Allied use of Schutzenplatte?

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I don't know why you were addressing me here, as I did not write the words you were replying to. However, as I am already commenting on them ,let me say that I have no clue where you got the idea that Spook actually wanted those vehicles in the game. If you reread what he wrote (or read it for the first time, as the case may be) you will see he said nothing of the sort, nor did he even imply it.

<hr></blockquote>

Bingo.

Brian, I did not throw out my earlier examples of German vehicles/weapons not included yet in CM because I want them to be. They were only case examples. Heck, IMO, I think the German Puma armored car in QB's & user-designed scenarios is applied to the point of overkill at times.

Now, as a vague notion, I couldn't really recall that the Sturmtiger, with its 18-vehicle total run as you've cited, is provided for in CMBO. I've now checked, and I don't see it. Isn't it a little odd then to assert that BTS included a rare German vehicle like the Sturmtiger in CMBO while giving a pass to Allied vehicle options like a side-screen against shaped-charged weapons?

Keep the frame of reference consistent, Brian, to help your case. The Jagdtiger (77 total vehicles) is included in CMBO, so use that as an example instead if you are trying to make issue on what was or wasn't included in that game.

Now, if instead, you are asking that side-skirts or various types of applique armor be allowed as an option for some Allied armored vehicles in CM II, then press on, by all means. I don't know if I'd need for it to be graphically modeled, but that the vehicle info would indicate some applique form of side protection.

The problem here, however, is that numerous means were used to improve side protection, with mixed results; sandbags, lumber planks, logs & branches, etc. Even the steel railing mounted to hold sandbags on some M4's was extensive enough that the shaped-charge might've come into contact with that first, and disrupted the metal jet. How to account for all of this in a consistent way?

I couldn't say for now. But I could say that any future consideration of Allied vehicle protection in CM II would have to look further than used by one tank regiment in one armored brigade.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

That is up to Steve. As usual, he has not thus far graced us with neither his presence nor his explanation. I'd love to read what he has to say.

Until he does, I can only go on the evidence before me, which is the choices available and apparently promised...<hr></blockquote>

Personally, I think he does not respond because this argument, like many uber arguments from all national sides, is like trying to teach an opposum calculus. You can explain calmly and quietly all day long the meaning of this or that theory, and the opossum will just eat your new silk tie and make a mess on your carpet.

This reminds me of a person who came on the ballistics discussion group several montsh ago and claimed that the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge was the deadliest handgun cartridge made. His proof was one shooting incident, a quote from Senator Biden which claimed that cartidge caused the most deaths, and a passage from a "spy" novel which had a mafia hitman using a .22 because of how deadly it was.

Of course his only good evidence was the single shooting which a State Trooper was killed by a single .22 while his assaillant took 4 .357 magnum shells to the chest and survived. This is directly comparable to using a single very questionable reference in an otherwise excellent book to prove a point, and also prove a hidden agenda. The point is the common use of some form of shape charge protection on German tanks, the hidden agenda is the quest to prove BTS is somehow against the British in some hateful or spiteful way.

The first proposition is not proven by the reference, only shown that at one moment in time a modification was made to part of a regiment of tanks that may or may not have been effective. As Germanboy has shown, this reference is problematic in that it is taken out of context, but it may be enough to spark further research into effectiveness of these tactics (we already know that few of these modifications were sturdy or effective, but maybe this is the exception).

The second proposition is unprovable without a really severe showing of the facts. If BTS had forgotten to include the Firefly, or had not included the Centuar, 95mm armed Cromwells, the Challenger, or the Comet, all of which are present in the game but which were not very common on the ground in the scope of a typical CM match (in the case of the Centuar and Comet, no more common that some of the German tanks -- the Centuar being converted to other things, and the Comet just not making it forward until the very end and then not for much shooting) then perhaps some griping would be due. But so far the campaign to prove BTS is a bunch of narrow minded Queen haters has rested on some really obscure and very selective ground. So perhaps this whole campaign had best be set aside as it obscures what could be good arguments.

