Son of Hamchuck

Here's an updated link to the Allen paper. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA398046&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

IIRC they didn't waste any time doing in the shore defense pillbox in "Saving Private Ryan".

Been running Vista Bus SP1 for a while now, and it gives me little grief. The driver issue is nvidias, not MS( and certainly not Battlefronts). For those who are Vista challenged, or who want to separate the wheat from all the chaff being tossed around regarding it check out: http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_1.html

It would seem to me that the height of the gun platform relative to the target might have some bearing. A Panzer II's mg is close to 2 meters off the ground, where the hmg is maybe a third that, less if well dug in. At 100 meters that would be a significant advantage for the tank mg staying "locked on" with a better angle to the target as well. I'm assuming this is factored into the mechanics.

Good paper on this subject at http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA398046 Reading it one get's the feeling that Napoleon ( like Hitler ) was a larger threat to his own army's health than the Russians could ever hope to be.

Why standard issue carrier pigeons, of course.

A couple of observations: People are in too much of a rush to buy today. If you have the luxury of playing a demo, why wouldn't you take it, before laying down the cash? I can't believe all the early buyers, only did so to save what, $10? And if you were expecting this to be CM 4, you didn't read the fine print( or even the large print). As for the bugs, anyone who has at least a little computer experience, knows that the first release of most software is chock full of them. So, don't buy the first release, wait for the patch, then demo it again, and see if you like it( and if it plays nice with your hardware). It's called being patient, and prudent, something that is in very short supply these days, as some of the comments attest to. Personally, I have zero interest in this type of game, and wouldn't buy it for $10. I did play it, once, just to see what the hoopla was about, and came away non-plused, but as I said I have zero interest to begin with.

i think Tontoman has summed up the issue quite well. I demo'd the game on my friends computer ( my puter's graphics aren't supported ), and experienced similiar issues as have been registered on this thread. Suffice to say I won't be needing to upgrade my graphics just yet.

TOW doesn't support my video hardware ( Intel 925 ), thankfully. Sometimes things just work out.

So much time, so little money.

It's also freely available at US Military History website: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=351 I think shmavis was taken advantage of. ffkd

Joachim, Yes that makes sense, although I would like to think that the gun crew would consider the fact that their chance of survival might be better if they block the vision of the PB with smoke, rather than take a chance on a rare KO. A lot to ask of the AI granted. FFKD

To each his own I guess. While a spiffy new game engine is nice, what makes it any different than indulging in a brain addled FPS with a spiffy game engine, if one has no interest in the subject at hand. If it's just about the "experience", then you can get that in any number of places. I have zero interest in sampling "modern" combat spiffily modeled & displayed or otherwise. I prefer my war as "ancient" history, because I believe that is where it belongs, as history, not as current reality. Reality does intrude, but I don't feel the need to revel in it. FFKD

Yes smoke can be tricky at times. Just recently I had occasion to use an infantry gun against a pillbox, and because the kill probability was rare, decided to fire smoke instead to cover assault by my infantry. Well the d**n gun would not fire smoke, but kept chucking HE, even after several turns of my pleading. Perhaps the fact that the pillbox was raking the gun with MG fire had something to do with it. Usually though, it ( smoke ) is very effective for me in that rush over the last 100-200+ m. of open ground.

"many prepared defensive positions are not going be designed so as to let me wander easily toward them with small-arms units, so I consider direct and indirect HE the usual countermeasure to such positions. " You might try using smoke. FFKD

Being a newbe to this tactical stuff, I've been experimenting with some different things I've been reading on this site. JasonC's "blob" technique for infantry advance has helped my results a lot in that area. One thing I've found useful at times( admittedly against only the AI so far ), has been to use the company HQ to form a "fourth" platoon. I take the fourth squad( when available ) from each platoon, and give it to the company HQ for use as a fire team,reserve,etc. Depending on the bonuses of the company HQ, I'll most likely give it any green squads, with maybe a veteran for stiffening. I know this is veering of the main topic a bit, but a few posts mentioned what were some ways to employ the company HQ, and this might be useful in some instances. fk

One day when you grow up kiddo, you can aspire to become a troll. In the meantime I hear your mama calling, so hows about toddling off. ffkd

If bits were blood I'd be a butcher,NOT. I just thank god I didn't have to endure what these guys went thru in WWII. I lean toward Montys dictum, conserve the infantry, and let the artillery do the work. So I tend to be overly cautious, which costs me sometimes. Do I really care about these guys, or is it just my fear of taking losses? Deep psycology this stuff:).

Didn't care much for it at first, played the "Fruhlingswind" demo as the Germans, and got seriously waxed. But a little reading,paying more attention to details, helped me to appreciate this most excellent of sims. It's "Panzer Blitz" ( old board game ) for the puter. Even though the graphics aren't cutting edge by any stretch, I still feel immersed. It has a way of keeping me so fully engauged, that time (lot's of time ) passes without me being aware of it. My favorite feature is the editor, and the fact that so many have used it to design some really outstanding scenarios.

