OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS and BUG REPORTS Thread

[Steve McClaire]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

...I'm also wondering about the 2 FTs per platoon in the US engineer platoon. Is that really a realistic figure?

As I posted earlier, US Army combat engineers were never equipped with flamethrowers as part of their standard TO&E. As I understand it, the US Army Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) was the branch responsible for flamethrowers, and would issue the weapons (held at Corps or Army level presumably) and basic training to combat units that needed them. Since flamethrowers are available as 'support' when purchasing units in CMAK, they really shouldn't be in the standard 'package' for US units IMO.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by MAsta_KFC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Seems to me the supression when firing from houses is not broken for Panzerfausts.

Really? I'll check again Redwolf, but I swear I even saw yesterday a german squad firing a Pf-60 at a car and no suppression. I'll double check tonight. </font>

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

After looking at a great deal of data on the type of propellent and amounts used in a Panzerfausts as well as viewing some very hard to come by video of Panzerfausts actually being live fired they do not seem to cause enough exhaust or backblast (call it what you will) to really cause the levels of suppresion that a zook or Schreck would create when fired from a confined space.

Madmatt

For what its worth, the movie 'The Pianist' has a short clip of a guy firing a Panzerfaust from the balcony of a multi-story building in the Warsaw Ghetto. IIRC, there wasn't much in the way of a backblast. Certainly rearranged the furniture in the building across the street, though.

[Redwolf]

The following savegame shows clearly that in CMAK 1.00 a Panzerfaust does cause supression when fired from a house.

http://redwolf.dyndns.org/tmp/backblast.cmg

%%

The samegame also shows an interesting spotting/targetting anormaly: the Panzerschreck placed for comparision in a similar position relative to another tank is always instantly spotted and taken under fire by the tank. [EDITed for clarification: that is before it fires, in fact before it targets and before it turns. The tank "senses" it right away, even if the Panzerschreck has a cover arc to prevent it from engaging the tank]

The squads are not, although they fire their Fausts just fine.

It seems counterintiutive that a full squad is spotted with more difficulty than a two-man team.

One squad are only 58m from the tank, the Panzerschreck is 67. The angle toward the tank is about the same and both unit have about the same position inside an inditical heavy building.

[ January 29, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MAsta_KFC]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The following savegame shows clearly that in CMAK 1.00 a Panzerfaust does cause supression when fired from a house.

http://redwolf.dyndns.org/tmp/backblast.cmg

%%

The samegame also shows an interesting spotting/targetting anormaly: the Panzerschreck placed for comparision in a similar position relative to another tank is always instantly spotted and taken under fire by the tank.

The squads are not, although they fire their Fausts just fine.

It seems counterintiutive that a full squad is spotted with more difficulty than a two-man team.

One squad are only 58m from the tank, the Panzerschreck is 67. The angle toward the tank is about the same and both unit have about the same position inside an inditical heavy building.

My apologies Redwolf, you are correct. It seems that after loading up your savegame and extensive testing myself, the Panzershreck DOES NOT have supression while all types of Panzerfaust DO.

BFC is there time for a last minute 1.01 change to reverse this?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The samegame also shows an interesting spotting/targetting anormaly: the Panzerschreck placed for comparision in a similar position relative to another tank is always instantly spotted and taken under fire by the tank.

The squads are not, although they fire their Fausts just fine.

It seems counterintiutive that a full squad is spotted with more difficulty than a two-man team.

Presumably it is the larger backblast of the Schreck that is being spotted.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MAsta_KFC:

...the Panzershreck DOES NOT have supression while all types of Panzerfaust DO.

BFC is there time for a last minute 1.01 change to reverse this?

My reading of Matt's statement suggests that the patch does indeed address that.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

The samegame also shows an interesting spotting/targetting anormaly: the Panzerschreck placed for comparision in a similar position relative to another tank is always instantly spotted and taken under fire by the tank.

The squads are not, although they fire their Fausts just fine.

It seems counterintiutive that a full squad is spotted with more difficulty than a two-man team.

Presumably it is the larger backblast of the Schreck that is being spotted.

Michael </font>

[Mark Gallear]

In answer to my own question on the assertion by Romulus that Italians had 88mm and the implication that they were used as AT guns.

The Crucible of War volume II Barrie Pitt

"Ariete had been attacked first from the west by Matildas of 1st Army Tank brigade and suffered some losses in M13s, and then by Crusaders of .... - but these they fought off with the 88mms which Rommel had given them with instructions to form an anti-tank screen, and which they handled very adeptly"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

In answer to my own question on the assertion by Romulus that Italians had 88mm and the implication that they were used as AT guns.

The Crucible of War volume II Barrie Pitt

"Ariete had been attacked first from the west by Matildas of 1st Army Tank brigade and suffered some losses in M13s, and then by Crusaders of .... - but these they fought off with the 88mms which Rommel had given them with instructions to form an anti-tank screen, and which they handled very adeptly"

Incidentally, I did receive your email, still trying to find the time to look it over....