BTS is not biased against any side. They have beta testers from all continents, including Australia (last I checked they also employ an Australian), they are very careful about the science they use, and everything they do gets kicked around by these beta testers, as well as often getting an airing here in the public forum. I would also put forward that BTS does not have to reply on the forum each time someone suggests aliens with rayguns, flying tanks, psychics, Dog with bombs, or the effectiveness of Finnish knives as antitank weapons. Otherwise they would forever be responding to lunacy and never writing the next game.

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

So perhaps this whole campaign had best be set aside as it obscures what could be good arguments.

<hr></blockquote>

EXACTLY. Dwelling on what or what wasn't included in CMBO is unproductive. It's better instead to build arguments for what could be included in CM II.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

EXACTLY. Dwelling on what or what wasn't included in CMBO is unproductive. It's better instead to build

arguments for what could be included in CM II.

<hr></blockquote>

Spook, I thought I had made it clear, on 23 Nov'01 that I wasn't referring specifically to CMBO but rather future generations of CM. However, that aside, your contributions are always welcome. Slappy, as usual though, has shown the poverty of his ability to analyse an argument but reverting to type and attempting to suggest that this is yet once more a matter of one poster seeking superiority for one nationality over all others, instead, as it is, an effort to seek greater accuracy, as have all these sorts of threads. As BTS has decided, yet once more, not to grace us with their presence, I have one question for him about their "science". If it is as accurate as he appears to believe, why then have so many holes been discovered in their portrayal of the Commonwealth/British forces, as has been revealed in this BBS?

They, or rather Steve, admitted that they got it wrong for the smoke round for the 95mm CS Howitzer, why slavishly believe they got it perfect for everything else?

Now, Spook, some of your comments have a valid points, such as when you said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The problem here, however, is that numerous means were used to improve side protection, with mixed results;

sandbags, lumber planks, logs & branches, etc. Even the steel railing mounted to hold sandbags on some M4's was

extensive enough that the shaped-charge might've come into contact with that first, and disrupted the metal jet. How

to account for all of this in a consistent way?

I couldn't say for now. But I could say that any future consideration of Allied vehicle protection in CM II would have

to look further than used by one tank regiment in one armored brigade.

<hr></blockquote>

I was merely using 4/7 Dragoons as an example, Spook. I agree that some consistent method needs to be created to handle the problem of extemporised or improvised armour. Most wargames rules that I am aware of, handle this in an abstracted manner, merely giving a modifier if the vehicle has such applied. However, before that has been addressed, perhaps there needs to be some means by which individual vehicles need to be portrayed, to take into account the variation within units, which quite often occurred. Either way, I do not believe that there should simply be the sort of blanket statements which I've seen uttered here that "no Allied tanks had this" or even "all German tanks had Schutzenplatte". Indeed, how does the system take into account whether schutzen is present or absent from a particular vehicle?

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Delaforce's book does not suggest 'if not more', and nowhere does it say or imply or even mention 'organised manner' and 'field workshops'.

QED - happy to oblige. As I said, you are making the stuff up, because it suits your agenda.

You are jumping to the conclusion that 'most' means the regiment. Even so, one regiment out of three in the Brigade. So less than one third of the Shermans in the Brigade. Shurely this important field mod had an immeasurable impact on the campaign in Europe from the time of the Rhine crossings, when it was implemented on up to 2% of the Commonwealth tank force.

You have also declined to address my point that Delaforce mentions several tank kills from 'Bazookas' after this magical modification was introduced, and not a single case of it defeating a round. He explicitly mentions one Panzerfaust round being defeated by extra (welded) armour plate though. Delaforce also fails to give a source for his claim that 'most tanks were fitted'. The whole sentence does not fit into the para at all, and seems like an editing oversight to me The quotation from Captain Stirling ends in the para before.

So basically your case is resting on one picture (we have been there before) and an unattributed statement in a Patrick Delaforce book, those tomes of learning about the 21st Army Group. Somehow that fails to impress me, and your tendency to compare apples and oranges, as well as jumping to conclusions, or claiming for a book to say things it does not, does not do your argument any good, to put it mildly.

Just jumping to conclusions, immediately complaining about a pro-German bias, and basically withholding the part of the evidence that does not support your argument, or dismissing it if brought up by somebody else, is poor debating. Try harder. You may start to convince someone if you get the war diary from 4/7th Dragoons and start quoting the no doubt numerous occasions the diarist mentions the superb performance of bits of wire against German shaped charges in March and April 1945. Until then, you can as well leave it, as far as I or anyone serious about this is concerned.<hr></blockquote>

I will reply to you Brian when you reply to Andreas. In case you missed his post, I have included it above.

