black_prince

I'm stronger on theory than practice. Anyway, I've given away all my secrets

As the cliche goes, time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. The bocage actually makes scouting ahead easier than it might otherwise be. If you don't have dedicated reconaisance assets in a scenario you can break off two man scout teams from your infantry squad. When scouting, make sure you are using the appropriate movement commands and a short target arc to stop your guys from becoming involved in a firefight with the first enemy they see. Once your scout team have los on suspected enemy positions, leave them in place for a few minutes-the longer they are allowed to sit and observe, the more they will see. It's usually a good idea not to let your scouts get too far ahead of your main force in case they're spotted and need back up. If your scouts are fired upon, think about the best course of action. You don't necessarily want to commit your main force in response. Consider wether or not you have identified all of the enemy positions in the area. It may be possible to extract them by having them slow crawl to somewhere safer or by using smoke or both. If you don't feel that you have enough info on the enemy yet, you can always try moving your scouts into another position to observe. In most scenarios, there are not enough defenders to cover every possible avenue of approach. If possible, use your scouts to move accross the enemies front once you have located it until you find their flank. Then park some serious firepower there. Oh, and defences are usually sited in depth, i.e. there will probably be another position to the rear of the first line to contain any breakthoughs. This might take the form of a MG on the top floor of a building to the rear or a second defensive line in the next hedgerow. Keep that in mind. If you find that your units are being mauled and are in a bad position, it may be a better idea to try and extract them and attack another point in the enemies defences. Rushing more units to the area may just increase your casualties. Once your attack begins, be sure to concentrate overwhelming firepower on the enemy. Never give the enemy a fair fight When establishing your base of fire, you should balance dispersal of your forces to reduce casualties with having as many units as possible in a position to fire on the enemy forces that you are engaging. In order to achieve this you should check LOS by getting down to level 1 and having a look and/or using the target tool. Ideally, you should have concentrated enough firepower to be able to rapidly suppress the enemy and eliminate the position quickly. Once your attack begins, try not to occuppy one position for too long if it can be avoided to reduce the likelihood of being hit by indirect fire. Klotzen, nicht kleckern! If using tanks in close country in conjuction with infantry, use your infantry to engage the enemy to suppress or at least distract any enemy equipped with anti-tank weapons. Your tanks can then be moved into position to end the firefight quickly and decisively. When using artillery or mortars, always try to use the most skilled spotter available. Finally, try to get a feel for the capabilites of your weapons and units. This help you allocate sufficient resources on the battlefield.

Norton doesn't seem to like the CW module. You can either try turning off the heuristic detection from the settings or if the CW module has been removed there should be an option in Norton to restore it and exempt it from future scans.

Thanks for the link. It's on the shopping list.

36 hours is a bit too long. Oh well, it will be nice to have the disk as a back up. Wonder how much the revenue are going to charge?

Distinctly unamused. Your names shall all be added to the list.

Vanir-where did you get that quote from? Sounds like a good read.

There are a number of possible uses of the bomb as outlined above. However, a more interesting question than what targets would be selected for the bombs is what effect would the use of two atomic bombs by Germany have on the ultimate outcome of the war. I do not believe that the deployment of two first generation atomic bombs by Germany would have been sufficient to alter the final outcome. Bearing this in mind, along with the limited means avaialable to deliver the weapons, I believe the bombs would have been sited in Berlin as the ultimate scorched earth weapons under Hitler's personal command. This would have the major additional benefit (from Hitler's point of view) of hedging against any potential putsch orchestrated by those in favour of making peace with the allies. The existence of the weapons (although not their exact location) would have been circulated amongst senior officer's and officials with the intention both of dettering a coup and in the hope that this information would then find its way to the allies. I believe the above hpotheses to be the most likely use of late-war atomic weapons by Germany. There are only two things which cause me to have any doubt about this. 1. Hitler's apparent refusal to recognise that the war was lost until the very end and (2) Hitler's tendency to over estimate the impact that 'wunderwaffen' could have on the strategic situation. In my oppinion however, the two tendencies refered to above developed in a large part as a self defence mechanism. In order to ward off internal opposition, Hitler had to espouse the belief that the war could still be won. I believe with two atomic bombs up his sleeve, Hitler would have felt a little more secure wit a correspondingly positive impact on his mental state that would have allowed him to adopt a slightly more objective appraisal of the progress of the war and its likely outcome.

Will do, thanks. I've just had a flick through the CW manual to see if it will give any clues to how/if the Churchill's 'go places other tanks don't go' ability is represented in game. I've noticed the manual shows the Churchills with 3 bars for cross country ability which is the same as just about every other tank. Interestingly, the Bedford trucks have 5 bars. That makes me feel a bit uneasy.

I've been looking too and I can't find anything to give a really good indication of the Churchill's bocage crossing capabilities. I like your compromise solution though.

