White phosphorous

[sburke]

Noticed on page 86 of the online manual it mentions White phosphorous as a smoke option. I have read a number of reports where US tankers learned to use WP to blind German tank gunners and in some cases even cause them to bail out. (IIRC many of these reports were from 4th Armored in Lorraine) In the reports I recall reading it would not be during the time period covered by CMBN, but is this behavior something that would be considered to be included for a Bulge period Module?

[Destraex1]

its actually a feature in COH - yes I know its a gamey RTS.

Their is an armoured car on the allied side that has a white phos ability that does exactly that.

[Hemostat]

I recall back in the CMBO days posting about hedgerow busting & how Shermans would bust through the hedgerow & plaster the corners with willie pete to take out the German machine guns. Combat Mission & I have come a long way since. Just purchased CM:SF & I am very impressed. I am really looking forward to the Normandy release. I play on a pc but my wife just got a new iMac. Deciding if I will play on the pc or the mac or both. It is very good to be back.

[Wodin]

Hemostat thats the way to do it...have ago at CMSF first...then you get to realise how good CMBN will be.

I'm starting to sound like a fanboy...rare for me...but it's just enthusiasm for a game that is closer to anything else in what i want in a game...

[John Kettler]

sburke,

"In the interwar years, the U.S. Army trained using white phosphorus, by artillery shell and air bombardment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

WP was hated by the Germans, and they used it on us, too, when they had it. I've seen footage from Sicily where our guys are advancing under WP mortar fire. Not pretty!

Here's what that same Wiki has to say about white phosphorus and Normandy:

"At the start of the Normandy campaign, 20% of American 81 mm mortar rounds were white phosphorus. At least five American Medal of Honor citations mention their recipients using white phosphorus grenades to clear enemy positions, and in the 1944 liberation of Cherbourg alone, a single U.S. mortar battalion, the 87th, fired 11,899 white phosphorus rounds into the city. The U.S. Army and Marines used white phosphorus shells in 107-mm (4.2 inch) mortars. White phosphorus was widely credited by Allied soldiers for breaking up German infantry attacks and creating havoc among enemy troop concentrations during the latter part of the war."

Clearly, it WAS available in the CMBN timeframe, and how I wish we had it. I've been asking for WP's inclusion for years, and CMBN would've been the perfect place to introduce it. Tanks typically carried WP, rather than HC, for smoke, and there's even a KIng Tiger kill by a Sherman I read about. The Sherman had WP up the spout when it ran into the KIng Tiger, fired, set the outer vehicle storage ablaze, whose smoke got sucked into the tank. The crew, thinking the tank was burning, abandoned its perfectly fine tank.

WP WAS used, and I fail to see why it isn't available to us as something more than mere smoke, if indeed we have it at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sakai007]

I find it odd that we have WP in everything else down to 51mm mortars, but not in all tanks. It is helpful that some of them carry WP as part of their load, but it seems random to which ones get it.

[John Kettler]

Hemostat,

Welcome back!

Sakai007,

Am confused by your comment. Are you referring to CMSF or CMBN?

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Dang it was a long time ago I posted that.....

It wouldn't help much, we do not get to chose the ammo load to fire on a target so even if we had WP, we couldn't use it to target an opposing armored vehicle. Would be cool, but then we'd use it far more than I think it was ever really used at the front.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

At the very least, I think U.S. artillery and mortars ought to have it, rather than plain smoke.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fizou]

JK,

I believe that is simulated at the moment. Allied smoke will kill but not always (atleast from artillery) can someone else confirm this as well?

If its perfect the way it is now is aother matter.

[YankeeDog]

sburke,

At the very least, I think U.S. artillery and mortars ought to have it, rather than plain smoke.

Regards,

John Kettler

You should read the unit info panel more closely. Some Allied artillery/mortar types (e.g. U.S. 81mm mortars) do come with WP smoke as their primary smoke round.

Note that WP smoke can also cause casualties to nearby infantry when the shell bursts (though it is not as effective at doing so as regular HE)

[womble]

You should read the unit info panel more closely. Some Allied artillery/mortar types (e.g. U.S. 81mm mortars) do come with WP smoke as their primary smoke round.

Note that WP smoke can also cause casualties to nearby infantry when the shell bursts (though it is not as effective at doing so as regular HE)

I didn't think (based on previous discussions here on the subject) there was any modelled difference; it's all treated like a base fuse smoke discharging canister, and any smoke round 'burst' can cause casualties.

[YankeeDog]

I didn't think (based on previous discussions here on the subject) there was any modelled difference; it's all treated like a base fuse smoke discharging canister, and any smoke round 'burst' can cause casualties.