[Michael Dorosh]

Gee, Brian, we are all positive that BTS is taking notes on all this stuff, for that CM II game dealing with NWE slated for...well, it's not really on the slate yet, is it?

How about we give it a rest? Slapdragon's post was brilliant, your posts, unfortunately, put you in the same league as Iron Chef Sakai. But your punctuation and spelling are much better.

Honestly, take a look at how any other game - especially ASL - dealt with the matter of Schurzen vis a vis sandbag armor. It was not modelled in Allied tanks, but was modelled on German ones.

You lobby for changes, but give no reasons why they should exist. If your conclusion is that more research is needed - well then we agree with you. So what is the point?

[Battlefront.com]

Brian,

Man... that axe you have been grinding for months now is practically down to just the but end of the handle. Why oh why do you waste so much valuable time in such a useless and unproductive manner? It is obvious to EVERYBODY that you are not only blindly pro-Commonwealth, but you are horribly ignorant about US and German issues. In fact, you don't even CARE about them judging by your own direct statements. So... could you please tell me why on Earth we should take any of your uneducated, poorly formed ramblings with anything but pitty for a life obviously hijacked by blind obsession?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They, or rather Steve, admitted that they got it wrong for the smoke round for the 95mm CS Howitzer, why slavishly believe they got it perfect for everything else?<hr></blockquote>

Nobody is slavishly believing anything of the sort. Well, except that you are slavishly believing that we are a bunch of knobs and you are superior than us and everybody else here. Brain, you have made more factual errors about far fewer things in your postings than we have in the entire game. What platform of credibility do you therefore stand upon?

The fact is we missed out on the smoke round. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a Commonwealth round. It was missed just like many other things US and German were missed. If you think anybody is capable of getting all the thousands of things in CM right on the first go... you are crazier than I already think you are.

The fact is that when someone points out a mistake we take a look to see if they are correct. If they are, we say so. If we were still supporting code updates we would fix it, just like we fixed many small mistakes post release. Don't believe us? Check out the ReadMe files for all the patches and then come back and challenge us with some facts.

Also, I might point out that it took 18 months and tens of thousands of players to spot this error. If it was SO bloody obvious, why did it take so long?

And why oh WHY do you keep demanding that we waste our valuable time debating you about issues that are in the past as if they are current and pressing right now? For future releases? Come off it. We aren't likely to recover the Western Front for 3 or 4 years. Do you REALLY think we should drop everything we are doing now to respond to your ramblings now? Is your ego that big that you feel we need to be here to stroke it daily?

And with that I go back to my unproductive "silence" and continue to do more painfully difficult research into Hungarian TO&E. But of course we only care about German or American stuff so this will take all of 3 and a half minutes to do

Steve

[argie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brian,

Also, I might point out that it took 18 months and tens of thousands of players to spot this error.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Interesting... You almost said it, Steve

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: argie ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Gee, Brian, we are all positive that BTS is taking notes on all this stuff, for that CM II game dealing with NWE slated for...well, it's not really on the slate yet, is it?

How about we give it a rest? Slapdragon's post was brilliant, your posts, unfortunately, put you in the same league as Iron Chef Sakai. But your punctuation and spelling are much better.

Honestly, take a look at how any other game - especially ASL - dealt with the matter of Schurzen vis a vis sandbag armor. It was not modelled in Allied tanks, but was modelled on German ones.

