Guest Martin Cracauer Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 The penetrations are probably all weak spot penetrations. Not that uncommon and distances < 100m are not uncommon as well when you rush with many tanks. Historically, most disabled King Tigers on the Western Front were due to airplane rockets (says the panzermuseum web site). The KT should probably treated like a semi-mobile pillbox. Too bad you can't move barbed wire in CMBO :=) If you add the cost for the neccessary flank security against many-small and few-big threats to the cost of the KT, things look quite realistic... I wonder whether someone managed to walk a KT in formation with flank support through the enemy in a way that it was unstoppable. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by The Commissar: Large numbers of Stuarts were common. The Allies tended to mass-produce their tanks and the one of the main advantages they had over the Germans was sheer mass. I think most Cav units used Stuarts, if Im not mistaken. Plus regular Army. So they were very common. Commissar, I believe the Stuarts by the time of Normandy were mostly used as light recce, liaison and command tanks. There were a lot of them around for sure, but at least the Commonwealth did not use them offensively anymore, because they knew they were too weak. In Commonwealth recce units with a combat mission (ID Recce Rgt or AD Recce Rgt, as opposed to Recce troops in independent Brigades) Stuarts were not part of the combat formations, AFAIK. They had Daimlers, Staghounds, Humbers (with turret and 2pdr, if those were still around in 1944) (ID) or Cromwell or Sherman medium tanks (AD). ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Just to balance things, I did have an opportunity to rush a lone Tiger I with three Stuarts from all sides simultaneously at VERY close range. The little furball lasted for about five turns. At the end of it all the Stuarts were in flames. Even when they were blazing away into the flanks and rear of the Tiger from under 30m, they just couldn't get that kill. The fact that they were scared to death of it and kept popping smoke and backing out didn't help matters. So they don't always work... ------------------ "Za Rodentia!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blenheim Posted March 20, 2001 Author Share Posted March 20, 2001 Ok, some points... 1. For grognards and people talking about lack of balance: that game was one of those "let´s waste our time watching huge BOUUUMMMs everywhere" match. Nothing realistic, by any means. Just building up something completely unbalanced, a heavy fest.... I know, I made the mortal sin of being ahistorical and doing stupid things with glamorous ubertanks... Whatever . 2. I lost that match, of course.... but I was damm unlucky. Apart from the stuarts, I lost a JagTiger due to a Sherman 75 mm gun hit at 800 m.... A frontal hit. Imagine. 3. And yes, I prefer playing following the sacred conventions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: In Commonwealth recce units with a combat mission (ID Recce Rgt or AD Recce Rgt, as opposed to Recce troops in independent Brigades) Stuarts were not part of the combat formations, AFAIK. They had Daimlers, Staghounds, Humbers (with turret and 2pdr, if those were still around in 1944) (ID) or Cromwell or Sherman medium tanks (AD). South Alberta Regiment (recce regiment of 4th Canadian Armoured Div) had some Stuarts. They were equipped as a standard armoured regiment, though, despite their recce designation. I believe one or two were used offensively at Kapelsche Veer in January 1945, to support the infantry. This was a rare exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: South Alberta Regiment (recce regiment of 4th Canadian Armoured Div) had some Stuarts. They were equipped as a standard armoured regiment, though, despite their recce designation. Sorry for the confusion - with combat formation in this case I meant the Squadrons within the Regiment. AFAIK the Stuarts were in the Recce Troop with Squadron HQ. Stuarts were ubiquitous, although, as Simon Fox kindly pointed out to me, a lot of them may have been turretless versions armed with an MG. I obviously agree with you that they were not used offensively by the Commonwealth at this point except for rare occasions. As for 'the mortal sin of ahistorical play'™ - there is no such thing. But to come in and complain about gamey play in a fun-shoot 'em up is a bit rich, wouldn't you agree? Someone's trying to have their cake and eat it... ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: Sorry for the confusion - with combat formation in this case I meant the Squadrons within the Regiment. AFAIK the Stuarts were in the Recce Troop with Squadron HQ. Yes, good distinction to make, and 100 percent correct. As for 'the mortal sin of ahistorical play'™ - there is no such thing. But to come in and complain about gamey play in a fun-shoot 'em up is a bit rich, wouldn't you agree? Someone's trying to have their cake and eat it... CM is many things to many people - part of its appeal, but also part of its frustration for those who feel it should be played the way they themselves play it. See the recent thread on withdrawing troops from the map during play rather than fighting to the last man. No such thing as ahistorical play? One could argue there is no such thing as historical play - but I won't do so here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: No such thing as ahistorical play? One could argue there is no such thing as historical play - but I won't do so here! No such thing as a sin of ahistorical play... ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: No such thing as a sin of ahistorical play... Ah - "sin". Seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 I always like the story in one of Ken Touts book where a Stuart is doing recce in front of an armoured column in Belgium or Holland and spot a roadblock up ahead. They park the tank, dismount (something recce vehicle crews OFTEN did) and sneak around through a farmyard and spot a bunch of Germans lurking behind a hedge in ambush. So they go back and get the .50 cal they have on the AA mount on the Stuart turret and not having a proper mount they lash it to an old wagon wheel they find in the farmyard. Having set themselves up they then proceed to shoot the Germans up and the survivors flee. The roadblock is cleared without further ado. hehe On the subject of the Stuart recce, it would be great if BTS changed the name from Kangaroo, thus saving us a lot of whining from the Babs direction and also armed it with at least one MG. Then you could use it for carrying a recce section around (if you had one). ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: On the subject of the Stuart recce, it would be great if BTS changed the name from Kangaroo, thus saving us a lot of whining from the Babs direction and also armed it with at least one MG. Then you could use it for carrying a recce section around (if you had one). That would be an elegant way of simulating actual recce troops; I like it. You could simulate a recce troops by filling the Stuart Kangaroos ("Honeys") with half squads, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemx Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Never purchase more then ONE King Tiger. It should be used defensively with a good line off sight. Also supported with infantry and light tanks some mark 1vs and a few pumas. That Russians wave tactic of stuarts or german player using mass puma attack can be beaten easy. Think small support vech and smaller armor and you will do better. For the price you paid for 3 KT you could have put into hetzers,Mark IVs and stugs and that stuart rush be toast. Defense in DEPT is the only way to defend - forget the concept of foward defense - throughing everything up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 I wouldn't say this is gamey at all...ahistorical maybe, but there's no reason why any CO willing to sacrifice 75% of his Stuarts to take out the KTs wouldn't do this. It would be gamey if the Stuarts had a magic charm immunizing them from Axis AT rounds. Small nitpick of mine is all... Originally posted by Blenheim: Ohhh... yeah... I was kind of gamey at the 3 BFG cats at that part... But imagine how at any scenario 12 stuarts should work. I do that from time to time, and it's annoying for the German, really... "Hey, I got a Human/Stuart Wave attack!!!" And it's gamey. Imagine that you're inside on of those tanks, and somebody tolds you two lead 12 of them against a King Tiger, or whatever... Wowwwww. I'd like to hear the answer from the guy riding the Stu.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: CM is many things to many people - part of CM is many things to many people - part of its appeal, but also part of its frustration for those who feel it should be played the way they themselves play it. See the recent thread on withdrawing troops from the map during play rather than fighting to the last man. What thread is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts