Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to MOS:96B2P in Skill Level: Iron   
    Was the soft factor morale state of the squad pinned, shaken or panic?  This may cause a squad to ignore orders.  A squad is more likely to be pinned, shaken or panic if it is out of C2.  Getting the squad back into C2 helps it to recover.  Was the squad taking incoming fire and /or recently had casualties? What was the leadership rating of the platoon HQ?  If the HQ had a low rating this may have contributed to the length of time to get the squad to recover and respond.  
     
    Iron mode helps the player to understand the situational awareness of his units.  I don't think it effects the player giving orders to his units at all.  Of course a combination of other factors will effect the giving of orders........          
  2. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bydax in AT-13 vs M1A2 side turret armor   
    The Abrams side turret armor is set too high, IMO. It will resist PG-7VR even without the ERA. It has been reported as a bug and will hopefully be adjusted in the next patch.
  3. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from antaress73 in AT-13 vs M1A2 side turret armor   
    The Abrams side turret armor is set too high, IMO. It will resist PG-7VR even without the ERA. It has been reported as a bug and will hopefully be adjusted in the next patch.
  4. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from LukeFF in Notice! I screwed up and deleted DB pics from earliest CMBS QB!   
    Did you really need to start a new thread to announce you had deleted pics from another thread? You have 8 threads on the first page of this forum.
  5. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to choppinlt in Operational Level Game Announcement   
    Hey, I just wanted to give a heads-up and let you know that things are continuing to progress. Last I was told, Combat Operations is going to be premiered on realandsimulatedwars.com starting tomorrow (Monday) night, and we have prepared a small series of posts. Furthermore, our website buckeyebg.com went live yesterday! There isn't much to see at this moment as it is a major work in progress. I'm hoping it will look significantly better by tomorrow night, regardless we have web space now! For right now, my forum will be the best place for information but I am hoping that changes very soon as our website takes better shape. Last item, we currently appear to be on schedule for a Sept 1 kickoff for the kickstarter. More to come!
     
    -Matt
  6. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Wicky in Notice! I screwed up and deleted DB pics from earliest CMBS QB!   
    Did you really need to start a new thread to announce you had deleted pics from another thread? You have 8 threads on the first page of this forum.
  7. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Trucks, Kubelwagen/Jeeps... Too Robust Cross Country?   
    This is a test I did about 18 months ago:
     
  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Trucks, Kubelwagen/Jeeps... Too Robust Cross Country?   
    Vehicles -- ALL vehicles, not just wheeled -- take damage from driving through obstacles. Just driving over rough terrain will never damage anything.
  9. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Trucks, Kubelwagen/Jeeps... Too Robust Cross Country?   
    Vehicles of all types can drive through light woods or rocky terrain all day without damage, although there may be an increased chance of bogging.
     
    RR tracks can damage both wheeled and tracked vehicles*, but it's not considered a type of ground terrain in the editor.
     
    * Which is why you should always try to cross RR tracks at a perpendicular angle. Running vehicles along the length of the track will almost inevitably incur damage.
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Nidan1 in Panther G glacis   
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf
     
    This report may prove interesting, although very technical. This test was done on the side armor (no specific location for the sample section that I can find). Also it does not say what model Panther was used.
     
    I would assume though, that the glacis plate used similar materials. Since the report is dated after war one could assume that the steel came from a G model, although As and Ds were still on the field in 1945.
  11. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from umlaut in Accidentally depressing the "bail-out" button and can't correct b4 saving the turn!   
    The best work-around is to open your hotkeys.txt file and delete the keybind for Bail Out so that you can only give the order by clicking on the button. And while you're at it delete the keybinds for any other non-reversible orders such as Split Teams.
  12. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Combatintman in No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial   
    Having promised Threat Integration - here it is:
     
    Step 3 – Threat Integration
     
    Recall that in this step we combine our analysis from Step 1 (BAE) and Step 2 (TE) to come up with a likely enemy course of action. Also don't forget we are still in Question 1.
     