You lobby for changes, but give no reasons why they should exist. If your conclusion is that more research is needed - well then we agree with you. So what is the point?<hr></blockquote>

haha, thanks for the compliment dorosh, but i see your once again taking the easy way out of an argument by simply complaining about the lack of a bibliography left in ones post to "proof read".

simply stating something does not make it fact dorosh. your welcome to your opinions, but being so linear in thought is constantly highlighted in your posts. i would like ot know who made you the ultimate authority on other people opinions and posts, and if your going to include a small list of your friends, again might i add on a computer forum, then you have already proved my point. i think you should be more tolerant of other peoples thoughts and opinions, just because someone may disagree with you, does not make them wrong. and just because someone does not leave a bibliography of suggested reading for you to catch up with everyone else on a certain subject does not make it false as well. i never leave bibliographies because i always assunmed that most people on here already knew everything about ww2 and those that did not, soon would, no big deal. you have a point with my spelling dorosh, but i have a question for you, what does my typing have to do with a world war? you seem to construct scarecrows or false men, ie false arguments that corelate nothing to an actual subject ot tear them down. when someoen brings a point up that your ignorant to, you have to rsort to commenting on spelling? you may as well comment on your shuffle board game last week or somethiing, makes about as much sense.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software

Brian,

Man... that axe you have been grinding for months now is practically down to just the but end of the handle.

Why oh why do you waste so much valuable time in such a useless and unproductive manner? It is obvious to

EVERYBODY that you are not only blindly pro-Commonwealth, but you are horribly ignorant about US and German

issues. In fact, you don't even CARE about them judging by your own direct statements. So... could you please

tell me why on Earth we should take any of your uneducated, poorly formed ramblings with anything but pitty for

a life obviously hijacked by blind obsession?

<hr></blockquote>

*SIGH*, Steve, if we are going to get into personal attacks here, perhaps I should ask why are you so bloody super-sensitive that you interpret my remarks as being, "blindly pro-Commonwealth"?

Tell me, do you interpret JonS or Simon Fox as being "blindly pro-Commonwealth" for also posting on matters Commonwealth? I know I've gotten up your nose for some of my comments in the past, which I am only too willing to both admit that I made in rather a heated moment and which I am also quite willing to apologise for.

However, I take exception at your characterisation of my as being "blindly pro-Commonwealth". It appears some get upset when I make a truthful statement that I'm not interested in matters American. Sorry, thats merely the truth. I find the US military boring. It seems that some people get upset when I mention that. Thats their problem, not mine. I am quite willing to criticise the British/Commonwealth armies, indeed, if such a thread was to come up and I'd be quite cheerful in doing so. However, it hasn't, yet.

Now, as to why you should pay attention to my remarks, thats your choice. I'm not asking you to. However, you never know, you might, just might learn something - unless of course you already believe you know it all? I'm constantly learning a great deal here, I am only too willing to admit. I don't claim to know it all, by a long shot.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

quote:

They, or rather Steve, admitted that they got it wrong for the smoke round for the 95mm CS Howitzer, why

slavishly believe they got it perfect for everything else?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nobody is slavishly believing anything of the sort. Well, except that you are slavishly believing that we are a

bunch of knobs and you are superior than us and everybody else here. Brain, you have made more factual errors

about far fewer things in your postings than we have in the entire game. What platform of credibility do you

therefore stand upon?

<hr></blockquote>

Steve, I don't believe you are a "bunch of knobs". I do believe you are a bunch of wargamers and programmers who have have created a good game. I also believe that you have made mistakes in your portrayal of the British/Commonwealth armies. However, that doesn't make you a "bunch of knobs". Nor do I believe I am necessarily superior to everybody else here. I do however have a body of knowledge which I bring here, as do others. I am willing to place that body of knowledge at your disposal, if you want it.

As to factual errors, mmmm, I could compile a list, just as I'm sure you'll claim you could compile a list regarding my posts.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The fact is we missed out on the smoke round. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a

Commonwealth round. It was missed just like many other things US and German were missed. If you think anybody

is capable of getting all the thousands of things in CM right on the first go... you are crazier than I already

think you are.

<hr></blockquote>

Steve, I'm more than willing to agree that you got a great deal right but that does not mean that mistakes should be glossed over. The mea culpa on the smoke round for the 95mm CS How was quite refreshing. An admission from on high of error. Yet, there have been several other things pointed out, in the short time I've been here, which you've also not made similar admissions of error on. Look, I'm not interested in criticising CMBO for the sake of criticism. I am interested in criticising it so that you get it right the next time around, that the same mistakes are not made, again and that new information is fed into the design process so that new editions of the game are much improved. Yet it appears when I do so, I'm told I'm being "blindly pro-Commonwealth" by you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The fact is that when someone points out a mistake we take a look to see if they are correct. If they are, we

say so. If we were still supporting code updates we would fix it, just like we fixed many small mistakes post

release. Don't believe us? Check out the ReadMe files for all the patches and then come back and challenge us

with some facts.