Actually, it was a bocage embankment which appeared to have been breached by satchel charges (you could refer to the tank as either a Stuart or a Honey as both were British designations-Stuart being the official and Honey the unofficial names for the tank-in American service the designation was Light Tank). Just checked and actually 'Rhinos' only cut through the upper part of the bocage and roll over the embankment rather than cutting straight through the embankment as I'd thought. Maybe Churchills should be able to bust through bocage (?).

The 'what not' scares me.

There are many other things I should be doing, but somehow, this seems more urgent.

While Lt. Smash pursues a probabilistic method to answer the question 'when?', I prefer to latch on to the word 'finalized' (sic) in the above quote and attach entirely subjective interpretations as to the length of time it implies. I would assume that finalise couldn't possibly mean any length of time exceeding one week. Therefore, I expect to be picking off Jagdpanthers with PIATs by Tuesday evening latest.

I can believe the Churchill could clamber over certain bocage lines as illustrated (in fact, I'm sure that painting is intended to illustrate a specific incident. However, unless battlefront are going to code the Churchill's actually climbing the bank and exposing their bellies (as opposed to just smashing through the bocage the way that Rhino's do) then I don't think that Churchill's should be able to bust bocage as it would give them a tactical edge without the attendant disadvantage of increased vulnerability during the maneouver.

I think I agree with LLf's sentiments when it comes to this. Assad is exploiting sectarian tensions to keep himself in power. The longer he remains in power, the more the sectarian cauldron will boil. If the international community ignore the situation and just hope everything will go away if Assad turns enough neighborhoods into rubble, then Sunni's in Syria are more likely to look to groups like Al-Qaeda for support. There may be some merit in the view that no matter what happens, Syria will be governed along sectarian lines and that the most that can be hoped for is stability. Those who adhere to such a view however, should consider that the Sunni's are the majority. Therefore, a Sunni ruled Syria is far more likely to be a stable Syria in the long term. The year is no longer 1982. Assad is not merely cofronting an Islamist political movement but rather a large swathe of the Syrian population.

'And the winner is...' has aquired a malevolant, mocking tone.

I lost a Panther to a 57mm gun in the of Panzer Marche campaign manned by a single crewman. I was certain the crew had been wiped out by my 120mm mortars and the Panther has its turret turned in the opposite direction to engange some infantrymen in a stream bed. Then suddenly-BANG! Right in the back of the turret, next to the escape hatch followed by another one in the flank. Serves me right for underestimating the tenacity of the American GI. Personally, I have no problem with this situation occuring in the right circumstances, i.e. the crew are sufficiuently well motivated. There are a few examples of lone gunners valiantly fighting their gun in the teeth of horrendous fire. One that springs to mind is Sgt Labalaba firing a 25 pounder repeatedly point blank at the battle of Mirbat, even after being wounded in the face. Also, IIRC, a similar incident took place at the Battle of Bir Hakeim with a lone FFL gunner manning his 75mm gun to the last, even as he recieved terrible wounds and his commrades were falling all arround him. These may have been exceptional incidents but I think there is room for exceptional instances in CMBN and that the game is a lot richer for them

I heard it was within 3 hours. Anyway, many congratulations-thoroughly well deserved.

Thanks for the info and the very interesting link. I think it's true that you can't always use RL tactics in game exactly the way you would in real life. I do think that yo can adapt certain RL tactics however or adopt certain aspects which you are able to execute in game. As far grenade throwing is concerned, area firing at the next action spot usually results in grenades being thrown. I think infanry are more prone to throwing grenades at close range in CMA than in CMSF.

Speaking of 17pdr armed Cromwells, I am a bit disapointed that Challengers havn't been included. I realise that there weren't many produced and that they wouldn't have been available in the early stages of the Normandy campaign but it would've still been nice to have them.

****************PREDICTION***************** Tomorrow OR Next Monday OR Next Tuesday ****************************************************

Many thanks for the above reply. I will certainly take it on board. I already try to concentrate on the flanks but once I'm inside the trench things tend to get very bloody indeed. There always seems to be that one fighter who isn't spotted until there's a grenade flying through the air towards your men. Perhaps I have to accept that that is the nature of fighting at close quarters and expect casualties.

Which version are you using? I'm sure this has come up before but I can't find the thread at the moment. IIRC, it was fixed with the 1.01 patch.

I'm looking for advice on how to clear trench networks with infantry when it isn't possible to hit them with endless linear target missions. I tend to find that if I have my team inside the trench they become vulnerable due to being bunched up and unable to bring alot of fire to bear whereas a fire team outside the trench is very exposed. I have been trying to use one fire team inside the trench and others 'up top' along with area fire on other parts of the trench network from MGs but I'm still taking alot of casualties. Does anyone one know the proper way to do this? Thanks.