v4.6 includ this one ?

[steel]

Tank has not reverse posibility, is that one comes to v4.6 perhaps ?

Germany troops has not any heavy machineguns
at all, only 7.62mm heavy mg, why ?

75mm-203mm off board artillery has same ammunition quantity ? Is it possible that heavy 150-203mm has decrees ammunitoin quantity ? SPWAW v4.6

STEEL

[Lars Remmen]

Originally posted by steel:
Tank has not reverse posibility, is that one comes to v4.6 perhaps ?

Germany troops has not any heavy machineguns
at all, only 7.62mm heavy mg, why ?

75mm-203mm off board artillery has same ammunition quantity ? Is it possible that heavy 150-203mm has decrees ammunitoin quantity ? SPWAW v4.6

STEEL

Hello,

I don't think the Germans used anything but 7.92mm in the infantry formations. 13mm and 15mm were used as an aircraft- and anit aircraft weapon. But if you have sources that suggest otherwise do contact the OOB people.

The reverse issue has been around for a long time. The main argument against reverse is that tanks didn't do it much historically. And that a tank driver has NO vision to his rear.

BTW: There is a dedicated OOB forum and I think questions such as theese should go there



------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

[Unhappy Camper]

If tanks didn't back up historically, why did they have reverse gears? Of course they backed up, it was the fastest way to get out of the line of fire. And as to the driver having no rearward line of sight, the tank commander could easily look behind the tank and guide the driver through tight quarters. And I don't think people are asking to be able to drive backwards for the full movement. But it would be nice to be able to back up a couple of hexes so that you don't have to expose your weaker rear armor just to back off a hill or something.

[xavier]

Yes, What I need is just only ONE hex backup, even if it cost all the movement point to do it.

XAAL.

Originally posted by Unhappy Camper:
If tanks didn't back up historically, why did they have reverse gears? Of course they backed up, it was the fastest way to get out of the line of fire. And as to the driver having no rearward line of sight, the tank commander could easily look behind the tank and guide the driver through tight quarters. And I don't think people are asking to be able to drive backwards for the full movement. But it would be nice to be able to back up a couple of hexes so that you don't have to expose your weaker rear armor just to back off a hill or something.

[Paul Vebber]

4.6 will not have reverse movement. If you use the terrain so moving one hex takes you out of LOS, hen you get the effect. Moving 100m or more would rarely be used - and be abused ahistorically by players more than it would add.

The Geramns did not have a 12.7 mm class HMG, that is why 7.92 is the largest - that's what they had.

MIke is looking at tweaking witht the heavy artillery.

[Lars Remmen]

Originally posted by Unhappy Camper:
If tanks didn't back up historically, why did they have reverse gears? Of course they backed up, it was the fastest way to get out of the line of fire. And as to the driver having no rearward line of sight, the tank commander could easily look behind the tank and guide the driver through tight quarters. And I don't think people are asking to be able to drive backwards for the full movement. But it would be nice to be able to back up a couple of hexes so that you don't have to expose your weaker rear armor just to back off a hill or something.

I guess they would use the reverse gear when going into hull down position or while in transit if they needed to back up a bit. To me it makes no sense that if you are moving forward and start to take fire to stop, put the tank in a (slow) reverse gear and then backup. Nope, full speed ahead and a tight turn to get you out of the fire zone altogether. But that is only my opinion


------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

[frank1970]

And showing your soft belly (in this case motorroom) with almost no armor to the enemy?
I think the tankers used the reverse gear, when getting unexpected fire from the front.
50m back into cover, then turn and run.

[This message has been edited by Frank (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Lars Remmen]

Originally posted by Frank:
And showing your soft belly (in this case motorroom) with almost no armor to the enemy?
I think the tankers used the reverse gear, when getting unexpected fire from the front.
50m back into cover, then turn and run.

[This message has been edited by Frank (edited January 08, 2001).]

Hello,

If it only has to do with 50 metres into cover then just move the vehicle one hex in the desired direction. Surely, It'll show its ' soft behind' but it will be in cover before the enemy has a chance to fire. That is within the game already. Surely if you are cought in the open you face a cruel choice. But I can't imagine that tankers in that situation would choose to slowly back up 500 yards in the face of a 88mm Pak, a 17lbr or a 85mm AT (or tanks armed with such guns). Either pop some smoke and get the hell out of there or just get the hell out of there.