<hr></blockquote>

I will do so, if I can find them. I am well aware that you're not updating the code, which is why I am not asking for things to be fixed in CMBO. I am however, as I said, looking forwards to future editions of CM, where this information might be of some value.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Also, I might point out that it took 18 months and tens of thousands of players to spot this error. If it was

SO bloody obvious, why did it take so long?

<hr></blockquote>

Good question. If, as you claim, I'm "blindly pro-Commonwealth" I should be going through the game with a fine-toothed comb, trying to find each and every error. However, I am not. When I notice something, I comment on it. I don't go seeking errors, nor do I endlessly playtest the game in order to discover them. Yet, merely because I am forceful in my viewpoint, I'm told I'm "blindly pro-Commonwealth". Sheesh. Tell, is Slapdragon "blindly pro-American" becuase of his now (in)famous statement that, "US Artillery was the best in WWII"? I suspect not.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

And why oh WHY do you keep demanding that we waste our valuable time debating you about issues that are in the

past as if they are current and pressing right now? For future releases? Come off it. We aren't likely to

recover the Western Front for 3 or 4 years. Do you REALLY think we should drop everything we are doing now to

respond to your ramblings now? Is your ego that big that you feel we need to be here to stroke it daily?

<hr></blockquote>

I do not make such "demands". I have made the point that you had not graced us with your presence nor an explanation, as far as I was aware about why improvised and anti-HEAT skirts for the Allies had not been included. I was under the impression that this BBS was an avenue of contact between the designers and the players.

Have I been misled? That aside though, for the moment, a great many of my questions and so on, I have increasingly become aware have in many cases already been covered in earlier threads, which I have been reading with considerable interest, since I noticed they were available. Indeed, I'd suggest that part of the problem I do have is that there is only this sort of tantalising little bit of communication, rather than the information I do want - which is, I suppose primarily about the decisions that you did make, as to why you decided to include A and not B or why C is missing.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

And with that I go back to my unproductive "silence" and continue to do more painfully difficult research into

Hungarian TO&E. But of course we only care about German or American stuff so this will take all of 3 and a half

minutes to do

<hr></blockquote>

I'll simply say that I look forward to CMBB.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

[/qb] Either way, I do not believe that there should simply be the sort of blanket statements which I've seen uttered here that "no Allied tanks had this" or even "all German tanks had Schutzenplatte". <hr></blockquote>

Back to making things up again Brian, are we? Where has that been said?

The reason BTS and others take JonS and Simon Fox seriously is because they don't make their arguments up. Have a guess at why nobody takes you serious.

Instead of having a general go at BTS, why don't you come up with some proof for your assertions from that other post, you know, about the workshops, 'one regiment if not more' and all that?

I am not surprised you don't like Slapdragon. It must be harsh to be called to task again and again. Here's a hint how to avoid it - get that basics right first, and stop making things up.

[Simon Fox]

I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously!

Lost in all this brouhaha is the really interesting questions of when, who and how frequently.

In reality of course the best answer to 'bazooka' toting Jerries is to Besa the buggers and every hedge, copse, wall, house, hole they could be hiding in. Unfortunately you area fire is really point fire at the moment which somewhat restricts this really useful prophylactic technique.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously!

Lost in all this brouhaha is the really interesting questions of when, who and how frequently.

In reality of course the best answer to 'bazooka' toting Jerries is to Besa the buggers and every hedge, copse, wall, house, hole they could be hiding in. Unfortunately you area fire is really point fire at the moment which somewhat restricts this really useful prophylactic technique.<hr></blockquote>

Of course it is. Yet, this obviously didn't work as well as they'd have hoped, otherwise, why the provision or need of "anti-bazooka" armour?

BTW, I can't take you seriously, Simon, now that I've learnt what your mode of transport is.

[Tero]

Originally posted by machineman:

I see the Finns went to much greater lengths, adding concrete as well to the mantlet plus logs to the sides.

Actually also the Germans and the Soviets used logs as an ad hoc ad on protection on the vehicle sides.

