SPWW2 4.0

[Kyle Holgate]

New patch for SPWW2 is out - now up to 4.0. Check the Shrapnel game page (if I wasn't lazy I'd provide a link, but I am so I didn't ;))

[old_pop2000]

New patch for SPWW2 is out - now up to 4.0. Check the Shrapnel game page (if I wasn't lazy I'd provide a link, but I am so I didn't ;))

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Camo_Workshop/WW2/WW2_page.html

You are a day late and a dollar short, buddy. I've had that for a month. Just kidding.

The patch download is on the right.:p

[steel_selachian]

Finally got around to toying with this - man, do I really understand how ugly it was for Shermans to go up against Tigers and Panthers now. I took six companies of Shermans, Hellcats, Jacksons, and Chafees up against an SS Panther company backed by a company each of Jagdpanzer IV/70s and Jagdpanzer 38(t)s and got my head and other shrapnel-riddled bits handed to me.

Conversely, I set up a scenario that had me as a German commander dug in with a reinforced sPzAbt (45 Tiger IIs plus 4 Jagdtigers), a PzAbt of Panther Gs (50 tanks), a Jagdpanther company, a StuG/StuH contingent of Brummbars and StuG IVs, and a fair load of SP gun and rocket arty facing off against a Russian AI with about 150 IS-2m, ISU-152, ISU-122, SU-100, and T-34-85 backed by a dozen Katyusha launchers. Most of the Russian force walked right into a fire sack formed by two dug-in sPz companies with the Jagdtigers at the formation center; against 1 knocked-out Tiger II (to a Shturmovik; the AI found the southern King Tigers and hit them relentlessly for the loss of 11 aircraft to mobile flak) the AI lost 66 AFVs. It definitely pays a lot better to sit back in ambush positions.

[old_pop2000]

Finally got around to toying with this - man, do I really understand how ugly it was for Shermans to go up against Tigers and Panthers now. I took six companies of Shermans, Hellcats, Jacksons, and Chafees up against an SS Panther company backed by a company each of Jagdpanzer IV/70s and Jagdpanzer 38(t)s and got my head and other shrapnel-riddled bits handed to me.

Conversely, I set up a scenario that had me as a German commander dug in with a reinforced sPzAbt (45 Tiger IIs plus 4 Jagdtigers), a PzAbt of Panther Gs (50 tanks), a Jagdpanther company, a StuG/StuH contingent of Brummbars and StuG IVs, and a fair load of SP gun and rocket arty facing off against a Russian AI with about 150 IS-2m, ISU-152, ISU-122, SU-100, and T-34-85 backed by a dozen Katyusha launchers. Most of the Russian force walked right into a fire sack formed by two dug-in sPz companies with the Jagdtigers at the formation center; against 1 knocked-out Tiger II (to a Shturmovik; the AI found the southern King Tigers and hit them relentlessly for the loss of 11 aircraft to mobile flak) the AI lost 66 AFVs. It definitely pays a lot better to sit back in ambush positions.

Hi Steel:
The Germans, due to their experience on the Russian became past masters of defensive warfare. This why they gave us fits in France 1944. However, the Tigers and Panthers had numerous mechanical problems which forced their crews to abandon them. In a ratio of 5 Shermans to 1 tiger, we still had enough numbers to overcome the Tigers especially with air supremacy. Tigers make real good targets although rockets were inaccurate.

[Warship NWS]

The tank destroyers also need to be used with "shoot and scoot" tactics, ambushes, and flanking manuevers. Using them to attack tanks head on is near suicidal due to their less then adequate armor protection. Chaffees were nothing more then a light tank with a 75mm gun.. a cheaper version of the original M4 intended to replace the M3/5 Suarts with something that had a bigger gun. Great for killing trucks and half tracks but not much use against anything better then PzIIIs, or early PzIVs, in terms of tanks.

Overall.. unless your M4s have the 76mm gun with HVAP rounds you will be forced to flank the PzVIs/Vs to have any chance of surviving. Use air strikes and artillery to disrupt their visibility of your meneuvers and to reduce their numbers of engagement opportunities and then use the speed and maneuverability of your vehicles to shoot and scoot and snipe the German tanks when and where possible.

Thanks.

[steel_selachian]

Yeah, the problem in my US scenario was that the Germans were well-spread out enough that I didn't have a flank open where I wasn't going head-on over mostly open ground into enemy guns. When I played as the Brits (1 Guards squadron of Sherman V/VC, 1 cruiser squadron of Cromwell/Challenger, and 1 squadron of Churchills reinforced with an Achilles troop) versus a weaker German AI (3 Tiger Is, 17 Panzer IV Ausf. J, 9 Marder III, and 5 Panzer III Ausf. N) I set it on a bocage map. Lost half my Sherman Vs, but did a number on the Tigers and Panzer IVs by ducking through trees and shooting them point-blank where it counted.

True, the Tiger series was unreliable (although by the end of the war the Tiger IIs had a better mission-capable rate than the Panthers) and at the mercy of air attacks; still a couple units managed 10:1 kill:loss ratios with those kitties (with the "losses" including breakdowns and other causes). The thick armor was one thing, but the 88 was a plain scary piece of kit when it came to picking off Allied tanks. In the scenario I cooked up the Soviets took a lot of casualties once the center of their formation came out of the forest at map center and were facing my Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers over about a mile of open fields.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Yeah, the problem in my US scenario was that the Germans were well-spread out enough that I didn't have a flank open where I wasn't going head-on over mostly open ground into enemy guns. When I played as the Brits (1 Guards squadron of Sherman V/VC, 1 cruiser squadron of Cromwell/Challenger, and 1 squadron of Churchills reinforced with an Achilles troop) versus a weaker German AI (3 Tiger Is, 17 Panzer IV Ausf. J, 9 Marder III, and 5 Panzer III Ausf. N) I set it on a bocage map. Lost half my Sherman Vs, but did a number on the Tigers and Panzer IVs by ducking through trees and shooting them point-blank where it counted.

True, the Tiger series was unreliable (although by the end of the war the Tiger IIs had a better mission-capable rate than the Panthers) and at the mercy of air attacks; still a couple units managed 10:1 kill:loss ratios with those kitties (with the "losses" including breakdowns and other causes). The thick armor was one thing, but the 88 was a plain scary piece of kit when it came to picking off Allied tanks. In the scenario I cooked up the Soviets took a lot of casualties once the center of their formation came out of the forest at map center and were facing my Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers over about a mile of open fields.

Hi Steel,

It's a tactical gaming system with limited time and objective restraints. Recon forces don't have the time to seek flanks for you to exploit and then maneuver too. Another point is your force ratios. In British Army parlance, a squadron is a company sized unit unlike in the US Army where it is a battlion a battalion sized units......so your almost at 1:1, less when you figure vehicle quality. Unliess you can mass it's not going to be a pretty afternoon. : )
Were your platoons/troops of Shermans made up of two Shermans and a firefly?

[old_pop2000]

Hi Steel,

It's a tactical gaming system with limited time and objective restraints. Recon forces don't have the time to seek flanks for you to exploit and then maneuver too. Another point is your force ratios. In British Army parlance, a squadron is a company sized unit unlike in the US Army where it is a battlion a battalion sized units......so your almost at 1:1, less when you figure vehicle quality. Unliess you can mass it's not going to be a pretty afternoon. : )
Were your platoons/troops of Shermans made up of two Shermans and a firefly?

Hi Mike:
I have used armoured cars, and other such reconnaissance assets to scout down roads or unknown positions, but I agree that there really isn't game time enough to do much flank seeking. It really is about firepower and mass. In some of the desert scenarios, with no cover or concealment, it really gets down to moving forward with mine removal equipment, making holes in minefields, but doing so under fire from your own heavy guns. Once you have made the lanes, then it is fire and maneuver, with infantry support.

Defensively, again, fire and maneuver around strongpoints with tanks in support.

[steel_selachian]

Hi Steel,

It's a tactical gaming system with limited time and objective restraints. Recon forces don't have the time to seek flanks for you to exploit and then maneuver too. Another point is your force ratios. In British Army parlance, a squadron is a company sized unit unlike in the US Army where it is a battlion a battalion sized units......so your almost at 1:1, less when you figure vehicle quality. Unliess you can mass it's not going to be a pretty afternoon. : )
Were your platoons/troops of Shermans made up of two Shermans and a firefly?

Yeah, I kind of recognized that after the fact. The Guards troops were 50/50 mixes of Sherman Vs and Fireflies, but I had the six Fireflies in the squadron hanging back behind hedgerows for a potential ambush while the 75 mm-gunned Shermans did the "dogfighting." The standard Shermans actually got most of the kills; the Fireflies only nailed a couple stragglers that made it through after I pulled the remaining Sherman Vs north to cut off a couple Panzer IVs that tried to scoot around the mess on the main road. The main thing was the terrain; unlike the winter maps the bocage country limited firing ranges to the point where by the time the Tigers and Panzer IVs could get shots off it was essentially point-blank range. Also I had the Cromwells; they had something of a painful encounter with the StuG IIIs but after I decided to just zip around the assault guns at full tilt I had a good 10-12 medium tanks loose in the enemy rear with nothing more than a couple SS infantry groups for opposition.

[old_pop2000]

I've had to go to windowed instead of full screen to play the game. I use the 1600 x 1280 resolution and I get almost a full screen. Everything seems to work, but I haven't played all the scenarios yet. Some, might hang up.

[steel_selachian]

I haven't tried many of the historical scenarios; one I did check out was the one for Operation Chariot. Made me wonder how the bloody hell that job ever succeeded, although I can see why it was more or less a suicide mission.

[old_pop2000]

I haven't tried many of the historical scenarios; one I did check out was the one for Operation Chariot. Made me wonder how the bloody hell that job ever succeeded, although I can see why it was more or less a suicide mission.

There is a new patch 4.25 out.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Camo_Workshop/WW2/WW2_page.html

This is the main SPWW2 page, down on the right botton side, is the list of available patches and download.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Yeah, I kind of recognized that after the fact. The Guards troops were 50/50 mixes of Sherman Vs and Fireflies, but I had the six Fireflies in the squadron hanging back behind hedgerows for a potential ambush while the 75 mm-gunned Shermans did the "dogfighting." The standard Shermans actually got most of the kills; the Fireflies only nailed a couple stragglers that made it through after I pulled the remaining Sherman Vs north to cut off a couple Panzer IVs that tried to scoot around the mess on the main road. The main thing was the terrain; unlike the winter maps the bocage country limited firing ranges to the point where by the time the Tigers and Panzer IVs could get shots off it was essentially point-blank range. Also I had the Cromwells; they had something of a painful encounter with the StuG IIIs but after I decided to just zip around the assault guns at full tilt I had a good 10-12 medium tanks loose in the enemy rear with nothing more than a couple SS infantry groups for opposition.

Hi Steel,

Sounds frighfully realistic. : ) I don't have SPWAW, but have the later SPMBT. One of the problems with Steel Panthers is the scale of hexes. It is difficult to determine lines of sight as you move or try to use terrain to mask your movements. A shot at you is usually your first clue that something is amiss. No "sneak and peak" option I have played the 3D "Combat Mission" series which allows you to determine lines of sight from the game perspective. Even so, that system uses the same paradigm of victory hexes and time constraints which can make recon and maneuver difficult. But being able to see the battle from the TC's hatch of a Tiger stalking Shermans and Cromwells in Villers Bocage is a lot of fun.

[steel_selachian]

Frankly the most frustrating experience I've had so far was on a scenario I ran last night on a Polish countryside map. I gave myself a monstrous Soviet force - three Guards heavy tank companies of IS-2M (21 tanks, simulating a heavy tank regiment), 21 each of ISU-152 and ISU-122 (simulating two heavy assault gun regiments), 63 Guards T-34-85, 21 SU-100, 21 SU-76M, and a company each of Guards, desant troops (both embarked on the heavy assault guns), regular rifle infantry, and Cossack cavalry. Arty backup was a full battalion of BM-31s. I assaulted a German force of one 9-strong Jagdpanzer 38(t) company, 10 StuG M43 853(i) assault guns, a captured company of T-34-76s, a company of SS Ost infantry, three 47 mm AT guns, 3 captured Russian 122 mm light howitzers, and a Nebelwerfer 41 battery.

For "elite" units the Russian tanks had pretty atrocious gunnery; an example was one IS-2 repeatedly missing a Hetzer at 50 meters. Weight of numbers did the job, but coming to a score draw against what I set up as a crap force was a little disconcerting. Then again, I didn't use my hideous artillery edge as much as I probably should; I moved fast enough that the German rockets, howitzers and mortars never hit anything. Wasn't much for subtlety either - just advanced on a broad front with my T-34s and SU-76s on the south flank and the Cossacks to the north, with everything else going head-on at the enemy.

I think in general I'm just more used to RTS-style games where you can move entire formations of units at once in real-time. That's a huge help in launching flanking assaults and calling down air and artillery support. The other little dilemma I have is that there's no fighter support; aside from flak and vehicle AAMGs there's nothing to stop opposing aircraft from whaling on your forces. In the aforementioned scenario a CAP would have saved me from taking a couple of SU-100 and T-34 losses to a handful of Bf 110s and Stukas.

