Webs

I noticed that too, here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113294

<snicker />

It was a flat grass field with no cover for hundreds of meters. It may be easy to test, but not with the demo.

I've been playing the CMFI demo and I've been stymied (relatively) by the "Elephants and Tigers" scenario because that FlaK halftrack seems to be magical. My observations are anecdotal, yes, but I've run the scenario three times now and the issues continue to happen. Now, this thing is a 37mm FlaK 36 on the bed of the halftrack, exposed to the world with a gun shield but no armour cover from the vehicle. You'd think the gun crew would be vulnerable. But: - My Vickers crews have had the SdKfz 7/2 in full sight about 500-600 m away, but they will not fire at the targeted halftrack until the FlaK gun itself starts firing. The Vickers will fire at an area target next to the vehicle. It just won't fire at the half-track itself, which is a pity because that exposed gun crew could use a shower of .303. - 81mm and two-inch mortar fire can barely scratch the SdKfz 7/2. I have never scored a direct hit, but the most damage a close bomb ever did was to take out the commander. Such bombs against infantry would be devastating, but they barely inconvenience the halftrack. - My sniper will fire at the half-track but has not injured a single SdKfz 7/2 crew member in three games despite taking out numerous other infantry. I get a lot of hull armour hits, which is weird because the SdKfz 7/2 has no hull armour. Well, the cab does, and there are little skirts of armour around the bed that the 3-d model shows as opened in deployed mode. But the gun crew is completely exposed whether or not the skirts are up and should be vulnerable. In order to kill that beast, I need to use infantry or a Humber AC Mk IV, both of which are normally torn to bits by the halftrack's FlaK gun. I use a lot of smoke. I only managed it in one of the three times I played. What's up with this? (There is another little bug in the bowels of the scenario/demo. The one time one of my Humbers knocked out the SdKfz 7/2, the end-of-game kill was awarded to my other Humber, which had been destroyed by a recoilless 75mm much earlier in the game.)

The submarine in "Das Boot" was the same submarine used in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

I think the key issue is the time limits. When you have, say, only an hour to scout enemy positions, ford a river, and overrun some AT guns, you're going to suffer a lot more than you would if you had hours to conduct proper recon and probes.

Ah, good old WW2OL. I wrote/edited the equipment manual that came with the original game. The original stuff and updates went into a wiki eventually, but it no longer seems to be online. It was at http://wiki.wwiionline.com.

The LOS/targeting line is straight. The path of the shell is an arc.

The Matilda I was a pillbox. The Matilda II had a coax MG. Unless the infantry had a 75 or 88 to call on, it couldn't do squat to either Matilda. Nor could the German armour. Slow, yes - but damn near invincible.

And that edge would not be apparent in this game other than perhaps rate of fire - but the B1 is essentially invulnerable to the Panzer III and the S 35 isn't far behind while possessing high single-shot-kill probability with their 47-mm gun. Besides, if you don't have a radio, that's one fewer person you need in the turret.

Hrm. I'd like to see the whining that happens when the French/BEF player uses his armour as it should be used. The Germans would suffer terribly. Give me a handful of SOMUA S 35s and I'll beat them all the way back to Munich. Throw some B1s in there and make it Berlin (although it would take a really long time to drive there). The French had some fantastic albeit stupid-looking tanks, thrown away by doctrine.

Waclaw, These sound great, but I have some advice for you: always put your name and a URL in your release notes, even the updates.

I wrote this for the tech manual of World War II Online (when it was called that): http://wiki.wwiionline.com/mediawiki/index.php/Satchel_Charge Key quotes: "Targeting the engine deck was effective as blast and/or hot gases could pass through the cooling grills and enter the engine compartment, where fuel fumes might ignite. Such a result would most likely destroy the engine and the fire could detonate on-board ammunition and brew up the tank." "Lucky hits aside, satchel charges proved most effective against tank tracks. Placed in or under the track, they would break the track and probably damage running gear. In most cases, these immobilized tanks retained their armament, becoming, in effect, pillboxes. If a satchel landed anywhere else on the tank, it would have little chance of doing serious damage – perhaps minor fittings, aerials, and the like might be destroyed. With luck, a sub-optimally placed satchel charge might produce spall inside a tank, concuss the crew, or injure someone directly opposite the detonation point." "During the Winter War, Finnish General Headquarters studied the effectiveness of its anti-tank kasapanos (piled charge). It noted in February 1940 that 1.0-2.0 kg (2.2-4.4 lb) of TNT was sufficient to sever the track of a tank if blown under or next to the track. A charge of 2.0 kg (4.4 lb) could destroy vehicles of around 6 tonnes, 3.0 kg (6.6 lb) was sufficient to destroy 12-tonne vehicles, and 4.0 kg (8.8 lb) was sufficient for 30-tonne vehicles such as the Soviet T-28 medium tank." "According to the Finns, 6.0 kg (13.2 lb) of explosives was powerful enough to knock out any Soviet tank of 1940 vintage, provided a soldier could get close enough to place it where it could do damage, on the tank’s rear deck. Destroying a tank with a satchel charge any other way was extremely difficult, as the charge could not be tamped and so much of the explosive force was lost. Some success was scored by soldiers who lay in trenches and allowed a tank to pass overhead, then secured explosives to the weaker underside armour of the tank with adhesive. When this worked, it would incapacitate the crew with over-pressurisation rather than disable the tank itself." And my all-time favourite tactic, yet to be modelled: "'Military Training Pamphlet No. 42: Tank Hunting and Destruction', a British Army publication produced in August 1940, included even more desperate measures. It suggests that a team of four can take out tanks with a length of railway track, a blanket, a bucket of petrol, and matches. The team was to hide in an alleyway or alongside a house where the tank is expected to pass. Two men hold the railway track with the blanket draped over it. As the tank passes the hiding place, these two run out and jam the railway track into the tank’s suspension. The third man throws the bucket of petrol over the blanket, now entangled in the track, and the fourth sets it on fire. Another plan from that booklet is for a single man with a hammer and hand grenade to station himself near the expected route of a tank. When the tank passes, the man is to jump onto the passing tank and pound on the turret hatch with the hammer. When the tank commander opens the hatch to find out what is going on, the attacker is to drop the hand grenade inside. There is no record of these tactics ever being attempted."

Well, I'm back. Thank you for revisiting the Mac.

To be fair, the Germans discovered that in May 1940, much to the consternation of the Matilda crews. P.S. That's me who just friended you on FB.