[Kurtz]

But what if a Bren tripod was stowed on the outside of a commonwealth tank, wouldn't that have have a chance of acting as a sort of Schürzen?

[Kingfish]

Shreck wire was very popular and in high demand during the last months of the war. In fact, one regiment sent to refit found that all the wire had already been used, leaving them nothing. Forced to improvise, they instead welded Bren tri-pods onto their tanks. Apparently there were thousands of these just laying around.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

Shreck wire was very popular and in high demand during the last months of the war. In fact, one regiment sent to refit found that all the wire had already been used, leaving them nothing. Forced to improvise, they instead welded Bren tri-pods onto their tanks. Apparently there were thousands of these just laying around.<hr></blockquote>

That's absolutely true, by the way. I saw a sketch of one in a Men At Arms book on tanks, so there you have proof positive that 95% of Allied tanks were so equipped.

[Andreas]

Please note how Brian has now decided to abandon any pretence of debating the evidence at hand (i.e. Delaforce's book), and instead resorts to Debating 101 - If shown that you don't have a leg to stand on, repeat your point ad nauseam, in the hope that you drone out the other voices.

Plus ca change.

[Battlefront.com]

Brain wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>*SIGH*, Steve, if we are going to get into personal attacks here, <hr></blockquote>

Well, I am only responding back in the spirt of your posts. You have shown an utter lack of comprehension about how rude, insulting, and downright disrespectful you are of pretty much everybody (especially us), so it comes as little surprise to me that you don't understand my tone with you.

I have two choices... ignore you or point out how silly you are. Usually I just ignore you. It is more productive.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>perhaps I should ask why are you so bloody super-sensitive that you interpret my remarks as being, "blindly pro-Commonwealth"?<hr></blockquote>

Note that I don't attack other people pointing out Commonwealth errors we have made. Hmm... gee... perhaps you might want to ponder that thought for a while.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yet, there have been several other things pointed out, in the short time I've been here, which you've also not made similar admissions of error on.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not aware of us ducking anything since your time here. I am VERY aware of several "errors" which you have pointed out that you have utterly failed to document or debate rationally. The Bren tripod discussion will go down in the history of this BBS as one of funniest of all time.

I think that in two years time we will look upon your "contributions" as fondly as we do Oscar's. He was truly a classic

Brian, as others repeatedly point out... you are a poor researcher and debater. You appear to want to argue for the sake of arguing. And when you clearly can't prove your case you attack those who are helping expose that fact. Either that or you ignore them. Coupled with your exceptionally poor attitude, your credibility is about as low as it can be. Apparently you are the only one that doesn't see that. Pitty.

Steve

[jgdpzr]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

No some Stugs carried a 6 inch thick piece of concreat on their lower hull. Concrete has a resistance of about 0.15 steel vs KE and 0.35 verses HEAT.

KE 2.2cm

CE 5.33cm

SO its not much use aggainst 76mm guns but it would be stoppping 75mm rounds and Bazookas when added to the original plate.<hr></blockquote>

Are you sure it was the lower hull? I know of early stugs having concrete poured and then smoothed in the angled box-like areas on the upper hull to each side of the gun. That was the only concrete I was aware of.

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I think that in two years time we will look upon your "contributions" as fondly as we do Oscar's. He was truly a classic <hr></blockquote>

Tch. That blows a hole in my "forum vet" qualifications, because I had basically forgotten about that guy.

"Peiper" & Manieri, though; now there was a pair who were accomplished at stirring a pot without adding much to into it.

[Battlefront.com]

Ignoring the silliness of this thread for a second...

Anybody with even an ounce of impartiality would notice that no field modifications were included in CMBO, with one CRITICAL exception. The hedgerow cutters, which were applied to US and Commonwealth vehicles, were in fact simulated. Why? It should be obvious to anybody who really wishes to understand this issue instead of putting yet another chip on his shoulder...

Field modifications were, by their very nature, diverse. Rarely were such modifications made to large numbers of vehicles in any consistant manner. We would go crazy if we had to simulate every hairbrained field modification made by various tankers of all nations. Remember, field modifications were common to all armies, not just the Commonwealth.