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

"Ariete had been attacked first from the west by Matildas of 1st Army Tank brigade and suffered some losses in M13s, and then by Crusaders of .... - but these they fought off with the 88mms which Rommel had given them with instructions to form an anti-tank screen, and which they handled very adeptly"

There are two ways to read that passage Mark - either Rommel gave them the guns(only) and the Italians manned them, or he gave them tactical control of some guns manned by their usual German crews.

Nothing definitive IMO.

Jon

[Mark Gallear]

That is of course true but Romulus in his post said that the Ariete Division had been supplied with German 88s and manned by Italian crews. I had wondered if the Italians only used them as AA guns.

This passage seems to suggest that they should be in the Italian lists. Still not sure how common an event it was for them to be used as AT guns. However, the passage does give the impression that the Germans supplied them with the idea of them primarily being used in the AT role :eek: . The quoted battle was in Feb/March 1942.

[ January 29, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Please run the savegame...

I would have, but when I clicked on the URL you provided, all I got was garbled text, not a savegame file.

Soooo, I'll just have to take your word for it.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Using Internet Exploder? Use right-click and then download

[von Lucke]

Another "I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature" observation:

Go to the Editor, buy an armor platoon (any nationality), then delete all the other tanks except the HQ tank. Go look at it in the Map Editor. The single HQ tank is commanded by a SGT, but with all the leadership bonuses still in place. A HQ vehicle alone cannot lend it's bonuses to any other vehicle, but is this any reason for a demotion from LT?

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

That is of course true but Romulus in his post said that the Ariete Division had been supplied with German 88s and manned by Italian crews. I had wondered if the Italians only used them as AA guns.

This passage seems to suggest that they should be in the Italian lists. Still not sure how common an event it was for them to be used as AT guns. However, the passage does give the impression that the Germans supplied them with the idea of them primarily being used in the AT role :eek: . The quoted battle was in Feb/March 1942.

As it has been pointed out in my previous message, the 88/56 guns were quite common in the Italian Army in North Africa since the "AS42" TO&E for motorized divisions, issued in January 1942, provided a 88/56 battalion in each divisional artillery regiment. They played a key role in the battle of Gazala as you can read in the following quotation:

"The italian AT Battalions are the contribution of ground-breaking research conducted by Jack Greene and Alessandro Massignani. These units, ignored in German and British histories (to the point of not

even being mentioned or being accused of being German), made a major contribution to the Axis effort in the Battle of Gazala. The 5th Bn (originally the 18th) and the 29th Bn were both armed with German 88mm AT/AA guns..."

[source: "Italianisti" Discussion Group ]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/italianisti/]

You can also check on the book by Greene and Massignani "Rommel's North Africa Campaign" that you can find on the CMAK suggested reading list.

Peppe

[ January 30, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Romulus ]

[Romulus]

Sorry about the double post.

[ January 30, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Romulus ]

[Mark Gallear]

Romulus - do you know anything about the Italian Airforce as the lists show all the Italian plane types appearing at the start of the war and go all the way through the Italian lists. I know that the Italian Bi-planes were used first then joined by the first monplanes which then replaced them.

Any ideas on the exact dates - this is something BFC should be able to fix.

Mark

[Wicky]

Possible Bug

Playtesting a NA scenario Dec 42 had a British 3 inch mortar team (3 men) and they were unable to hop across a stone wall. Had to call back a universal carrier to get them across - otherwise it was a very long walk around.

Tested it again and with axis 81 mm team (6 man) who can pass over the same wall without any problems.

So unless it is dependant on crew sizes to manhandle a tube over obstacles please fix or sumfink.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Playtesting a NA scenario Dec 42 had a British 3 inch mortar team (3 men) and they were unable to hop across a stone wall. Had to call back a universal carrier to get them across - otherwise it was a very long walk around.

LOL - anything to make your life worse

Seriously - are there any other crewed weapons that this applies to, that it shouldn't? For instance, guns probably shouldn't be able to cross a wall (though even then ...), but everyone(?) else should be.

Regards

JonS

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Romulus - do you know anything about the Italian Airforce as the lists show all the Italian plane types appearing at the start of the war and go all the way through the Italian lists. I know that the Italian Bi-planes were used first then joined by the first monplanes which then replaced them.

Any ideas on the exact dates - this is something BFC should be able to fix.

Mark

Mark, I don't know much about the Italian Airforce but I should have some good sources from which I can gather some information. Hope to find the exact dates you are talking about.

Anyway it doesn't seem that all the previous remarks I made were taken into real consideration in this thread.

Peppe

[Mark Gallear]

Romulus - you can but only try - anyway you won't know until the patch comes out what the powers at be have picked up on!

(what does the latin mean in your signature .)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Possible Bug

Playtesting a NA scenario Dec 42 had a British 3 inch mortar team (3 men) and they were unable to hop across a stone wall. Had to call back a universal carrier to get them across - otherwise it was a very long walk around.

Tested it again and with axis 81 mm team (6 man) who can pass over the same wall without any problems.

