Jump to content

A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission


Recommended Posts

I think your view of just how fast and agile most WWII-era armored cars could move off-road, and how quickly they could change speed and direction, may be a bit optimistic.

To use the M8 Greyhound as an example, top road speed may have been about 55mph, but speed cross country was certainly far less than that; the M8 actually didn't have a great reputation for off-road handling. And with with a 110hp engine, it didn't exactly jump off the line, either. (For comparison, an M4 Sherman actually has a better hp/wt ratio than an M8)

Now, surely the M8's speed and smaller size would have at least some effect on its chances of getting hit. But in most situations I think this effect would be relatively small. And it's also much more vulnerable; in many cases, even shrapnel from a near miss or MG fire can knock it out. At long ranges and if the AC has a good long stretch of road on which to build up speed, I can see it the speed/size/agility attributes being a more significant factor. But this would be a fairly rare situation, especially in Normandy.

Now, the fact that CMx2 allows us to dismount the AC crew and recon on foot should make them more useful -- race forward, get the vehicle in defilade, and send the crew on foot to peek over the rise...

I'm assuming an M8 is cheaper than a Sherman. Still better to lose one of those scouting than a tank. Surely there has to something faster than a Sherman for cross country scouting???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the fact that CMx2 allows us to dismount the AC crew and recon on foot should make them more useful -- race forward, get the vehicle in defilade, and send the crew on foot to peek over the rise...

Ok so this brings up another question ... If you dismount your vehicle crew first then it gets destroyed, is it still considered "gamey" to use the crew for recon? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming an M8 is cheaper than a Sherman. Still better to lose one of those scouting than a tank. Surely there has to something faster than a Sherman for cross country scouting???

M5 Stuart, certainly. Definitely faster than a Sherman, and probably faster than an M8 in most off-road situations (i.e., any terrain more rugged than a golf course).

Again, most WWII AFVs didn't exactly break any speed records when tooling around off-road, so I wouldn't expect it to be a huge factor, but it's probably worth something, and in certain specific situations, it might be worth a lot. For example a Greyhound or a Stuart might be just enough faster than a Sherman to make it across a gap between two buildings before an AT gun can get a shot off. Sometimes, seconds count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-8, like most armoured cars had two advantages, one a small profile, compared to a tank and secondly, and often overlooked, they were quiet, compared to tracked vehicles especially at low speeds. Conversely, thin armour and comparatively poor off-road performance, unless in dry conditions, made them road-bound, where thin armour and an open topped turret made them very-vulnerable to ambush, especially mines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i always thought the Greyhound was the fastest AFV in the US even cross country but what you're saying makes sense. It's been so long since I've done any WW II gaming or even reading...but that will change soon. I'm pre-ordering tonight. :-)]

On road yes, 58mph and as this clip shows quite a mover in hard dry conditions

Alas, a host of features, ment if it ventured off road it often ended up like this.

Similar criticisms of the M-8 could also be levelled at the Sdkfz-222 though, which was often replaced by the Sdkfz 250, in poor terrain and/or lacking a good road network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I need a person to show me how to use this quotes system, i.e. a step by step idiots guide! For those who remember my constant appeals about modding, you know what I'm after, and also what you are dealing with!!

You click quote and everything between "["QUOTE"]" ... "["/QUOTE"]" will be quoted (without the "" of course). You can delete the text in between but not the brackets or the slash or the word QUOTE. There is also a preview post for you to experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your view of just how fast and agile most WWII-era armored cars could move off-road, and how quickly they could change speed and direction, may be a bit optimistic.

To use the M8 Greyhound as an example, top road speed may have been about 55mph, but speed cross country was certainly far less than that; the M8 actually didn't have a great reputation for off-road handling. And with with a 110hp engine, it didn't exactly jump off the line, either. (For comparison, an M4 Sherman actually has a better hp/wt ratio than an M8)

Now, surely the M8's speed and smaller size would have at least some effect on its chances of getting hit. But in most situations I think this effect would be relatively small. And it's also much more vulnerable; in many cases, even shrapnel from a near miss or MG fire can knock it out. At long ranges and if the AC has a good long stretch of road on which to build up speed, I can see it the speed/size/agility attributes being a more significant factor. But this would be a fairly rare situation, especially in Normandy.

Now, the fact that CMx2 allows us to dismount the AC crew and recon on foot should make them more useful -- race forward, get the vehicle in defilade, and send the crew on foot to peek over the rise...

