Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Lucky_Strike in Tank Gun Damage   
    Here are some original statistics from Lukas Friedli's excellent volumes Repairing the Panzers (my bold):
    Volume 1 pp190-191 a section on Losses of s.Pz.Abt 503 makes for interesting reading. A 10 October 1943 report for the period 5 July 1943 - 21 September 1943 showed 18 total losses of Tiger I, with 240 Tigers in and out of the Werkstatt (ie recovered or broken down vehicles). Damages/Repairs listed included: 142 technical failures (engine burn outs etc); 227 damages due to shelling (incl 35 turret damages, 19 caused by mines and 2 friendly fire by a StuG, the rest hull damages); 52 weapons damages (6 turret jammed due to PaK hits, 3 turret jammed due to HE hits, 10 KwK 36 inoperative due to PaK hits, 2 mantlets inoperative due to 7.62cm PaK hits, 1 commander's cupola newly adjusted, 12 commander's cupola exchanged, 4 optics inoperative due to shelling, 5 optics inoperative due to normal use, 7 ball mounts due to PaK hits, 2 by friendly fire from a StuG).
    If anything this example shows that damage to the main gun by the enemy was more common than, for example, damage to the optics and mantlet, in this report almost 20% of damages to weapons are to the main gun itself. And what was that StuG up to!!
    Another report, this time in Volume 2 pp60-61, from s.Pz.Abt 506 on 1 January 1944 covering repairs carried out from 20 September 1943 - 31 December 1943 shows Weapon damage: (where the turret needed to be lifted for 40 Tigers in total) 6 gun barrel replaced caused by enemy, 3 mantlet replaced caused by enemy, 2 turret replaced caused by enemy, 1 muzzle brake replaced caused by enemy, 6 elevating gear repairs caused by technical issues, 3 traverse gear repairs caused by technical issues, 12 cupola repairs caused by enemy, 3 visor repairs caused by enemy, 2 visor repairs caused by technical issues, 7 ammo racks replaced caused by technical issues, 6 ammo racks replaced caused by enemy, 12 hydraulic drive fluid renewals caused by technical issues, 5 hydraulic drive control repairs caused by technical issues, 9 MG mounts repairs caused by enemy, 4 hatch lid repairs caused by enemy, 4 firing mechanisms replaced caused by technical issues, 2 recoil brake repairs caused by technical issues, 27 turret traverse mechanism repairs and checks caused by technical issues.
    An experience report by the commander of the same unit dated 30 September 1943 for action over seven days and nights from 20 - 26 September stated that: "6 Tigers were lost from direct hits" (unrecoverable) and "8 guns and 4 gun mantlets were damaged by hits, 3 of them heavily" whilst other damage included "the intercom system failed on17 Tigers due to vibration caused by shelling" (I assume from their own main gun!).
    Again these examples show that main gun damage was quite common and enough to at least require a visit to the Werkstatt.
    The PanzerWrecks series of books does feature a few images of damage to main weapons which appear to have occurred from frontal hits ie chunks taken out of muzzle brakes and glancing blows along barrels. Great source for all you damage nerds out there.
    LS
     
  2. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from gnarly in To Button or not to Button? (Spotting the enemy)   
    Unbuttoned TC does lose his sensors when unbuttoned, so here is a possibly incomplete list of vehicles that spot better while buttoned all the time (but only to the front of the vehicle).

    M1A2 Abrams
    T-90AM
    BM Oplot
    M2A3 Bradley
    M3A3 Bradley
    M7A3 B-FIST
    Khrizantema
    Tunguska

