Killkess

Thanks for your quick reply. Dont invest to much APS grafic whise. I "only" thougt its a matter of options i did not know.

Are there no hit decals on era tiles? Ive seen multiple penetrations where i could see holes in the underlying armor but the era tile was still "intact". Aren´t they supposed to explode/beeing damaged by hit decals or when beeing hit by heat warheads? Ive not seen any missing ones either. Sidenote: What is the visiual difference between T90AM with or without APS? I cant see a difference.

I only find it logically correct to allow ATGs to fire on the move... Tanks are allowed to do the same to represent an abstracted short halt.

That realy much depends on the "thickness" of trees and underbrush. Being 10-20 meters inside a normal forrest doesnt realy block your ability to look outside while someone looking from outside into the forrest will have a much harder time spotting due to lighting and general background. Would be nice Bull if you could provide a screenshot of the situation.

Bull never stated that his tank was 80m inside the forrest and the enemy was stationed just outside the woods. As far as i understand the situation was that his tank is positioned just within the woods and that the enmy tank is 80 m away sitting in unconcealed open terrain. Thats a big difference.

A bit late to jump in, but i still want to add that this seems to be a often repeated myth. The Hetzer had a very bad power/weight-ratio. This combined with a frontheavy weight distribution and an almost overloaded suspension system made this maschine anything but a fast and mobile hunter.

I might be wrong but isnt lead in the azimuth only dependent on the motion vectors?

The numbers i've read and also the numbers mentioned in the link suggest that the .30 AP and the SMK-mauser ammo has a penetration of about 10mm of steel at 100m at 90 degrees. The front of the 251 is armored at 12.5mm angled at 22 degrees, the flanks are 8mm at 30 degrees. If i remember correctly the 251 were build with high hardened plates. I see nearly no chance for the 0.30 gunner to penetrate the armor at almost any range frontaly or even with flanking shots.

While i am not an expert i highly doubt that halftracks were such vulnerable to small arms fire. Angled plates and hard steels should give good protection vs .30 at any range. Some of the grogs here for a comment?

Troops inside jeeps seem to be better protected than Tank commanders. If you move the jeep fast and use some concealment for the movement they are a very very fast way to get the scouts to where you need them.

John, i believe u have linked the wrong thread? This one is about Stugs.

@John Yes, that was meant to be facetious. I always wondered why BFC choosen to strictly restrict any kind of movement with crewed weapons without going through the whole packup process. HMGs could be carried around for some distance on the tripod, smaller guns could be pushed around some distance to get into position and so on.

Seeing the PAK beeing moved into action is heretic! This is a pure propaganda flic!

That doesnt sound like a feasible reason to me. The movement-animation off all guns are pretty bad, the packup/buildup animations are missing completely. So why BFC simply declined to make new animations and just make it mobile without the wheel attachment?

MikeyD, do you know what lead to this decission? Some much more heavier equipment is towable and moveable i dont see the logic to restrict the lightest guns in this matter.

Can anybody please confirm that the Flak 38 is immobile ingame? Looking at the manuel they have a packup time, within the game i cant even give a move order. Am i the only one with this issue?

What was the reason to make even the tiny 20mm flak immobile? I cant move it, i cant pack it up?

For LOS/LOF there is no check for treetops. Its just the trunks which intersect with LOS/LOF which is a pitty in many cases.

While i cant realy join the technical debate i just want to highlight that tanks in cm2 share some unhistorical advantages in urban warfare. The mixture of super-spotting and non excisting firing-height-restrictions often gives armor an edge over infantry forces which they historical did not have. Due to this i see no real sense in restricting the use of certain infantry at-assets from inside buildings while armor shares much more questionable capabilities. If BFC cant fix the tanks at least give the inf better ways to handle this.

In CMx2 Mp40s open fire at up to 280m if given direct fire orders which one cant avoid if a single SMG is within the firing unit. Just for reference

Looking at the steepness of some of the terrain i think the non excisting elevation restriction for tank guns will have to get more attantion soon.

In my opinion the main issue with artillery is that we have way to flexible options to call in firesupport. Linear targetting, to small target areas and to responsive artillery easily generates oversaturation. While i like to have some more controll over the fire-mission i miss some kind of "minimal" target area or even fixed sizes like in CM1. Seeing even "entrenched" infantry beeing slaughtered by a couple of small mortars doesnt reflect WWII realities.

And i like that section because in WWII the only artillery pieces neccesary to achieve comparable results is a couple of 60mm mortars.

Kursk comes to my mind... why a defender should not be allowed to use artillery against known enemy troop concentrations? I feel that the problem often is the very small and pretty predictable setup zones.

Discussions about german plate quality come up every now and then mostly without conclusive results. What is your source for this statement?