Spring 1944, which I've mentioned earlier, is a bit easier for me to work with - some of the realism is a little off, but you can take first-person command of units and drive them in real-time, which is extremely useful for exploiting terrain cover and LoS. I've set up Thermopylae-style defenses with tank destroyers and artillery and just slaughtered entire regiments of oncoming tanks that way; driving down a narrow pass right into a hunkered-down Jagdpanther company with clear shots at max range hurts.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Frankly the most frustrating experience I've had so far was on a scenario I ran last night on a Polish countryside map. I gave myself a monstrous Soviet force - three Guards heavy tank companies of IS-2M (21 tanks, simulating a heavy tank regiment), 21 each of ISU-152 and ISU-122 (simulating two heavy assault gun regiments), 63 Guards T-34-85, 21 SU-100, 21 SU-76M, and a company each of Guards, desant troops (both embarked on the heavy assault guns), regular rifle infantry, and Cossack cavalry. Arty backup was a full battalion of BM-31s. I assaulted a German force of one 9-strong Jagdpanzer 38(t) company, 10 StuG M43 853(i) assault guns, a captured company of T-34-76s, a company of SS Ost infantry, three 47 mm AT guns, 3 captured Russian 122 mm light howitzers, and a Nebelwerfer 41 battery.

For "elite" units the Russian tanks had pretty atrocious gunnery; an example was one IS-2 repeatedly missing a Hetzer at 50 meters. Weight of numbers did the job, but coming to a score draw against what I set up as a crap force was a little disconcerting. Then again, I didn't use my hideous artillery edge as much as I probably should; I moved fast enough that the German rockets, howitzers and mortars never hit anything. Wasn't much for subtlety either - just advanced on a broad front with my T-34s and SU-76s on the south flank and the Cossacks to the north, with everything else going head-on at the enemy.

I think in general I'm just more used to RTS-style games where you can move entire formations of units at once in real-time. That's a huge help in launching flanking assaults and calling down air and artillery support. The other little dilemma I have is that there's no fighter support; aside from flak and vehicle AAMGs there's nothing to stop opposing aircraft from whaling on your forces. In the aforementioned scenario a CAP would have saved me from taking a couple of SU-100 and T-34 losses to a handful of Bf 110s and Stukas.

Spring 1944, which I've mentioned earlier, is a bit easier for me to work with - some of the realism is a little off, but you can take first-person command of units and drive them in real-time, which is extremely useful for exploiting terrain cover and LoS. I've set up Thermopylae-style defenses with tank destroyers and artillery and just slaughtered entire regiments of oncoming tanks that way; driving down a narrow pass right into a hunkered-down Jagdpanther company with clear shots at max range hurts.

Hi Steel,

Sounds like you got robbed. : ) Even with atrocious gunnery those IS-2s and the SU-152s should have cleaned house. Those German 75s would be extremely hard pressed to hurt them frontally, the captured T-34s as well. I am unfamiliar with Spring 1944, but in Combat Mission Barbarosa, Panthers, Tigers, and Nashorns with good fields of fire can wreak great execution on the Soviets. Those situations can be tough to find as folds in seemingly level ground can hide tanks. In the European version, there are few places with that kind of visibility. Even using reverse slopes, I've been sniped by fireflies I didn't see as I broke the crest to fire at my intended victims.

The Combat Mission series uses a simultaneous move system where you plan your actions in one minute segemnts and then let the battle unfold. You can replay that minute with a VCR like interface and watch the battle from any vehicle or unit enemy or friendly as many times as you want. Hits record damage and what the offending munition was and you can review each unit to see who killed who.

A lot of fun, but having more than a few units can make it a head ache even though you can plan group moves. Seriously models morale and being in communication. A ton of scenarios, battle generator where you can select both sides OOB, and a full fledged editor.

[old_pop2000]

Ponath Scenario in DAK group

The second scenario in the DAK group is a small advanced BG of two armoured cars, three PanzerJagers with 47mm guns, three squads of infantry with three MG34 and a towed 50mm AT gun. This group is led by Lt. Colonel Ponath of the 8th MG Battalion. This force is the lead in the Streich Group, part of the 5th Light Division landed in NA with Rommel. Rommel can't wait until the 15th Panzer is landed, so he grabs the available units like the 3rd Reconnaissance battalion, the 8th MG battalion and divides them up into three columns. One along the coast road, 3rd Recon, one leaving Agedabia and heading to Msus, another heading to Ben Gania, Bir Tangeder with all three columns meeting at Mechili. The second column will have the Ariete Armoured division of the Italian Army. The action in the scenario occurs between 31 March and 2 April when all three columns meet at Agedabia and split at that point to head to their objectives.
The tactical situation is that this advanced BG of the Streich group is heading along a track for Agedabia and are struck in the flank by a mixed group of MK VI tanks with .30 cal MG, Humber Armoured cars with 2 pr, two towed 2 pdr and about three infantry squads in Bren Gun carriers. It's supposed to be an ambush, but it is more like a meeting engagement with the Germans having three objectives along the road and two Victory squares.

German Problem is to take all the five victory squares and objectives.

First, send one of the ACs with only the 7.92 mm machine gun around to the north and have it go all the way across the map and take the two victory objectives farther down the road from behind. They are usually unguarded.

Second, send the other AC with the 20mm gun down the road to occupy the first objective situated on the road as it passes a rocky narrow passage. Take it, and then back up two or three hexes. Patience here
.
Third, send the three Panzerjagers down the road and then turn toward the right and wait, the MK VI's come from the right. The PJ's should not have too hard of a time with one facing the MK VIs and one or two on the southern flanks
.
Fourth, once the MK VIs are knocked out send all the trucks down the road to the entrance to the rocky passage, dismount and wait.

Bring the towed 50mm down the road to sandy knoll on the right, dismount it and wait. That is an excellent place for the AT to sit and pick off British vehicles initially. You will have to move it.

Eventually, you will move your three infantry squads, MGs and one PJ up the road to support the AC and destroy the oncoming British Bren gun carriers, infantry and some Humbers. You can send one PJ around the northern flank of the rocky passage to attack the Bren guns carriers from the flank to prevent the British from doing the same.

The main action is centered on that road and that rocky outcrop. Once the MKVI's are knocked out, the two 2pdr AT's really don't figure in the action. You can mask them with the remaining PJ and one MG, to keep them from trying to slip around your southern flank.

Anyway, just remember that the orders for the day are to keep moving and take Agedabia. The British objective is to delay you, so get around him, take the other objectives and then hammer his forces to take the first objective. Remember that the PanzerJager's are not tanks, but mobile AT guns, so don't try to use them like tanks. Neither are the AC's.
　
Note: Ponath and 8th MG battalion were sent into the attack on Tobruk and never returned. When Tobruk fell the next year, teams found some of the burnt out tanks and equipment showing that the battalion had been wiped out in the attack and Ponath killed. I don't know if Ponath was ever found.
　

[steel_selachian]

Hi Steel,

Sounds like you got robbed. : ) Even with atrocious gunnery those IS-2s and the SU-152s should have cleaned house. Those German 75s would be extremely hard pressed to hurt them frontally, the captured T-34s as well. I am unfamiliar with Spring 1944, but in Combat Mission Barbarosa, Panthers, Tigers, and Nashorns with good fields of fire can wreak great execution on the Soviets. Those situations can be tough to find as folds in seemingly level ground can hide tanks. In the European version, there are few places with that kind of visibility. Even using reverse slopes, I've been sniped by fireflies I didn't see as I broke the crest to fire at my intended victims.

The Combat Mission series uses a simultaneous move system where you plan your actions in one minute segemnts and then let the battle unfold. You can replay that minute with a VCR like interface and watch the battle from any vehicle or unit enemy or friendly as many times as you want. Hits record damage and what the offending munition was and you can review each unit to see who killed who.

A lot of fun, but having more than a few units can make it a head ache even though you can plan group moves. Seriously models morale and being in communication. A ton of scenarios, battle generator where you can select both sides OOB, and a full fledged editor.

Here's a decent gameplay video for Spring 1944 on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93-N4YAdvr8&feature=related

It's basically a mod for a standard RTS engine, so you start out with a headquarters building, an infantry squad, a supply dump, a couple starting AT and AA guns, and an engineer (or commissar for the Soviets). The HQ can build engineers and half-size rifle squads, but for more infantry options (scouts, full rifle and SMG squads, MG, mortar, AT and sniper teams plus specialties like US flamethrower troops, British commandos, or Russian commissars) you need barracks facilities. Once you get those running you can build vehicle, gun, and tank yards (upgradeable to Light Armor, Self-Propelled or Tank Destroyer, and Advanced Medium/Heavy Armor, respectively). Unit production requires command points, which come from maintaining control of enough flag points on the map; ammo comes in "logistics" shipments on a regular time schedule - to get more you build a lot of storage sheds/bunkers and then distribute it to units within a radius around fixed (production facilities, deployed supply trucks, large supply depots) or mobile (halftrack) resupply points.

Obviously the unit selection is more limited and only covers units active in 1944. There's an avoidance on duplicating unit roles to keep the graphics/buildmenus simple; i.e. for tank destroyers the Germans only get the Marder III, Jagdpanzer IV/70, and Jagdpanther (maybe you can count the StuG IIIG as well). Likewise the Brits only get the Cromwell Mark IV, Cromwell Mark VI, VC Firefly, and Churchill Mark VII.

Still, if you've got a machine that can handle the load of running it, it's a fun little diversion. Also avoids one of my main annoyances with SPWW2; if you shoot at infantry they die. The other night I watched with dismay as two or three T26 Pershings hammered a Panzerfaust team in a crossfire with HE and MG rounds for five turns before they retreated. In S1944 if an AT trooper is spotted before he can kill a tank, he kisses his butt goodbye. Period. Likewise, accurate tank/AT guns like the German ones don't miss much.

[old_pop2000]

Well, I went after the third scenario in the DAK group. This scenario pits the 5th Panzer Regiment against British tanks near Agedabia. According to the Rommel Papers, this occurred about April 2nd, 1941. With the Italians and the 5th Light moving along the coast road and taking Agedabia in the morning, the 5th Panzers were the main attack in the south. They ran into some British tanks and guns em-placed south of the Via Balbia. A skirmish developed with the British loosing 7 tanks, the German's 3.

In the game, this ain't so easy. The German's have about six or seven MKIIIs with 37 and 50mm guns, MKIIs with 20mm and two trucks towing 20mm AA guns. You also have two SDK 222's. Besides that, you have two ME-110 to call on. The German's have no artillery, no MKIVCs with short 75 with HE or any infantry or infantry guns. The British have A13s with 2 pdrs, some MKVIs with MGs, towed 2pdrs, and one 40mm bofors situated on a sand hill some distance behind the main line of resistance.

The objective hexes are scattered everywhere, and you really don't have a chance in 12 turns to take them all. You also don't have time to move the whole force to the top or bottom of the map to try an out flank. I did that and was partially successful, but still lost.

The only option is to assemble in the standard German arrow formation with MK III's leading, MKIIs behind and the trucks dismounted and 20mm ready to fire. You can try sending the MKIIs and the Recce's south to take the southern group, that works. It's a real slugfest, with little cover. I am now reading "Panzer Tactics" which describes in detail German Panzer small unit tactics in great detail.

I have not won this scenario yet, but have acheived a draw, so progress is being made. I have purchased the book, that purportedly is the source for these scenarios. It's Kuhn's, "Rommel in the Desert". Page 20 has this battle in it, supposedly.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Here's a decent gameplay video for Spring 1944 on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93-N4YAdvr8&feature=related

It's basically a mod for a standard RTS engine, so you start out with a headquarters building, an infantry squad, a supply dump, a couple starting AT and AA guns, and an engineer (or commissar for the Soviets). The HQ can build engineers and half-size rifle squads, but for more infantry options (scouts, full rifle and SMG squads, MG, mortar, AT and sniper teams plus specialties like US flamethrower troops, British commandos, or Russian commissars) you need barracks facilities. Once you get those running you can build vehicle, gun, and tank yards (upgradeable to Light Armor, Self-Propelled or Tank Destroyer, and Advanced Medium/Heavy Armor, respectively). Unit production requires command points, which come from maintaining control of enough flag points on the map; ammo comes in "logistics" shipments on a regular time schedule - to get more you build a lot of storage sheds/bunkers and then distribute it to units within a radius around fixed (production facilities, deployed supply trucks, large supply depots) or mobile (halftrack) resupply points.

Obviously the unit selection is more limited and only covers units active in 1944. There's an avoidance on duplicating unit roles to keep the graphics/buildmenus simple; i.e. for tank destroyers the Germans only get the Marder III, Jagdpanzer IV/70, and Jagdpanther (maybe you can count the StuG IIIG as well). Likewise the Brits only get the Cromwell Mark IV, Cromwell Mark VI, VC Firefly, and Churchill Mark VII.

Still, if you've got a machine that can handle the load of running it, it's a fun little diversion. Also avoids one of my main annoyances with SPWW2; if you shoot at infantry they die. The other night I watched with dismay as two or three T26 Pershings hammered a Panzerfaust team in a crossfire with HE and MG rounds for five turns before they retreated. In S1944 if an AT trooper is spotted before he can kill a tank, he kisses his butt goodbye. Period. Likewise, accurate tank/AT guns like the German ones don't miss much.