    I don't know for certain, but I think it very unlikely that vehicle crews have night vision goggles, so nearly all vehicles should stay buttoned in low light conditions.
  3. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Lt Bull in Odd building entry bug   
    Its been almost five years since I started this thread and would have thought that the issue(s) originally highlighted would have been fixed long ago via a patch/update etc.  This sadly is not the case.  The issue described is not a "cosmetic" issue with no effect on gameplay. Contrary, it has the potential to turn what players would think is a relatively safe move order for infantry in to a order that may result in the entire enemy unit being decimated, as I had experienced when I first noticed the issue all those years ago.
    I am revisiting this thread and the issue that was discussed because I was just curious to see what, if anything, was achieved in first highlighting the issue almost five years ago. I also like to think even trying to address such issues on these forums is not just a complete waste of time and effort. If anyone can point to a thread where Battlefront had at least previously acknowledged this issue, that will be good.
     (I should also add that I did actually stop playing CM around that time out of a frustration that gameplay issues like this weren't being addressed, let alone acknowldged by those in a position to do something about it. After coming back to CM after a many year hiatus, I really was surprised that this issue was never fixed. I have stopped playing CMBN because of a new odd suicidal TacAI behaviour issue (apparently introduced after a recent update/patch) that can result in infantry defending and under fire behind a line of hedgerows deciding to break cover and run laterally along the hedgerow until they reach the infantry-sized gap in the hedgerow and start running through the gap towards the enemy/incoming fire, invariably to their death (read all about it and see for yourself here))
    Perhaps this post (unlike Battlefront), will warn both players and probably more importantly/practically, scenario/map designers, that certain buildings from the Scenario Editor if used in scenarios in certain orientations will definitely result in the kind of unexpected infantry building entry/exit behaviour discussed above (and more comprehensively below for your convenience) that really can turn players off.
    I cannot confirm (have mnot searched) if there are equivalent issues with certain other buildings or in  other CM titles, but I will qualify that they definitely do exist in the building types I discuss below in CMBN.
    I have just reviewed and tested ALL seven types of "Independent>Other" buildings available in the CMBN Scenario Editor.  I have created a scenario file and two game save files to download to see for yourself that features all seven buildings in all four possible facing orientations (north, south, east, west) with all the infantry already setup and given move orders to enter the building from one end and exit it on the opposite side.  The buildings are laid out as follows in the scenario/save file(s):

    Typically all of these buildings are assigned a "direction" by the Scenario Editor, and visually/cosmetically all appear to have two doors: one on the "front" and one on the "rear" assigned faces of the building (through which it is expected infantry can/should and be only able to enter/exit from).  The side walls of all seven buildings clearly have fully bricked side walls devoid of visible.
    eg. rear view of Independedent>Other building "C".  Note location of door on right of rear face, alongside the left edge of the building.

    It is expected that if an infantry unit is located just outside the front or the rear face of the building and given a move order waypoint located inside the building, then the infantry unit will take the shortest route to the waypoint and move towards and through what is nearest respective door, located on that front or rear building face. Similarly, if a unit is already within the building and given a waypoint directly out the front or rear of the building, the infantry unit will exit the building using the respective doors in that direction.
    If you run the save game files provided, they are already setup with movement waypoint orders assigned to infantry squads located at the front and rear of the buildings: the first waypoint is in the building, the second is on the opposite side of the building. File 001 has units positioned north and west of the buildings.  File 002 has units positioned south and east of the buildings. Links to test files and the scenario test file itself:
    Scenario file: CMBN Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test.btt
    Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 001.bts
    Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 002.bts
    A few key points:
    All the buildings tested definitely have one or two entry/exit points, though not necessarily where they are otherwise graphically indicated on the front and rear of the building.  It depends on the building and it's facing. When some buildings are placed on the map in certain orinetations/facings (at the map designing phase stage via the Scenario Editor) it will determine if one or both of the graphically represented doors on the front and/or rear of the building will cease to operate as entry/exit points during the game.  In these instances, an apparent "invisible" side door (or entry/exit point) instead will apparently appear to function along one of the non-front/rear faces of the building, located close to one edge/corner of the building face.  The location and existence of these "invisible" side doors is predetermined by the building orientation/facing. The test files feature 10 man squads.  Using smaller squads may show more consistency in whether ALL pixeltruppen enter/exit a building via one entry/exit point, or whether the pixeltruppen will enter/exit the building using both entry/exit points during the same move order. Random localised positioning of each pixeltruppen seems to be a factor in some cases determining whether all, most or some of the pixeltruppen belonging to a squad entering/exiting a building during a move will use one or two of the existing building entry/exit points. Unless a player uses the Scenario Editor (or the save files provided in this thread) to learn to recognise/identify the 7 types of Independent>Other discussed in this post, they will invariably be unable to recognise them in any CMBN scenario they choose to play that features them. The comprehensive table of results of testing is available as a PDF and Excel file at links below: Excel: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.xlsx
    PDF: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.pdf
    Preview of table:

    The table text and cells are colour coded for each situation to aid in interpretation as follows:
    RED text indicates (and warns players) that it has been demonstrated that it is possible (though not  guaranteed) that at least some pixeltruppen MAY avoid the nearest door and instead, if entering a buildings, route around the sides of the building to instead enter the building via the indicated door on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the unit started it's movement from, or i exiting a building, use the door on the opposite side of the building to where the waypoint was placed.  Planning/expecting to enter/exit a building via a door on the near side but finding pixeltruppen entering via a door on the direct opposite side of the building is probably more likely to be of a tactical concern/disaster than say if it entered/exited the building via one of the "invisible" side doors, that's why I have highlighted the text in red alerting players to that possibility for that situation.
    Backgrounds of shades of GREEN indicate that all the doors indicated on the front and rear of the building do actually work as advertised and no "invisible" doors exist.  It is a darker GREEN if in the limited trials conducted, no instances of the "wrong" door being used by any pixeltruppen in that situation was observed.  This would be updated  if more testing at least reveals one case of a "wrong" door being used. Note that for larger sized infantry squads, it is no guarantee that all pixeltruppen will use the right (nearest) door for each situation listed (see notes on RED text).  Note that this possibility is probably reduced (possibly to zero), the less pixeltruppen in the infantry team. My guess is when six or less pixeltruppen exist in a team.  Further testing can confirm..
    Although some cases of entering/exiting the buildings are listed with darker GREEN backgrounds and as "All enter OK" or "All exit OK" (meaning it was observed in the limited trials that all pixeltruppen enter or exit through the nearest graphically represented door as expected, the ideal case), as alluded to above, it has been noted that repeated testing can turn up cases where at least some of the pixeltruppen involved in the move order will use the second entry/exit point of the building, be it the one on the opposite side of the building, or one of the apparently "invisible" side doors that apparently exist for some buildings when facing a certain way.
    Backgrounds of shades of ORANGE indicate the existence of at least one "invisible" side door through which infantry can/and will apparently use to enter the building depending on the circumstances.  The darker ORANGE background indicates that either NONE of the graphically indicated doors on the building are functional in that situation, and instead the building features one or two "invisible" side doors, one on each flank (or side) of the building, or only one "invisible" serves as the only entry/exit point to the building.
    In summary, a review of test results:
    Regardless of which of the seven types of Independent>Other building feature in a sceanrio (regardless of their orientation), players can expect to be "surprised" by the path and subsequent entry/exit point chosen by each pixeltruppen to enter/exit the building during a single move order if the infantry team has greater than typically six pixeltruppen, if they expect a) infantry to ALWAYS use the nearest entry/exit point and b) expect the only functional and possible entry/exit points of buildings to be where they are graphically indicated.
    The only  Independent>Other building that feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised regardless of orientation is building "G". Of the remaining six buildings, all will feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised if in the following orientations/facings:

     
    I can only suggest regular players of CMBN scenarios to be at least aware of these buggy Independent>Other buildings, especially on maps that are likely to involved and rely on very precise "house-to house" fighting and manoeuvring.  They can really unexpectedly wreck you plans especially if they are embedded somewhere near critical terrain/victory locations.
    To the scenario designers/map makers, I would hope they see the sense in completely avoiding the use of all building type/orientation combos that are not listed in the green column of the table above. Note that even using those buildings/orientations featured in the green column, it has been shown that at least some pixeltruppen will nevertheless choose to enter/exit from the opposite side door from which one might otherwise expect them to use when the unit size is greater than 6.  Perhaps some scenario/map designers might even feel inspired to revisit previously released sceanrios/maps that feature the problem buildings and modify the maps accordingly.  Of course vigilant capable players could do this themsleves.  A scenario comes to mind already...the one that I was playing when I first encountered this issue almost 5 years ago...Lonsdales Block. I clearly remember where that damn building was that led to the decimation of a complete para squad trying to enter it.
     
  4. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from AlanSA in CMFI intel sharing bug?   
    I have to be careful because of the NDA. But essentially it's that units in real combat during WW2 did not provide a continuous play-by-play on the position and status of every single enemy unit they can see to every friendly unit they are in contact with. If they can actually see an enemy the enemy can at least potentially see them back, so getting on the radio to tell Lt. Scrub "you know that Panther that was parked next to the barn? It drove 120 meters to the southwest, stopped and killed 3 of my men. Thought you'd like to know" would usually not be a priority.
    If course that doesn't mean that sort of information was never shared in the heat of battle. A dismounted squad of Soviet tank riders that was just in LOS of a German tank is certainly going to tell the T-34 crew all about it when they mount back up. But the game doesn't do that. Personally I think the current model is too conservative to be of much use but that's just me.
  5. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Howler in CMFI intel sharing bug?   
    I have to be careful because of the NDA. But essentially it's that units in real combat during WW2 did not provide a continuous play-by-play on the position and status of every single enemy unit they can see to every friendly unit they are in contact with. If they can actually see an enemy the enemy can at least potentially see them back, so getting on the radio to tell Lt. Scrub "you know that Panther that was parked next to the barn? It drove 120 meters to the southwest, stopped and killed 3 of my men. Thought you'd like to know" would usually not be a priority.
    If course that doesn't mean that sort of information was never shared in the heat of battle. A dismounted squad of Soviet tank riders that was just in LOS of a German tank is certainly going to tell the T-34 crew all about it when they mount back up. But the game doesn't do that. Personally I think the current model is too conservative to be of much use but that's just me.
  6. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Lt Bull in QB points   
    I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
    Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
    I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
    eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

    This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.
  7. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to 37mm in The American Civil War in the abstract   
    To compare the ACW with Napoleonic warfare is difficult... 
    (i) People (probably including American officers of the time) misunderstand what Napoleonic warfare was.
    (ii) The ACW was over & done with in four years. By Austerlitz, the Europeans had been fighting for thirteen years... and would fight for another ten years after that.
     
    It might make more sense to compare the ACW with the War of the First Coalition... large conscript armies (at least for the French), lots of sieges, messy & often indecisive battles.
  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Lt Bull in QB Battle Force Points tables/charts   
    I was somewhat inspired by discussion in another thread about configuring QBs to suit the kind of battles players may want to setup using CM QBs to play out various battles and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table to Rev2.  Download links follow:
    Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.xlsx (Excel file)
    Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.pdf (PDF file)
    I have now just gone the final extra few yards and have tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs (260 possibile combinations) in one consolidated , searchable and filterable table (last tab in Excel file, last pages on PDF).
    I have added a new tab "ALL QB POINTS COMBOS" that features a consolidated table every QB combo, listing  force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
    eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