    Likely Enemy Mission
     
    This is pretty much stated in various bits of the briefing:
     
    The enemy is an outpost line
    The enemy is to deny the woods
    The enemy is to inflict casualties (especially half-tracks)
     
    So a likely mission statement would be:
     
    X Platoon Group is to deny the woods IVO OSINNIK Village until 250800Jun44 in order to allow the regimental main body to prepare its main line of defence.
     
    Likely associated tasks would be:
     
    Identify and track German attacking forces
    Delay German attacks through direct and indirect fires.
    Engage high value targets (HVTs)
    Preserve own combat power and break clean to the main defensive position
     
    This is all very well but it is now time to return to the ground to work out what is feasible given the resources available to the enemy and his preferred tactics.
     
    So some context about the ground and effects specific to the defender because my previous analysis, particularly that relating to Key Terrain, was focused on my mission.
     
    Key terrain for the enemy I assess as follows:
     
    Village A
     
    Mainly for the same reasons I designated it a key terrain for myself – but most importantly because the enemy is reported to be there.
     
    Entrances F, G and H
     
    Designated because these are the most likely points of entry onto the wooded objective for any attacking force.
     
    Track Crossroads I
     
    This crossroads blocks avenues of approach from entrances F, G and H.
     
    It is also worthy of note that Woods C and E and Complex D would be suitable outpost locations but are not significant enough to warrant the deployment of significant combat power given the Red Army commander’s limited resources.
     
    So initially, on the basis of the above, I will throw the Doctrinal Overlay onto the map centred on Track Crossroads I just to give me an idea of how everything works in terms of ground and tactics. This will provide the basis for subsequent COA analysis which will take into account my terrain deductions and will involve some amendments to the doctrinal solution to make it best fit the terrain and the analysis of the enemy’s mission and tasks as previously described. The schematic below illustrates this step:
     

     
    As you can see from the graphic, some manipulation is now required to turn this into a viable defensive COA on this particular piece of ground. Also on my initial laydown, I have not taken into account the probable scout team reported to be in Village A. So let’s do that now.
     

     
    COA 1
     
    The graphic above becomes COA 1 which I will call ‘Defend Forward’. In this COA we have the reported probable scout team in Village A which provides coverage of AAs 1 and 2 and then all three assessed rifle squads have pushed forward scout teams IVO Complex D, Wood E and Entrance H. The main outpost line is linear and lies back from the forward edge of the main wood. In this laydown the eastern most squad can cover Entrance F and any advance along AAs 1 and 2. The centre squad can cover Crossroads I and AA3. The westernmost squad can cover Entrance H and approaches up AAs 4 and 5.
     
    Note that there is nothing in Wood C but it is possible that the scout team in Complex D could equally be positioned there or Wood C could be a fall-back position for the scout team in Village A once it decides that remaining in Village A becomes untenable. This is marked in the diagram by a dashed circle.
     
    Also note that the westernmost scout team could also be located further forward at the western end of Wood E and achieve the same effect of covering Entrance H and AAs 4 and 5. This is marked in the diagram by a dashed circle.
     
    Each of the platoon scout teams in this COA I would see as being augmented by an LMG squad and an ATR squad to take advantage of their ranged capabilities. The role of these teams being to identify my avenue of approach and to disrupt my attack by engaging HVTs before falling back on to the main outpost line in the woods. The probable scout team in Village A will likely have an observer grouped with it and its role will be to identify my avenue of approach and disrupt my attack through indirect fires before falling back to an alternate position in either Wood C or Complex D.
     
    COA 1 Advantages
     
    Conforms to doctrine.
    Allows early identification of the German axis.
    Allows early attrition of the German attacker.
    Makes best use of ranged weapons.
    Makes good use of concealment in the main wood.
     
    COA 1 Disadvantages
     
    Dispersion creates C2 problems.
    Extraction of two platoon scout teams will be over open ground
    Linear main outpost line lacks depth
    Linear outpost line does not provide mutual support.
    Defence can be outflanked and taken down from the rear.
     