Bigduke6, While much of what you say, I can agree with, I take issue with "It is really small-minded to attack JasonC's, or any one else's, arguements here in terms like "Hindsight is 20/20, so shame on you for arrogantly criticising history's decision-makers.", if your applying it to my comment. I was attacking nobody. If anyone is arrogant and small minded, well than maybe you should reread the posts. There's nothing wrong with second guessing, most on this forum like to think of ourselves as "armchair generals" to some small degree at least. The difference I see with JasonC, is he really belives he is ( or should have been ), a general( well maybe a colonel). My guess ( and it is only that ), is that he's never seen combat, and is both frustrated as both an author( Where are the books, as a previous poster inquired?) and general. My main point is to see things in context, how things were observed at the time by those involved, not to rip the particpants because they don't have todays hindsight and omniscience. If your going to rip them do it in context at least. End of rant, I'm outta here, have a nice day.

JasonC, Well come to think of it, perhaps the only thing the German's really lacked, was you being there personally directing traffic! Hindsight does indeed make gods of us all. Perhaps you should chill a bit, you take this stuff way too seriously, and personally.

Well a tidal torrent has swept over my position, and so I crawl wearily out of my foxhole to defend. The German ( Hitler's ) plan was completely predicated on speed of advance, it wasn't designed to be a set piece battle. It was in fact supposed to be a quick smash breakthru, then a sprint to the Meuese and beyond. Everything was to be sacraficed to that end, men,equipement,supplies, everything. That is why there wasn't effort given to grinding down pockets ( an exception was the near Bastogne, and it cost the Germans capture of that town ). As for artillery, or lack of it after the initial bombardments, there was a simple explanation for that, it was called transport( the heavy guns needed prime movers). The Germans didn't have it. They also were so short of fuel, that what they did have was prioritized for the armor. Operating in mountainous windy roaded terrain, took up a lot more fuel than expected ( poor planning ). Also the road's were jammed going back for a hundred kilometers + into Germany, things just had a way of not getting to where they were needed, when they were needed. The Germans did wait too long to shift forces from 6th SSpz Army to exploit the sucess at Model's AG, although again given the road constraints, it's difficult to gauge just how much of difference that would have made. The attack was being funneled, and with the creation of "hard shoulders" on each side, much of the forces diverted would be needed simply for flank defence. Bottom line the offensive had one slim hope, hit hard, move fast, cross the Meuse and attempt to cutoff as large a chunk of the Allied armies in the north as possible, before the weather changed and the allied air forces pounded the exposed forces to powder. Regarding the German's inability to subordinate infantry to armor, in fact they did just that. On 6th SSpz army front, the infantry was given the role of punching the initial holes in the defense, into which the armor would then pour thru. This tactic failed to achieve the desired results. The American troops in the Ardennes were for the most part, either green ( the two regiments of the 106 that surrendered after being surrounded ), or battle fatigued. Sure some panicked, but enough stuck around to seriously upset the German timetable. They weren't supermen, in fact other armies might have considered them somewhat spoiled ( logisticly anyway ), but they gave a good showing here. As for the Chinese at the Yalu, I guess I just miss the signifigance there. Are you saying the German's should have used human wave assaults ( they did ) to swamp the defenders. The problem was when they tried that, many times they were decimated by American light and heavy artillery. The Chinese surprised a UN force that was advancing at breakneck speed, a big difference between that and an American force dug in and sited for defence. I would give the German performance in the Bulge an "B+" for effort, and a "C+" for execution, given what they had to work with. The fact that did as well as they did, given the minimal time alloted for planning,logistical difficulties, and the secrecy involved, is to me, somewhat amazing. My comment about how the Germans should have used their armored reserves, was sorta tongue in cheek, I just left out the smiley face. In any event, Hitler was running the show, not the German high command. An he didn't give a rat's a** what happened to Germany when he wasn't running it anymore. That's the prizm that any analysis of events at that stage of the war must filter through. I sneak back to my foxhole to await the next salvo.

Should have typed: ... Or baring capturing Bastogne then an early commitment to masking it ( leaving a serious threat to their flank ). ...

JasonC, If there was no shortage of infantry, then why was 7th Army ( for example ) as thin as it was? Surely they could have a couple of extra divisions( even lower quality ones), at least. I don't recall saying in any of my posts that they couldn't have done better tacticly or otherwise. They needed a couple of major breaks ( early seizure of Bastogne & capture of a fuel dump), to give them a half decent chance of crossing the Muese. Or baring capturing Bastogne then an early commitment to it ( leaving a serious threat to their flank ). If they didn't get those major breaks, then they needed a lot of smaller ones to fall their way ( that didn't ). They underestimated the resolve of the average US GI to stand and fight, the rapid movement of allied reinforcements, and the plan simply wasn't realistic given the road net, and surrounding terrain. But it sure is a whole lot more fun speculating and conjecturing about the AO, then if they had just sat behind the Siegfried Line parrying thrusts with their reconsituted mobile reserves.

JasonC, No argument on the infantry, they started the offensive with two little ( no choice at that stage of the war ), and sacrificed a signifigant portion of what they did have in desparate,sometimes suicidal attacks to try and force breakthru's. Bypassing was the only real option once the chance for a quick seizure evaporated. The German's basicly tried a bluff to get McCaullife to surrender as they knew they didn't have the strength to storm the place. In a nutshell, as the German's continued to fall signifigantly behind what was an insanely unrealistic schedule to begin with( reach the Meuse in two days IIRC), the shortcomings in logistics and manpower took away what small chance for even limited sucess remained. They needed an extreme amount of breaks to fall their way, and they didn't get nearly enough of them.