Hi Steel,

Looks like a fun game, the cinematic scenes were impressive. The graphics in Combat Mission Barbarosa are not as pretty, but you soon loose yourself in the game. One of the tutorials scenarios is a Russian KV -1 and two squads of infantry facing a company sized German unit across a forest clearing. Lots of fun smoking the Panzer IIs and 38Ts......the Germans try to bring up an 88 but you can maneuver to hit it if you look.

The results against infantry may not be unrealistic. Even in open ground, it doesn't take much to protect a prone person from direct fire. Usually, they wil be suppressed or break, but killng them all is difficult to do. You get a very similar result against Egyptian AT teams in SPMBT.

[steel_selachian]

That's actually what the gameplay looks like - you can remove the resource bars, minimap, and build/orders lists from the screen and move the camera around in-game as well as on a saved replay. The beta of "Operation Market-Garden" (upcoming version release with paratroopers, gliders, and some other extra units; current "public release" is 1.07 "Operation Lyuban") doesn't have it, but in the releases you can option for "deformable terrain" which allows you to make some craters in the deck (I've in the past made roads impassable after an IS-2 company and a platoon of ISU-152s have spent some time shelling things on them).

Yeah, I can imagine prone infantry is hard to hit from an AFV - actually, often what happens in Spring 1944 is the AT infantry gets spotted and greased by accompanying infantry and vehicles; if they get a tank by itself they can probably knock it out without much trouble. AT infantry is "cloaked" (holdover from the game engine's original futuristic mod) which technically makes them invisible unless either a) an enemy unit gets within the "decloak radius" and makes them visible to everything or b) you bunch them up with other AT units, which will also "decloak" them (that was a recent addition that robbed me of a tactic I used to use, bunching up hornets' nests of AT infantry behind cover and assassinating tanks). Snipers, scouts, and commandos are similarly "cloaked," so one can imagine it as using camo, ghillie suits, or spider holes. Accuracy-wise it does bug me, as does the fact that tank sights only count for gun accuracy and not vision radius (i.e. I need scouts to spot targets for Tigers at max range).

I've been trying a few historical scenarios on SPWW2 - just the first two after the tutorial, "Organized Chaos" and "Stonne." Did well on both, although I was unable to capture all the victory flags on the former and it took me three tries to get a decisive victory at Stonne. On "Organized Chaos" I was trying to minimize my casualties; the first time I lost 38 men but decimated the Polish infantry holding the objective (trench line on a hill) and captured most of the defensive works in the allotted 12 turns. The second try I actually didn't get as far, but I left only one routed Polish squad and lost only 15 men (some of those were two of my three scout teams, which I snuck around the back and used to assassinate the Polish HQ unit and then pin down the infantry with SMG fire from the rear). The other losses were mostly due to long-range fire from a HMG nest and a couple losses to a sniper (the reason why I didn't get as far on the second try; I avoided the fastest covered approach with all but two of my squads to avoid him).

Stonne took me three tries; the first one I didn't notice until several turns in that I had a second force consisting of a French infantry company and four Char B1 Bis "heavy" tanks; therefore I tried taking the whole town with a platoon of infantry, a single Char B1 "heavy" tank, and about eight H-39 cavalry tanks. I actually got farther with that than the second try, where my infantry company got held up by one MG34 team and one infantry squad (here I noticed that French infantry seemed to have the stereotypical "shoot at them and they run" flavor). The third time I concentrated my smaller force on eliminating the German infantry (plus one 37mm AT gun and a PzB 39 AT rifle team) at the north end of the town and clearing out the trees east of the town so my infantry company wouldn't get held up. It was still an expensive battle - I lost most of that initial infantry platoon, 3 knocked-out H-39s, immobilized a further two H-39s, the Char B1, and one of the Char B1 Bis tanks - but I took all the victory flags and cut the reinforcement column of halftracks and StuG IIIAs to pieces. I only saw one German infantry squad still intact at the end. Overall, a nice victory, but gained largely because I knew what was coming from where and put my tanks at risk pummeling the German infantry holed up in the town buildings. By the time the infantry company started swarming into town the Germans didn't have a lot of guys left to contest them.

[steel_selachian]

Paratrooper drop in the beta version of the "Market-Garden" release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zia8lv_aPg&feature=related

[old_pop2000]

It was only a marginal, but a successful battle plan was evident in the action. Keys to victory:
1. Scouting- Use the Storch to scout and ID the 40 mm. Use the Me-110s when they arrive, to knock it out. One is sufficient. Use the Fiesler after that, to scout and ID all the 2 pdrs.
2. Use the defiles between the dunes to circle around before moving over them to capture objective squares. The 2 pdrs and A13 are usually lurking behind them.
3. Use the Mark II with the 20mm in company with the Mark III and their main gun turned off to deal with the 2 pdr. Suppressing fire is important. Circle behind them, while suppressing.
4. Situate your Mark IIIs in defiles, go up the dune, fire two shots, then retreat. Fire and maneuver is absolutely critical.
5. Use the HQ SDK 222 with the truck borne 20mm behind the tanks, use the other to head south and carefully capture the southern objectives.
6. Send one of the Mark IIs north to do the same, but use the defiles to prevent being hit by 2 pdrs.
Fire and maneuver, scouting is vital. I only failed to get a decisive victory due to two objectives not attained, that should be easy to finish.

[Mike Malanaphy]

It was only a marginal, but a successful battle plan was evident in the action. Keys to victory:
1. Scouting- Use the Storch to scout and ID the 40 mm. Use the Me-110s when they arrive, to knock it out. One is sufficient. Use the Fiesler after that, to scout and ID all the 2 pdrs.
2. Use the defiles between the dunes to circle around before moving over them to capture objective squares. The 2 pdrs and A13 are usually lurking behind them.
3. Use the Mark II with the 20mm in company with the Mark III and their main gun turned off to deal with the 2 pdr. Suppressing fire is important. Circle behind them, while suppressing.
4. Situate your Mark IIIs in defiles, go up the dune, fire two shots, then retreat. Fire and maneuver is absolutely critical.
5. Use the HQ SDK 222 with the truck borne 20mm behind the tanks, use the other to head south and carefully capture the southern objectives.
6. Send one of the Mark IIs north to do the same, but use the defiles to prevent being hit by 2 pdrs.
Fire and maneuver, scouting is vital. I only failed to get a decisive victory due to two objectives not attained, that should be easy to finish.

Hi Dennis,

Nice job, sounds like you were able to winkle the Tommies out of their holes as they say. Having the Storch sounds like it was a game changer in terms of seeing enemy positions to allow you you to maneuver against the flanks and rear of the enemy. Skilfully used, a Panzer II with it's 20mm cannon can still be effective against the flanks and rear of many early British tanks like cruisers.

I haven't had much time to play Combat Mission Afrika Korps, but talk about a hodgepodge of equipment covering the three years of war their from the Vickers Mk I tankette to the Tiger I and everything in between.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Nice job, sounds like you were able to winkle the Tommies out of their holes as they say. Having the Storch sounds like it was a game changer in terms of seeing enemy positions to allow you you to maneuver against the flanks and rear of the enemy. Skilfully used, a Panzer II with it's 20mm cannon can still be effective against the flanks and rear of many early British tanks like cruisers.

I haven't had much time to play Combat Mission Afrika Korps, but talk about a hodgepodge of equipment covering the three years of war their from the Vickers Mk I tankette to the Tiger I and everything in between.

Hi Mike:
I don't know, this scenario is getting to me. I know my tactics are good, but the accuracy and range of the British 2 pdr. is phenomenal. It's rated at 2656 FPS and can penetrate 2.5 in@ 500 yards, but its seem to be doing a lot better.
I agree about the 20mm, it is real good against MK VICs and towed weapons. Suppressing fire using tank machine guns from a distance seems to shut down the AT guns, then I can move forward with other armor and destroy them.

I got another marginal victory using my tactics except I am going to have to be careful of the terrain. I got three immobilized tanks due to soft sand. I did find the answer to my question about accuracy and the 2 pdr. The game does not consider a tank halted unless the unit has not moved in the previous turn which is a full halt or having moved in the previous turn, but not this one. The latter is a short halt. Accuracy is based on that. So, the British units are at a full halt, never having moved so their accuracy is far better. I need to have the Mark IIIs w/50mm guns in overwatch positions while the others move forward. I knew there was something I was missing. Need to read the manuals and game play suggestions more.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
I don't know, this scenario is getting to me. I know my tactics are good, but the accuracy and range of the British 2 pdr. is phenomenal. It's rated at 2656 FPS and can penetrate 2.5 in@ 500 yards, but its seem to be doing a lot better.
I agree about the 20mm, it is real good against MK VICs and towed weapons. Suppressing fire using tank machine guns from a distance seems to shut down the AT guns, then I can move forward with other armor and destroy them.

I got another marginal victory using my tactics except I am going to have to be careful of the terrain. I got three immobilized tanks due to soft sand. I did find the answer to my question about accuracy and the 2 pdr. The game does not consider a tank halted unless the unit has not moved in the previous turn which is a full halt or having moved in the previous turn, but not this one. The latter is a short halt. Accuracy is based on that. So, the British units are at a full halt, never having moved so their accuracy is far better. I need to have the Mark IIIs w/50mm guns in overwatch positions while the others move forward. I knew there was something I was missing. Need to read the manuals and game play suggestions more.

Hi Dennis,

Interesting. In this case you suffer from the same problems endemic to the British. The lack of a weapon that delivers a useful HE warhead to use against AT guns. The 2 pdr lacked one and until the Grant in the spring of 1942, there was no Allied tank that had a useful HE punch against them. This lead to the British tactic of trying to close on AT guns to get into machine gun range, not very effective.

The HE for the 37mm and 50 mm on your MK IIIs is fairly anemic, but you should be able to stand out of effective 2 pdr range if you can get a clear field of fire and supress them. Does SPWAW allow certain units to move and fire in the same turn? I know you can in SPMBT. Being able to do so sounds like it would give the AT gun a lower chance of hitting. I may have to see if my old DOS Steel Panthers might work on my older computer. : )

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Interesting. In this case you suffer from the same problems endemic to the British. The lack of a weapon that delivers a useful HE warhead to use against AT guns. The 2 pdr lacked one and until the Grant in the spring of 1942, there was no Allied tank that had a useful HE punch against them. This lead to the British tactic of trying to close on AT guns to get into machine gun range, not very effective.

The HE for the 37mm and 50 mm on your MK IIIs is fairly anemic, but you should be able to stand out of effective 2 pdr range if you can get a clear field of fire and supress them. Does SPWAW allow certain units to move and fire in the same turn? I know you can in SPMBT. Being able to do so sounds like it would give the AT gun a lower chance of hitting. I may have to see if my old DOS Steel Panthers might work on my older computer. : )

Hi Mike:
Here is what the game designers notes state:


In WinSPWW2, you are considered fully stationary only if you neither moved this turn, nor the previous game turn (in technical terms, if you expend >= half your MP in a previous turn, a 'moving fast' flag is set, you need to spend a complete turn not having expended half or more MP to reset this flag). Movement will also break any fire control solution you have made on the target ('target lock') unless you have a tank with a stabiliser, which can move whilst keeping target lock, so long as the LOS between the firer and the previously engaged target is not broken.

Here is something else about AT guns:

In WinSPWW2 AT guns are MUCH more dangerous than in SP1 (or SP3)- there they commonly fired 1 shot, were instantly detected and destroyed by moving tanks. NOT SO NOW! In WW2 the AT gun was a chief tank killer. The Germans in the Desert would often flaunt some panzer at over-keen British armoured cavalry units, who would then chase them, while the Germans retired through an AT gun ambush position. Exit British cruisers. Antitank guns in WinSPWW2 are for the most part set to size ZERO to better reflect that these things were easy to conceal and difficult to detect in battle, especially from a tank.

"WinSPWW2 AT guns are MUCH more dangerous ": Amen to this statement.

I don't think the German 37 or 50 mm tank guns have HE, if they do, I am not certain how to switch or even if you can.

I have mastered the technique of stopping my tanks, waiting for another turn then going after the opponents and it was successful. One tank knocked out three british vehicles in one turn with three shots. I suspect that the Fieseler Storch needs to be used every turn to monitor the Bren gun carriers which appear to be the tow vehicle for the 2 pdrs. The trick to find them by air, then move around them, I think.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
Here is what the game designers notes state:



Here is something else about AT guns:

"WinSPWW2 AT guns are MUCH more dangerous ": Amen to this statement.

I don't think the German 37 or 50 mm tank guns have HE, if they do, I am not certain how to switch or even if you can.

I have mastered the technique of stopping my tanks, waiting for another turn then going after the opponents and it was successful. One tank knocked out three british vehicles in one turn with three shots. I suspect that the Fieseler Storch needs to be used every turn to monitor the Bren gun carriers which appear to be the tow vehicle for the 2 pdrs. The trick to find them by air, then move around them, I think.

