E4Grunt

noxnoctum,

It's the Nahverteidigungswaffe (translates as Close Defense Weapon), unsurprisingly truncated by the Germans to Nah. Here is a great site on the device.

http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm

AFVs fitted with the Nah

http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah2.htm

Where the text references Sprenggranatpatron, that means high explosive cartridge.

Some great pics here, showing a number of installations.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=162021

Regards,

John Kettler

Voxman,

Neither the mortars nor the HQ may be in Hide. HQ must have LOS to desired piece of ground, but the actual target line will be drawn from each mortar firing to the ground in LOS of the spotting HQ. If the target line won't stick, you haven't aimed at the right patch of ground. Be sure that your target is within normal range limits for the mortars, too.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

A few days ago, the History Channel (U.S.), ran a two hour program on possible seers, among them Nostradamus. Part of that segment showed spectacular streetfighting in Berlin, among which was a clip, which I missed the first part of, showing a Russian soldier firing some sort of short gripstock equipped weapon from amid the rubble, after which he retained the gripstock assembly. This leads me to believe that the weapon, whatever it was, may have been reloadable. I clearly saw a handle on the underside, complete with trigger assembly.

Did anyone else here happen to catch the program? If yes, what did you see? Am most curious.

Regards,

John Kettler

Troops,

My detailed AAR for this one is now available in the RoW II AAR thread.

Regards,

John Kettler

Thank you one and all for the information, kind thoughts, encouragement, words of caution, and the donation offer, which I'll be gratefully exercising shortly. russellmz, your ideas are fine, but somewhat moot, in that having ordered the game, I really don't need to go through the drills specified, at least some of which can be done on the Mac. The point of that part of my post was to conserve the ink of those yet to order. I see no reason why a receipt should gobble up many full page equivalents of ink.

Regards,

John Kettler

jaeger8888,

No, nor can you fire it from its wheels, as was done many times in North Africa. Bluntly put, the tactics you read about for handling 88s simply aren't doable in CMAK. If the gun's under tow, it can't fire. Once dropped from tow and fully deployed, it can't be moved again, so be sure you put something else on the exact planned location first and eyeball the LOS susing the LOS tool. Also, the only HE the gun has is impact fuzed, so no airburst capability, either. Thus, the 88 is crippled from the start and, thanks to Borg spotting and no modeling of smokeless/flashless propellants, wetdown, tarps, etc., not to mention fighting positions all but invisible in heat shimmer and tank targets that projected above it, is much easier spot and destroy than its real world counterpart.

Regards,

John Kettler

kulik,

You may be interested to know that BFC is STILL selling CMBO, the CMx1 game which started it all, for $15. Digital download only. Was $45 as a physical product when released in 2001!

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=60&Itemid=100

I seriously doubt (at, say, 12 Sigma level of confidence) BFC would ever give away one of its games. A demo? Sure. But a complete game? Nyet!

Regards,

John Kettler

Warning! While this is very groggy, presenting a wealth of material on the various mechanisms by which humans come to grief, both visibly and invisibly (blast lung, TBI, etc.), where sustained, how sustained, typical outcomes and such, it is also necessarily gory, being intended for doctors and other trauma care types who need to understand what they're up against. I strongly recommend that combat veterans soberly consider what seeing the high resolution full color pics might do to themselves, in terms of triggering PTSD and the like, and emphatically advise not letting small children see this!

LINK REMOVED

Regards,

John Kettler

I've looked and looked, but I can't find my first CMBS QB AAR, and brain fog's only made the problem worse. I need it because I have (gasp) managed to play another clear through, this time as the Russians, and would like to keep all my QBs in the same thread. Have lots of pics showing the battle as it unfolded, together with some of the combat achievements from both sides. Thanks for the help!

Regards,

John Kettler

akd and Sublime,

I just finished a QB, but it was for CMBS. Way after I was first involved in the leIG 18 and sIG 33 discussion, someone observed that, under certain conditions, the former was apparently firing indirectly. But I'm not talking about a fluke shot. I'm talking about the ability of these weapons to routinely fire at high enough trajectory that a typical map, never mind a CMRT monster, will permit on-map Indirect Fire. What is Rmin for the leIG 18? I raised this question before, and ArgusEye calculated, I believe, ~660 meters. That's short enough range to be able to fit even a very small CM map.

The le IG 18 has variable powder charges, allowing it to do exactly what a howitzer does: deliver fire on reverse slope positions and other targets regular artillery with its lower elevation limits, can't engage. But the leIG 18 can fire at elevations as high as 73 deg, something the howitzers can't quite do (66 deg) do, and the guns can't do at all (50 deg). The sIG 33 can also fire as high as 73 deg elevation and has multiple powder charges.

