Cool New Sherman Tank Video - Security On The March

[user1000]

I have never ever seen this one one youtube, it says it was added this fall of 2016. I'm flabbergasted  how fast the sherman is on a road and the guy is not even bouncing.

 

[Erwin]

This was interesting.  Good to learn that 75 yards was the min separation between tanks on the move, and how a platoon of 5 made their covered arcs.  Of course this was more relevant to CM1 where we often had 8K x4K maps and one would often have to move a Km or two just to get into action.

You can watch the tree branches and leaves and how they move to see if the speed of the film was speeded up for effect.  They seemed to do that a couple of times.

[Bulletpoint]

Hopefully you got the permission of the War Department before showing this film to the general public?

Interesting stuff. I'm sure @Badger73 will agree.

[c3k]

I recognize that road from an episode of "Hart to Hart".

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Cobetco]

I am quite impressed by the cinematography that went into this, all the shots are well thought out and it appears the camera crews went through some rough areas to get the camera where they needed it, there are film crews and photographers today who if given this project would take the laziest possible approach, and not to geek out about composition and such but the shot at 12:15 is so perfectly framed i actually saved a frame of it for future reference.

[user1000]

21 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Hopefully you got the permission of the War Department before showing this film to the general public?

Interesting stuff. I'm sure @Badger73 will agree.

I'll leave that for you to do Bullet.....

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, user1000 said:

I'll leave that for you to do Bullet.....

It was a joke, man, relax.  

[Bulletpoint]

Happy someone got it

[weapon2010]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 9:58 AM, Erwin said:

This was interesting.  Good to learn that 75 yards was the min separation between tanks on the move, and how a platoon of 5 made their covered arcs.  Of course this was more relevant to CM1 where we often had 8K x4K maps and one would often have to move a Km or two just to get into action.

You can watch the tree branches and leaves and how they move to see if the speed of the film was speeded up for effect.  They seemed to do that a couple of times.

I don't recall maps of that size (8k x 4k) being that common at all in cmx1

[George MC]

12 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

I don't recall maps of that size (8k x 4k) being that common at all in cmx1

They weren't. IIRC 6km by 6km was largest and that was in operations. Erwin has a touch of rose tinted specs methinks

[Erwin]

50 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

I don't recall maps of that size (8k x 4k) being that common at all in cmx1

Clearly, you weren't playing the best scenarios or tournaments.     I designed a couple huge maps for CM1.   But the point is that it's much rarer to see large enuff maps in CM2 where you need to be concerned about movement per the video.  That's something I greatly miss in CM2.  I think CM2 gives the impression that all combat was at relatively short range and wonder why would anyone want a rifle vs a smg.  In reality, rifles were more useful IIRC.  And there are few if any missions where one can use an 88mm or Nashorn to their design specs.

[George MC]

41 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Clearly, you weren't playing the best scenarios or tournaments.     I designed a couple huge maps for CM1.   But the point is that it's much rarer to see large enuff maps in CM2 where you need to be concerned about movement per the video.  That's something I greatly miss in CM2.  I think CM2 gives the impression that all combat was at relatively short range and wonder why would anyone want a rifle vs a smg.  In reality, rifles were more useful IIRC.  And there are few if any missions where one can use an 88mm or Nashorn to their design specs.

Sorry mate but auld age must be kicking in. The largest map in CMBB was 6km x 3km - and you had to make that an operation - so the whole map was not visible at any one time. Most scenarios were in the region 3km x 4km or thereabouts. Large maps in CMX1 did cause players issues with load and turn process times.

CMX2 allows large maps - you can create around 16km squared maps so you can do long narrow maps or square maps. Just limited to around 16km squared.

My scenario Der Ring has engagement ranges of several KM (potentially) and is based on the RL location for that action. So realistic potential engagement ranges.

I'm working on another map with potentially 3km engagement ranges in CMX2.

At what range are rifles accurate to? I don't get this. A map 1km sqaure would be more than enough to give a rifle equipped unit an advantage. Assuming the ground was flat. But ground ain't flat. That's the essence of fieldcraft/tactics - using the terrain to mask an approach to you can get close to engage at your effective range.

I mind playing a scenario using Nashorns in CMX 1. Dismal. Long engagement ranges but borg spotting totally screwed it. CMX2 does not have borg spotting so your Nashorns in CMX2 would have more chance.