Hi Dennis,

I was trying to remember game time and scale.....50 meter hexes and 1 minute turns? I don't disagree with their rating of AT guns. They would almost always get in the first shot and the 37mm and 2 pdr were very low to the ground and hard to hit even if not dug in. Both were able to be readily manhandled. Suppressing them would be the key, an overwatch element to take them under fire....if they were spotted.

I'll have to check on HE rounds for Mk IIIs with 37mm and 50mm guns.

Not knowing the time scale and distances, hard to judge their movement formula. Fire control solutions were relatively simple, the commander gave an estimated range which the gunner indexed on his sight. The first shot could be gotten off fairly quickly. The only tanks with stabilizers were the American M3 Stuart, M3 Lee (Grant), and M4 Sherman, used by the British as well. The stabilization was only in elevation not in azimuth, so it was of little practical value for firing on the move. The primary value would be to allow the gunner to keep the target in view as the tank moved. Subsequent shots by BOT (burst on target) by the gunner. I would suspect that unless you saw the smoke or muzzle blast, knowing where to shoot back could be difficult. Best to take cover. Maneuvering in tank combat was often a matter of moving to a better position and letting the other side attack you with all of the attendant disadvantages.

Towing the 2 pdrs was one of the tasks the BREN or Universal carrier. Limbering and unlimbering from the prime mover left the guns pretty vulnerable and more visible. Experience led to the use of the British 25 pdr field gun as a more powerful AT gun with both HE and AT abilities.

In the Combat Mission series you can determine the ammunition your tanks will fire or let the AI do it.

[Kyle Holgate]

I don't think the German 37 or 50 mm tank guns have HE, if they do, I am not certain how to switch or even if you can.

.

You can check by right clicking on the AT gun and see what ammo it has. I am going from memory here, but I am sure both the German 37 and 50 mm have HE. The gun crew automatically fires the appropriate shell type depending on the target. When it runs out of HE it won't fire at infantry, though if it runs out of AP it will still fire HE at tanks and armored vehicles. Big HE (152mm for example) can still kill armor. Any special shells (Heat, APDS, etc) are chosen by the crew also. Annoying at times as they'll fire standard AP when APDS may be a better choice, such as later in the war when Tigers are roaming.

[old_pop2000]

At Last, I've attained a decisive victory. Here is a brief lessons learned.

1. Slow down the action, take time to assess the situation
2. Attention to detail. Especially in desert action, examine the soil and sand. Beware of soft sand.
3. RTFB
4. Mark IIIs have HE and it is effective against AT guns at 10 hexes. Mark IIs are also effective at that range.
5. Fire with one stationary tank to suppression the opposition, then move another but expend less than half MPs. Remember to prioritize. MG equipped tanks can get behind you and recapture victory squares, but they can't hurt a tank, they will just annoy you.
6. Scouting is vital. Use scouts both ground and airborne every available turn, especially in the initial stages of a movement to contact scenario like meeting engagements.
7. Keep you A0 or headquarters close to the main action to enhance a units ability to recover from actions.
8. Aircraft are nice to have, but they are absolutely necessary. Towed artillery is especially vulnerable to air attacks.

In gaining the victory level, I did not lose any vehicles to soft sand, one MK II knocked out, one immobilized. I missed two objectives but destroyed all of his towed weapons and tanks.

[old_pop2000]

You can check by right clicking on the AT gun and see what ammo it has. I am going from memory here, but I am sure both the German 37 and 50 mm have HE. The gun crew automatically fires the appropriate shell type depending on the target. When it runs out of HE it won't fire at infantry, though if it runs out of AP it will still fire HE at tanks and armored vehicles. Big HE (152mm for example) can still kill armor. Any special shells (Heat, APDS, etc) are chosen by the crew also. Annoying at times as they'll fire standard AP when APDS may be a better choice, such as later in the war when Tigers are roaming.

Hi Kyle:
You are correct and I checked. It does and at 10 hexes or 500 meters, it is effective against towed weapons.

This scenario is in April 1941, so things are real rudimentary. If you have any more suggestions, ideas or tactical thoughts, let's hear them so we can all get better at land games. I know I could use some help. I appreciate your contributions and help. Believe me, I need it.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I was trying to remember game time and scale.....50 meter hexes and 1 minute turns? I don't disagree with their rating of AT guns. They would almost always get in the first shot and the 37mm and 2 pdr were very low to the ground and hard to hit even if not dug in. Both were able to be readily manhandled. Suppressing them would be the key, an overwatch element to take them under fire....if they were spotted.

I'll have to check on HE rounds for Mk IIIs with 37mm and 50mm guns.

Not knowing the time scale and distances, hard to judge their movement formula. Fire control solutions were relatively simple, the commander gave an estimated range which the gunner indexed on his sight. The first shot could be gotten off fairly quickly. The only tanks with stabilizers were the American M3 Stuart, M3 Lee (Grant), and M4 Sherman, used by the British as well. The stabilization was only in elevation not in azimuth, so it was of little practical value for firing on the move. The primary value would be to allow the gunner to keep the target in view as the tank moved. Subsequent shots by BOT (burst on target) by the gunner. I would suspect that unless you saw the smoke or muzzle blast, knowing where to shoot back could be difficult. Best to take cover. Maneuvering in tank combat was often a matter of moving to a better position and letting the other side attack you with all of the attendant disadvantages.

Towing the 2 pdrs was one of the tasks the BREN or Universal carrier. Limbering and unlimbering from the prime mover left the guns pretty vulnerable and more visible. Experience led to the use of the British 25 pdr field gun as a more powerful AT gun with both HE and AT abilities.

In the Combat Mission series you can determine the ammunition your tanks will fire or let the AI do it.

Hi Mike:
Thanks and keep up the flow of information to keep the old guy straight. The hexes are 50 meters but I am not certain of the time scale. I will check. One dead giveaway is the bren gun carriers. I tend to go after them, when they become visible. I finally realized that your overwatch element idea was vital. One Mark III in overwatch and one or two other moving forward to contact. A13 tanks are real vulnerable to a stationary Mark III with a 50 mm gun.

You know, my reason for presenting this stuff about the game was to develop and assemble a body of knowledge for any 2d or 3d tactical land game. I believe that much of what we are discussing is applicable in any game with reservations. It is good in any time period also, IMHO. Do you agree or not?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
Thanks and keep up the flow of information to keep the old guy straight. The hexes are 50 meters but I am not certain of the time scale. I will check. One dead giveaway is the bren gun carriers. I tend to go after them, when they become visible. I finally realized that your overwatch element idea was vital. One Mark III in overwatch and one or two other moving forward to contact. A13 tanks are real vulnerable to a stationary Mark III with a 50 mm gun.

You know, my reason for presenting this stuff about the game was to develop and assemble a body of knowledge for any 2d or 3d tactical land game. I believe that much of what we are discussing is applicable in any game with reservations. It is good in any time period also, IMHO. Do you agree or not?


Hi Dennis,

Not a problem. I remember your earlier reference to Panzer formations. In my tactical training, the use of "overwatch" became became the standard in the 70s.. Formations were still used, but elements within the formation used terrain features to "overwatch" elements on the move. Terrain and the mission dictated which type you used. "Travelling" overwatch, where all elements are on the move, pausing briefly at terrain features. The fastest, but least secure. "Bounding " overwatch had one element move while the other provided cover from a stationary position on an overlooking terrrain feature. Slower for movement, but more secure. This technique can be applied at platooon and company level and can often be executed without radio transmissions.

There is nothing new or unique about this term, just a variation of fire and maneuver adding the extended risk of long range anti tank weapons. While tactics can be complicated, it is essentially a collection of simple techniques that can be learned and mastered and executed successfully in the chaos of combat. A number of these tactics are simply "battle drills" which were executed immediately instictively. The old adage being a simple plan executed immmediate is generally more successful than a more complicated larger plan executed later, valuing the element of surrpise and shock to catch the enemy off guard.

What we are doing here is little different than what happens in military training sessions. The caveat is that game mechanics can be just as fickle as the randomness of combat in teh real world. Just because you have good people and a good plan, success is not guaranteed. The oft quoted stat from US Army tank combat experience, that the winner 90% of the time was the tank that shot first won. The second or third corrected shot would hit before your opponent find you and shot back. Hence changing firing positions every 2-3 shots.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Not a problem. I remember your earlier reference to Panzer formations. In my tactical training, the use of "overwatch" became became the standard in the 70s.. Formations were still used, but elements within the formation used terrain features to "overwatch" elements on the move. Terrain and the mission dictated which type you used. "Travelling" overwatch, where all elements are on the move, pausing briefly at terrain features. The fastest, but least secure. "Bounding " overwatch had one element move while the other provided cover from a stationary position on an overlooking terrrain feature. Slower for movement, but more secure. This technique can be applied at platooon and company level and can often be executed without radio transmissions.

There is nothing new or unique about this term, just a variation of fire and maneuver adding the extended risk of long range anti tank weapons. While tactics can be complicated, it is essentially a collection of simple techniques that can be learned and mastered and executed successfully in the chaos of combat. A number of these tactics are simply "battle drills" which were executed immediately instictively. The old adage being a simple plan executed immmediate is generally more successful than a more complicated larger plan executed later, valuing the element of surrpise and shock to catch the enemy off guard.

What we are doing here is little different than what happens in military training sessions. The caveat is that game mechanics can be just as fickle as the randomness of combat in teh real world. Just because you have good people and a good plan, success is not guaranteed. The oft quoted stat from US Army tank combat experience, that the winner 90% of the time was the tank that shot first won. The second or third corrected shot would hit before your opponent find you and shot back. Hence changing firing positions every 2-3 shots.

Hi Mike:
Was there a technical reason for the emphasis on overwatch? That would be about the time for the introduction of Saggers and other types of AT missiles. I would imagine that features like rivers with bridges, ridges and valleys with crossroads would require such tactics. Does this spell a change in strategic philosophy from static defenses to offensive operations in Northern Europe or does the development of the M1 Abrahms and M2 Bradley.

I assumed that what we are doing was similar to sand box exercises or table top exercise. Develop and learn your doctrine, then go to the National Training Center and try it out.... and get your head handed to you. :p Lot of difference playing war in the classroom and then going to Barstow. I have no dilusions about my abilities in the games and any real performance on the battlefield. I would not presume to know more than a person with your training and experience. I am an amateur, of the first order. I am enjoying this to no end.

BTW, I modified the scenario and gave it another name. I added four Mark IVCs with short barrelled 75s. Still got a marginal victory, but it was much easier to knock out tow artillery. I am moving to the next scenario, in the line. I believe that a marginal victory, based on principles that I have learned will give me consistancy. Due to the randomness of the game, as in real combat, I will not always get a decisive victory. I believe that with an MV, the British delay was overcome, which is the objective.

Note: Game turn time is 3 minutes for Player 1 and player 2. I believe that means each turn is 1.5 minutes long.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
Was there a technical reason for the emphasis on overwatch? That would be about the time for the introduction of Saggers and other types of AT missiles. I would imagine that features like rivers with bridges, ridges and valleys with crossroads would require such tactics. Does this spell a change in strategic philosophy from static defenses to offensive operations in Northern Europe or does the development of the M1 Abrahms and M2 Bradley.

I assumed that what we are doing was similar to sand box exercises or table top exercise. Develop and learn your doctrine, then go to the National Training Center and try it out.... and get your head handed to you. :p Lot of difference playing war in the classroom and then going to Barstow. I have no dilusions about my abilities in the games and any real performance on the battlefield. I would not presume to know more than a person with your training and experience. I am an amateur, of the first order. I am enjoying this to no end.

BTW, I modified the scenario and gave it another name. I added four Mark IVCs with short barrelled 75s. Still got a marginal victory, but it was much easier to knock out tow artillery. I am moving to the next scenario, in the line. I believe that a marginal victory, based on principles that I have learned will give me consistancy. Due to the randomness of the game, as in real combat, I will not always get a decisive victory. I believe that with an MV, the British delay was overcome, which is the objective.

Note: Game turn time is 3 minutes for Player 1 and player 2. I believe that means each turn is 1.5 minutes long.

Hi Dennis,

I think your right. I went onto active duty in August of 72 and the October 73 war had a galvanizing effect on US Arny doctrine. Donn Starry, Comander of the US Army Armor Center, fostered those tactics as well as the likelyhood of long range fires. "What can be seen can be hit. What can be hit can be killed." Deep battle, Active Defense, Air Land Battle and other doctrine virtually started with him in the mid 70s. Opfor units like the USAF's red flag squadrons were developed. Lasers for tactical training and eventually the National Training Center mixed realism and the dynamics of actual combat into the mix. I got out on 84 and never went to NTC, but have spoken to a number who have.....36-48 hours non stop. Excellent preparation for Desert Storm.

On of the nicer features on the original Harpoon scenario editor was the ability to have several orders of battle with random inclusion and starting positions, which greatly added to replayability of a scenario.

I glanced at Hunnicut last night regading the US 37mm and 75mm HE rounds.

37mm M63 He projectile weighed 1.61 lbs.

75mm M48 HE projectile weighted 14.7 lbs.