    So that is the first COA, on to COA 2 - illustrated below and derived using the same process:
     
    COA 2
     

     
    The graphic above becomes COA 2 which I will call ‘Defend Deep’. In this COA we have the reported probable scout team in Village A which provides coverage of AAs 1 and 2 and then all three assessed  rifle squads have pushed forward scout teams IVO the northern perimeter of the main wood. The main outpost position is constructed as a standard defensive position with two squads forward and one back with the killing area centred on Track Crossroads I. This laydown means that the probable scout team in Village A covers AAs 1 and 2. The easternmost platoon scout team provides very limited coverage of AAs 1 and 2 and good coverage of AA3. The centre platoon scout team provides coverage of AA3. The westernmost platoon scout team provides good coverage of AA4 within the main wood and limited coverage of AA5.
     
    As with the previous COA, I would see each of the platoon scout teams having an LMG and ATR team grouped to permit best use of those weapons systems and the scout team in Village A having an observer grouped with it.
     
    COA 2 Advantages
     
    Conforms to doctrine.
    Excellent use of concealment in the main wood.
    Excellent C2.
    Good all round defence and mutual support.
    Provides best defence of Track Crossroads I.
     
    COA 2 Disadvantages
     
    Limited observation and fields of fire over avenues of approach.
    Limited ability to maximise use of ranged weapons.
    Surrenders initiative to the attacker.
    Allows easy break in to the main woods by the attacker via entrances F, H, K and L.
    Scout team in village A is entirely dislocated from the main force.
     
    One really useful product from the IPB process is the Event Overlay which is designed to show activities related to time and space. Doctrinally it would contain timelines or events, I have done this but in a very simplistic form. The purple dotted lines are my timelines (measured in minutes) and are based on dismounted ‘Move’ rates of movement (which in broad terms = 2 minutes per 100m). Of course I could make this more comprehensive by showing movement rates for ‘Quick’ and ‘Hunt’ etc and applying movement rates over different types of ground (woods dismounted ‘Move’ speed per 100m is about 2 minutes and 45 seconds) and also for my vehicles.  Clearly by doing so, you expend more time and sometimes make the product to complicated. By keeping it simple my event overlay is telling me the following already:
     
    I can cover the AO in 20 minutes.
    The earliest I can assault Village A is H+10 or 0710 hrs in the scenario.
    Related to that, enemy in Village A may attempt to extract at the same time.
    The earliest I can assault Wood E is H+12 or 0712 hrs in the scenario.
    Related to that, enemy in Wood E may attempt to extract at the same time.
    The earliest time I can start my clearance of the Main Wood is H+16 or 0716 hrs in the scenario.
    The earliest time I can finish clearing the Main Wood is H+20 or 0720 hrs in the scenario.
     
    These are all useful for planning and particularly any synchronising and phasing required. It also gives me a window (H+10 to H+12) to potentially acquire track and engage moving enemy targets.
     
    So that was a very basic look at the timings, now I will focus on the Named Areas of Interest (NAI) part of this product. The NAIs show where you need to look in order to acquire the enemy and determine his likely COA. This product will later be refined but for the time being let’s look at NAIs.
     
    NAIs are placed based on the previously derived enemy COAs. In simple terms, wherever an enemy is reported or wherever you assess an enemy grouping to be is the starting point. The process involves drawing a box around those areas and if required, refining those boxes or combining them. This is important to get right because ultimately each of those NAIs should be covered by a reconnaissance asset, and ideally for redundancy two assets. Clearly the more NAIs there are to cover, the more troops you have to allocate to the task.
     
    Here is the Event Overlay for this mission
     

     
    To complete the process and to add meaning to the above, an Event Matrix is produced and the combination of these two products drive the Collection Plan and ultimately the plan as a whole. In the Event Matrix you are basically defining, where you are looking, when you are looking, what you are looking for and what it all means. I will ignore the ‘when’ part of this for simplicity and because I don’t think it is a war-stopper given that the only moves I anticipate from the enemy will occur in the H+10 – H+12 window.
     
