Broadsword56 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Just was looking for where I read about the TC's and their small arms, but can't find it. The way the game does it sounds just fine, and I'm sure it was a matter of considerable debate even among the real tankers whether it was better to be in or out. Maybe the overwatching TC was an early practice that faded after enough TCs got shot and they became more savvy about self-preservation than projecting a courageous image to their crew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Correct about it being a very bad thing to tailor the game's behavior towards an "outlier" situation vs. standard practice. I can't think of any 1st hand accounts of a TC using his SMG at close range. Turret mounted MG? You bet. If a TC was close enough to hit something with a SMG that he couldn't hit with one of his MGs... panic maneuver would be a much more useful thing to do most of the time. In fact, SMG/pistol ports were pretty standard on most German tank models early on, but not in later models. Why? Because they found them to be of more theoretical use than actual use. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Could you guys recommend a good book about armor/combined forces tactics in WW2, that doesn't get overly technical? All of these little nuances really fascinate me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Could you guys recommend a good book about armor/combined forces tactics in WW2, that doesn't get overly technical? All of these little nuances really fascinate me. I referenced this on the reading reference thread the other day (and it's written by a CM player, too): *Steel Victory: The Heroic Story of America's Independent Tank Battalions at War in Europe, by Harry Yeide (Presidio Press, 2003). The "independent" in the title refers to those battalions that served in direct support of infantry divisions throughout the 1944-45 campaigns, rather than the ones in armored divisions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdogg Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Correct about it being a very bad thing to tailor the game's behavior towards an "outlier" situation vs. standard practice. I can't think of any 1st hand accounts of a TC using his SMG at close range. Turret mounted MG? You bet. If a TC was close enough to hit something with a SMG that he couldn't hit with one of his MGs... panic maneuver would be a much more useful thing to do most of the time. In fact, SMG/pistol ports were pretty standard on most German tank models early on, but not in later models. Why? Because they found them to be of more theoretical use than actual use. Steve The Panzer Aces is a some first hand accounts of german tankers. Also talks about a few situations where the crews fended off close assualt by russian infantry with SMGs and grenades. They were in PIVs and would fight from the top and side hatches. From the book it seemed pretty effective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Minute 4 Part 1 1st Platoon Orders I love Tank 1’s position so he stays where he is, with his narrow cover arc set to take best advantage of where I know the enemy Sherman Platoon is located. Behind his double tree line he should he hard to hit, and perhaps tough to spot as well. Tank 2 I am moving to the tree line indicated below to try to get a shot or two off. Tank 3 has taken two hits so far and I’m lucky it’s still drivable. I order it to reverse and then reposition up the tree line a ways to get a better, less exposed angle. The HQ tank I am going to run up this stretch of heavy woods to try to get eyes on AA2 and perhaps a shot at the M-10 sitting on the ridge in case 2nd Platoons Tank 1 fails to bag it. Tank 3 Well, I guess his time was up… just when it started forward again after reversing, BAM. From another unseen shooter. That smoke is playing havoc with my sighting. Tank 2 Tank 2 reaches the tree line, sights three Shermans and an M-10 slightly hidden behind some trees… this must be our mystery shooter. No wonder I couldn’t see him. As I have said, in CMBN woods provide excellent concealment. Tank 2 fires at the Sherman M4A1 HQ tank to what looks to be no effect. The Sherman fires back and knocks out Tank 2 with one hit. Tank 1 Tank 1 in its excellent position has this firing sequence against Sherman 1 (M4A3): That is three hits on this one M4A3 all from approximately 530m. By the second hit this Sherman was popping smoke like mad and started to reverse. Right after the third shot hits it I lose LOS due to the increasing smoke. I am going to continue this turn later (maybe tomorrow), and start a discussion on why the rounds from my Pz-IVH’s can’t seem to penetrate these damned Shermans. Next time we will also discuss what befell 2nd Platoon. Next: Minute 4 – Part 2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Correct about it being a very bad thing to tailor the game's behavior towards an "outlier" situation vs. standard practice. I can't think of any 1st hand accounts of a TC using his SMG at close range. Turret mounted MG? You bet. If a TC was close enough to hit something with a SMG that he couldn't hit with one of his MGs... panic maneuver would be a much more useful thing to do most of the time. In fact, SMG/pistol ports were pretty standard on most German tank models early on, but not in later models. Why? Because they found them to be of more theoretical use than actual use. Steve I brought up the point originally for historical accuracy as every book I have read about WWII tankers the SMGs were ALWAYS referenced. But off-hand I cannot remember a single instance of an SMG being used against the enemy. Usually they were referenced as part of the equipment lugged around or more frequently in regards to cock-ups where crew accidently discharged them getting into or out of the tank. Are we going to see crew members shooting each other or themselves when they bail out? <--- not a serious question. It sounds insane for a TC to be using a SMG against enemy threats from the turret. The panzerfausts/schreks were a terrifying thing for the allied tanks up close. I can't imagine a TC that spotted one saying "Would one of you good chappies pass me that Sten. I have spotted a Jerry and am going to give him a whallopping." No. He would be talking to his crew to move the tank and shoot the hell and of whatever he saw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Trees look great! Kudos to the graphics team! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm inclined to take back my opinion and state that this is starting to seem really strange that the Shermans are apparently immune to 75/48...I was expecting the occasional shell to bounce off but taking several clean hits numerous times to no apparent effect...tsk... Hailing rexford to this thread, can you read me rexford? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm also curious as to what exactly is the new information that has resulted in such a significant change from CMBO. Was the formula wrong? Has Bill been very unlucky? I know hit location is more detailed now, but it seems the Sherman is tougher all across the front. I guess we'll find out tomorrow. It's alarming to me how helpless my favorite tank from CMBO looks against it's most common foe. I'm thinking I may have to bring along some Big Cats most of the time when playing as Germans, something I almost never did in CMBO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm also curious as to what exactly is the new information that has resulted in such a significant change from CMBO. Was the formula wrong? Has Bill been very unlucky? I know hit location is more detailed now, but it seems the Sherman is tougher all across the front. I guess we'll find out tomorrow. I'm somewhat alarmed at how helpless my favorite tank from CMBO looks against it's most common foe. I'm thinking I may have to buy Big Cats most of the time when playing as Germans, something I almost never did in CMBO. CMBO is too long ago to remember but from a lot of the Normandy CMAK scenarios (v human players) the PIV never goes well toe to toe against Shermans in this period. I haven't followed this too closely but when I first read lotsa PIV vs lotsa Shermans I thought lookout PIVs. There are similar discussions to this in the German tank vulnerability thread. Is this a quick battle where both sides used all their points? It may be a case that the point balance between the tanks is slightly off. Whenever I was playing CMAK as Germans in two player QBs I typically went with Panthers. I felt PIVs were too vulnerable and difficult to use well. Groups of them can often get killed real quickly for no return. Tigers are OK but they are expensive (especially if rarity is on) and human players are usually smart enough just to avoid them if they look like causing too much trouble. Therefore Panthers hit the sweet spot in the middle. Not entire relevant but also the penetration "stats" that are missing from this soon to be released title also made the PIV appear better than it actually played out in the CMAK game in my opinion so I would not simply fire up those old titles and look at the stats. The number of times I looked at the armour penetration values and ranges after losing PIVs and thinking statistically I should have got a better result was pretty common. PIV + skirts is still my favourite looking tank though. T34/85mm is second simply due to fond memories of absolutely shredding an opponent once. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, I would say that appearances can be deceiving. That and I am pretty sure Charles & Co. did their homework on this one- knowing all of us collectively as they do... What the hey, maybe we are witnessing the first chapter in the re-education of the Common Wargamer, aka "Obsessivus Grognardium Historicus". Stranger things have happened - after all, Frank Chadwick, Don Greenwood and James Dunnigan got all their information from the same sources as the rest of the world. Come ON! It'll be FUN!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Did I just invent a new term there? "What's the big guy's problem Jack?" "Oh, don't mind him, he's just OGH..." "Oh, right! Hmmm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Hailing rexford to this thread, can you read me rexford? Sadly, Rexford passed away some years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sadly, Rexford passed away some years ago. What? No, damn, that's bad. I had no idea...He was a great contributor, RIP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I have been told that if you break into the Kubinka tank museum in midnight, cover your naked body with tank engine lube and drink up a Molotov's coctail, then chant "achtung, achtung, Panzer kommt" for a few minutes, you will be able to present three questions to Rexford. Try it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Bit late to the show but I can see your pics now, Bil. The earlier ones are still hidden but I believe it's to do with where I'm living rather than anything to do with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm inclined to take back my opinion and state that this is starting to seem really strange that the Shermans are apparently immune to 75/48...I was expecting the occasional shell to bounce off but taking several clean hits numerous times to no apparent effect...tsk... It's still a very small number of hits to go on. Doesn't have to be a very big fluke to produce these results. Hailing rexford to this thread, can you read me rexford? Word has it that Lorrin Rexford Bird passed away some years back. The number of times I looked at the armour penetration values and ranges after losing PIVs and thinking statistically I should have got a better result was pretty common. It's a false impression of advantage though. All else being equal, the gun that can barely get through is not inferior to the gun that can get through with a wide margin. As long as they both get through, as is the case here, they are equally effective guns. Also, if others are like me, it takes a while getting used to factoring the armour angle. Even though my brain knew what's what, I subconsciously still valued thickness over angle. If you peer over the CMx1 penetration data, the difference between 0, 30 and 60 degrees shows this to be colossal error. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sergei, if that is indeed the only way to settle this debate, I am up to the task. Not even close to the craziest of dares. I wonder if I would make it to the headlines if caught? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Nah ZPB, they would just say you were another "crazy Finn" and let it go at that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 ZPB2, in case you weren't aware, Kubinka is still considered very much a sensitive military area. You would not so much get caught as riddled with bullets. How can that not be the craziest dare? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 ZPB2, in case you weren't aware, Kubinka is still considered very much a sensitive military area. You would not so much get caught as riddled with bullets. How can that not be the craziest dare? In light of this recent information I have to move this scenario up a few notches on the crazy scale. All I know is that the Parola armoured museum in Finland wasn't guarded well at all since nobody would want to steal rust. Many moons ago I while sneaking abooot the premises with my father and it was really close that we didn't get driven over by the lead T-72 gunning it in the forest. My father was feeling nostalgic and wanted to see some damn rock that he had fond memories of. Speaking of crazy and stupid stuff, I uhh....hhmm....someone who wasn't me had a friend of his "borrow", on separate occasions, a military Land Rover and an ambulance. The story has it that they offroaded these vehicles in a small village somewhere, powersliding on parking lots and an empty playground and some jogging trails while wailing on the sirens. All this while the passengers were hanging out of the windows drinking beer. Those young and very stupid hooligans, uhh, whoever they might be... It was fun though. I still remember some of the confused faces on people. I have no idea how nobody ever got caught. When I was in the army we used to drag race CV90s. There was one collision, several damaged barrels, prisms and one blown engine. I admit that everything aforementioned is ****ing stupid so no need to mention that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think you guys will find Bil's next post to be particularly interesting One thing to keep in mind is that the penetration data that you see is all based on the assumption of the round hitting the plate square on. In a real (or simulated) engagement this is very unlikely to happen. Just like a few degrees in slope can make the difference between a ricochet and a penetration, oblique angles also do that. Which means the less "overmatch" Weapon A has against Plate B in perfect test conditions, the more it is affected (usually negatively) by the less than ideal real world. As you will see, the Sherman M4A3 has far more room to take on real world variations and still kill a PzIV than the PzIV has in taking on a Sherman. Which is why the Panthers do so much better... they overmatch the Shermans quite handily offensively and defensively (at least from the front). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 These AARs have almost become essential reading if you want to understand the environment and play the game well. Coming from CMx1 background i was impressed by two things playing CMSF (CMx2) last night: 1) platoon leader hiding behind a wall had to UN-HIDE to see enemy units (in CMx1 they would constantly hide and everything would be visible). This may sound obvious but the act of having to UN-HIDE a unit in order to spot was a new concept to me even after reading and understanding the relative spotting concept. 2) Walls in CMx2 can actually be used to provide cover , could actually run a squad along behind it and see incoming rounds ricochet off the wall. Crouch down , HIDE and my squad was out of harms way. Again sounds so obvious but in CMx1 i just didn't have this level on control , could not use a wall to sneak behind. CMx2 totally changes the way i interact with the environment. I'm sure there are 100s of these little things still to be discovered. Bil's post regarding hiding in trees is another example. Wouldn't have understood this without reading this AAR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redken Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Correct about it being a very bad thing to tailor the game's behavior towards an "outlier" situation vs. standard practice. I can't think of any 1st hand accounts of a TC using his SMG at close range. Turret mounted MG? You bet. If a TC was close enough to hit something with a SMG that he couldn't hit with one of his MGs... panic maneuver would be a much more useful thing to do most of the time. In fact, SMG/pistol ports were pretty standard on most German tank models early on, but not in later models. Why? Because they found them to be of more theoretical use than actual use. Steve Major General Maurice Rose was shot by a German TC / MP-40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Rose http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/rose.index.htm 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.