------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

[Tortfeasor]

The Asterix.
When I play a e-mail game in spwaw v4.6, is the asterix on or off for both players.

Example if I play against an enemy and he chooses to have the asterix on, is it then "on" for mee too.
(it should be the same for both players)

[Bing]

(1) Ability to split squad into half-squads, and recombine.
(2) Direct control of counterbattery fire from owned OBA, nice if we could set it to auto-respond to enemy counterbattery fire.
(3) Unit number of passenger displayed when loaded on vehicle (there has to be a limit, I know).
(4) Scroll backwards and forwards on the F5 events during enemy turn when playing against AI, with just a few units some items are lost forever unless the player glues eyes on the text box.

That's enough, ain't it?

Thanks for a great game,

Bing

[Charles22]

I don't care for Bing's idea about half-squads, as there's more than enough clutter as there is with crews/snipers. There's something that surely would be abused.

[bbbf]

Interesting about reverse, was watching some documentary the other day with brits shooting down into a valley at what looked like PzIII's. The interesting things was those guys didn't reverse out, they chucked screaming great U-turns and drove away as fast as their tracks could take them.

They didn't seem at all worried about getting hit in the rear, just seemed happy to be leaving the fastest way.

[Bing]

Originally posted by Charles22:
I don't care for Bing's idea about half-squads, as there's more than enough clutter as there is with crews/snipers. There's something that surely would be abused.

You can get approximately the same effect now by using a lot of recon patrols (4 men), or even the Ranger squads, which are exactly one-half the airborne size. The problem comes with transportation, as we all know. You wouldn't have to use the feature, you and your opponent could agree not to split squads.

I realize not everyone likes the idea; for me it is a carryover from ASL. Now there was REAL clutter!!

Bing

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by bbbf:
Interesting about reverse, was watching some documentary the other day with brits shooting down into a valley at what looked like PzIII's. The interesting things was those guys didn't reverse out, they chucked screaming great U-turns and drove away as fast as their tracks could take them.

They didn't seem at all worried about getting hit in the rear, just seemed happy to be leaving the fastest way.

One of the things here (I hesitate to call it a problem) is that in the game a tank "looses its speed" at the end of each turn. So, if I was zooming along at 30mph, came under fire and wanted to make that U turn, at the beginning of my next turn in the game I'm barely moving and an easy(ier) shot for opportunity fire. In real life I'd be still moving and snaking and weaving and darn near impossible to hit but that's within one hex in the game and not modeled in the game engine. There are just some limits to what the game can simulate and I think that this is one shortcoming of it.


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Kluckenbill]

I believe that when you're hull down and move to back up a hex to avoid fire, any fire that you take comes before you turn around. If that is correct, it accurately represents the use of a hull down defensive position, which IMHO is the most important reason to include reverse gear. I agree with the others that feel it unlikely that a tank would retreat any meaningful distance in reverse.

What I'd really like to see in 4.6 is the ability to give your units "Delay" orders, especially in a PBEM game. A unit ordered to delay would use Opp Fire normally, but would retreat a hex or two when fired upon. This would be a much more realistic representation of how mechanized units delay. You could set up defenders in good overwatch postions, harass an attacker and (hopefully) back into cover when engaged.



------------------
Target, Cease Fire !

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by steel:

Germany troops has not any heavy machineguns
at all, only 7.62mm heavy mg, why ?

STEEL

Hi Steel,

I was not aware that Germany used large caliber machine guns (except in airplanes). What heavy machine guns did Germany use in their infantry squads? Can you give me the source you found these heavy machine guns in, I would like to know?

BA Evans

[steel]

BA Evans take a look new message topic name at "Message to OOB desinger"

I wrote this one also to "OOB forum"

STEEL

[Scipio Africanus]

This whole issue of whether to micro manage tanks and allow them to reverse was dealt with months ago

- no one produced any evidence of a tank actually reversing 50 meters across terrain while under fire in combat and surviving.

- U.S. operations manuals of the time do not condone such a manuever (we're talking 50 meters here people- go try to back your car down the driveway without looking- backing a tank through terrain while it is filling with smoke is infinitely harder).