Field modifications were also often applied only for a short period of time and not maintained or applied to replacement vehicles for the same unit even. So you might find 3 tanks of a single squadron with this or that modification for a one month period. But before and after, none.

Most of the modifications we've seen were also totally ineffective and done largely for psychological reasons. There is plenty of evidence to support this and has been discussed in the past several times. So even if we were to simulate various "common" modifications there would be no practical change in the way the game played out. So what is the point?

The one exception, as I noted at the beginning, are the hedgerow cutters. The reasoning is so pathetically simple that I'm surprised even the most biased minds here couldn't figure this out for themselves:

1. It worked as designed.

2. It was applied in HUGE numbers very rapidly. We are talking hundreds of tanks, making it a rather large proportion of the then current standing AFV force. IIRC the figure was in excess of 50%.

3. The results of 1&2 are clear as day -> it totally changed the course of the war at that particular juncture. In other words, it had a huge impact on the outcome of the Normandy Campaign.

4. The modification design, numbers applied, and results are very well documented. Any questions we had about these devices, including numbers applied, were fairly easy to locate.

If there are any other modifications which fit the four points above, we are totally unaware of them. I would go so far as to say that the reason for that is because no other field modification in CMBO's timeframe even comes close to being as important as this device. In fact, I would say that there probably was no other field modification in the history of WWII that was as important or significant as the hedgerow cutter.

Arguing for a small scale ad hoc field modifications because some other type of tank had a factory applied solution (over a period of 2 years!) is just being silly (or biased). Arguing for small scale ad hoc field modifications as if that is equivalent to a factory produced vehicle is even more silly (or biased). Arguing for modifications because we supposedly added a small production run vehicle, which we in fact did NOT include, is just laughable.

Steve

[Andreas]

Steve, I think you are going a bit harsh here on poor Brian. He has after all caused the history of WW2 to be rewritten as we speak. His amazing discoveries include the following:

1. the utter incapability of Rommel as a general (only good because of his intel - of course Allied generals were all geniuses, to whom ULTRA was but a nuisance, and who despised intel because it got in the way of doing the job well and is unsporting).

2. German Sturmtruppen of 1918 were the equivalent of your local footy team, and just let into the British defenses out of kindness.

3. Australia's army liberated the Pacific by itself. It repeatedly had to bail out the hapless Americans though.

4. The Bren Tripod, marvel of weapons development, envy of the Wehrmacht. There is a quote by Keitel, snapped up during the Champagne reception when he surrendered to the Australian ambassador in Karlshorst - 'Vizout ze Bren Tripod, zer vould haf been no Australian Wiktorie in Normandy, mein Herr.'

5. Finally, his master-piece, the discovery of the groundbreaking role of chickenwire on the Australian tanks crossing the Rhine in 1945. With the keen sense of the outbacker, the Aussies had that itching feeling that the east bank would be crawling with Hitlerjungen wielding Panzerfaeuste. They therefore liberated lots of hens for supper (and other things, sheep being a scarce commodity in the Rhineland), and then used the now superfluous wire of their (the hens', not the Aussies') cages to make their tanks immune to the shaped charge. Thus equipped, the Australian Army broke out into the North German plain, destroying the German army on the Vistula, and liberating Berlin. Being a generous people by nature, they invited the Red Army to join the parade. But then Sergej, the driver of Zhukov, started the Cold War by nicking a Castlemaine XXX from Private Bruce. All this and more deduced from a random quote and a single picture in a second rate book.

Spengler would bow to Brian, as would Tuchman. Marshall pales next to him.

[Battlefront.com]

Spook:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Tch. That blows a hole in my "forum vet" qualifications, because I had basically forgotten about that guy.<hr></blockquote>

Shame on you Oscar was one of the first and finest of his kind this BBS has ever seen!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"Peiper" & Manieri, though; now there was a pair who were accomplished at stirring a pot without adding much to into it.<hr></blockquote>

You got that right. But at least Oscar was trying to make some sort of point, flawed as his attempts were. At the very least he gave us a few really good laughs and then went away. Peiper and Manieri never really made anybody laugh and both had to be punted out (repeatedly). Ah... the memories come flooding back

Steve

[Spook]

Well, I'm going to have to put my head back into a meatgrinder over a few of the following comments.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Anybody with even an ounce of impartiality would notice that no field modifications were included in CMBO, with one CRITICAL exception. The hedgerow cutters, which were applied to US and Commonwealth vehicles, were in fact simulated. Why? It should be obvious to anybody who really wishes to understand this issue instead of putting yet another chip on his shoulder...