The two named items are important weapons for the Germans and deserve correct depiction of their capabilities. This true for these weapons in both towed and, in the case of the sIG 33, self-propelled configurations.

Regards,

John Kettler

panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
I meant to say something about force size, but got distracted. What I should've said was "elements of the 173rd Airborne Brigade..."I believe the number is 300 or so. More than enough to rile Putin, who seems to believe that no one should do anything to impede his efforts to restore Russian greatness. At the neighbors' expense. Thus, the veiled and naked threats over arming Ukraine, over US forces w/wo NATO operating in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea; then there are Iskander deployments in Crimea and Kaliningrad, nuclear threats to Denmark if Denmark participates in joint NATO naval exercises, not to mention ADIZ intrusions in Scotland, buzzing the USS Donald Cook (again) and nearly ramming an RC-135U operating over international waters over the Baltic.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

she just seems like she'd be skilled in the kitchen

akd,
 
If I had the requisite neural circuits online, rest assured I would play. Presently, it takes a great deal more specialized brain processes and level of concentration than I have. Also, am so run down it takes little to overload my ability to correctly take in and effectively use visual information. You have no idea how fortunate you are to simply be able to sit down and play. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

IanL,
 
Thanks for this! The jury is now in, and I don't have the Vehicle Pack. I hope they fix that shows as purchasable, doesn't deliver yet does bill glitch, for it's maddening. I believe there should be some sort of an If/Then test which would grey out what's not purchasable without the Vehicle Pack.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

While I vigorously object to the term "sneak craft," I'm about three minutes on in this crisp, clear doc on a subject little known even to many WW II buffs. I rather doubt the Allies referred to the SBS folding canoes, British chariots and X-craft as "sneak craft," and its use seems nasty and  unwarranted in the film. 
 

 
While we're on this subject, may I commend to your attention the deep and groggy Hitler's Secret Commandos, by Herman Blocksdorf? It is to German and Italian naval Spec Ops what a Fedorowicz Panzer book is to that subject. Originally published in German, it is without a doubt the most complete study ever done on the subject and has the goods to back the claims.
 
(Returns later very pleased after watching the whole thing)

First rate, with astounding, super detailed footage (I had no idea existed; was grateful for pics in the book)  and grog grade information in the narration.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

This is front page, just below the top on Yahoo right now and shows how topical CMBS is.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/u-russia-war-over-ukraine-070000525.html
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

sburke,
 
That wasn't for your benefit, but for those who knew nothing of the incident.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

There has been intermittent discussion on CMBS and elsewhere regarding operating tanks in trees. What's seen here appears to fall between the terrain categories of Light Woods (passable by armor) and Heavy Woods (impassable by armor). Here, we have not just saplings, but spread out mature trees, strong enough to resist being pushed by an M1A1. They are not Abrams proof, for that sharp bow allows another sort of approach in this instance. It does, though, have a fundamental, potentially diastrous problem associated with that technique. Nor do we see what would happen were the tank to continue to move forward.
 
http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/combat-tanks/m1a1-tank-removes-trees-in-australia/1716924710001/
 
Some of you may be familiar with the sort of KV-1 footage in the English subtitled doc shown here starting at around 1:12. There are major differences in play, starting with the fact the KV-1 is buttoned. Nor is it facing a tree with extensive strong branches. Instead, I believe it's attacking a birch, known for its delicate foliage. The top of the M1A1 has all sort of things which can be hit directly (sights with doors open), snag and be damaged or even torn off. By contrast, the top of the KV-1, save for a rounded episcope housing, is practically smooth
 

 
Food for thought.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Cheese,
 
You're welcome. Ever seen the German drill with 18 ton FAMOs to unbog a Tiger 1? This one's not bogged, meaning the task is far more manageable, but just imagine trying to pull one out with all three HTs pulling like mad and disaster but a snapped towline away? Not as bad or outright dangerous as the Troika Schlepp below, but still fraught.