    This table alone should provide everything you need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.
  9. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Bulletpoint in Soviet on-map big guns in the module for historical accuracy   
    I think the main thing here is that during the war, a lot of times, infantry was able to hold out in fortifications. Houses, trenches, bunkers, etc. And that's why all sides invested in assault artillery more powerful than 75mm. But currently, this is not shown properly in the game.
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Bulletpoint in Soviet on-map big guns in the module for historical accuracy   
    Haiduk, I suport your well-documented suggestion.
    And, I would like to add that I would like to see a revamp of the various types of buildings, bunkers, and trenches to better reflect the actual cover they provided in real life, and to make sure that specialised weapons such as heavy assault guns and flamethrowers had a real purpose in the game.
  11. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Freyberg in Blind troops   
    Spotting checks are random and therefor can produce outlier events. The game's been out for a while now. We know this is not how things usually work.
  12. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Haiduk in Defeating The Russian Battalion Tactical Group   
    I'm shoked how author came to cheking own sources.
    First of all not Zubrowski, but Zabrodskyi. And this wasn't full brigade. The raid group consisted of combined forces of 1st airmobile and 13th separate airmobile battalions with battery of towed D-30 howitzers of 95th brigade. Total amount of personnel slightly more 400 men.Their mission was to unblock Ukrainian units (more that 3000 men), trapped on the border. Then, they must move together with 1st BTG of 30th mech.brigade to the north-east and join with 2nd BTG of 30th mech.brigade in Mius area to establish new line of external blocade. Parartropers on own way have destroyed several separs checkpoints and later liberated with fighting several villages. But all captured tanks and guns belongs to separs, not Russian regulars. They really clashed with regular Russian units (w/o insignias), but only one time - during the fighting near Krasnyi Luch. There is too few information about these fightings. This is very strange, but to this time official ATO "chroniclers" are telling only about initial sucessful part of this really heroical raid - up to relieving of our blocked units, but further developments  are giving in several sentenses only. And this theme is awaiting own researher. Officially first "prooved" Russian regulars were paratroopers, captured on 24th Aug near Dzerkalne. Of course, Russian regulars came on UKR territory much early, and fought near Krasnyi Luch, Heorhiivka, Stepanivka, but this is inconvenient theme for General Staff, because this breaks their legend about "surprise attack on 24th Aug". 
    Absolute fairy tell. The article of Ukrainain journalist about glorious victory over Russian battalion of T-80, which the author used w/o factchecking is just patriotic propaganda and no more. All was viсe versa - the attack of UKR tank company and motorized inf. company was completely destroyed by Russian Msta-S battery and separs ambush. And about attack of "Ukrainian volunteer unit". First of all not volunteer, "Azov" in that time already was regular National Guard unit, the second - they wasn't "backed by army". When "Azov" advanced and needed a refueling and recharging, army units suddenly recieved an order "to stand on own positions, and not supply Azov". Azov and Donbas were encircled and heavy fought until 79th airmobile brigade unit deblocaded them at last. We had a plan to return on the border near Novoazovsk and pull some enemy forces from Debaltsevo, but because of strange political games Azov could only push off enemy lines from Mariupol.
    Battle for airport described very rough and... starnge. The author couldn't see main component of successful defense and the cause of airport falling.  And that was not tanks on runway... When separs assulted last cyborg's positions, they used tactic of small assault groups, which simultainously firing several RPO-A and PRG-7 with cover of MG and sniper fire. This forced defenders step back again and again. Separs used smoke grenades, used 40 mm grenade launchers, in final assult they also used chemical weapon and at last powerful HE charges (maybe sea mines) - first exploded from the top, the second and fatal - from below.
    Participation of Russian regular army in Debaltsevo battle asolutely exaggerated. Yes, they really had strong artillery and MLRS group there, but their "field" units engaged episodically. They had only two motor-rifle companies and four tank companies, from which really participated maybe a half. They also hadn't T-90A, only T-72B3 (one company) and T-72 mod.1989. Also group of Vagner used, but was badly beaten  and tank battalion August, and smaller groups, formed from Russian volunteers. Our stupid generals and former president in full seriuos to this time claim Russian had several BTGs on Debaltsevo and around,  and name units, which in that time either were in Russia or dislocated in other part of Donbas. Because of to say for people "Russians wanted to breakthrough to Kharkiv, but we forced them to stop by our military and diplomatic efforts. We are won. Debaltsevo is our victory!" . But really, separs said, when the truce was broken, 7th LNR brigade, which carried main burden of fights, mobilized to last assault all who could walk - staff and rear personnel, light wounded etc, because their losses were huge. From other places were moved reinfocements. They say "This is a miracle that we won. Maybe we just wanted to win much more than Ukarinain generals". And this is true, alas. But not only generals, but coward politics.  
    Hm... Only one of two ways passed through mostly wooden terrains. Ukrainian troops are withdrawing both on foot and on vehicles, only damaged and broken equipment was abandoned.
    Again this "Russian forces". Our trops left positions suddenly for the separs. They reacted, when our forward columns already were on own way. Our artillery and ballistic missiles from the "big land" hit probable places of enemy ambushes and positions. Groups of special forces and 95th brigade covered our convoys and spotted enemy movements for our artillery. In this way three of five convoys had time to successfully escape and only last two were heavy attacked and suffered relatively big losses in personnel and vehicles. So this is not "Russian forces unable". 
  13. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Comparison of Firefly 17-pdr with US 76 mm and 90 mm guns   
    The Germans were loath to add any weight to the turret since it was already heavier than the traverse mechanism was designed to handle.
    From a post-war French report:
    "The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees."
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to John Kettler in Defeating The Russian Battalion Tactical Group   
    This is a most insightful 2017 ARMOR magazine article by the US Army's Captain Nicolas Fiore. Not only does it discuss how a US BCT (Brigade Combat Team) should attack it and show what an uphill fight it is for a BTG to beat a BCT, but it looks at Ukrainian combat experience against BTGs, including the longest armored raid in history. As CPT Fiore notes, the BTG is pretty brittle. I forget the scenario, but I commanded one once in CMBS and got mauled for my pains--by the Ukrainians. Would be keenly interested in what Haiduk, IMHO and others from that neck of the woods have to say.