Field modifications were, by their very nature, diverse. Rarely were such modifications made to large numbers of vehicles in any consistant manner. We would go crazy if we had to simulate every hairbrained field modification made by various tankers of all nations. Remember, field modifications were common to all armies, not just the Commonwealth.

(snip)

The one exception, as I noted at the beginning, are the hedgerow cutters. The reasoning is so pathetically simple that I'm surprised even the most biased minds here couldn't figure this out for themselves:

1. It worked as designed.

2. It was applied in HUGE numbers very rapidly. We are talking hundreds of tanks, making it a rather large proportion of the then current standing AFV force. IIRC the figure was in excess of 50%.

3. The results of 1&2 are clear as day -> it totally changed the course of the war at that particular juncture. In other words, it had a huge impact on the outcome of the Normandy Campaign.

4. The modification design, numbers applied, and results are very well documented. Any questions we had about these devices, including numbers applied, were fairly easy to locate. <hr></blockquote>

I by & large agree with the premise argued for the inclusion of the bocage cutters (although I've still yet to see records of a Universal carrier with such a device, or a few other odds & sods smaller Allied tracked vehicles, as they can in CMBO in post-June '44).

I have to qualify, however, the "clear as day" point #3, because IMO, it isn't quite as clear to me in having a "huge impact" in my prior readings. The cutter mod certainly helped; anything that improved the mobility & deployment of Allied tanks in the bocage had to. But I am inclined to add that the steady attrition of the German frontline troops, the much improved Allied tank-infantry coordination & combined arms by July '44, expanded Allied aerial interdiction, and the Allied logistics buildup all had comparable impact in helping the German lines to collapse post-COBRA.

All of this diverts a bit from the point of the cutter mod inclusion at CM's scale, because on the tactical level, the cutter mod could have a real impact. But on the higher operational level, the cutter mod was but one of a multitude of factors in play for the Allies. I am compelled to point that out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Field modifications were also often applied only for a short period of time and not maintained or applied to replacement vehicles for the same unit even. So you might find 3 tanks of a single squadron with this or that modification for a one month period. But before and after, none.

Most of the modifications we've seen were also totally ineffective and done largely for psychological reasons. There is plenty of evidence to support this and has been discussed in the past several times. So even if we were to simulate various "common" modifications there would be no practical change in the way the game played out. So what is the point?

<hr></blockquote>

Wellllllll..............

The point of the matter is that if "field mods" for Allied vehicles were applied on a widespread, diverse scale, then it shouldn't be overly surprising that some Allied gamers would like for some such mods to be accounted for in some way. Even if a field mod was to improve an Allied tank's survivability to smaller ordnance by only 5-10%, some gamers would still like to see the option.

The trick is --- how to? First off, per your earlier point, what were the measurable benefits of such field mods, supported by reports or even tests? Without that, trying to account for applique protection could get to be a dart-throwing exercise of no value and wasted time.

One "measurable" practice that does comes to me for me is the 1944-45 practice of welding added plates to the hull & turret sides of M4 tanks at select locations (not the entire side). The benefit? Probably minimal against the more powerful German ordnance and shaped-charged weapons, but against smaller ordnance, it may had made some difference. I don't have exact records on how many M4's received applique plate, but my available photographic references seem to indicate an extensive application --- perhaps even greater than for the bocage cutters. The latest M4/76's seem to have allowance of this in CMBO, but it seems less so for the various earlier M4/75's. I'll follow up with a check of the game later tonight to confirm.

Again, asking BTS to account for every version of applique armor protection, and accounting for same in a relatively realistic way, would be asking far too much. But I would be concerned about seeing a fully dismissive stance taken now on Allied vehicle applique protection in entirety. If a viable means to model something in the future CM II can be had ---- good. If not, well, that's OK too, as long as the issue was first given some consideration to deal with. Applique armor protection won't be enough to help out CM II players who still practice poor armor tactics anyway.

Of course, that's years down the pike.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]</p>