so quickly that the life expectancy of AT guns is low.

"A Writer at War" by Vassily Grossman, edited by Anthony Beevor, is a quite recent book about the ordinary Russian soldier as seen by Grossman. A lot of it very poignant and insightful. Thoroughly recommended.

I think you have unrealistic expectations of the PIV. When the Sherman first came out and was used in the desert, it was the best thing since sliced bread. The reason the PIV long barrel tanks had a good reputation against it was because the engagement ranges in the desert were often extreme range, and the long 75mm of the PIV could penetrate the Sherman from a much longer range than the reverse. In the western theatre of operations, most engagement ranges (I'm over-generalising, I know) were much shorter...so it was a case of whichever hit first. Anyways, your PIV will still bounce Sherman rounds from its hull, just not from its turret, whereas it will be a fortunate Sherman that bounces a 75mm L/48.....usually only a later model hit on the front glacis from an angle. Your M3 data is, incidentally, not the gun used in the Sherman. As has been pointed out, the PIV didn't have decently sloped armour and skirts are of no effect against AP rounds. At short to medium range the Sherman is a match for any PIV....that's real life. I agree with zmoney that calibre and velocity don't seem to make much difference in Combat Mission at longish range, at least not as much as I was expecting. Generally though, like my advice to you, the thing to do is challenge our own expectations rather than assume the game (or whatever) is wrong and our expectations are right. Mine frequently prove to have been misguided.

You can get a meeting engagement out of 20 turns, albeit a flag rush that is won by the first person to arrive, but I don't see how ou can possibly carry out a probe/attack/assault in less than 30-35+. 40+ seems to work ok for assaults. This is all personal however....that's what suits my play style, and might not at all be suitable for someone else.

Thanks

I am a latecomer to modding. With MikeyD's mods, and some others, "decals" come in a separate folder. Do I presume correctly that I simply pick the decals I want and copy them into the main bmp directory? It is not obvious to me what should be done with them. I cannot remember an obvious method of using cmmods or mcMM to apply decals....is there one? (although I'm coming to the opinion that there's no good reason to keep the original artwork anyways). Thanks for any assistance.

On unbogging, it may just have been ludicrously unlikely co-incidence, but I have had what I swear was an "un-bog" from running another vehicle into the back of it at reasonable speed.

Closest HQ, end of story. If I want to move an HQ to a new spotting location, I check LOS distance from the mortar to the intended destination for the HQ, and then check to see if any other HQ's will be closer. If they are, I move those HQs as well so as not to interfere. Nothing more annoying than having the mortars default to another leader, as you have found.

deleted...accidental post

I'm afraid I didn't notice that my boys started on the east. My earlier posts should be read assuming that my starting position is "south"...er....even though as you point out it isnt So, using the correct directions, I put squads into the buildings to the HMG's east, using move and then sneak commands, then used them to area fire. The assulting squads went round the southern side aiming to get to the woods to the HMG's south. As you suspect, the entire point was to get flanking area fire on the HMG if it started shooting at the flanking elements. Standard stuff, I would think, for most players. It was my second go at the scenario....keeping squads within command range and using advance moves "fire & movement" style hadn't worked out the first time. It seemed to me that there was insufficient firepower to pin the HMG as it was and that the flanking bonus would be needed. The reason I posted was because of the perceived difference in result between area fire and fully spotted direct fire....that surprised me considerably. I am an intuitive as opposed to analytical player (although I do analyse a fair bit) and what I was seeing ran counter to my intuited knowledge of how the game works. BTW I'm not talking about scenario 201 at all am I....its 110 or something? Anyways I sure you all know what I mean. [ August 20, 2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]