Figure 25% or less if the weight is explosive filler

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I think your right. I went onto active duty in August of 72 and the October 73 war had a galvanizing effect on US Arny doctrine. Donn Starry, Comander of the US Army Armor Center, fostered those tactics as well as the likelyhood of long range fires. "What can be seen can be hit. What can be hit can be killed." Deep battle, Active Defense, Air Land Battle and other doctrine virtually started with him in the mid 70s. Opfor units like the USAF's red flag squadrons were developed. Lasers for tactical training and eventually the National Training Center mixed realism and the dynamics of actual combat into the mix. I got out on 84 and never went to NTC, but have spoken to a number who have.....36-48 hours non stop. Excellent preparation for Desert Storm.

On of the nicer features on the original Harpoon scenario editor was the ability to have several orders of battle with random inclusion and starting positions, which greatly added to replayability of a scenario.

I glanced at Hunnicut last night regading the US 37mm and 75mm HE rounds.

37mm M63 He projectile weighed 1.61 lbs.

75mm M48 HE projectile weighted 14.7 lbs.

Figure 25% or less if the weight is explosive filler

Hi Mike:
I remember reading information on Don Starry. He was responsible for the expansion of TRADOC in the Army which really collected and codified Army doctrine and training. I agree that the '73 war was the catalyst for the new Army doctrine. The Army finally was beginning to shrug off the mantle of Vietnam and COIN operations. I have "The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle" By R. Leonhard. Excellent book.

Thanks for the information on the projectiles.

I agree that having multiple orders of battle is an advantage. As I said, I just mod the scenario and give it a new name. I am going to mod the 5th Panzer again and give it armored infantry then artillery. Just to see the effects.

I haven't talked to anyone who has participated in the National Training Center but from everything I've read, it exemplifies the adage " You fight, like you train".

BTW, I heard something about Afghanistan that was a bit troubling. I figure a couple of old warhorses like you and I can discuss this stuff. I heard the words "body count" used in discussions about what Centcom is requiring. I hope that isn't true. We went through the Pentagon, Westmoreland, body count idea in Vietnam and it failed. Have you read or heard anything to that effect? That would be a bit disheartening for the troops to think we hadn't learned anything from Vietnam.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Kyle:
You are correct and I checked. It does and at 10 hexes or 500 meters, it is effective against towed weapons.

This scenario is in April 1941, so things are real rudimentary. If you have any more suggestions, ideas or tactical thoughts, let's hear them so we can all get better at land games. I know I could use some help. I appreciate your contributions and help. Believe me, I need it.

The list of things you made a bit back (careful scouting, etc) pretty much covers it. It can be very tricky to keep everything together where tanks can support the infantry and vice versa. If I get to pick my forces such as in a campaign I usually get some light 'throw away' vehicles. Infantry often gets decimated when if finds the opposition so your scouts die fast. If you can support them a bit without risking a major hitter all the better.
This is even harder with the Steel Panthers main battle tank (SPMBT) which I play more often these days than WW2. ATGM's are a biatch and firepower is such that scouts really get hammered - you loose them after only scouting a few enemy units then you're stuck. I use a LOT of smoke when I can to limit my battlefield to manageable sections (this for both games). That way I can concentrate forces on the enemy without long range fire coming in, other than artillery of course.
Problem with careful scouting is you have a time limit - and you have to take risks or the game ends before you've gotten to your objectives!
I like both SP games as they are turn based and I can fiddle with them at work without impacting either work or the game (warship combat too for that matter). Combat mission is good, but being more real time takes far more concentration.

[old_pop2000]

The list of things you made a bit back (careful scouting, etc) pretty much covers it. It can be very tricky to keep everything together where tanks can support the infantry and vice versa. If I get to pick my forces such as in a campaign I usually get some light 'throw away' vehicles. Infantry often gets decimated when if finds the opposition so your scouts die fast. If you can support them a bit without risking a major hitter all the better.
This is even harder with the Steel Panthers main battle tank (SPMBT) which I play more often these days than WW2. ATGM's are a biatch and firepower is such that scouts really get hammered - you loose them after only scouting a few enemy units then you're stuck. I use a LOT of smoke when I can to limit my battlefield to manageable sections (this for both games). That way I can concentrate forces on the enemy without long range fire coming in, other than artillery of course.
Problem with careful scouting is you have a time limit - and you have to take risks or the game ends before you've gotten to your objectives!
I like both SP games as they are turn based and I can fiddle with them at work without impacting either work or the game (warship combat too for that matter). Combat mission is good, but being more real time takes far more concentration.

Hi Kyle:
My list doesn't include using infantry and artillery, but my next scenario-Tobruk 1- should take care of that. It seems to be more along the lines of WWI style infantry action.
I plan to use more smoke and artillery along with scouting to get through the fixed defenses.

I also plan to start playing WinSPmbt. As you say, these two games are the type where you can play and then stop, take a break. Less concentration and more fun.

[old_pop2000]

Well, out of frying pan, into the fire. Now I am attempting to capture a defensive position at Tobruk. Pillboxes, trenches, mines, wire.... You know, WWI style combat.

I have infantry, infantry guns, MG-34's, MK IVDs, 88mm guns, 105 mm howitzers, Stukas, Ju-88. Problem is, what I need is tactical nukes....:p

Oh well, I shall prevail. :confused:

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
I remember reading information on Don Starry. He was responsible for the expansion of TRADOC in the Army which really collected and codified Army doctrine and training. I agree that the '73 war was the catalyst for the new Army doctrine. The Army finally was beginning to shrug off the mantle of Vietnam and COIN operations. I have "The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle" By R. Leonhard. Excellent book.

Thanks for the information on the projectiles.

I agree that having multiple orders of battle is an advantage. As I said, I just mod the scenario and give it a new name. I am going to mod the 5th Panzer again and give it armored infantry then artillery. Just to see the effects.

I haven't talked to anyone who has participated in the National Training Center but from everything I've read, it exemplifies the adage " You fight, like you train".

BTW, I heard something about Afghanistan that was a bit troubling. I figure a couple of old warhorses like you and I can discuss this stuff. I heard the words "body count" used in discussions about what Centcom is requiring. I hope that isn't true. We went through the Pentagon, Westmoreland, body count idea in Vietnam and it failed. Have you read or heard anything to that effect? That would be a bit disheartening for the troops to think we hadn't learned anything from Vietnam.

Hi Dennis,

Yes, in the original Harpoon, the scenario was modified by starting postions and orders of battle by the random numbers you assigned to them each time you played. Made it interesting.

The Israelis faced and defeated Soviet weapons, Soviet tactics, and Soviet style armies at odds greater than NATO would face in central Europe. It galvanized doctrine to be able to do the same with a new set of weapons and tactics to match.

I have heard the term "body count" in several newscasts, but I don't think from officials. As you say, the term is tainted. Remember "pacification"? However, in a counterinsurgency conflict, there are few metrics you can provide the media in explanation for what you are doing. You have to be able to show progress to the powers that be and the public to maintain support where the only numbers maybe your casualties. Difficult to say the least. As the North Vietnamese character in "We were Soldiers Once" says, "Kill all then send, they will send no more."

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Yes, in the original Harpoon, the scenario was modified by starting postions and orders of battle by the random numbers you assigned to them each time you played. Made it interesting.

The Israelis faced and defeated Soviet weapons, Soviet tactics, and Soviet style armies at odds greater than NATO would face in central Europe. It galvanized doctrine to be able to do the same with a new set of weapons and tactics to match.

I have heard the term "body count" in several newscasts, but I don't think from officials. As you say, the term is tainted. Remember "pacification"? However, in a counterinsurgency conflict, there are few metrics you can provide the media in explanation for what you are doing. You have to be able to show progress to the powers that be and the public to maintain support where the only numbers maybe your casualties. Difficult to say the least. As the North Vietnamese character in "We were Soldiers Once" says, "Kill all then send, they will send no more."

Hi Mike:

I remember watching the war on the tube, and hearing some of the commentary by retired officers. IIRC, they seems to be a little amazed at what they were seeing, based on their doctrine and training. I imagine it was a culture shock for the post-Vietnam Army. Its one thing to read about the SAGGER, another to see it in action against your tanks in Israeli hands. Especially considering their expertise and prowess. Might have been a bit unsettling those in NATO. However, different terrain and weather would make a difference, as you probably are better able to understand.

My problem with the comments about body count, is that it starts slowly but eventually begins to creep into each soldiers mind including the general officers that if the count is high enough, I am winning because I begin to believe my own press. Winning battles and having successful operations is not the key to success in COIN operations. As the comment went between the NVA colonel and the US Colonel, "we won all the battles" and the NVA Colonel stated "Yes, but that was irrelevent". He was entirely correct. I can only think of one successful COIN operation and that was in Malaya with the Kurkas fighting the Malayan Communists. Even Alexander failed to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans and he went back to Persepolis and died. He made the comment "I am involved in the land of a 'Leonine' (lion-like) and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a well of steel, confronting my soldier. You have brought only one son into the world, but Everyone in this land can be called an Alexander." Body counts won't win this COIN.

Anyway, in my newest challenge, I think I am going to have to hold back the Infantry gruppes, but send forward the Pioneers with smoke. I will use the JU-88s, Stukas and 88 mm guns to silence the AA batteries and pillboxes. Man, I wish you had WinSpWW2 so you could help me, I am struggling.

[steel_selachian]

Well, out of frying pan, into the fire. Now I am attempting to capture a defensive position at Tobruk. Pillboxes, trenches, mines, wire.... You know, WWI style combat.

I have infantry, infantry guns, MG-34's, MK IVDs, 88mm guns, 105 mm howitzers, Stukas, Ju-88. Problem is, what I need is tactical nukes....:p

Oh well, I shall prevail. :confused:

I have to admit I'm definitely a tactician of the "shoot first, shoot second, shoot some more, and move in once you've killed everything but the cockroaches" mentality.

[old_pop2000]

I have to admit I'm definitely a tactician of the "shoot first, shoot second, shoot some more, and move in once you've killed everything but the cockroaches" mentality.

Hi Steel:
That isn't a bad battle plan but you still have to move your infantry across about 15 hexes of open ground to get close to the trench lines after negotiating the mine field with pillboxes, machine guns, infantry in a series of stepped lines of defense. You can't kill everything, but you can destroy the pillboxes with your 88mm and Stukas. You will eventually have to make the move across the open field and that's when he gets you.

The original action took place on 14 April 1941, when Tobruk was finally surrounded and Rommel ordered the Brescia and the 5th Light to attack the defense works. The tanks of the 5th panzer were stopped in front of the antitank ditch. Rommel admits that they did not have plans of the defenses. Apparently, they had not received them from the Italians. The Italians always were good at construction projects like the landward defenses of Tobruk. There were over thirty miles of defenses along the perimeter of Tobruk. :p

[JMS]

I can only think of one successful COIN operation and that was in Malaya with the Kurkas fighting the Malayan Communists...

There was also the Borneo Confrontation between Indonesia and the Malay federation (meaning, the UK) successfully fought by the Brits. The Malayan "emergency" was also fought by many others in addtion to the Gurkhas, and it did not really end until the 80s.

There have been other successful COIN campaigns, problem is, what's left afterwards, for example, the NKVD/MVD/KGB was successful in fighting a COIN campaign in Ukraine in the late 40s/50s, but you can imagine the methods...

The US/ROK also fought a very successful campaign in Korea in the late 60s vs NK infiltrators and guerrillas aiming at setting up a second Vietnam.

Then, there's Che Guevara's failure in Bolivia.

The real key to a successful COIN campaign is intelligence, to target the insurgents only, and also addressing the grievances,if any, of those supporting the insurgents.

Guess what's not being done in Afghanistan.

[old_pop2000]

There was also the Borneo Confrontation between Indonesia and the Malay federation (meaning, the UK) successfully fought by the Brits. The Malayan "emergency" was also fought by many others in addtion to the Gurkhas, and it did not really end until the 80s.

There have been other successful COIN campaigns, problem is, what's left afterwards, for example, the NKVD/MVD/KGB was successful in fighting a COIN campaign in Ukraine in the late 40s/50s, but you can imagine the methods...

The US/ROK also fought a very successful campaign in Korea in the late 60s vs NK infiltrators and guerrillas aiming at setting up a second Vietnam.

Then, there's Che Guevara's failure in Bolivia.

The real key to a successful COIN campaign is intelligence, to target the insurgents only, and also addressing the grievances,if any, of those supporting the insurgents.

Guess what's not being done in Afghanistan.

Hi JMS:

Research shows that there have been well over 20, including the Phillippine Insurrection of the 1899-1902 period, the Malay Emergency you indicated and the Hukbalahap Rebellion. The latter, again, in the Phillippines in the 1946-1954 time frame. In fact, insurrection fail almost 90% of the time due to many reasons, some of which is that the people themselves do not support the insurrection. The key to successful COIN operations has always been indigenous forces. The focus of all forces fighting against the insurrection should be the people and their belief in the government. Body counts don't contribute to confidence by the people, in their government.

[old_pop2000]

AAR For Meet the Grants

This is an interesting scenario in the DAK set. It takes place at Gazala, specifically Knightsbridge in May, 1942. A group of MKIIIs and MKIVs, two SDK 251s with 37mm guns, two Mobile 20mm FLAK guns, all from the 8th and 5th Panzer are heading up a road. The road forks, one section heading north, one heading east. Your objectives are north and east. This is reportedly the first meeting with the US M3 Grant tanks. The scenario comes from the book by Volkmar Kuhn titled, "Rommel in the Desert". An excellent book, I am currently reading.