 
agusto,
 
Believe it or not, I've seen one worse than that. Mike Rowe on "Dirty Jobs" was invited out to do a tank recovery as part of an M88A1 Hercules crew. An M60A3 was bogged clear to its turret in some very nasty soupy mud. No extrication possible absent tow cable connection, so he had to do play human mud puppy and totally immerse himself to a depth of several feet to hook up the cable. Was down there long enough that I started to worry about his return, but he got the job done. Redefined "filthy" in the process! As for tank cleanup, I believe at any one time the Army has plenty of privates and such not in the good graces of their sergeants. I know you can power wash the outside, having seen exactly that done on the T-90 doc I found, but I'm pretty sure nobody's tank optronics and vetronics would be happy with such a deluge inside the tank.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and from when. To me, the extensive text is far more interesting than the imagery For one, it says there are two flavors of Armata, the 125 mm 2A82 version we've been discussing, and another with a putative 152 mm. The text is heavily footnoted, but the actual footnotes are missing. Text word count limit, maybe? In any event, a pity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMx9iWQ6w4s
 
Also, I know the tank shown for over three minutes here isn't Armata (obviously much earlier), but in the sea of pics posted to this thread, I don't recall this one. Would like to know, please, what this one is and whether the narration has anything useful in it. Despite the common keyframes, the one below is a different vid than the earlier one.
 


  Regards,
 
John Kettler

SLIM,
 
I'll have a look, but I was under the impression there was already a great deal of coverage of US military strength. Don't know whether you know it or not, but the DOD trailblazing Cold War pub SOVIET MILITARY POWER engendered a backblast from Russia's MoD. That pub was called Whence the Threat to Peace? While obviously propagandistic, as was to some degree the first pub, what was most useful about it was the radically different way Russia saw (and sees) the whole geo-strategic picture. We would see those perceptions as paranoid, but they, coming from a long history of invasions and such, not to mention a significant amount of treachery on their end, thus, wary of it from others, were far more concerned with capabilities, for as far as they're concerned, capability was (and is) intent to attack. Indeed, they expended enormous time, money and scarce intel resources (even theirs was finite and constantly overworked) watching for a Western nuclear surprise attack under the acronym RYAN.
 
In other news, I have GaJ's marvel DLed, and it seems to work. It shows the turn is there, but it appears I need to somehow select a foe or something. Please E-mail me and tell me what to do next.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

This is a story I've never before seen told. It details perhaps the largest systematic recycling and repurposing effort ever mounted, with concomitant astronomic savings for the Army--billions in then year dollars! I'd read about efforts to do things like keep desperately needed trucks running by rigorous salvage and cannibalization, also had seen something in which completely wrecked boots were refurbished to as new, but they were nothing compared to this.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

11,000+ pics. Should keep a few of you off the streets for a bit. The France category is very heavy on Normandy on D-Day and beyond.
 
http://www.worldwarphotos.info
 
Mr Trowbridge has done himself proud. Just one of his treasures. School of Armor Technology study on attacking the Panther and Tiger 1. Rejoice all ye ordnance and weapon effectiveness grogs.

http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/German-tank-evaluation/TIGER-1-and-PANTHER/
 
One of myriad treasures, amid a sea of pics of AFVs (many unseen before by me) and other weapons in the field, wrecked, captured, in museums, etc. B&W and color. Any SAN loss is your fault, not mine. 
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com
 
T-34
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/SovietTanksatWar/T34/
 
British wartime assessment of KV-1 provided by Russia

http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/NEW-2015/In-Depth-view-of-Russian-KV-1/
 
M-3 Grant
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/Other-1/M3-Grant-medium-tank/
 
Tiger 1 command tank pic which is pretty strange
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/Photosyoumaymissedinlst10years/Part-1-3/
 
Panthers in every state imaginable.
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/Photosyoumaymissedinlst10years/Part-8-1/
 
A thoroughly misnamed juicy  file which includes a pic of the mythical Bren AA tripod mount!
 
http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/Shermansatwar/Part-One/
 
If those don't whet you appetite, I believe a toe tag may be in order.
 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Sublime and delliejonut,
 
As I've said kindly, explicitly, even pointedly to LukeFF, Wicky et al., Steve asked me quite some time ago not to start threads on certain topics, and I haven't. Those named have repeatedly and with malice aforethought made it a point to drag those very things from a certain place I mustn't name to over here, then have proceeded to hit me when they know I can't hit back. Moreover, they've done so despite my further pointing out that what they were doing was directly injurious to me, for I'm under medical instructions I'm not supposed to be stressed. They still did it. They have called me names, attributed things to me that weren't true, belittled me, called me a liar and deliberately baited me in the hope I'll slip. I did so once, on the old board. Wicky dragged out a technical mistake I made, a point I've many times admitted my error concerning. He kept hammering away at me thereafter with spurious claims, and I, angered and  swept up in righteous indignation, posted a fateful link. That got me a Moon rocket. I haven't made that same mistake twice. On this board, I got a warning for an offense not even on the books, yet the three of them flout the Forum Rules at will, but nothing ever happens. You can see the pattern for yourself in thread after thread starting with the disastrous emoticon post. Over and over again a certain Admin lets them tear me to pieces, and when I, sometimes accompanied by others, object, defend myself, call for appropriate behavior and even quote the malefactors the Forum Rules, magically a thread lock appears, with not so much as a word of reproof. Which, of course, empowers them to do it again. When it gets so bad  that other Members are quoting them the Forum Rules, pointing out stalkerish behavior, baiting and the like, who is the problem? It assuredly isn't me. And that's not just my opinion, but the published views of other Members. 
 