    Here is the Event Matrix
     

     
    High Value Targets (HVT) are another consideration, doctrinally these are the assets that are critical to the success of the Enemy Commander’s mission. This demonstrates why it is important to thoroughly analyse the likely enemy mission and tasks – if you don’t go through this process you end up targeting everything which is sometimes difficult to do and it is wasteful of time and resources. There are a number of ways of deriving these but I’m going to keep this simple. So if we refer back to assessed mission and tasks, I had them as these:
     
    X Platoon Group is to deny the woods IVO OSINNIK Village until 250800Jun44 in order to allow the regimental main body to prepare its main line of defence.
     
    Likely associated tasks would be:
     
    Identify and track German attacking forces
    Delay German attacks through direct and indirect fires.
    Engage high value targets (HVTs)
    Preserve own combat power and break clean to the main defensive position
     
    From this my HVT list looks like this:
     
    Platoon HQ – Destruction of this will affect enemy C2 and morale and reduce his ability to communicate back to higher HQ.
     
    Forward Observer IVO Village A – Destruction of this limits the enemy’s ability to call in indirect fire.
    Anti-Tank Rifle Squads – These are the only assets that can effectively defeat my light armoured vehicles.
     
    I could go further with this but the more I add, the more I have to target which means allocating assets. The above list is the minimum needed to effectively limit the enemy’s ability to achieve his mission.
     
    The above, although it is truncated, is about as far as we need to go with Question 1 so next time we will move on to Question 2 – What have I been told to do and why? This in effect is Mission Analysis and there are many ways of cracking this nut and again I will pare this down to what I consider to be essentials for this situation.
  13. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to kohlenklau in Master Maps?   
    The CMPzC Operations have produced several master maps for Normandy and Italy.  (and Hungary).
    Usually they are 4km x 4km.
    Valkenswaard. Hosingen. San Leonardo. 
    I will try to get them uploaded. 
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Stagler in Stagler's Quick Battle Maps   
    Download Link v1.2
     
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/zjqrfzyu1nvr9uv/SG_QB_Maps_v1.2.rar?dl=0
     
    Added new map: SG Holubivka-Town-Rough Meet Based roughly on this place here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Holubivka,+Luhans'ka+oblast,+Ukraine/@49.2209589,38.456322,13.37z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x41204429c1148b79:0xa477f8c38e3997ef!6m1!1e1 Renamed existing maps in the pack to reflect their real world locations, as the pack will cover real locations (with artistic flair) from here forward. Delete previous versions to avoid duplication.
  15. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bud Backer in Red light next to suppression bars   
    I don't think that is true. Troops that reach Shaken or Panic do not get the red light treatment. They have to rally from Broken. I recall only seeing it happen once in a game.
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Stagler in 85 Converted CMRT To CMBS QB Maps   
    Howdy.
     
    Happy Friday.
     
    I have converted 85 of the Red Thunder QB Maps not found as duplicates in CM Black Sea over to be usable in CM Black Sea. All are ready to go as you can imagine.
    AI plans are not perfect as they are designed for WW2 combat, but they are workable and more content is always a bonus right?
     
    All credit for original creation and distribution of these maps goes to BFC.
     
    Download Link @Dropbox:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilbru2acockn615/Red_Thunder_QB_Maps.rar?dl=0
     
    Cheers.
  17. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Why do mortars have almost no ammo, yet howitzers have gobs? Also...   
    On-map mortars have several advantages over off-map.
     
    1) Faster response. Times vary, but when called in by a fire support team (regular experience) in a FIST all US on-map mortars have a 2 minute response while off-map are 4 min for 60mm and 81mm and 5 min for 120mm (again, times vary and the displayed time are rounded off from the exact times)
    2) Each individual on-map tube can be tasked with a separate fire mission while the the off-map section or platoon is limited to one at a time.
    3) On-map mortars can use direct lay.
     