- Backing routines had to be done unbuttoned. Show me a tank commander who will do this while under fire and I'll show you a dead tank commander.

- Just because a tank has a reverse gear does not mean it is used in combat- P-51's have landing gear, do they use it to shoot down Focke Wulfs?

- If you are in a position in which you need to back a tank 50 meters, you have made a serious tactical error and what you get is probably much closer to what you deserve than if you were allowed to back up.

- The whole argument is based on what a bunch of people think a tank should be able to do and not what it actually can do (hey the speedometer on my father's old Benz goes up to 185mph- that doesn't mean that it either goes that fast or that it is easily survivable on a public road at that speed).

- No tactical tradeoff is ever suggested for such a manuever- If your immobilization chance were ~80% while backing blind would people be so thrilled by it? If your tank commander had to make a morale check (at penalty) to unbutton to reverse and failed, sending the tank into a panic, would it then seem a worthwhile manuever? If the tank commander unbuttoned to reverse and was subsequently killed, would it then seem worthwhile? Perhaps some infantry can stand up in front of the tank and start signalling, sacrificing their cover and their lives (remember- they're under fire) so that the bozo tank crew can get themselves out of yet another error.

Cheers,

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus:
This whole issue of whether to micro manage tanks and allow them to reverse was dealt with months ago

- no one produced any evidence of a tank actually reversing 50 meters across terrain while under fire in combat and surviving.

If a hex is 50 ACROSS, the average reversing is only 25 meters, not such a long distance.

- U.S. operations manuals of the time do not condone such a manuever (we're talking 50 meters here people- go try to back your car down the driveway without looking- backing a tank through terrain while it is filling with smoke is infinitely harder).

Current manuals don't condone it either but I will tell you that while I was in 2/66 Armor (2nd Armor Division) "Driver back" was used a lot in training to back out of a tight situation. What do other tankers think?

- Backing routines had to be done unbuttoned. Show me a tank commander who will do this while under fire and I'll show you a dead tank commander.

The Israelis lost a lot of tank commanders who went into battle unbuttoned (name tag defilade). Just because I can show you a lot of dead Israeli tank commanders does not make their doctrine of fighting unbuttoned invalid. Quite the opposite, the situation called for it so they did the tactically correct thing even if it gave more casualities.

- Just because a tank has a reverse gear does not mean it is used in combat- P-51's have landing gear, do they use it to shoot down Focke Wulfs?

As I have said, it is used. See more below.

- If you are in a position in which you need to back a tank 50 meters, you have made a serious tactical error and what you get is probably much closer to what you deserve than if you were allowed to back up.

IMHO, the game should simulate real world mechanics, not judgemental issues of what one deserves.

- The whole argument is based on what a bunch of people think a tank should be able to do and not what it actually can do (hey the speedometer on my father's old Benz goes up to 185mph- that doesn't mean that it either goes that fast or that it is easily survivable on a public road at that speed).

Well, as I have said, it is used so its not just what some people think. Perhaps your military experience is different than mine. Perhaps my military experience (US Army, 80s & 90s) is not valid for WWII armor combat. Can someone enlighten me?

- No tactical tradeoff is ever suggested for such a manuever- If your immobilization chance were ~80% while backing blind would people be so thrilled by it? If your tank commander had to make a morale check (at penalty) to unbutton to reverse and failed, sending the tank into a panic, would it then seem a worthwhile manuever? If the tank commander unbuttoned to reverse and was subsequently killed, would it then seem worthwhile? ...
Cheers,

I did a report of survey for an M1 main gun that was damaged when one M1 REVERSED into another while buttoned during a REFORGER. So perhaps your suggestion of increased damage is more approprate than just not allowing it at all.

Thanks for your input!


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[This message has been edited by Larry Holt (edited January 08, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Larry Holt (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Bing]

On this entire question of reverse AFV movement for WW2, I think the circumstances have to be taken into consideration. There were tank battles inside towns where the tank cmdr would have had no choice whatsoever: The street he was on was so narrow he had to reverse or die. Since most of us prefer living, we probably would have done the same thing, in desperation yes. Otherwise most likely no.

So far as backing my car down the driveway without looking: You mean I am SUPPOSED to look first???? Hmmmmm.

Bing