kenfedoroff Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 I just finished reading Flame Thrower by Andrew Wilson, the personal account of a commander of a Crocodile (Churchill) flame tank in France, Holland and Germany, 1944-45. Many of his actions involved simply area fire (with flame) in a broad swath on suspected enemy positions. I would like to see CM flame tanks be able to (some how) area fire (with flame only) a broad designated area. Wilson tells how he could never see a dug-in enemy so they would close in to flame range and expend their entire flame supply (about 2 minutes worth) while driving along, sometimes parallel to the enemy trench line, just hosing down anything that looked like cover. I have no idea what Soviet doctrine was for flame tanks, but I imagine it may have been similar. With the present CM game engine, I don't seem to get the same effect as what Wilson describes in his book. Sincerely, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 You mean some sort of strafing command? That would be nice. Sometimes you just get more firepower in a minute then you need and shifting between areas being fired at would be nice. Would be nice for MG supression duties aswell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 ...and another thing... If a CMBB force has one of those AC(radio) vehicles, he should be able to designate a target for his Stuka dive bombers. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by kenfedoroff: ...and another thing... If a CMBB force has one of those AC(radio) vehicles, he should be able to designate a target for his Stuka dive bombers. Ken Unless I'm mistaken, they are supposed to represent armored cars that had long range HF sets for communicating with Rgt/Div when they were 30-40km behind enemy lines. Nearly all aircraft used VHF sets, so they wouldn't be able to talk to aircraft. In NW Europe, I know the Allies used "contact cars" which were armored cars specially outfitted with radios that could communicate with the flyboys. They usually had a pilot with them to speak flyboy-ese and better guide the pilots in. I don't know if this ever was the case in Russia. [ August 28, 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: IntelWeenie ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Unless I'm mistaken, they are supposed to represent armored cars that had long range HF sets for communicating with Rgt/Div when they were 30-40km behind enemy lines. Nearly all aircraft used VHF sets, so they wouldn't be able to talk to aircraft. OK. My bad. Thanks for the info. A while back I was reading how forward elements of an Axis attack in Russia had a dedicated vehicle to communicate with the Stukas. Now I have to try and remember which book that was in... duh. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by Tweety: You mean some sort of strafing command? Yes, that could be one way to order flame suppression. With the present order system, I can't get my flame tanks to hose down a (broad) designated area, which is what it appears they did on a routine basis. With the present order system, you can't get the full effect of what a flame tank can do. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Would they not normally have communicated by smoke signals (that's how they did it on Leros in 1943)? I can imagine radio to be quite useless, because 'that clump of woods 200 yards NNE from our forward position' does not look markedly different from any other clump of woods, and where the heck is your forward position anyway? While if you pop a red smoke grenade onto the target, everyone's a winner. Except for the guys who are wondering why they have red smoke emanating from their trench. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Yep, strafing fire w. moving flamethrowers would be cool. ISTR a bit of footage with a couple of wasps hurtling along setting the world on fire. Quite obviously, I want to recreate this in a CM battle. [ August 29, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: ISTR a bit of footage with a couple of wasps hurtling along setting the world on fire.Yes its in the black and white prologue to "A Bridge Too Far" (and maybe other places). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Could this be some sort of way to do it: you can give several area fire targets to your unit. The unit then fires a shot at one, targets the next one, until the last target, then starts the cycle from start again. This way a tank or a cannon or a flamethrower could better suppress a wider area with less wasted ammo. Another way would be to highlight a target area, but I don't know how that could be implemented so that the AI actually does what you want it to do and which is easy to put into the interface. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: While if you pop a red smoke grenade onto the target, everyone's a winner. Except for the guys who are wondering why they have red smoke emanating from their trench. And THOSE are the safest men on the battlefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Would they not normally have communicated by smoke signals (that's how they did it on Leros in 1943)? I can imagine radio to be quite useless, because 'that clump of woods 200 yards NNE from our forward position' does not look markedly different from any other clump of woods, and where the heck is your forward position anyway?Well, they use radio now with fast movers, so it must be both possible and practical 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 From what I know, smoke, recognition panels (even ones with swastikas) and other means (including radio and flag signals) have been used since early on in WWII for coordination of battlefield tacair strikes. The problem is not everyone might have the same info of what the smoke might indicate (friendly or enemy positions?). I'm sure there were SOPs, but if that were the case, why were there any friendly fire incidents?? Throw in general battlefield confusion, weather conditions, etc. plus the fact that it's hard to ID targets when you're moving at 200+ mph and maybe more worried about not hitting the ground then you are hitting the right target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Originally posted by kenfedoroff: Wilson tells how he could never see a dug-in enemy I sure wish that CM modelled dug-in infantry like that too. Trenches and foxholes are waaaaay to visible as it is. /SirReal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 <font size=34>START...THE <font color="purple">PURPLE!!!!</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I want flame tanks in CMII to be more like the flame tanks of Close Combat 2--the ability to charbroil men and then see their flesh burn. I want to bring fear into the eyes of my opponents when he sees me in my Hetzenflammen strolling down main street. Is this viable in the next engine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I want flame tanks in CMII to be more like the flame tanks of Close Combat 2--the ability to charbroil men and then see their flesh burn. I want to bring fear into the eyes of my opponents when he sees me in my Hetzenflammen strolling down main street. Is this viable in the next engine? I don't know, but in the meanwhile we could tie you to a stake and toss lighted matches at you if that will help you get into the spirit of the thing. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Well, they use radio now with fast movers, so it must be both possible and practical Radio, GPS and laser guided weapons, you mean 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Would they not normally have communicated by smoke signals (that's how they did it on Leros in 1943)? I can imagine radio to be quite useless, because 'that clump of woods 200 yards NNE from our forward position' does not look markedly different from any other clump of woods, and where the heck is your forward position anyway? While if you pop a red smoke grenade onto the target, everyone's a winner. Except for the guys who are wondering why they have red smoke emanating from their trench. That is a means of designating the target, usually used in conjuction with radio to direct the incoming strike aircraft (usally the sequence is: FB: "Please fire smoke to designate target!" AC: "Smoke fired!" FB: "I see red smoke!" AC: "Confirmed, red smoke!" And the fighterbomber would then attack. At the same time, FEOT (Forward Edge Own Troops) would also have to be designated. In WWII, this was often done with colour cloth or in the case of the Germans, a national swastika flag. However, you still had to call up the FB on radio, to get it to come to your area and you could direct it to the vicinity of the target, utilising landmarks and/or air recognition panels. The Germans developed this to a very exact science, well before the Allies in the Spanish Civil War when von Richtofen worked out his system. Interesting, it was done without radio links between the air and the ground. Those refinements only came later. The book It Doesn't Snow in September whose author escapes me at the moment has some accounts of the German air controllers around Arnhem in 1944 and their use of ideosyncratic German to direct the attacking fighterbombers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: The book It Doesn't Snow in September whose author escapes me at the moment...Robert Kershaw? I want to get that book, but it has eluded me so far. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Becket: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: While if you pop a red smoke grenade onto the target, everyone's a winner. Except for the guys who are wondering why they have red smoke emanating from their trench. And THOSE are the safest men on the battlefield. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Both on Leros, and in another account I have on the battle for the Baltic islands in 1941, the Germans did use their air support as artillery replacement, with quite good accuracy, judging from the reports. The Stuka was capable of a CEP of about 30 feet under ideal conditions. Despite the claims of many Typhoon pilots, very few tanks were hit with rockets. One suspects that their rockets' CEP was a great deal larger, which is why they tended to saturate an area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.