Games and Reality

[lightning2000]

Hi All,
Just got this press release and thought it was important enough to share with you gents.

IN MISSIONS BASED ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL® SERIES ‘SHOOTOUT!,’
GAMERS CAN IMMERSE THEMSELVES IN INTERACTIVE RECREATIONS OF ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENTS

Beginning Friday November 3, Kuma Reality Games will Merge Television with Video Games Creating a Groundbreaking New Media Trend

New York (October 31, 2006) – Kuma Reality Games, a leading game publisher and developer specializing in high-quality episodic games, and The History Channel® embark on a landmark partnership to develop synergistic gaming and TV content. Beginning Friday November 3, 2006 with the launch of the second season of The History Channel series “Shootout!,” Kuma will release online video games simultaneously with television episodes, allowing viewers and gamers to watch the show and then “live” the historical event by playing a 3D game re-creation of the episode.

This season, episodes of the game are directly based on three key historical events featured on the series: Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge and the Tet Offensive. Viewers of the show can log onto www.History.com and download the online game for free immediately after each episode airs.

“We are helping TV take its place in today’s exploding game marketplace,” said Keith Halper, CEO of Kuma Reality Games. “The game’s immersive experience is yet another testament to Kuma’s place as one of the top trendsetters in this ever-changing industry.”

“Shootout!” examines, dissects, and re-creates some of the most famous battles in history, from the Wild West to Guadalcanal to Fallujah. Using heavy 3D CGI animation sequences, players can experience the thick of battle from the point of view of the historical participants themselves. The November 3, 2006 Iwo Jima episode/game-isode is “Stinger”; just as in the “Shootout!” episode, you’ll see through the eyes of a U.S. Marine, single-handedly overrunning a heavily-fortified bunker complex by hand-carrying an aircraft machine gun into battle.

The second Iwo Jima episode concentrates on the Third platoon of Easy Company’s initial assault on Mt. Suribachi, without the help of their planned tank support. The last episode in the Iwo Jima series concentrates on the final battle, where the men of the Fifth Pioneer Battalion defend against a furious sneak attack by the defeated Japanese.

Upcoming “Shootout!” episodes shine the spotlight on war scenarios from Battle of the Bulge to the Tet Offensive, each broken down into three key battles. The companion online games will be available immediately after each airing.

“We are really excited to extend the viewer experience for ‘Shootout!’ with this cutting-edge, companion video game from Kuma,” said Dolores Gavin, Director, Historical Programming for The History Channel. “Season two of ‘Shootout!’ was developed with gamers in mind. We think that the unique perspective of the series combined with the immersive nature of the game will allow our viewers to experience history in a whole new way.”

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.net

[tmanthegreat]

Interesting. The show itself was very cool and a game would potentially be exciting. I'm not really into that sort of gaming, but anything that promotes people's historical awareness (especially recent events that often get twisted or omitted by the media) is a good thing

[rose4472g]

"Shootout" is the show that decided that the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger. 'Nough said.

David

[luftpanzer]

What are the minimum system requirments. And no the sherman was not a better tank, but the allied crews where better and so where the tactics.

[DrMindbender]

Wow...what you just said luft is just wrong....Only thing the allied tank crews had over the panzer crews were numbers, plain and simple.

[luftpanzer]

No not really. The allied armor leadership wether NCOs or junior officers could think and act on their own with out waiting for orders from some little corpral 300 miles behind the front. Was watching the military channel the other night about the Normandy invasion, And the German panzer commander they where interviewing stated the fact "that we could see the americans, we knew where they were, we knew what had to be done, but we couldnt move with out orders from higher up. On the other hand when the americans wether private on up took the initiative to get the job done!" That is a qoute from the panzer commander. also the sherman was under gunned and under armored and was called the bronson lighter by its crews because one hit and the thing brewed up. It also took 3 shermans to kill one tiger. So how was the sherman supperior? It wasnt, but the american crews where! The Germans on the other hand where at the beginning of the war where well trained, But after the Failed July plot to kill Hitler, he didnt trust the army any more and micro managed it. Yes there where a few panzer commanders that where from the eastern fron that where very good, Michael Wittman is one. But the majority of the panzer crews at that time where teenagers and ill trained and inexperienced.

[Panzer_M]

What are the minimum system requirments. And no the sherman was not a better tank, but the allied crews where better and so where the tactics.

No.

Read the book Deathtraps: The Survival of an American Armoured Division in World War II.

The Allies crews were not much better than the germans, but alot didn't live past deployment in Europe with the 3rd Armoured.

[ltcbj]

luftpz and DrMB:
Actually it was estimated that it took five (5) Shermans to kill a Tiger or a Panther. On the other hand by this point (near the end) in the war the German tank crews were either very very good veteran crews or new recruits. Both were killed by ground attack aircraft equally well.

The tactics were developed and learned 'on the job' by the Americans. Those learned in North Africa and Italy had to be relearned or developed anew as they came face to face with tanks (Tigers and Panthers) they hadn't had much experience with before. Even the PzIV was a superior tank to the Sherman, one-on-one at least.

One wonders if this new 'game' will have a price tag or if it will be a promo for the company. And what are those specs??

[panzercommander]

"Shootout" is the show that decided that the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger. 'Nough said.

David

You must thinking of another show. "Shootout" has always been about infantry combat. I have seen all of the first season and I don't recall a single tank vs tank engagement.

Only thing the allied tank crews had over the panzer crews were numbers, plain and simple.

60+ years later and German propaganda is still at work.

[krieglok]

The commercial I saw was for an aierial version called "Dogfight" It looked interesting until I heard the game part. There have been some well done re-creations using computer graphics(the National Geographic special about the 747/747 collision in the Canary Islands comes to mind) and that is what I thought the show was about at first, the re-creation of certain aierial battles.

In the issue of what tank/crew/tactics were better, there are too many elements involved to come up with a simplistic, basic answer. To us scholars of WW2 history, there is too much information to say flat out that one was better than the other. In retrospect, both sides were failures as very little direct technology from the common German designs and US designs(except or the M26) were used in future new tank development after the war...

TJ

[DrMindbender]

Yes my answer was very simplistic...let me elaborate a bit. It's true that the Allied chain of command if you will, allowed more freedom but that does'nt equal better crews in my mind. As for tactics, it's a given that if the numbers are on your side, tactics are easier to come up with. Plus if you are talking specifically about normandy, the luftwaffe was practically non-existant which caused even greater problems for the german tank crews. All in all, machine to machine comparison we all agree is not an issue. As for crews, it's hard to say, of course veteran vs rookie crews will always be at an advantage....both armies had veterans and rookies. And tactics well, the fact that the allied crews took it upon themselves to improvise does'nt equal to better Tank vs Tank tactics. Thats just a huge flaw on the part of the german army as a structure, not on a tactical level. And as i said earlier, 4 against 1 + air superiority lets just say that you start with an handicap....my 2 cents...

[ltcbj]

Don't forget that the American "tactic" was for the tank destroyers to battle it out with enemy armor and the tanks to lead the breakthroughs/breakouts. For them tank vs tank tactics were a matter of whatever worked.

[luftpanzer]

I chose Normandy because the bulk of American army did not see combat until Normandy and after.

[lightning2000]

Hi Guys,
After checking on the manufacturer's web site, here's the known system specs found within their Knowledge Base:

Question

What are the system specs needed to run the game?

Answer

A broadband Internet connection
Windows 98/2000/Me/XP
1 GhZ P3
256 MB RAM (512 recommended if you are using Windows XP)
3d accelerated video card that supports DirectX 9 and Quicktime

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.net

[lightning2000]

Hi,
In regard to the debate currently raging, neither the Sherman nor the Tiger I tanks were good all-around fighting vehicles. Both had their limitations and advantages and it was up to the local tacticians to best employ them on the battlefield. A Tiger, lying in ambush, was truly an awful surprise, particularly if it didnt have to retrain its main gun quickly to address changes to the battlefield. Wittmann succeeded at Villers Bocage, for instance, after knocking out the lead and trailing vehicles, then decimating the rest of the column stranded on the road, at his leisure. Were the tanks able to get off the road, then the result would have been far different.

It is true that the Sherman usually had to rely upon numbers to defeat the heavier German tanks, but then again this was built into the equation when our armaments industry during WWII saw armored combat in WWII. Nowadays, things are far different, with vehicles like the Abrams employing technological advantage to the max.

If I were riding into battle during this stage of WWII, I would've chosen a Tiger, but then again it was probably more likely the Tiger would have been destroyed by ground support aircraft than it would by direct fire weaponry.

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.net

[luftpanzer]

Wow I love this forum. Ive discussed more military history here then any where els! as for the system specs thanks for the info lightning. Until I get a new pc Im out of the game.

[ltcbj]

Lightning:
I don't know about that "being built into the equation when...(they)...saw" what armored combat would be like. I think we built in the numbers we did because that was what we do- overwhelm our enemies. Or at least that WAS what we did. Remember that armored combat was supposed to have been between our tank destroyers and their tanks, not tank vs tank. That tank/tank destroyer dichotomy probably contributed to more losses than anything else in our armor philosophy of the time. I think our armored command was actually surprised at the inadequacy of the Sherman, one on one.

[lightning2000]

Hi,
I dont think our commanders were surprised at all by the results following Normandy. Keep in mind that the British actually got to employ these vehicles much earlier in the desert of North Africa, I think as early as El Alamein. I'm sure they kept us apprised of its capabilities vis a vis the German vehicles so we knew what we had going into Sicily, the Italian mainland and western Europe. Our forces were on a timetable to achieve results before Stalin brokered a possible peace treaty with Hitler in 1943. We had to invade Northwest Europe in 1944 or risk losing them as an ally. If we dallied to wait for a better tank like the T-26, we were looking at a 1945 invasion and by that time who knew what the Germans could've fielded both on the ground and in the air, and how many more divisions coud've been freed up to defend the western wall, much like what happened in early 1918.

No, we had to attend the invasion with the best vehicle we had in appreciable numbers at the time, which was the Sherman, and hope that upgunned variants, tank destroyers and our air force could stem the German tide. While early doctrine might have called for the Sherman to act as the breakthrough tank while the tank destroyers dealt with the German foes, I think everyone knew by 1944 it was going to be an ad hoc affair to defeat the Axis with whatever was available, whatever its original role called for.

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.net

[ltcbj]

The specter of Stalin brokering his own peace certainly darkened the horizon. His willingness to do so though has not been documented. He did however pressure us and the Brits to open a second major front and the landings in Sicily took the pressure off of Kursk.

Maj. Gen. Lesley McNair as head of the AGF was largely responsible for US tactical doctrine and was openly contemptuous of the British. Their experience and recommendations were simply ignored or disparaged for whatever reasons.

We did not develop the T-26 more quickly because it did not fit in with our tank doctrine. In fact, it went directly against it. As "The Arsenal of Democracy" we simply did what arsenals do best, build weapons and do so in great numbers.

While our commanders may not have been surprised the troops certainly were. They were told that the Sherman was the best tank around and the experience of it not being so was a fatal one for many American troopers.

We moved quickly to invade Europe because that was our strategy, to take out Nazi Germany and then the Japanese. We did not dally awaiting a better tank but did what America has done throughout our history (at least until recently) and went for the enemy's throat with whatever/everything we had as soon as we could.

[catman]

I love SHOOTOUT, its one of my favourite shows, right up there with mailcall. I will definately watch every epsidode they air and play the game if its free. if it costs money, I'd see about it.

[Panzer_M]

luftpz and DrMB:
Actually it was estimated that it took five (5) Shermans to kill a Tiger or a Panther. On the other hand by this point (near the end) in the war the German tank crews were either very very good veteran crews or new recruits. Both were killed by ground attack aircraft equally well.

The tactics were developed and learned 'on the job' by the Americans. Those learned in North Africa and Italy had to be relearned or developed anew as they came face to face with tanks (Tigers and Panthers) they hadn't had much experience with before. Even the PzIV was a superior tank to the Sherman, one-on-one at least.

One wonders if this new 'game' will have a price tag or if it will be a promo for the company. And what are those specs??

the most common post '43 armour for americans to face were StuGs and Panzer IVs, the Panthers and Tigers were there, as were the other rarities, but the armour vs armour battles were not the common. Most US losses were Armour vs PaKs or Infantry-AT weapons.