The British tanks attack from the east. My plan was to have my armor pull off of the road and turn towards the incoming threat but send my two SDK-FS 251's and one recce north to capture the northern objectives. This serves a couple of purposes: it captures the objectives , scouts the northern flank and causes the AI to split is effort by attempting to recapture them. Surprisingly, the SDK-FS 252 37mm guns are quite effective against Humbers and they even nailed two Grants.

My MKIIIs with 50mm are very effective against the Grants, especially if I let them stay stationary. Their accuracy is excellent. I shoot two shots, then move forward, using the leapfrog principle of movement. This leaves some of the tanks stationary for one turn, increasing their accuracy. The 20mm FLAK guns are useful especially against lightly or non-armoured forces. They can even knock out light tanks and disable the Crusaders, Honey or other lightly armoured vehicle. The German's used those weapons to great effectiveness in the desert. The final results were a decisive victory. I lost about 8 vehicles including two tanks destroyed, two immobilized, one recce, one SDK-FS 251, just to name a few. The British lost 47 AVs.

You do have reinforcements in the form of three SDK-FS 7s towing 88mm FLAK guns, but using my tactics, they weren't needed, and arrived far too late to be of service and if you wait, you don't have enough time. It's a fun tank vs tank battle.

[old_pop2000]

Well, if you want an easy scenario, for just shooting things up, try "Tigers in the Desert" in the DAK group. It is from the same book, and it reenacts the action by the 1st platoon of the 501st Tiger detachment on the road to Tebourda in Tunisia. You have eight tigers moving down the road, and the US forces are moving toward you with M3 Grants, early M4 Shermans, M3 White halftracks, 37mm AT guns, scouts, and jeeps. It's a duck shoot, but you must remember to advance rapidly and gain the objectives hexes. I used the same tactical principle of firing a couple of rounds, then moving while other tanks stay stationary.

Final results were 1 tiger lost, 1 immobilized and 26 US armored and soft skinned vehicles lost. The total US force destroyed. Great fun.:p:D

Note: The real 501st Tiger Detachment had a 3.75 to 1 kill ration with 120 tigers lost against 450 tanks destroyed. It was later redesignated the III battalion of 7th Panzer Regiment of the 10th Panzer division. the staf and two platoons later surrendered in Tunisia in 1943.

[Mike Malanaphy]

AAR For Meet the Grants

This is an interesting scenario in the DAK set. It takes place at Gazala, specifically Knightsbridge in May, 1942. A group of MKIIIs and MKIVs, two SDK 251s with 37mm guns, two Mobile 20mm FLAK guns, all from the 8th and 5th Panzer are heading up a road. The road forks, one section heading north, one heading east. Your objectives are north and east. This is reportedly the first meeting with the US M3 Grant tanks. The scenario comes from the book by Volkmar Kuhn titled, "Rommel in the Desert". An excellent book, I am currently reading.

The British tanks attack from the east. My plan was to have my armor pull off of the road and turn towards the incoming threat but send my two SDK-FS 251's and one recce north to capture the northern objectives. This serves a couple of purposes: it captures the objectives , scouts the northern flank and causes the AI to split is effort by attempting to recapture them. Surprisingly, the SDK-FS 252 37mm guns are quite effective against Humbers and they even nailed two Grants.

My MKIIIs with 50mm are very effective against the Grants, especially if I let them stay stationary. Their accuracy is excellent. I shoot two shots, then move forward, using the leapfrog principle of movement. This leaves some of the tanks stationary for one turn, increasing their accuracy. The 20mm FLAK guns are useful especially against lightly or non-armoured forces. They can even knock out light tanks and disable the Crusaders, Honey or other lightly armoured vehicle. The German's used those weapons to great effectiveness in the desert. The final results were a decisive victory. I lost about 8 vehicles including two tanks destroyed, two immobilized, one recce, one SDK-FS 251, just to name a few. The British lost 47 AVs.

You do have reinforcements in the form of three SDK-FS 7s towing 88mm FLAK guns, but using my tactics, they weren't needed, and arrived far too late to be of service and if you wait, you don't have enough time. It's a fun tank vs tank battle.

Hi Dennis,

Nice job. Looking at my 1/35th Panzer III and my Grant, the Grant is a huge target. Her armor was an improvement over previous US tanks, but still thin, especially vulnerable from the side. The Grant ( US M3 with a British designed turret) stood 10' 9" tall and featured a three section front plate; the upper and lower only 2" in thickness at 30-53 degree angle with the middle plate at 1.5". Side armor was only 1.5" So the Grant was not terribly better armored than other British tanks. The German 50mm tank gun would be very effective against them. The fun thing about these types of engagements is you get a feel as to how weapons can operate effective outside their designed roles and how you can creatively generate combat power to win battles. The Grant's big advantages were it's mechanical relaibility and teh range of it's 75mm gun to attack AT guns from outside their effective range.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Nice job. Looking at my 1/35th Panzer III and my Grant, the Grant is a huge target. Her armor was an improvement over previous US tanks, but still thin, especially vulnerable from the side. The Grant ( US M3 with a British designed turret) stood 11'9 tall and featured a three section front plate; the upper and lower only 2" in thickness at 30-53 degree anglem with the middle plate at 1.5". Side armor was only 1.5"

HI Mike:
Thanks and that is interesting. I've studied the M3, and other tanks of that era and like you say, the armor was thin and it had a high silhouette. Basically making it a wonderful target for good German guns, optics and tactics. The sponson mounted 75 was almost useless in hull down positions, frequent in NA.

Just finished the book I alluded to and you should read it. It's great. Interesting that Rommel used a lot of battlegroups during the whole conflict.

[Kyle Holgate]

HI Mike:
Thanks and that is interesting. I've studied the M3, and other tanks of that era and like you say, the armor was thin and it had a high silhouette. Basically making it a wonderful target for good German guns, optics and tactics. The sponson mounted 75 was almost useless in hull down positions, frequent in NA.

Just finished the book I alluded to and you should read it. It's great. Interesting that Rommel used a lot of battlegroups during the whole conflict.

You still have to watch the 37mm gun on Stuarts and Grants. This gun has enough penetration power to cause some unpleasant surprises for the Pz III and IV types, and even a Tiger or later a Panther has to be sure not to give them a flank shot.
I've always like the Honeys/Stuarts for all the maching guns they have + you can hide them in ambush zones and do nasty things with the main gun on German tanks. Alternatively they can scoot too, with good speed. Nice little tank.

[old_pop2000]

You still have to watch the 37mm gun on Stuarts and Grants. This gun has enough penetration power to cause some unpleasant surprises for the Pz III and IV types, and even a Tiger or later a Panther has to be sure not to give them a flank shot.
I've always like the Honeys/Stuarts for all the maching guns they have + you can hide them in ambush zones and do nasty things with the main gun on German tanks. Alternatively they can scoot too, with good speed. Nice little tank.

Hi Kyle:
You certainly did, it could penetrate 2.4" of armour at 500 yards. It was deadly against soft skinned, lightly armoured vehicles or side and rear ends of tanks. However, it took real guts to sit and be patient, while a tank gets within 500 yards. The Honey was a good tank in the undulating ground in NA as long as you could shoot and skoot. Robert Crisp developed a system whereby the gunner kept his sights on the target until the tank stopped, then he took a quick aim, and fired. The driver was trained to pop the clutch and lurch forward when the gun fired, not waiting for the command to drive. Crisp talks about this in Brazen Chariots, another excellent first hand account of the Crusader battles in a Honey. Crisp noted that one of its greatest assets was its ability to turn without shedding a track which was a propensity for British tanks. That's why it was called the honey. The manual, TM 9-726 has some interesting information. I've downloaded a copy for reference purposes.

The frontal armour was 5/8 and 1.5 inch, sides 1 inch, top .5 in, rear 1 in. Turret front plate was 1.5 with 1.25 in vertical sides. The turret was manually handcranked. It had a crew of four and with crew, accessories and fuel topped out at 28,000 lbs. Height was 104 in, turning circle of 42ft, 6-7 foot trench capability and a max grade of ascension of 45 degrees. With a diesel engine, range was 90 miles. On petrol, it was 75 miles. It had one 37mm and 1 .30 cal mounted in the turret, one .30 in a ball mount in the bow, 1 .30 cal. mounted in a bracket on the turret and 1 .45 thompson submachine gun. It also had 2 .30 cal machine guns, one in each sponson. It carried 103 rds of 37mm. It used either a continental engine or a Guiberson diesel. Never heard of the last one. More than you ever wanted to know, right.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Kyle:
You certainly did, it could penetrate 2.4" of armour at 500 yards. It was deadly against soft skinned, lightly armoured vehicles or side and rear ends of tanks. However, it took real guts to sit and be patient, while a tank gets within 500 yards. The Honey was a good tank in the undulating ground in NA as long as you could shoot and skoot. Robert Crisp developed a system whereby the gunner kept his sights on the target until the tank stopped, then he took a quick aim, and fired. The driver was trained to pop the clutch and lurch forward when the gun fired, not waiting for the command to drive. Crisp talks about this in Brazen Chariots, another excellent first hand account of the Crusader battles in a Honey. Crisp noted that one of its greatest assets was its ability to turn without shedding a track which was a propensity for British tanks. That's why it was called the honey. The manual, TM 9-726 has some interesting information. I've downloaded a copy for reference purposes.

The frontal armour was 5/8 and 1.5 inch, sides 1 inch, top .5 in, rear 1 in. Turret front plate was 1.5 with 1.25 in vertical sides. The turret was manually handcranked. It had a crew of four and with crew, accessories and fuel topped out at 28,000 lbs. Height was 104 in, turning circle of 42ft, 6-7 foot trench capability and a max grade of ascension of 45 degrees. With a diesel engine, range was 90 miles. On petrol, it was 75 miles. It had one 37mm and 1 .30 cal mounted in the turret, one .30 in a ball mount in the bow, 1 .30 cal. mounted in a bracket on the turret and 1 .45 thompson submachine gun. It also had 2 .30 cal machine guns, one in each sponson. It carried 103 rds of 37mm. It used either a continental engine or a Guiberson diesel. Never heard of the last one. More than you ever wanted to know, right.

Hi Dennis,

I have Crisp's book in a box somewhere at home, A Ballantine papaerback I got when a teen (yikes). I'll have to dig it out. The TM table of contents shows the gyro stabilzation unit. The early US stabilizers only worked in elevation. Having it would make Crisp's technique easier to perform for his gunner to stay on target.

US Stuarts in North Africa often carried a 55 gallon drum of gasoline next to the turret to extend it's range. It's amazing how a skilled tank commander can use the ground to maneuver to the flanks and sides for an effective shot. In Europe, being on the offensive often left these tanks vulnerable to ambush from their german counterparts.

Faced with a large pool of 2pdr equipped vehilces, the British developed the Littlejohn adapter for it in 1943. The adapter screwed onto the end of the barrel and squeezed the special 40mm round down to 30mm for a higher muzzle velocity. This increased penetration by about 30%. Used primarily on Staghound armored cars, the adapter had to be removed to fire regualr AP and HE.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I have Crisp's book in a box somewhere at home, A Ballantine papaerback I got when a teen (yikes). I'll have to dig it out......does your TM show the vehicle fitted with a stabilizer in elevation? Having it would make Crisp's technique easier to perform for his gunner to stay on target.

US Stuarts in North Africa often carried a 55 gallon drum of gasoline next to the turret to extend it's range. It's amazing how a skilled tank commander can use the ground to maneuver to the flanks and sides for an effective shot. In Europe, being on the offensive often left these tanks vulnerable to ambush from their german counterparts.

Faced with a large pool of 2pdr equipped vehilces, the British developed the Littlejohn adapter for it in 1943. The adapter screwed onto the end of the barrel and squeezed the special 40mm round down to 30mm for a higher muzzle velocity. This increased penetration by about 30%. Used primarily on Staghound armored cars, the adapter had to be removed to fire regualr AP and HE.

Hi Mike:
The 37mm in the M3 did have the M22 gyro-stabilizer mount. It has some pictures of it. Main parts are; master switch, pump and motor assembly, stiffness and recoil control box, piston and cylinder assembly, the gyro-control unit and recoil switch. It is battery operated using a slip ring on the propellor shaft housing. the pump and motor assy. is mounted on the wall of the turret behind the combination gun mount.

To set the stiffness control, you set the system to zero, unmesh the hand elevating gears and turn the handwheel until the gyro-control is almost vertical then start the oil pump motor by pushing the handle of the master switch to 'on'. One caveat states that the stabilzer equipment be in operation only when the tank is moving and when control is necessary. It also states that when the gun is aimed, the stabilizer must be allowed to control the position of the gun so the handwheel should not be turned after the gun has reached its max limits of travel in elevation or depression. Anyway, that is just some of what the TM states, probably is more than anyone wanted to know.