Fair enough, thanks for that info - point being, I didn't know what their speeds were, just that most AC descriptions said "using their speed for protection" and I've never seen one ... get away with it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That latest turn with the tank crew pistol battle (not that such a thing is typical) is exactly what makes this game different than anything else I have played. It really involves you in all of these small little stories taking place across the battlefield in chaotic unscripted glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually had something happen similar in a battle a few weeks back. A Sherman that was assisting infantry in clearing German defenders out of bocage got a little too big for its britches and went ahead of its infantry escort. It was fairly quickly knocked out by a panzerfaust. All of the crew survived and bailed... into a fire storm of close range German small arms fire. They held out for three minutes, clustered around their stricken tank and firing away with their .45s and grease guns. Help wasn't coming quickly though, and they went down - 2 KIA, 3 WIA (the WIA were evacuated later when they infantry caught up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting AAR, giving a few looks at the beauty of CM:BN, i had never expected.

A few questions came to mind:

1. Is splitting of crews possible? (in reality 1 leaving the vehicle for spotting seems most common)

2. Will we see flying tank-turrets?

3. AT-guns/guns muzzle visibility: since with CM:BN a very realistic placement away from the treeline has become possible, are different smoke/gunfire signatures of the guns modelled, when it comes to spotting?

4. Will we get a few video-bones before the release? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is splitting of crews possible? (in reality 1 leaving the vehicle for spotting seems most common)

No.

2. Will we see flying tank-turrets?

No. From what I understand, this doesn't even really apply to the Western Front, it's more of a T-34 thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is splitting of crews possible? (in reality 1 leaving the vehicle for spotting seems most common)

I would really have liked that feature too. Hopefully in one of the later versions

2. Will we see flying tank-turrets?

That sounds like sci-fi ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like sci-fi ;-)

Tank turrets blowing off when ammo blew up was not exactly uncommon. In fact, Germany's leading tank ace had that happen to him.

4523909859.jpg

Vehicles that do more than simply open hatches and smoke will be nice to have eventually. I think Steve said they were hoping to do them in an expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent observation. It's funny... I know all the nuts and bolts of how the game works under the hood better than anybody except for Charles (he BETTER know more about them than anybody else or we're all sunk :)) and yet I have a problem answering a simple question like:

"What is so important about Relative Spotting?"

or

"What is the biggest difference between CM:BN and CMBO?"

Holy crap... where to start?!? There's dozens and dozens of extremely long answers I could give to either of these questions, yet at the end the reader might not really get how different the game feels. Laundry lists of features, explained in full detail, just doesn't capture what Capt here just stated so nicely. As I've said more times than I can count, end results from player actions in CMx2 have inherently less certain outcomes than CMx1. Which should say something because it's not like CMx1 was an easily predictable game!

I too have been completely bitten by the "advance all my guys at once, I'm sure that will do it" way of thinking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is a disaster. And that's the way it is in real battle.

I'm reminded of a story about the Polish armored division trying to cross a big field that had a slight rise in it. There was a Pak40 somewhere in the treeline on the opposite side. It was well protected by MG fire so the accompanying infantry wasn't able to do anything except get chewed up. So they moved a couple of tanks up and BOOM, they lost a couple of tanks. They decided to rush the enemy position and this lead to more tanks destroyed because they couldn't find the AT Gun before it had holed them. I don't remember how they finally knocked the gun out, I just remember that despite overwhelming odds in their favor, they came out with a far worse result than statistically they should have. CMBO would have probably yielded a result closer to the statistical prediction, CM:BN more likely as the real battle turned out.

Steve

We came in contact once heading out to a job site. Bad guys were actually a trigger team on a IED they had set up on our morning approach. Luckily they fumbled the ball and detonated too early..premature ejaculation is a bitch.

We got lucky and tracked a couple teen spotters who got nervous and ran. This led to us getting into a growly with the trigger team (4-6 fighters). Standard procedure is to engage with SA in an attempt to fix and call in the Heavy Rain.

Well in the middle of the opening round this old guy with a pet goat on a rope walk right into the middle of the firefight like it was a Sunday stroll.

We check fire as we have a civie on the field. The old guy or goat must have been connected because the bad guys check fire too. Suddenly it was like someone hit the pause button on the whole thing till grandpa and his goat walk past. Then we open up on each other all over again.

