ZPB II

Sometimes you're faced with circumstances like this. I guess it's to be expected that in a hot war strange conditions sometimes arise, such as a recon force attacking enemy positions. You'd expect the routine to be for a recon force to locate the enemy and just fall back, since there's no way they can engage the position in a firefight. Now, since the game presents a scenario where you need to do something like this, I just accept it as an outlier situation and do an outlier approach. In my book it's most of the time just a bum rush. I figure that if the recon commander really needs to take that position with just Hummers, hell probably curse his superior and adopt an unorthodox stance. Either that or just refuse to attack. It works best if you have vehicles able to pop smoke, have the lead vehicles pop it in sequence so hopefully the ones coming last will make it across unscathed. If you play real time and have really brave men, have the lead guys dismount real quick and throw a smoke grenade and hop back in. =D I've found out that Strykers for the most part make excellent vehicles to rush with. They are pretty resilient to RPG fire in the sense that the occupants often survive. The smoke screens they lay are really good and the air sentries give a bit of situational awareness as to where the heck the enemy is when you dismount. Gamey? I won't say, but what kind of a commander would use his recon troops in a static slugfest with entrenched and heavily armed defenders. :/ There will be dead pixeltruppen, that's for sure. But it works sometimes. I played that NATO scen where you have just a few G-wagens in the start and it's an open desert with enemies in trenches. I just drove the cars straight into the trench, blazing away and managed to wrestle it from the enemy.

I'm inclined to take back my opinion and state that this is starting to seem really strange that the Shermans are apparently immune to 75/48...I was expecting the occasional shell to bounce off but taking several clean hits numerous times to no apparent effect...tsk... Hailing rexford to this thread, can you read me rexford?

Yeah, I edited the reference to gasoline out of my post, that was a brainfart on my part. I'm just gonna be lazy and ctrl-c/ctrl-v some shizzle out of wikipedia. Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded that a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank’s armor; in comparison they also concluded that the Panzer IV would catch fire 80% of the time following an average of 1.5 penetrations, the Panther would light 63% of the time following 3.24 penetrations, and the Tiger would catch fire 80% of the time following 3.25 penetrations. John Buckley, using a case study of the 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades found that of the 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, only 94 were burnt out; 56.6%. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burnt out after being penetrated. United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks. At first a partial remedy to ammunition fires in the M4 was found by welding 1-inch-thick (25 mm) appliqué armor plates to the sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of the tank catching fire. A U.S. Army study in 1945 concluded that only 10–15 percent of wet-stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60–80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans. The belief that the fuel tank was a culprit is unsupported. Most World War II tanks used gasoline engines, and although fuel fires did occasionally occur in tanks, such fires were far less common and less deadly than a tank's ammunition magazines igniting. This assessment is supported by Buckley, who notes that in many cases the fuel tank of the M4 had been found intact after the tank burnt out due to the ammunition cooking off. Tank crew testimony also supports this position; eye witness reports describe "fierce, blinding jets of flame," which is inconsistent with gasoline-related fires but fits cordite flash.

An excellent point, Elmar. It's interesting how these reputations continued post-war up until this day. By the way, anyone got any good reading recommendation on the subject of Sherman vs. a heavier US tank in Normandy and past. How would the increased logistical strain and mechanical attrition affect the operational conduct of US forces?

Some of WW2 docs are cheap budget trash full of factual errors, parroting stuff from others...I don't recall ever reading about the Allies having trouble dealing with the PzIV. Übercats and the occasional über-TD, yes, PzIV, no. In a tactical engagement, I'd say the Sherman has a slight edge over the PzIV, and operationally it just trumps it. I'd love to see a more realistic game than CMx1 and will especially enjoy if it makes germanophiles cringe. Mind you, I'll probably be playing Germans almost exclusively myself. I'm under the impression that the Sherman's ghastly reputation was formed due to a combination of terrible tank country in Normandy combined with boatloads of Panthers & extremely well camoed PaKs and Panzerfausts/Shrecks. How many men died fighting in the T-34, yet it is hailed as an excellent tank...I wonder how this kind of perceived effectiveness split has occurred. Some Soviets crewing lend-lease Shermans have said that the diesel-powered T-34 burned much easier than the diesel M4A2 Sherman. Make what you will out of it.

