Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Total Realism Sub Mod

#1: TRSM v097 thoughts Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:06 pm
—
Hi,

v097 is going to be released this month.

The chnges so far:

Medium mortars have chance to KO guns now.

M10 - 2 less HE shells, 2 more AP.
Humber MkIV - 4" smoke dischargers work now.
Daimler MkI - 4" smoke dischargers work now.
Daimler MkI - got HE and Cannister shells.
Tetrarch I - 4" smoke dischargers work now.
Tetrarch I - got LJ for the 2pdr gun thus no HE but better penetration.
Pathfinder Secion is represented properly now.
Assault Section got FT now.
Mot.Rifle Section is 5men now (to represent availability of HTs).
Mot.Rifle Group is 6men now (to represent availability of HTs).
RMC Support SS - no Sten.
RMC Gun Group -NCO got No4 instead of Thomy.
Pionierstosstrupp - lost FT and received MG.34.
Pioniertrupp - lost MG.34 and got FT.
Para Assault Section - got PIAT before reinf. and FT after reinf.
PLD leMGtrupp - got K98k for 2nd number.
Para SMG Section got Gammon Bomb.
Stuart - lost all HE and cannister shells.
Pznahkampftrupp - got 1 PzF and 1 Faust.
PLD Pionierhalbtrupp(FT) lost 1 PzF.
SS PG Stosstrupp lost PzF and got 1 Faust.
21Pz PzA.Halbgruppe lost PzF and got 1 Faust.
SS PzA Halbgruppe lost PzF and got 1 Faust.
21Pz/PLD PG PzA Halbgruppe has 4men now.
Most of 12.SS-PzD/21.PzD Infantry teams lost PzF.
PG Spahtrupp lost PzWM.
3inch was increased to 35.
8cm ammo was increased to 25.

50ID received 17pdr ATGs.
8/3ID (Cdn) got Sherman VDD.
PLD got RPzB in Gruppe(s).
PLD lost PzAbwehr trupp.
PLD got FlaK38.
PLD got SdKfz 250/9.
12.SS-PzD Panther BG lost SdKfz 250/7.
12.SS-PzD lost Panther D.
III./25./12.SS-PzD got SS-sPzAbt.101 attached.
I./726./716.ID replaced SS-sPzAbt.101.
716.ID got Pak97/40 instead of Pak40.
PzBGs of PzDs lost GrW Gruppe(s), now have only SdKfz 251/2.
43rd ID - got Churchills after reinforment on June 19th.
69/50 got 3 Sherman VC after reinf instead of 6.
153/51 received Assault Sections.
Para units lost all Uni Carriers.

Centaur AA wreck has been fixed.
Centaur AA pic has been fixed.
MMG Carrier pic has been fixed.
KdoWg 304(f) pic has been fixed.
sPzB.41 pic has been fixed.

SdKfz 250/1, 251/1 - MG fires 360deg now.
17-pdr MkIV RoF was decreased.
sPzB.41 RoF was increased.
KwK37 RoF was increased.
3inch mortar min ranges has been decreased to 200m (same as 8/8.1/8.2cm).

Added Churchill III / IV / V.

Maps recoded:

Cristot.
Benouville.
Buron.
Hermanville.
Hillman.
Lingevres.
Port-en-Bessin.
Ranville.
Rauray.
Thaon.

Have more issues wanted to be chnged/fixed or more wishes/desires for new ver, don't hesitate to add.

Last edited by Dima on Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:39 am; edited 7 times in total

#2: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:05 pm
—
boo hoo....stuart loses HE and canister ....that was fun, but if they didnt have them in june 1944,then ok.

Very happy morter can take out guns again.

#3: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:08 am
—
Fantastic Dima. Looking forward to this release Smile

#4: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:26 am
—
Sounds great! Looking forward to the release date Smile

#5: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:03 am
—

Quote:

boo hoo....stuart loses HE and canister ....that was fun, but if they didnt have them in june 1944,then ok.

ye, it's wierd but somehow british tank command were sending all the 37mm HE/cannisters in their disposal to Burma.
No wonder they tended to remove turret and use them as scouts.

#6: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:34 am
—
yes i have heard from many sources in CC that turrentless stuarts where quite common, more like a uparmoured bren carrier. maybe we should incorporate a few? maybe a bren/vickers main gun only, and moderately susseptiable<(spellcheck?) to 8cm morter.

if i was to have stuarts and HE or shermans and AP in burma, think stuart my choice. smaller, lighter for mud and less fuel,and good infantry support.

#7: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:43 am
—
Why the difference between the RA/AT regts. in the 3rd and 50th Infantry divisions?