So unless it is dependant on crew sizes to manhandle a tube over obstacles please fix or sumfink.

I shall add this to post 1.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Possible Bug

Playtesting a NA scenario Dec 42 had a British 3 inch mortar team (3 men) and they were unable to hop across a stone wall. Had to call back a universal carrier to get them across - otherwise it was a very long walk around.

Tested it again and with axis 81 mm team (6 man) who can pass over the same wall without any problems.

So unless it is dependant on crew sizes to manhandle a tube over obstacles please fix or sumfink.

I think it may have to do with crew size + ammo load. Compared to a German or American 81mm mortar crew, the Brit 3" team has half as many men but twice as much ammo.

To be honest the team shouldn't be allowed to move at all beyond a few meters from its Uni carrier. Either that or it should lose a sizeale chunk of its ammo loadout, much like a regular weapons team that takes a casualty during movement.

[John Kettler]

I believe TheCrow raises an excellent point in his post in a separate thread. The Flammpanzer III should be available to the Germans in the CMAK timeframe. 100 tanks should be enough to meet the rarity cut, and detailed info is provided as to unit size and which divisions had Flammpanzer III formations assigned to them. The enormous specificity of the material below suggests to me that it draws directly from the authoritative Spielberger technical volumes.

Date miscitation for one German report aside (see below, can't be 1941), here's what George Parada's www.achtungpanzer.com site has to say in its Panzer III section (www.achtungpanzer.com/pz8.htm). Have quoted the pertinent paragraphs under Fair Use in order to a) better make my point and save the bug fixers at BFC some unneeded grief.

"From February of 1943 to April of 1943, 100 Ausf M tanks produced by MIAG in Braunsweig (chassis numbers 77609-77708) were converted by Wegmann in Kassel to Flammpanzer - flame-thrower tanks. New vehicles were designated as PzKpfw III (Fl) / Sd.Kfz 141/3. They were also commonly known as Flammpanzer III or Panzerflammwagen III. It was unmodified Ausf M tank with additional 30mm to 50mm armor plates welded on for protection to the hull front. This was done, as Flammpanzer III tanks had to get closer to their targets being vulnerable to enemy fire. In contrast to regular tanks, it was operated by three men crew composed of commander/flame gunner, radio operator/hull gunner and driver. The main gun and internal ammunition stowage were replaced with the flame-thrower and fuel tanks. This vehicle was armed with 14mm Flammenwerfer flame-thrower and two 7.92mm MG 34 machine guns. The flame-thrower was mounted in place of the original 50mm gun and concealed in a thick 1.5m long pipe made to appear as standard armament. The flame-thrower could lowered 8 degrees and raised 20 degrees. Each vehicle carried some 1020 liters of inflammable oil (Flammol) in two tanks inside the vehicle. Oil was pumped into the pipe by Koebe pump driven by two-stroke DKW engine and was ignited by an electric charge (Smitskerzen). The supply of oil allowed some 125 one second or some 80 to 81 two to three seconds long bursts. The maximum range of the flame-thrower

was 60m using ignited oil and 50m using cold oil. The range also depended on the weather conditions.

Flammpanzer III was designed in mind with fighting in the urban areas such as Stalingrad, but it was never to reach its destination. Eventually, Flammpanzer III equipped Panzer Regiment's (Panzer Abteilung) Flame-thrower Platoons (Panzer-Flamm-Zug), each with seven vehicles. A report dated May 5th of 1941 gives the following distribution of the vehicles: 28 to Panzer Division Grossdeutschland, 15 to 6th Panzer Division, 14 to 1st Panzer Division, 14 to 24th Panzer Division, 14 to 26th Panzer Division and 7 to 16th Panzer Division along with single vehicle to Schule Wunsdorf. Report from 1943, states that from March to December Flammpanzer III tanks were serving with following Panzer Divisions: 1st, 6th, 11th, 14th, 24th and Grossdeutschland in Russia and 16th and 26th in Italy. In July of 1943, 41 flame-thrower tanks were reported in service with 6th, 10th and Grossdeutschland Panzer Divisions in preparation for the attack on Kursk. Flammpanzer III's design proved to be unsuccessful and vehicles returned for repairs (35) were rebuilt into standard combat tanks or Sturmgeschutz III assault guns / tank destroyers. In November of 1944, only 10 out of original 100 were repaired and issued to Panzer-Flamm-Kompanie 351, which saw service as late as April of 1945 with Heeres Gruppe Sud. Today, Panzerkampfwagen III (Fl) (chassis number 77651) captured in Italy can be seen in Koblenz Museum in Germany after being transferred to the museum from Aberdeen Proving Grounds in U.S.A."

Those of you who build AFV models may recall that SCALE MODELER magazine a few years ago ran a feature on this beast, a feature which included a hair raising account of an attack by these fiery dragons on a U.S. held town in Italy. As I recall, the Flammpanzer IIIs roared into the town flaming on the move, followed by 251 mounted Panzer Grenadiers. The GIs, having never experienced anything like this, fled in terror.

Regards,

John Kettler