IIRC the turret ring & mechanism had pretty much reached it's weight limit. It was easier to add extra weight to the hull. Yes, if you handle an PzIV like a TD, you get excellent results. But you can buy a much cheaper Marder II and achieve similar results if that's how you're going to employ it. (I think someone ran extensive tests in CMx1 and concluded that you're less likely to lose your PzIVs if you don't put them in a hull down position. Which was really strange, since the turret silouette is rather small. I might remember wrong though.)

Ah, when I visualize what I assume to be the average American body type squeezing into a wetsuit, I can see the resemblance to a seal.

Indeed, pretty much all tanks in the war had design flaws (hell, they do today), some in horrendous numbers. Sometimes it's just about opportunity cost, sometimes the circumstances, sometimes a grave oversight that leads to these. It's just that, sometimes it feels like "German engineering" as a concept gets raised to a pedestal and hailed. I expect a lot of gnashing of teeth if CMx2 delivers a more visceral experience regarding the shortcomings of German kit. Though most of this, I reckon, is out of the CM scale and goes into the operational scheme of things. Speaking of bad designs, this always makes me chuckle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant_tank "Valiant's moment of glory was a trial of its suspension by the Fighting Vehicle Proving Establishment at Chertsey, in May 1945. The first day gave minor problems and was abandoned after a mere 13 miles of easy on-road driving. However the driver was already exhausted by this time: finding that the steering levers needed his full weight to actuate and the seat, footbrake and gearlever all carried risk of physical injury in using them. The Officer in Charge decided to abandon the trials there and then as it was impossible and unsafe to continue and, "in his view the entire project should be closed". Then there's this gem from WW1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Chamond_(tank) A massive, heavy box on tracks with a main gun that digs into the ground, a gaping hole in the front that your gunner looks out of and an engine too big to fit into it, so it sticks out of the roof...Where do I sign up?

Can anyone list all the shortcomings of the PzIV? I myself regard it as a mediocre design and would prefer a Sherman or a T-34 most of the time. This obsolete design that was patched together to keep up with the times had a lot of flaws, but I can't remember right now what they were. I mean there's the obvious stuff like woefully thin tracks and armour, but I remember reading a document by the Sovs that listed a lot of stuff they found flawed. I was surprised at the number of "soft" factors listed. Stuff like having an clunky, hard to operate gearbox sitting right next to the driver & making an infernal noise driving him mad? IIRC the T-34 crews said it was far gentler and easier to crew one than a PzIV. I always thought Soviet designs were the epitome of crew discomfort. It didn't tackle harsh terrain nor conditions well. I think there were electric insulation problems too? Atleast this is what I remember reading, will a grog enlighten me? I think this was from a relatively early period too, before the quality control issues the Germans had in the later period...All things considered, in my opinion German engineering in WW2 is very overrated. I don't think the whole overstressed drivetrains & engines approach qualifies as somesort of engineering marvel feat, though they did make some nice, innovative stuff too.

Warms my heart to read that the Sherman has got much needed love. In my opinion, CMx1 tanks were unrealistically impervious to non-penetrating hits. Small caliber AA was effective, but cannons that didn't penetrate felt like limp noodles. Like the CMBB Stug that was completely immune to 76,2mm fire from point blank range...I really dig the subsystems in CMx2 and how easily you can have critical components of super tanks damaged, just as it should be. I am hoping to see lots of uber cats crippled by massive hail firing, turrets jamming, the force of the blows moving the gun out of alignment, crew eating spall...

I guess I hit-n-ran this topic, a bad habit of mine. Secondbrooks, my sauna is always warm. I'm not claiming I'm the greatest womanizer of all time, hah, not even close. Deep inside I like reading books, conversating and finding a soulmate. I'm not saying I've scared women away for most of my life, just that I've found life less complex and easier for my hobbies & vices when you don't have to worry about the opposite gender. But there have been periods when I have promised myself to play the A-game and have thus delivered. For me, the key was self-reflection, finding out what causes anxiety and overcoming it. It's just those little obvious things that you have to place in the right order. This resulted in having so much spare thought processes that you spend on things more meta than before. You become able to form a game table in your mind, keep track of moves, counter-moves and simply read the cues and time it all right. Self-confidence is what matters most, but even there is a fine balance. When you overdo, it becomes hard to listen intently and with thought. Keep the ego out of it. I can't stress this clearness of mind enough, since when nervous your body starts sending out all kinds of subconscious messages that reduce your sex appeal. Just think on your feet and all kinds of fun stuff start coming out of your mouth, and girls love to have fun. I'm a bit softy, so this really isn't my thing, since it really hurt me if I saw a girl getting hurt. For me it was always a period in my life when I really needed a big ego boost to get through hard times. I think this caring point of origin helped when making a girl feel special. That she is beautiful and loveable, her life and words are interesting and meaningful. Even if you have to fake it. If I had to express myself as briefly as possibly, it helps to think that after a date, you will as a man likely, be working words and concepts involved whereas she will be reflecting on different feelings, moods and "ambience." Work on your act from there. I hope my ramblings make some sense, I haven't been able to sleep well lately!