Sorry mate but yer tilting at windmills here.

 

[weapon2010]

yah , what he said

[weapon2010]

George Mc, just checked out Der Ring, truly an amazing piece of work, anymore like those my friend?

[Erwin]

I don't have CM1 installed on my new system but I remember spending weeks if not months designing an 8Kx4K CMAK map.  Actually I just looked it up: max size for a map is 8Kx4K.  Do a google.

"An operation map may be 8000m along the axis of advance (set in the parameters under ÒAttacker comes fromÉÓ), and 4000m across for a total of 32 square kilometres!..."

So, yeah you are both wrong.  How embarrassing...

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Erwin

[MikeyD]

Watching this video you can see how the US believed (for longer than they perhaps had ought) that they had a great tank on their hands. This was state-of-the-art when it came out. Compare it to Valentine, Crusader, PzIII, short-barreled PzIV, the Italian M14/41, T34-76, and Churchill. Sherman looks pretty good.

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

But the point is that it's much rarer to see large enuff maps in CM2 where you need to be concerned about movement per the video.

Oh, I don't know. In some battles I have to move numbers of vehicle down a road or other pathway, and while the distance does not amount to miles, good movement discipline is something I hold to be essential.

I totally agree with your statement about the 88 and similar weapons and their normal range though.

Michael

[George MC]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

I don't have CM1 installed on my new system but I remember spending weeks if not months designing an 8Kx4K CMAK map.  Actually I just looked it up: max size for a map is 8Kx4K.  Do a google.

"An operation map may be 8000m along the axis of advance (set in the parameters under ÒAttacker comes fromÉÓ), and 4000m across for a total of 32 square kilometres!..."

So, yeah you are both wrong.  How embarrassing...

 

Yes - well spotted. I was just going by the size of scenarios I'd done in the past assuming, wrongly, that the op ones were the largest. 8x4km though? Nah that take me years to make a map for.

Now curled up in a corner, covered with rags feeling the shame.

[George MC]

13 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

George Mc, just checked out Der Ring, truly an amazing piece of work, anymore like those my friend?

Cheers @weapon2010  You mean that size? or that sort of force mix?

Carius at Malinova has long engagement ranges and is on a large map.

If you like campaigns then check out CMRT Kampfgruppe von Schroif - follows a kampfgruppe (SPW and PzIV) through a few days of ops (it's pretty tough as force preservation if key).

Threads re above on the CMRT forum.

I'm working on some stuff just now which are set on large maps. Be a while before they done though I'm afraid.

Cheery!

[user1000]

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Watching this video you can see how the US believed (for longer than they perhaps had ought) that they had a great tank on their hands. This was state-of-the-art when it came out. Compare it to Valentine, Crusader, PzIII, short-barreled PzIV, the Italian M14/41, T34-76, and Churchill. Sherman looks pretty good.

Well it could take most of the German tanks at that time when the sherman came out. Then the high velocity 75 on the German stuff changed that for sure

Edited December 4, 2016 by user1000

[General Jack Ripper]

I love these types of videos.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 4:05 PM, Cobetco said:

I am quite impressed by the cinematography that went into this, all the shots are well thought out and it appears the camera crews went through some rough areas to get the camera where they needed it, there are film crews and photographers today who if given this project would take the laziest possible approach, and not to geek out about composition and such but the shot at 12:15 is so perfectly framed i actually saved a frame of it for future reference.

Nowadays everything would be computer animated. They wouldn't bother using actual vehicles and film.

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 7:26 PM, MikeyD said:

Watching this video you can see how the US believed (for longer than they perhaps had ought) that they had a great tank on their hands. This was state-of-the-art when it came out. Compare it to Valentine, Crusader, PzIII, short-barreled PzIV, the Italian M14/41, T34-76, and Churchill. Sherman looks pretty good.

After reading Armored Thunderbolt a few times, I think the biggest failure of the Sherman was the army not replacing it fast enough. Steven Zaloga makes a credible case for crew training and experience counting for far more than having the latest and greatest equipment, and he also documents the lack of urgency in new tank development until mid 1944.

You're right too, in early 1942 when the Sherman came out, it really was one of the best tanks in the world.

Edited December 12, 2016 by SLIM