As far as I know, war establishment by mid '44, of the divisional AT regts. for infantry divisions were fixed at 4 batteries of 8 x 17pdr and 4 x 6pdrs in 3 troops. giving a regt. a total of 48 guns.

Admittedly earlier in '44 these figures would have been different as the composition varied between 8 x 6pdrs and 4 x 17pdrs, OR 8 x 6 pdr and 4 x M10, OR 2 batteries of 12 x 6pdr and 2 of 12 x M10.
However by the time of the invasion I believe this had been discarded and standardised to the establishment given earlier. Due mostly to the increased availability/production of the 17 pdr gun, carriages and ammunition.

Have you updated or contrasting information on the particular RA/AT regiments involved?

These AT guns came under the control of the Divisional Commander RA, they were of course, intended to suppliment the 6 pdrs directly under the control of the Infantry battalion commanders within the support companies of each battalion, and would generally fight by troop (4 guns) or even section (2 guns).

I know that the Divisional regt for the 3rd Infantry was the 20th ATRegt./RA, which for a time did have the M10 type organisation.
That for the 50th Infantry was the 102 (Northumberland Hussars)ATRegt./RA, which used throughout '44 the 6 pdr/17pdr combination, not being upgraded to 17pdr Archers until early/mid '45.

The 50th Infantry also had attached for the invasion 2 batteries of the 73rd AT Regt. from 30 Corps (198 & 234). One of which the 198 was definately armed with the M10 3".

Just in case you wish to include some Sextons Smile

The 50th also had attached to it prior to the invasion (from Feburary '44)the 86 Army Field Regt., a Herfordshire yeomanary TA formation containing the 341 (St. Albans) and 342 (Hertford) batteries, among others. At this time these batteries were equipped with the Sexton 25pdr SP gun, which replaced the original M7 Priest at the beginning of the year.

Hope this is some help to you Smile

Cheers
Ronson

#8: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:39 pm
—

Quote:

maybe we should incorporate a few?

no Tack, weren't use in June.

Ronson,

Quote:

Why the difference between the RA/AT regts. in the 3rd and 50th Infantry divisions?

3rd and 50th were chosen to be the Assault Divisions for DDay so were allocated a higher degree of mechanised equipment and the AT Regt was expanded to four troops per battery.
But the equipment allocation was somewhat different:
3rd ID had 1 Troop of M10 and 3 Troops of 6-pdr per battery.
50th ID had 2 Troops of M10 and 2 Troops of 17-pdr per battery.

3rd got their first 17-pdrs in late June-July.

Quote:

Just in case you wish to include some Sextons

any evidence brits used Priest/Sextons in direct firing role? i mean for close support?

Quote:

hmm, didn't both 3rd and 50th land in Normandy with Priests? and were reequipped with Sextons in July-August?

#9: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:08 pm
—
By order of WE II/186C/1 which became effective on 21st January 1944 all British AT Regiments were 4 batteries strong, containing 8 x 17 pdrs and 4 x 6 pdrs in each Battery. This was the 'normal' organisation.

There was in February 1944 a specialised battery organisation WE II/190/2 approved for use of assault units (meaning amphibious assault), this gave a battery 2 troops of 6pdrs and 1 of M10's, sometimes this is known as the 'assault' organisation. The justification for this mentions the crossing of open beaches, is this the organisation that you refer to?

However I can find no evidence that the battery ever exceded 3 troops. Although as I previously stated additional Corps and Army level AT batteries were attached to the Divisional regts. for the actual landings.

The Sextons of the Hertfordshire Yeomanary were actually trained to fire the guns during the run in to the beaches from the landing craft, so I guess they could have been used in the CS role directly after landing too (against beach obsticles) .There is no mention in the Regt. history however of any of these type of actions after D Day.

The 3rd and 50th were standard Infantry divisions, the Field Regts RA within them would normally have been equipped with towed 25 pdrs, however you are right in that some if not all of these were replaced for the landings by Priests. The SP artillery of Sextons would be part of the Corps or Army level, and allocated down to Divisional level only for specific tasks.

The Sexton actually entered service September 1943 and was first used in Italy in that year by the 8th Army. These were in use by the SP artillery regt. in the armoured divisions, the other being a conventional towed regt.

As to upgrading equipment, it would be very unusual for a British unit to undertake any form of re-organisation or re-equipping while they were engaged, this was normally done in quite periods out of the line. Both 3rd & 50th divisions in question were heavily engaged during June/July.

#10: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:00 pm
—

Quote:

There was in February 1944 a specialised battery organisation WE II/190/2 approved for use of assault units (meaning amphibious assault), this gave a battery 2 troops of 6pdrs and 1 of M10's, sometimes this is known as the 'assault' organisation.The justification for this mentions the crossing of open beaches, is this the organisation that you refer to?

yes WE.II/190/2.