I tried to compress it and send it to you but your mail system rejected it due to size. Sorry about that.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
The 37mm in the M3 did have the M22 gyro-stabilizer mount. It has some pictures of it. Main parts are; master switch, pump and motor assembly, stiffness and recoil control box, piston and cylinder assembly, the gyro-control unit and recoil switch. It is battery operated using a slip ring on the propellor shaft housing. the pump and motor assy. is mounted on the wall of the turret behind the combination gun mount.

To set the stiffness control, you set the system to zero, unmesh the hand elevating gears and turn the handwheel until the gyro-control is almost vertical then start the oil pump motor by pushing the handle of the master switch to 'on'. One caveat states that the stabilzer equipment be in operation only when the tank is moving and when control is necessary. It also states that when the gun is aimed, the stabilizer must be allowed to control the position of the gun so the handwheel should not be turned after the gun has reached its max limits of travel in elevation or depression. Anyway, that is just some of what the TM states, probably is more than anyone wanted to know.

I tried to compress it and send it to you but your mail system rejected it due to size. Sorry about that.

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for trying, I glanced at it on line. The stabilizer was also installed on the Lee for both the 37mm and 75mm guns. The ident point for the 37mm is a long cylindrical piece under the barrel which was a counterweight to balance the gun for stabilization. On the 75mm, the early short barrels will have a cylindrical counterweight clamped to the end of the muzzle to make it balance while the longer barreled version was actually designed for the stabilizer. I don't know the rationale behind the stabilization as it performed poorly in use and was limited to elevation only requiring the tank to move in a straight line. Not the greatest tactic though Crisp seems to have made it work for him.

Another example of doing as much as you can with what you have. I may have to fire up Combat Mission Afrika Corps to try using terrrain to stalk. : ) See if I can do as well as Humphrey Bogart's did with his M3 in "Sahara".

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for trying, I glanced at it on line. The stabilizer was also installed on the Lee for both the 37mm and 75mm guns. The ident point for the 37mm is a long cylindrical piece under the barrel which was a counterweight to balance the gun for stabilization. On the 75mm, the early short barrels will have a cylindrical counterweight clamped to the end of the muzzle to make it balance while the longer barreled version was actually designed for the stabilizer. I don't know the rationale behind the stabilization as it performed poorly in use and was limited to elevation only requiring the tank to move in a straight line. Not the greatest tactic though Crisp seems to have made it work for him.

Another example of doing as much as you can with what you have. I may have to fire up Combat Mission Afrika Corps to try using terrrain to stalk. : ) See if I can do as well as Humphrey Bogart's did with his M3 in "Sahara".

Hi Mike:
I read somewhere that the stabilizer actually made the gun move up and down wildly. It would seem easier to do like Crisp did and develop a system for firing and moving without tank commander intervention.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
I read somewhere that the stabilizer actually made the gun move up and down wildly. It would seem easier to do like Crisp did and develop a system for firing and moving without tank commander intervention.

Hi Dennis,

I'll take a look at Hunnicut's book on the Sherman to see if there is more information. The stabilizer was deleted in later war Shermans as it proved ineffective. It may just be the technology of the time was unable to provide a system that could cope with rapid movement. If memory serves, the British Centurion fielded the first useful two plane stabilization system and it was electro mechanical rather than hydraulic. Even so, those systems could do little more than attempt to keep the target within the gunner's field of view while moving rather than an accurate lay for shooting on the move. The M60A3 fielded the first effective US stabilzation system for accurate shooting on the move, a standard feature of all modern MBTs. As a sidelight, the range safety fans for tank firing are extensive (33,000 meters for 105mm APDS) and being able to shoot on the move while violently maneuvering would be a safety nightmare. Typically, the gunner would index HEAT or HEP on his computer and APDS was loaded by accident. HEP and HEAT are substantially slower than APDS so a computer indexed for them would compensate with additional elevation on the gun. Nothing like watching a 105mm tracer fly towards the horizon if your the range safety officer. : ) I suspect the only place you can do it is at the national Training Center with lasers.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I'll take a look at Hunnicut's book on the Sherman to see if there is more information. The stabilizer was deleted in later war Shermans as it proved ineffective. It may just be the technology of the time was unable to provide a system that could cope with rapid movement. If memory serves, the British Centurion fielded the first useful two plane stabilization system and it was electro mechanical rather than hydraulic. Even so, those systems could do little more than attempt to keep the target within the gunner's field of view while moving rather than an accurate lay for shooting on the move. The M60A3 fielded the first effective US stabilzation system for accurate shooting on the move, a standard feature of all modern MBTs. As a sidelight, the range safety fans for tank firing are extensive (33,000 meters for 105mm APDS) and being able to shoot on the move while violently maneuvering would be a safety nightmare. Typically, the gunner would index HEAT or HEP on his computer and APDS was loaded by accident. HEP and HEAT are substantially slower than APDS so a computer indexed for them would compensate with additional elevation on the gun. Nothing like watching a 105mm tracer fly towards the horizon if your the range safety officer. : ) I suspect the only place you can do it is at the national Training Center with lasers.

Hi Mike:
Ok, because I am looking at my reference: M4 Sherman At War by Green & Brown. They talk about the system being a single-plane stabilizer but was not for shoot-on-the-move situations. It actually just stabilized the two sights so the gunner could see the target. It was good at firing the .30 cal accurately, in some situations. It was more of a moral booster than anything. The army manual on tank gunnery stated: "firing the 75mm gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or under " One gunner states that the device was useful on level terrain, but on rough terrain, with everyone bouncing up and down, the gyro-stabilizer was useless. Of course, you might not hit anything, but you were a harder target on the move, especially against Tigers and Panthers. It was a very unreliable system, apparently and most tankers did not use them. What does Hunnicutt state?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:
Ok, because I am looking at my reference: M4 Sherman At War by Green & Brown. They talk about the system being a single-plane stabilizer but was not for shoot-on-the-move situations. It actually just stabilized the two sights so the gunner could see the target. It was good at firing the .30 cal accurately, in some situations. It was more of a moral booster than anything. The army manual on tank gunnery stated: "firing the 75mm gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or under " One gunner states that the device was useful on level terrain, but on rough terrain, with everyone bouncing up and down, the gyro-stabilizer was useless. Of course, you might not hit anything, but you were a harder target on the move, especially against Tigers and Panthers. It was a very unreliable system, apparently and most tankers did not use them. What does Hunnicutt state?

Hi Dennis,

Hunnicut spends little time talking about them in his Sherman volume. He cites the results of April, 1941 field tests using a single plane, elvation only stabilizer and power traverse using the 37mm gun. The tests were run at 10 mph on a zig zag course (no ranges mentioned) and the hit rate with both was 61%. This lead to the adoption of the stablizer system for the new M3 tank in June, 1941. Later,on, he says "battle experience" gave Shermans with stabilizers and power traverse had a distinct over their German counterparts as long as crews were well trained in it's use. He provides no concrete examples as to how the stabilizer contributed to that advantge. This in contrast with the tank gunnery manual advice to fire while halted as you mentioned. In one instance, however, he mentions that the stabilizer proved useful in taking the backlash out of the elevation gearing for the gun mount, improving round to round accuracy. I suspect this and power traverse had more of an impact on increased battle effectiveness rather than the stabilizer itself.

Based upon my experience, I would agree with Green and Brown. They make an unmentioined, critical point. It's one thing to stabilize the gun and sight, but quite another to stabilize the crew. On most tank ranges, your following a gravelled or paved road to prevent damage to terrain, an entirely different set of circumstances from actually going cross country. Prior to modern suspensions systems ala the M1, the crew was bounced around continually making concentration and manipulation of gun controls difficult while on the move, not to mention the poor loader.

I suspect that once US tankers started taking fire from German tanks, the ability to press forward firing on the move had little appeal. The bulky Sherman presented a silhouette little smaller than the M# Lee and significantly higher than German Mk IVs Firing from halted or hull down positions was more accurate and proected the vehicle and crew from observation and counter fire.

I was incorrrect earlier when I said the installation of the stabilizer was halted later in the war. The system remained in use till the end. The Ordnance Board and IBM developed competing two plane stabilizers that were tested in June, 1945.

Shermans were doctrinally designed to provide fire support for infantry, not fight tanks. I suspect that the inclusion of the stabilizer was intended to allow a tank gunner to keep his sight on an area to be suppressed with machine gun fire or HE main gun rounds while the tank was moving at infantry pace.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Mike:
In looking at the manual for the M4A3, I was examining the section on starting the stabilizer. The method of adjustment was to use stiffness and recoil adjustments. I've had experience with stable platforms in inertial navigation systems for aircraft, and they require spin up time and coarse and fine alignment time. I don't believe that this was a gyro stabilized gun system. It was simply a hydraulic based stiffing system in vertical and recoil. I am still attempting to find the technical manual on the stabilizer system.

[steel_selachian]

Started messing around with SPMBT a few weeks ago, I'm quite spoiled now on the capabilities of modern equipment. Attack helicopters in particular are murder, although what still bothers me is the lack of a provision for Combat Air Patrols in-game; in a couple scenarios where I added some Russian Mi-28s or Ka-52s to the opposition I would have preferred the option of calling in fighters to swat the darn things. Often times I just assume air superiority and deny the AI any air assets.

[old_pop2000]

Started messing around with SPMBT a few weeks ago, I'm quite spoiled now on the capabilities of modern equipment. Attack helicopters in particular are murder, although what still bothers me is the lack of a provision for Combat Air Patrols in-game; in a couple scenarios where I added some Russian Mi-28s or Ka-52s to the opposition I would have preferred the option of calling in fighters to swat the darn things. Often times I just assume air superiority and deny the AI any air assets.

Hi Steel:
Remember that each turn occupies three minutes of time. Even if you have on-call air support, it's going to take at least five to six minutes for them to reach the target area, orientate themselves, contact the forward observers and get intel on the location of the target, ingress and egress vectors, altitudes, weapons loads, location of friendlies, cloud heights, wind vectors etc. BTW, there are different kinds of CAP. TARCAP, BARCAP,MIGCAP,HAVCAP,RESCAP, just to name a few.

[steel_selachian]

Hi Steel:
Remember that each turn occupies three minutes of time. Even if you have on-call air support, it's going to take at least five to six minutes for them to reach the target area, orientate themselves, contact the forward observers and get intel on the location of the target, ingress and egress vectors, altitudes, weapons loads, location of friendlies, cloud heights, wind vectors etc. BTW, there are different kinds of CAP. TARCAP, BARCAP,MIGCAP,HAVCAP,RESCAP, just to name a few.

Yeah, I just suppose I'm used to wider-scale games like Fleet Command. As stated, I often prefer to assume I have fighter patrols overhead that are making enemy air sorties suicidal and leave out hostile aircraft entirely. As far as my own aircraft, so far I've relied mainly on ground forces and attack helicopters for a greater degree of control and save the fixed-wing platforms for emergencies. On the tutorial scenario (US vs. Iraq, 1991) my only casualty was an M1A1 immobilized by one of my own A-10s that entered the map immediately over the platoon and decided to drop its cluster bombs right there.

[old_pop2000]

Yeah, I just suppose I'm used to wider-scale games like Fleet Command. As stated, I often prefer to assume I have fighter patrols overhead that are making enemy air sorties suicidal and leave out hostile aircraft entirely. As far as my own aircraft, so far I've relied mainly on ground forces and attack helicopters for a greater degree of control and save the fixed-wing platforms for emergencies. On the tutorial scenario (US vs. Iraq, 1991) my only casualty was an M1A1 immobilized by one of my own A-10s that entered the map immediately over the platoon and decided to drop its cluster bombs right there.

Steel:

In this game, each hex is 50 meters or 54 yards, with one turn about 3 minutes for both sides. We talking about a very short duration tactical engagement. At best, maybe 2 to 4 miles in length. Tacair can be useful in identifying enemy strongpoints and centers of concentration even if they don't hit anything. That's the real value of tacair in this short duration action. The most valuable contribution of aircraft, in reality, is in the area of interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Close support is valuable only if the aircraft are immediately on scene and loaded with the appropriate ordnance. WinSPMBT reduced the effectiveness of tacair from the original game. If you want to deal with attack helicopters, ground based missiles and AA guns are probably the best method, they are immediate. Even in Desert Storm, Tacair was mostly effective at interdicting Iraqi units in movements, not necessarily available for the types of engagements depicted in WinSPMBT. Maybe Mike has more information, he has real time experience. Remember that after the first pass, most of the FB will have expended most of their best ordnance. After that, all they can do is fire cannons.

[Christian Schwietzke]

Steel:

In this game, each hex is 50 meters or 54 yards, with one turn about 3 minutes for both sides. We talking about a very short duration tactical engagement. At best, maybe 2 to 4 miles in length. Tacair can be useful in identifying enemy strongpoints and centers of concentration even if they don't hit anything. That's the real value of tacair in this short duration action. The most valuable contribution of aircraft, in reality, is in the area of interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Close support is valuable only if the aircraft are immediately on scene and loaded with the appropriate ordnance. WinSPMBT reduced the effectiveness of tacair from the original game. If you want to deal with attack helicopters, ground based missiles and AA guns are probably the best method, they are immediate. Even in Desert Storm, Tacair was mostly effective at interdicting Iraqi units in movements, not necessarily available for the types of engagements depicted in WinSPMBT. Maybe Mike has more information, he has real time experience. Remember that after the first pass, most of the FB will have expended most of their best ordnance. After that, all they can do is fire cannons.