    https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Spring/2Fiore17.pdf

    Regards,

    John Kettler
  15. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Comparison of Firefly 17-pdr with US 76 mm and 90 mm guns   
    They tried to.
    https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-panzer-panther-ausf-f/
    TL;DR: After a year of development the first redesign got rejected. The second redesign was accepted and set to go into production in early 1945 as the Panther F, but it was too late.
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Bulletpoint in The Year Ahead Bone Post   
    I have them too. I wake up wild-eyed, drenched in sweat, screaming "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point!"
  17. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bud Backer in Effective ranges for Bazookas and PzSchrecks?   
    In 1976 the US Army estimated the first shot hit probability for a Soviet RPG-7.

    Panzerschrecks and Bazookas were fairly accurate weapons. The US Ordinance manual lists the dispersion for the M6A3 Bazooka rocket as 6 mils, which comes out to about 1.6 meters at 300 yards (274 meters), so accuracy was dependent on the operator. Real world combat accuracy is anyone's guess, but the in-game results don't strike me as unbelievable.
  18. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Effective ranges for Bazookas and PzSchrecks?   
    In 1976 the US Army estimated the first shot hit probability for a Soviet RPG-7.

    Panzerschrecks and Bazookas were fairly accurate weapons. The US Ordinance manual lists the dispersion for the M6A3 Bazooka rocket as 6 mils, which comes out to about 1.6 meters at 300 yards (274 meters), so accuracy was dependent on the operator. Real world combat accuracy is anyone's guess, but the in-game results don't strike me as unbelievable.
  19. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Panther Shot Trap Still Not Trapping   
    The hull machine gun port is somewhat off-center, granted, but not by much. It is closer to the center than the side. But I will test at 1000 meters or more so there is significant dispersion.
  20. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Panther Shot Trap Still Not Trapping   
    We know from what Steve has said that Charles declared everything right and proper after getting a ricochet penetration on the first shot of a test, an extraordinarily unlikely event. So it is entirely possible that he simply doesn't know how rare it is in the game.

    There is something wacky about hits on weak points in general, not just the Panther shot trap. Hull machine gun ports are hit extremely rarely or not at all while the main cannon gets hit too often. I'm going to do another thread about that soon. It will probably go nowhere like this one but we'll see.
  21. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Panther Shot Trap Still Not Trapping   
    Must... bite.... tongue...




    If you are happy with a much smaller sample size I won't complain. I can tell you there were no ricochet hits in the first 117 non-penetrating mantlet hits. I'll get a couple hundred more then post up the results. After all, it only takes a few minutes...


  22. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Effective ranges for Bazookas and PzSchrecks?   
    In 1976 the US Army estimated the first shot hit probability for a Soviet RPG-7.

    Panzerschrecks and Bazookas were fairly accurate weapons. The US Ordinance manual lists the dispersion for the M6A3 Bazooka rocket as 6 mils, which comes out to about 1.6 meters at 300 yards (274 meters), so accuracy was dependent on the operator. Real world combat accuracy is anyone's guess, but the in-game results don't strike me as unbelievable.
  23. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Freyberg in Effective ranges for Bazookas and PzSchrecks?   
    In 1976 the US Army estimated the first shot hit probability for a Soviet RPG-7.

    Panzerschrecks and Bazookas were fairly accurate weapons. The US Ordinance manual lists the dispersion for the M6A3 Bazooka rocket as 6 mils, which comes out to about 1.6 meters at 300 yards (274 meters), so accuracy was dependent on the operator. Real world combat accuracy is anyone's guess, but the in-game results don't strike me as unbelievable.
  24. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Fionn Rules?   
    https://combatmission.fandom.com/wiki/House_Rules
     
  25. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bud Backer in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Frankly, the ability of infantry to close assault still-mobile tanks without any anti-tank weaponry is not particularly realistic under any circumstance. It was hardly ever done in reality.
×
×
  • Create New...