Combat isn't chess. It is a bar brawl. Ears get bitten, eyes get gouged. Then one guy farts..we giggle, and start up beating the hell out of each other all over again.

It is the ultimate human expression. It is terrifying, it is exciting, it is sad, it is hilarious and everything in between.

CMBN is game but it does create an atmosphere damn close to the real thing sometimes. It is chaotic and at times frantic. And the tension that all creates before contact is more intense.

Enjoy, I know I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, thanks for that info - point being, I didn't know what their speeds were, just that most AC descriptions said "using their speed for protection" and I've never seen one ... get away with it ;)

I think the problem here is that the advantages of the AC mostly come to the fore on the operational level and not at the level that CM usually depicts. They were great at doing road reconnaissance and screening of flanks ahead of the movement of larger forces, say corps or larger. Thus their speed was useful in that they could cover a lot of ground in a limited time and pop up where not expected. They were armed heavily enough to be able to fight their way through enemy troops that were disorganized and/or in retreat. If they came upon a more serious defense or roadblock, they would report it to heavier forces then break off and seek other avenues of advance, a tactic they were good at due to their speed.

Similarly in the screening role, they could cover avenues where an enemy advance was anticipated, and when contact was made report and then employing their superior speed break off and assume another observation point.

While this can be modeled in CM, it would be hard to make it into an interesting game, especially for two players. Most of the time, recon troops simply were not used for the kinds of shootouts that CM handles best.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minute 16

Never forget that your soldiers do not belong to you, but to Germany. Personal glory hunting and senseless dare-deviltry lead only in exceptional cases to success, but always cost blood.

From the German Army pamphlet: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand!

I was to blame. It was me that placed 1st Platoon’s HQ Tank, with its broken gun, in harm’s way with no way to defend itself. It was me that also positioned it in such a way that made it vulnerable to attack.

Looking at this image it appears that HQ Tank is protected and covered by the lifeless hulk of Tank 4.

5581350010_c057a0dcd6_b.jpg

However, as you can see in the image below, when Warren’s M-10 suddenly appears in view HQ Tank is exposed. The white arrow points to Tank 4, the red to HQ Tank.

5580762553_d3ecafdcbd_b.jpg

From around 690m HQ Tank was fired on by the M-10 (and this was the full strength TD, not the wounded vehicle that got chased off AA2). The tank was hit twice, but it really only took one round to knock it out. After the second hit, for some reason it took 30 seconds or so for the remaining crew to bail. I guess they were collecting their belongings.

Note the open doors and the peek at the interior of this tank:

5581350084_e7e95f8271_b.jpg

Now I blame myself for this, for this simple fact; if I had placed HQ Tank on the other side of Tank 4 I would have given it a better chance to survive. When I look carefully at the angles involved with the locations where I knew Warren’s tanks were, it becomes obvious that if I had placed the tank as indicated by the red tank in the image below I might not have lost it.

Always check the angles to your enemy when placing units behind cover.

5581350116_6c0998806d_b.jpg

The following image shows the unit movement for this turn. The dark red boxes indicate the positions of the moving units at the end of the 16th minute.

Note that for 1st Platoon Tank 1 will be moving up to where HQ 1 started which will allow

HQ 1 to move up to the woods where Crew 3 is performing buddy aid on their crew member who was shot down last turn.

Tank 4’s crew is moving toward a building in the objective area. I know... gamey bastard.

5581350134_30e0e5b7e4_b.jpg

The blue circle in the image above indicates where I now know Warren’s two surviving M-10’s are placed.

Next: Minute 17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think it was just as risky sending the crew as it would have been sending a whole tank? Perhaps even MORE risky? If one crew member dies (the driver, for instance), the tank is more or less useless. And the crew are not bulletproof and only have pistols, whereas a tank has two machine guns and armor. If there had been infantry in those woods instead of just crew, you could have essentially lost a tank (by loss of the whole crew) to nothing more than a single American with a Thompson.

Well, if one of those crewman had had an MP40, things might have turned out slightly different. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. From what I understand, this doesn't even really apply to the Western Front, it's more of a T-34 thing.

The turret of a tank is only held on by its weight so if all the hatches are closed I think the force of an internal explosion could quite easily lift the turret off.

The early T34's had a fairly small looking turret so maybe their turrets came off a bit easier than most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...