Well, that would suggest that all smoke rounds are *not* treated like base-ejecting shells, since base eject type smoke shells would be the least likely to cause casualties. It's certainly not impossible for a base-eject shell to cause casualties, but is very unlikely. Since the burster charge in a base-ejecting shell is very small, you'd basically have to be right next to it when it went off, or actually be hit by the projectile, to be injured. I suppose secondary projectiles if the shell hits something frangible on impact could also be a source of casualties. In any event, IME casualties from smoke shells landing amongst infantry are fairly common in CMBN, far more common than what I would expect to see from base-eject shells. I also see casualties happening at considerable distance from the smoke shell impact in CMBN (2 action spots or more), which is not something that you'd be likely to see from a base-eject shell.

It is interesting to speculate if and/or how the game models the difference between WP and HC smoke. Problem is, as far as I know there is no system in the game that overtly models 2 different types of smoke shells, and allows the player to control same. So we can't compare, say, a 105mm WP smoke screen vs. a 105mm HC base-eject smoke screen in-game, and compare the differences in terms of casualties caused to nearby infantry, characteristics of the smoke, etc.

IIRC, there was some speculation that smoke screens for larger caliber artillery (105mm+) the game actually models the use of a mix of HC and WP shells, which would make sense as this is how smoke screens are often laid IRL.

[akd]

They are modelled differently both in casualty potential on impact and in rate of smoke generation and dissipation (WP builds faster, but is less persistent).

[John Kettler]

So it's in the game, not in the AFV or with the DF weapons, nor with the troops? Fascinating! Am equally intrigued that WP doesn't seem to have the demoralization effects it had in real life, even if it does apparently produce casualties.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sakai007]

Hello John,

It was indeed CMBN I was speaking of.

British 2" mortars have WP rounds. If you look at your load outs in American M4's (at the very least) they will show that both regular and WP smoke rounds are on boards. They have the same targeting restrictions as regular smoke rounds (no buildings or hedges targeted directly) but they do indeed carry them. That qualifies as a direct fire weapon I do believe.

[John Kettler]

Sakai007,

Since I have only the demo, it appears I'm laboring under a misconception. In the battles I've fought, none of my AFVs has had WP listed, nor the mortars on map or 105s firing from off the map. No idea why you couldn't fire WP at either of the targets listed, seeing as how both were done in reality. Someone previously described their use in seizing hedgerows, and I sure don't want to be in a building when WP comes through the window and bursts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[mjkerner]

John, since you are obviously an afficienado of WWII and CM, you should just pop for the game. You certainly won't regret it!

[John Kettler]

mjkerner,

Correct on both counts, but I want to really understand what I'm doing before getting the game. I go back to the people who played the CMBO Beta Demo to death, and I am extremely marginal in doing things in this new game system.

Regards,

John Kettler

[mjkerner]

Well, you will love it when you do, I think.

Best regards.

[Sakai007]

I also had some issues making the jump between game systems. This was back when the CMSF base game was released so I have had the time to work on those It's a matter of using the system enough IMHO. It seems you have to do a lot more manually as far as planning movement (no 'seek hull down', 'shoot n scoot', or 'Move to contact') and to learn the proper way to manipulate waypoints to get a similar effect is a real effort.

Now the story is different, as I can't play CMx1 without all the things I prefer in CMx2 just screaming at me. You just can't go wrong buying CMBN, most certainly when you're already a fan of the game. You're really limiting yourself from really getting the CMx2 experience by only playing the CMBN demo. Those missions give you only a taste of the who game. Trust that we wouldn't steer you in the wrong direction

[John Kettler]

Sakai007,

I liked those commands and really miss being able to drag waypoints, too. I'm still very much in transition shock, and there are things like gun siting that make me want to scream. Nor do I understand why no attempt whatsoever was made to model field telephones, considering they had them in WW I! They would be a huge help on the defense, permitting the establishment of proper outposts to warn of enemy approach, rapid call for fire without worrying about command radii and much more. I love the visuals, but find troop control a nightmare. Simple formation commands should be in a game at this level and aren't: form column, form wedge, echelon left, echelon right, etc., rather than having to do all that yourself. Ridiculous! Also, I think that CMx1 from CMBB on had better fire control measures for tanks and such than CMBN does, starting with cover arcs that actually showed whether LOS was present. I wish, too, the various lines weren't so thick, for soon, you can't tell who's doing what. I'll find my feet. Eventually. That said, I yearn for ease of play in CMx1. So much easier to do things. Here, you have to micro manage--while not really having the tools to do it quickly and well.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

That said, I yearn for ease of play in CMx1.

Does CMAK not work on your computer?

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

My snowball iMac has been retired and donated. It simply couldn't handle much of anything anymore. My replacement is a 2 y.o. iMac Arlington, OS X 10.6.8, 3.06 Intel Core Duo 2, 256 MB VRAM, 4 GB RAM and 1 TB HD. New rig doesn't dual boot. I did some investigating, and I found there may be a way to still play my CMx1 games. That discussion is here http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104383

I had to get rid of the Snowball because I'm on disability and am allowed a computer, not two. I've got everything I need to make the emulator attempt, but have been very busy with my site, E-book release and promo, plus trying to figure out the CMx2 via the CMBN Demo.

Regards,

John Kettler