Quote:

However I can find no evidence that the battery ever exceded 3 troops.

And altho it was not stated by the WE. according to Gary Kennedy (author of "THE BRITISH ARMY 1939-1945 WAR ESTABLISHMENT TABLES : NORTHWEST EUROPE 1944-45") ATR of Assault Divisions were expanded to 4 troops per battery.

I tend to believe him Smile

Quote:

The Sextons of the Hertfordshire Yeomanary were actually trained to fire the guns during the run in to the beaches from the landing craft,

u know that single case doesn't make the picture Smile

Quote:

As to upgrading equipment, it would be very unusual for a British unit to undertake any form of re-organisation or re-equipping while they were engaged, this was normally done in quite periods out of the line. Both 3rd & 50th divisions in question were heavily engaged during June/July.

i believe they were receiving new equipment during the campaign.
like 3rd Cdn ID had no 17-pdr in June and got Achilesses instead in August.

#11: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:42 pm
—
I wonder where this 4th troop and the men to operate it came from?, and what date it was introduced?. As you know by '44 the British army was running very short of manpower, were other batteries broken up to supply it maybe.

I believe the fire during 'run in' was something practised by more than one artillery unit during the invasion Smile

As for the Canadians having no 17pdrs, take a look at this picture on the Juno site

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-atg-e.htm

In the bottom half of this is shown a Canadian 17 pdr in June.

Good Luck with your updating.
I'll certainly give it another try when its released Smile

Cheers
Ronson

#12: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:51 pm
—

Quote:

I wonder where this 4th troop and the men to operate it came from?, and what date it was introduced?.

45men

.
imo not that many to add 1 more troop for 1 unit.

Quote:

I believe the fire during 'run in' was something practised by more than one artillery unit during the invasion

i mean single case was direct support of landing units from landing crafts.
AFAIK that wasn't really practised in CW forces.

Quote:

In the bottom half of this is shown a Canadian 17 pdr in June.

ahh u spoiled all the fun Very Happy

.
seriosly iam pretty sure that 17-pdr is not from 3rdID Cdn Wink

#13: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:15 pm
—
More info on the 17pdr.

http://mikan3.archives.ca/pam/public_mikan/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=3231469&rec_nbr_list=3231469

#14: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:35 pm
—
looks like i found it Smile

.
it was 62nd ATR of 1st Corp that was attached to 3rd Cdn ID in June.
245 (M10-17pdr),246 (17pdr),247(17pdr),248 (M10) batterys.

#15: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:19 pm
—
BTW, Dima...

There's some minor glitches in the gadget files (wrong size GSUNITXXX files, some obsolute white values resulting in transparent parts in the BGUNIT and GSUNIT pics).

#16: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:17 pm
—
You releasing this version this week Dima? (I got a new GC on hold pending this release) Smile

#17: Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:20 am
—
dima.....whats the reason the 12ss pz gd bg's [ 25th and 26th ] dont have any tank support?
in any major attack usually some sort of tank support was allocated to the attack. these BG dont really have any offensive teeth now.
your going to say....historically they didnt have any tanks or TD's.
sometimes historic realalities have to be sacrificed for some game play.
the allied BG's have tank support attached....why couldnt some of the germans for the game???

#18: Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:32 am
—

Quote:

these BG dont really have any offensive teeth now.

why should they have?
12.SS-PzD has 2 offensive KGs, other to hold the line.
Altho will be chnged slightly in v097

Quote:

sometimes historic realalities have to be sacrificed for some game play.

2 other PzG BGs will get some tanx from SS-sPzAbt.101 in v097.

Quote:

the allied BG's have tank support attached....

not all.

Quote:

why couldnt some of the germans for the game???

some has.

different doctrines meant different deployment.

#19: Author: RedScorpion, Location: Neverland

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:07 pm
—
Whens the new version out Dima? I think we have a fight coming up!

#20: Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:18 pm
—
well i disagree again it seems.......German Panzer Grenadier Div's were used primarily for offensive as was all german doctrine....attack....they were not used as defensive divisions......thats what line div are for ....you know that.

so imho it would be better for trsm and play balance to take some of the 30 odd tanks and 28 shreaks from the SS tank BG's and give some to the Pz Gd BG's...........anyone else have any thoughts on that?

also.....whats with the deal with something like ...i believe its 28 shreak teams in the 12SS mk4 BG??? theres two diff types of teams and the both have shreaks!? is that a mistake........god i hope so......

Close Combat Series -> Total Realism Sub Mod

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2