    At first glance the on-map 60s do appear to be an especially bad deal on a point per round basis, but I suspect their excellent suitability for direct lay is the reason. They can move at Quick speed with a full ammo load while the 81s and 120s are limited to Move until they expend some ammo. They also have the shortest deploy and pack-up times. In fact I feel that the 120s deploy and pack-up times of 1.4 and 1.5 minutes respectively make them impractical for directly lay use which is probably why the per round cost of 120s is almost the same for on-map and off-map.
  18. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to lordhedgwich in Quick battles   
    I have always thought quick battle in previous CM games were boring, but CMBS is different. The maps are great the AI can be spotty but for the most part puts up a decent fight. I hope future releases of CM games have even better quick battles they really add to the games value. Good Job Battlefront 
  19. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Kineas in T-34/76 to T-34/85 ratio   
  20. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to womble in QB: a fight to the finish...or not   
    Because it would be pointless. A single assault gun will be attached as part of the "Battalion" subelement that forms the basis of whatever force the AI picked. So if the whole (presumably infantry) force has been roughly handled, "contagious" morale loss (for being aware of all your mates being shot/blow up/fried) will drop the morale state of all that Formation and its attached "single vehicles" and "specialist teams" into the toilet. And a "Broken" assault gun is going to be no challenge whatever to hunt, since it will first of all run away when it's aware of the threat, and has terrible situational awareness so your Choob Guys will be able to sneak up on it at will.
     
    When the AI surrenders, the game is over; you've already fought them to the death (their death) and beating the bloody fragments further is simply wasting time stirring pixels with your genitals. If I had my druthers, it'd give in sooner in some situations like the time I killed 90% of an infantry Battalion, including all its vehicles bar 2, but because the armour element wasn't as badly hurt, the AI kept on coming, until the unescorted armour got monched by my defending* infantry and ATGs. It "should" (in an ideal world, and yes, I know how hard that would be; I'm expressing an aspiration I don't expect ever to be fulfilled) have given up when it could no longer support its advancing armour. As it was, the remaining 10% infantry got halved again in their mad kamikaze attempts to fulfill their next scripted order (in spite of their propensity for turning tail and running as soon as any bullets whizzed around their ears) while the armour failed to deal with the ATGs.
     
    * Yes I was defending against the AI. I'd given it a 150% combined arms force and taken infantry as the defender in an Assault to see how ATGs fared.
  21. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to John Kettler in Tiger Armor Issue   
    I was looking for the excellent Mark Diehl article from AFV-G2 in which he sets forth the cases for what happens when projectile meets armor, which has some great line drawings with it. Am pretty sure Scribd has that article, but in the process of searching for free sources, I came across this pertinent to the discussion account of vanilla Shermans vs Tiger 1s at Rauray and Fontenay (both in late June of 1944). Though I didn't look at it in detail, the site apparently is a grog fest by one Mobius for a set of Micro Armour™ rules called Panzer War. In any event, there is a great deal of fiddly analysis there, such as back computing ballistic coefficients for shells, but the above is a collection of eyewitness accounts from both sides and a stack of associated photos. There are accounts here I've never seen, and it's fairly unusual, I'd think, to have accounts both from an individual tanker and members of the crew of the tank hit.
     
    http://www.panzer-war.com/page45.html
     
    Regards,
     
    John Kettler

     
  22. Downvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to shift8 in Tiger Armor Issue   
    Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful. 
     
    You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it. A CP by any logical process would be part of CMBN PP section. Any the lack of spalling being mentioned is completely meaningless. They werent doing a damage test, they were doing a ballistic one. 
     
    Im not even going to dignify your last bit with the smiley with a response, simply refer to the first part of the this reply.
  23. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from LukeFF in Tiger Armor Issue   
    I do have proof.
     
    PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
    CP = Complete Penetration
     
    CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.
     
     
    I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.
     
    .
    And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  
     
    I am done with you.
     
     
     
     
     

     
  24. Downvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from shift8 in Tiger Armor Issue   
    I do have proof.
     
    PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
    CP = Complete Penetration
     
    CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.
     
     
    I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.
     
    .
    And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  
     
    I am done with you.
     
     
     
     
     

     
  25. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bil Hardenberger in Tiger Armor Issue   
    I do have proof.
     
    PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
    CP = Complete Penetration
     
    CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.
     
     
    I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.
     
    .
    And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  
     
    I am done with you.
     
     
     
     
     

     
×
×
  • Create New...