I'm very glad to read about the wide range of maps the game ships with. With CMSF it was problematic as the map was random, but now...ah...

Awesome! Thanks for listening to the forums yet again.

Hey, I like this topic. I like music a lot. I heard there's actually people who don't. Anyway. When I go to a club it's psy and goa trance, drum'n'bass or dubstep. Or Finnish style hard NRG. Those are all pretty prominent here, but there is the occasional "gay house" (not entirely sure if this is an official genre) party as well! When talking about electronic music, it feels a bit clunky to use the whole genre term because there's just so many ways you can make it sound. Going to see Infected Mushroom next month. With a girl, mind you. At home I also listen to classic stuff...It goes all the way from ABBA to Pink Floyd. When I work out it's Hollywood Undead, gangsta rap & epic soundtracks, like Last of the Mohicans. I also feckin' love video game music and chiptunes. Here are random songs I like: Infected Mushroom Some VGM stuff DnB Chill Soundtrack

I don't know if it's better AI plans or have the latest patches improved the TacAI, but I'm really enjoying the gameplay I'm getting out of CMSF quick battles. Terrain has to be woods or a town or somesuch, since desert terrain favours Blue too much. It seems the only way to get consistently good quality Syrians on the field is to set their quality to excellent, which results in regular and upwards in normal Mech units. Good usually results in green troops, which don't get to shoot back given the Blue firepower. This is more towards the normal balance expected in CMBN, the difference in kit is not so noticeable and the firing ranges are much shorter with abundant cover. I'd be really interested to read if there are AI changes in CMBN and how much control does a dynamic AI exert over AI plans, since it most of the time feels like it's doing stuff that makes sense. I lost a defense with a Vet Stryker Coy against Vet Syrian Mech something something on some nice NATO QB map, really thick woods, Javelins weren't much good when the range is 200m and T-72s with reactive armour, thermals and a competent crew opens up almost instantly. I got chased off the map. (To add some criticism, I just got Conscript Uncons even though I had my quality set as Good. Grr. What a load of croc****!) EDIT: That was kind of my fault too for not bothering to check their info out before placing them in position. After some light artillery harassment most of my insurgents had dropped their guns and went on to tweet about it. EDIT 2: I'd really love if there'd be a built-in counterattack type dynamic AI shigalamajick thing for the Germans! EDIT 3: My original point was to write, Hell yes give us a QB AAR! I've only been drooling on the bone scrapes saying "QBs are good in CMBN"

Not as bad as it initially seemed regarding the reactor. There are lots of brave guys working in ****ty conditions there right now, I imagine. I remember the images of Mi-8 or somesuch helicopters hovering over the Chernobyl reactor, chilling.

Aaa-aaaaa-aaaaaaa. I come home after spending the perfect evening with the perfect girl and what do I find!?!?!?!!?! THIS IS THE TIT****S!!!!!11111!!!!!111111 I feckin' love that new UI and those death animations!!!!!!!! Not to mention I love you all!!!!!!!!

I just finished playing a Marine module scenario, Hills & Highways or somesuch. Anyway, since I play RT the fog of war is ever so tangible, but I did keep a keen eye on the events that unfolded since they were blocking my advance completely. First, there was a static T-54 that was the foremost enemy position, behind small woods, ready to shoot at my advancing units flank. My scouts spotted it, I couldn't really get a good vector on it, so I spent my time locating and eliminating all of it's overwatch so I can just move guys into the woods and blast it's side with a rocket. I spent the good part of 15-20 minutes inching my way forwards, only to find out that the crew had long gone, leaving their tank as an intact trophy. I haven't run into many cases of vehicles being abandoned intact, since nothing could get a shot at that thing. This was a case of a green crew watching their comrades on the ridges above them get slaughtered and deciding it wasn't a good day to die. The second case, there was a T-55 in the village, behind a corner, ready to pop anything coming down the road. My scouts had spotted this one from a mile away, so I kept it under observation for a very long time. As long as it didn't see anything, it held it's position. Now, on the ridge I was taking a calculated risk to rush an FO team into position. The tank spotted the FO, the guys hit the ground behind a berm and started to radio for a mortar strike, unfortunately an HE round killed 2 of them, but after this brief exchange, the T-55 changed it's position across the road and tucked itself between some buildings while my armor mortar point strike hit it's former position that it had held for a very long time. I was going "WTF happened?" for a long time, I had come to think I knew the AI, but this was rather novel. :eek:

We forumites like to grasp whatever tiny particle of hope, so I am reading between the lines here and going "Woo!" :cool:

Thanks for the heads-up, will check this book out. Here's an earlier thread in which some reading and viewing suggestions were gathered. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93179

Speaking of the Eastern Front, just yesterday I came across these great documentaries on Youtube, they're Russian so it's interesting to see things from that perspective. Not to mention the series is very visceral, lots of re-enactment scenes and CGI. Very gripping, I watched Barbarossa, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad in one sitting, now I'm working on Kursk with Bagration coming next. Some absolutely spectacular stuff. I'm highly recommending this, remember to turn the subtitles on from the CC button, the sentence structure is in Russian but with English words, I found it easy to understand, not to mention it's a great aid if you're interested in learning Russian. Here's a link to part 1 of the first episode, Barbarossa. The series is titled "Great War", I think. So just search for great war + the battle you want to watch, or do as I did and watch them all. Can't recommend this stuff enough. The perspective is a real eye-opener. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gb-jbVWn30

He changed jobs a couple of years ago, I assume he's still truckin' over there. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2009/08/12/34672/sgl-appoints-matt-faller-director-of-support

Offtopic, but this reminded me of the best CM player I have met, faustius (or something like that) over at the CMHQ chat room. He had studied the engine extensively and remembered all the numbers. He knew exactly where he needed to drive a tank in order for it to have LOS to this unit here etc...It was always a horrible slaughter to face him, my only victory against him involved an extremely cheesy Sherman after which he demanded rematches but I was too exhausted to face his might! I regret that know, not knowing where the old CMHQ beards have scattered. If I remember right, he was a conductor and had lived in NY(?) and just moved to Montana or somesuch place in the middle of nowhere. Drop me a not if you ever see this faust!

Wasn't referring to backblast specifically, but RPGs hitting walls or trees and whatnot, showering friendlies with shrapnel.

I play it a lot, perhaps even more than CMSF. Red vs. Red in CMA is very entertaining. I haven't really noticed this cartoony look, perhaps it is because the biggest factor is the trees that are too bright, I downloaded a mod that toned the colours down and it looks so much better. You can have T-55s and T-62s dueling in CMSF too, but there aren't any modern ATGMs and such crap coming in the way...I love exciting tank battles that aren't "first shot 98% guaranteed hit 99% guaranteed kill!" Ricochets! Misses! Penetrations that don't result in spectacular fireballs! I even saw an AP round bounce from one tank to another, scaring the latter's crew into a ditch. (Sadly for me, they remanned their vehicle) CMA is a lot harder than CMSF. BMPs, BTRs, BMDs and BMDRs are very fragile, and the Soviet MBTs of that era can't take the kind of punishment an Abrams does. I like the challenge, I do know that there's a lot of well designed and challenging scenarios for CMSF because I've played them but still... My complaints is that there aren't as many scenarios for the english version of CMA, it has such potential, I wish there'd be byte campaigns for it. I released one scenario but I have no idea if people really played it. I have several ideas and scenarios in the works, I think the concepts and maps I have planned out provide for really grueling battles. But I'm a bit of an ADD type, hard time wrapping things up for a release-worthy shape. There is so much potential for these bytesize campaigns in CMA, but time is of the essence, with CMBN looming somewhere on the distant horizon. Some very minor points, I feel the Soviets have a bit too many RPG gunners, the squad sizes are so small that every AKM counts! And I wish we had the "driver&gunner team" command from CMBN, there are so many times I wish I could send 2 dismounts from the recon squad to peek over a crest while the 2 guys stay behind in the BRDM-2. Oh and I wish there was some way to ban technical companies from tiny or small QBs.