I will happily debate the views, the issues, the concepts, the facts and more as they apply to the games, weapon capabilities and military history. Equally, I will share my own direct experience where relevant and permitted. Nor do I make any claim of infallible memory. Indeed, I've many times said I could be wrong. This is supposed to be a civilized, family friendly place. It generally is, but we have board bullies. And as bullies do, these pick on those least able to defend themselves. On those who are different. It is rude, uncouth, low and boorish not merely to conduct forbidden ad hominem attacks, but to do so when the one being attacked is on the ground, bound hand and foot and has already been kicked in the head!  Let me be blunt: 
 
There is absolutely no excuse or justification, even if someone hates me outright, for ad hominem attacks, slander, character assassination, insults, intimidation and a laundry list of other offenses against the Forum Rules, commonly accepted social standards and simple human decency. What these malefactors are doing to me is profoundly violative and hurtful. I wish to be able to go about my lawful occasions on the Forums without being vexed, annoyed, harassed and attacked. This is my right as someone who carefully abides by the Forum Rules.
 
Canister Effectiveness
 
To claim that canister had no utility in the bocage is the same as saying six HMG-42s firing simultaneously at the same target, from spitting distance, have no effect. Anyone here care to make that argument? HMG-42 at full cyclic rate puts out 20 rds/sec. The 37 mm canister round puts out 122 in vastly less than that in an instant. If the MG in the bocage is able to shoot into that field, it stands to reason that blast after blast of the intensity I described and going at the German MG position is going to have an effect. The greater the fire density over unit time, at least to a certain point, the greater the suppression and shock effect. This is the basis of the WW II TOT, the basis of concentrated surprise fire by Pakfronts, the longstanding virtue of the ambush. Canister creates instantaneous fire superiority. Supporting my argument is this M4 Sherman Wiki excerpt. It's under "Miscellaneous."
 
"The 75 mm gun also had an effective canister round that functioned as a large shotgun. In the close fighting of the French bocage, the 2nd Armored Division tanks used Culin Hedgerow Cutters fitted to their tanks to push three tanks together through a hedgerow. The flank tanks would clear the back of the hedgerow on their side with canister rounds while the center tank would engage and suppress known or suspected enemy positions on the next hedgerow. This approach permitted surprisingly fast progress through the very tough and well-defended hedgerows in Normandy. Over 500 sets of these were fitted to US armored vehicles, and many fitted to various British tanks (where they were called "Prongs")."
 
That canister round was designated T30. Source: M4 Sherman at War, Michael Green and James D. Brown, on page 68, last paragraph, bottom right.
 
Doug Williams,
 
Then I should be okay, for I'm working with SLIM to figure out GaJ's CM Helper.
 
LukeFF and JonS,
 
Not only do you not listen, but you apparently can't read anymore, either. I have many times now asked you to leave me in peace, yet here you are again trashing me. I look forward to seeing how you talk your way out of what I just posted on canister: information that's credible, is fully in accord with demonstrated combat realities, and is multiply documented. I may well be wrong on the Stuart assault technique, but I'm right on the use and efficacy of canister in bocage warfare. 
 
Bud_B,
 
The M8 has canister, is self-evidently firing same in the pic you provided, and it is wholly appropriate it should be doing so. In case you have any doubts, Steve Zaloga, noted weapon expert and armor writer (not to mention a tremendous modeler), lists three ammo types for the M8: AP, HE and canister. Page 19 of his Greyhound Light Armored Car 1941-1991. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

For those playing along at home; after being called out on repeating previously-shown-to-be-wrong information, Kettler has now moved on to
i) a weird MilHist version of the Gish Gallop
ii) various forms of "woe is me, it's all just sooooo unfair"
iii) flooding the board with irrelevant, quickly googled, links
iv) vigorously contesting points nobody has made
all of which, like the repetition thing, we've seen dozens of times before.
 
Would anyone like to place a bet as to which of his 'tactics' will be trotted out next?