In SP2, I mostly avoided using Tacair for close air support, but instead sent them against enemy artillery in the rear. Even if you do not see where they are to begin with, you do see (or did, in that version) the smoke they generated when firing, and could use that as a target for Tacair. Once an aircraft has been there, of course, the artillery position was revealed.

[old_pop2000]

In SP2, I mostly avoided using Tacair for close air support, but instead sent them against enemy artillery in the rear. Even if you do not see where they are to begin with, you do see (or did, in that version) the smoke they generated when firing, and could use that as a target for Tacair. Once an aircraft has been there, of course, the artillery position was revealed.

What you are describing is the borderline between CAS and interdiction. In the tactical, short duration games of the SP series, that would be CAS. Other games, it might be interdiction and armed recon. During WW2, most of the fighter-bomber missions were of the interdiction and armed recon version, if a flight saw no action and began to return to base, they could be told to contact a certain FACs on an assigned frequency and callsign, on the ground and routed to CAS missions. Later, typhoons and P-47s were stationed closer to the fronts on newly captured airfields and were assigned to CAS on immediate notice. During the Market-Garden operation, the Typhoons were very close to the front. Its hard to get that feeling in the SP series, but in some of the Shrapnel games, it is more apparent.

[steel_selachian]

Steel:

In this game, each hex is 50 meters or 54 yards, with one turn about 3 minutes for both sides. We talking about a very short duration tactical engagement. At best, maybe 2 to 4 miles in length. Tacair can be useful in identifying enemy strongpoints and centers of concentration even if they don't hit anything. That's the real value of tacair in this short duration action. The most valuable contribution of aircraft, in reality, is in the area of interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Close support is valuable only if the aircraft are immediately on scene and loaded with the appropriate ordnance. WinSPMBT reduced the effectiveness of tacair from the original game. If you want to deal with attack helicopters, ground based missiles and AA guns are probably the best method, they are immediate. Even in Desert Storm, Tacair was mostly effective at interdicting Iraqi units in movements, not necessarily available for the types of engagements depicted in WinSPMBT. Maybe Mike has more information, he has real time experience. Remember that after the first pass, most of the FB will have expended most of their best ordnance. After that, all they can do is fire cannons.

I've had the most success in both SPWW2 and SPMBT with interdiction-type strikes where I call them in on a road or chokepoint I know the enemy is approaching. One time in SPWW2 I got extremely lucky with a pair of Typhoon sorties and managed to take out half a company of Tiger Is coming down the road towards my mixed Guards squadron of Sherman V and VC Firefly tanks. The ensuing tank brawl was a bit more manageable then. In SPMBT attack helos can do wonders; in one scenario I rigged up four SuperCobras managed to wipe out an entire 10-tank company of T-90s that nearly overran a Force Recon platoon in the path of their advance. This was despite the fact that the Arena systems on the Russian tanks foiled a lot of my Hellfire shots; the Cobras were also carrying 70mm guided rockets that scored enough top/flank/rear hits to make up for it (although theoretically Arena should be just as capable against rockets).

As far as SPAA and SAMs, guns seem to be the most effective - target ECM in the game seems a little too good. In one mission I ran a Watchkeeper RPV over a Russian artillery position defended by 4 Pantsir/SA-22 systems and two SA-13 systems. The little bugger zipped right over them without taking one hit.

[steel_selachian]

Recently I've spent some time taking my old NWP scenarios and refighting them from the ground side in SPMBT (helps that I've now figured out how to edit weapons loads). As such I've been playing around with ampib assaults, which are interesting. Lately I've been working on a couple scenarios with Australian units and was puzzled over their ship-to-shore assets. The Australian Army has replaced their Leopard 1s with M1A1s, which poses a bit of an issue. Although their large amphibious ships (the upcoming Canberra-class LHDs and at least one of the Kanimbla-class LPAs) are fitted to handle the M1, it's a bit of a puzzler how they would get ashore - the Australians only have the LCM-8 and five newer LCM2000s (the latter of which don't fit aboard the Kanimbla-class), which max out at about 50 tons load. Granted, the Australian M1A1 AIM is a downgraded export variant lacking the DU mesh in the armor, but unless that shaves about 15 tons off the tank's weight the only way to get those things ashore would be to include one or more of the Balkipapan-class LCHs, which won't fit in the well deck but can link up bow-to-stern. Seems like that would make for a dicey operation - either hope for calm seas on the voyage to the target zone with small ships loaded down with 130-200 tons of MBTs or hope for really calm conditions when you're moving sixty-odd ton MBTs over ramps between two non-anchored ships.

Of course, you could skip the worry and not bring tanks, but where's the fun in that?

[old_pop2000]

Recently I've spent some time taking my old NWP scenarios and refighting them from the ground side in SPMBT (helps that I've now figured out how to edit weapons loads). As such I've been playing around with ampib assaults, which are interesting. Lately I've been working on a couple scenarios with Australian units and was puzzled over their ship-to-shore assets. The Australian Army has replaced their Leopard 1s with M1A1s, which poses a bit of an issue. Although their large amphibious ships (the upcoming Canberra-class LHDs and at least one of the Kanimbla-class LPAs) are fitted to handle the M1, it's a bit of a puzzler how they would get ashore - the Australians only have the LCM-8 and five newer LCM2000s (the latter of which don't fit aboard the Kanimbla-class), which max out at about 50 tons load. Granted, the Australian M1A1 AIM is a downgraded export variant lacking the DU mesh in the armor, but unless that shaves about 15 tons off the tank's weight the only way to get those things ashore would be to include one or more of the Balkipapan-class LCHs, which won't fit in the well deck but can link up bow-to-stern. Seems like that would make for a dicey operation - either hope for calm seas on the voyage to the target zone with small ships loaded down with 130-200 tons of MBTs or hope for really calm conditions when you're moving sixty-odd ton MBTs over ramps between two non-anchored ships.

Of course, you could skip the worry and not bring tanks, but where's the fun in that?

Hi Steel
I wouldn't expect that the Australian's would do many amphibious assaults against defended beaches. They would probably opt to land on undefended areas with wheeled AFVs, occupy a port or just bring the M1A1s ashore on transports. These aren't Sherman tanks or M2 Light tanks. Most adversaries for the Australians can be overcome without heavy armor, IMO.

[steel_selachian]

Yeah, I wasn't anticipating a directly opposed assault (I've found that even if you put an infantry company on the beach with no fortifications, it's not uncommon for some nut with an ATGM tube to pop a landing craft or two). The scenario I was thinking was more of a one-two punch, with a vertical envelopment (1-2 companies of commandos or paratroops in Chinooks and MRH90s with about 4 Tiger ARHs in support) clearing out the landing area and the landing craft hitting the area about 4-5 rounds later with a mixed armor/mech infantry force to back them up - say four M1A1s, a recce troop of ASLAVs, and a platoon or two of M113s with infantry; landing craft used are 2 LSTs (standing in for Balkipapan-class ships) and 4 LCM-8s. On-call air support consists of 8 F-35s, with half configured as tank-busters (6 AGM-65s and 4 GBU-12s) and the other half armed with 6 GBU-12s.

In the scenario I'm working on the hypothetical opponent is Myanmar (not in the game, so I assembled a mixed force using the "Captured" function) including about 9 BMP-1s, a company each of Type 59D and Type 69-II tanks (26 tanks total), and some truck-carried and dismounted infantry. The idea is to capture a coastal airfield at the lower end of a bay (forget the map I used) and then secure the harbor. The tanks are staggered reinforcements; the Type 69s appear on the far side of the map on Round 3 and the Type 59s on Round 5.

[old_pop2000]

Yeah, I wasn't anticipating a directly opposed assault (I've found that even if you put an infantry company on the beach with no fortifications, it's not uncommon for some nut with an ATGM tube to pop a landing craft or two). The scenario I was thinking was more of a one-two punch, with a vertical envelopment (1-2 companies of commandos or paratroops in Chinooks and MRH90s with about 4 Tiger ARHs in support) clearing out the landing area and the landing craft hitting the area about 4-5 rounds later with a mixed armor/mech infantry force to back them up - say four M1A1s, a recce troop of ASLAVs, and a platoon or two of M113s with infantry; landing craft used are 2 LSTs (standing in for Balkipapan-class ships) and 4 LCM-8s. On-call air support consists of 8 F-35s, with half configured as tank-busters (6 AGM-65s and 4 GBU-12s) and the other half armed with 6 GBU-12s.

In the scenario I'm working on the hypothetical opponent is Myanmar (not in the game, so I assembled a mixed force using the "Captured" function) including about 9 BMP-1s, a company each of Type 59D and Type 69-II tanks (26 tanks total), and some truck-carried and dismounted infantry. The idea is to capture a coastal airfield at the lower end of a bay (forget the map I used) and then secure the harbor. The tanks are staggered reinforcements; the Type 69s appear on the far side of the map on Round 3 and the Type 59s on Round 5.

I won't ask, why the Australian's would want to invade Myanmar or Burma. I assume you are heading toward Mingaladon airport which is near Yangon. Interesting.

[steel_selachian]

I haven't worked out the geography for the SPMBT scenario, but I based it off one of my NWP ones titled "Burma Shave." The idea was based on the Cyclone Nargis disaster, when the Myanmar junta shut out foreign military units from delivering aid to the Ayeyarwady Delta. "Burma Shave" was a down-the road scenario where a similar disaster strikes and several nations (tentatively the US, Australia, and possibly India) decide to push aid through (don't ask me about all the political, legal, and diplomatic implications here). In the NWP scenario, the primary objective was to knock out the Myanmar Air Force and fly SEAD missions over the area so C-17s and C-130s could airdrop humanitarian supplies, assets being a CSG/ESG combo, some USAF/RAAF support, an Australian amphib group, and if I include the Indian military a large IAF contingent. If I develop it further I'll include either a second stage of the mission or an entire second mission involving escort of transport aircraft with some surviving air defenses popping up and having to be dealt with, either by fixed-wing or helo assets.

[old_pop2000]

I haven't worked out the geography for the SPMBT scenario, but I based it off one of my NWP ones titled "Burma Shave." The idea was based on the Cyclone Nargis disaster, when the Myanmar junta shut out foreign military units from delivering aid to the Ayeyarwady Delta. "Burma Shave" was a down-the road scenario where a similar disaster strikes and several nations (tentatively the US, Australia, and possibly India) decide to push aid through (don't ask me about all the political, legal, and diplomatic implications here). In the NWP scenario, the primary objective was to knock out the Myanmar Air Force and fly SEAD missions over the area so C-17s and C-130s could airdrop humanitarian supplies, assets being a CSG/ESG combo, some USAF/RAAF support, an Australian amphib group, and if I include the Indian military a large IAF contingent. If I develop it further I'll include either a second stage of the mission or an entire second mission involving escort of transport aircraft with some surviving air defenses popping up and having to be dealt with, either by fixed-wing or helo assets.

Well, it sounds like an interesting task. Better hope this operation isn't in the monsoon season though, things could get a little dicey. Have fun, let me know how it turns out. In TOAW III, I've been playing Balkans 1912. The Ottoman Turks are hard to beat, terrain is mountainous and no armour. A real precursor to WWI.

[steel_selachian]

I might have second thoughts and redo it as a USMC-only scenario - say what you want about LCACs, but they're useful in swamp terrain. Actually, I may want to see about some tweaks for that - I do recall hearing that there was some testing done of using LCACs as makeshift gun platforms, using embarked tanks and LAVs as weapons mounts. Could be simulated by adding 120 mm and 25 mm guns to the LCACs. Couple that with an EFV company and you could have an odd but possibly effective little river gunboat force.

As for the weather, yeah the ground operations at least would have to take place outside of monsoon season. Fixed-wing air ops might be able to get away with it; the initial stages would be standoff SEAD missions with HARMs and JSOWs as well as standoff/precision attacks on fixed targets using SLAMs and JDAMs. WVR missions going after mobile targets would probably need clearer conditions for using Mavericks and LGBs.

[old_pop2000]

I might have second thoughts and redo it as a USMC-only scenario - say what you want about LCACs, but they're useful in swamp terrain. Actually, I may want to see about some tweaks for that - I do recall hearing that there was some testing done of using LCACs as makeshift gun platforms, using embarked tanks and LAVs as weapons mounts. Could be simulated by adding 120 mm and 25 mm guns to the LCACs. Couple that with an EFV company and you could have an odd but possibly effective little river gunboat force.

As for the weather, yeah the ground operations at least would have to take place outside of monsoon season. Fixed-wing air ops might be able to get away with it; the initial stages would be standoff SEAD missions with HARMs and JSOWs as well as standoff/precision attacks on fixed targets using SLAMs and JDAMs. WVR missions going after mobile targets would probably need clearer conditions for using Mavericks and LGBs.

Why don't you mount a GAU-13 30 mm cannon on an LCAC-66. Its been done and tested by the Marines. In fact, a defense article states that the Marines bought up all the USAF GAU-13/A guns and pods. It was mounted on a MAU-12 bomb rack and the rack a transporter. Cool idea.