kipanderson

Hi, Lots of ways to do this... one very simple way is to use Panzer Campaigns Minsk, as suggested above. Don’t wish to suggest others do not have their own ways to use the series but one very quick easy way... in outline... the editor is fantastically flexible.. 1) Umpire cuts say 40km by 40km map section and sets up German and Soviet units. 2) Three versions are produced and saved by the umpire. One Master copy with all units from both sides. The Umpire’s copy. Then one to send to the German players with all German units but only some Soviet units on the map as per Fog Of War rules being used. One likewise to the Soviet players. 3) German and Soviet players send back their orders for each unit to the umpire. Umpire moves units as per orders sent to him and decides where there are clashes between units. 4) He then produces three versions again. One Master copy for himself with all units on it after implementing the orders of both sides. One German version with all German units on it but only some Soviet given the FOW rules used. Likewise for the Soviets. 5) Then some clashes are resolved at the CM level with games built by umpire or someone else, results sent back to the umpire and some clashes the umpire resolves at the operational level and informs the players of the results. 6) Umpire produces three versions of the map again taking into account the results of all clashes that turn. One the Master copy with both sides units on he keeps, one German version with all German units and some Soviet according to FOW rules. Same for Soviet side. Off you go again... You guys will know how to do this... I realise that but some reading this thread may think it’s difficult... it’s not... but... you need an umpire or umpires with the time and commitment to do the book keeping and produce the games. Hints... 1) Umpire has final say on all matters no matter the rules.. 2) Have library, stock of CMRT maps, scenarios without units, AI stripped out to remember .. from which the umpires can quickly grab one and edit it for any given CM clash they are building for the players. Carve up and edit portions of the Master maps and other maps from CMRT, then edit them for battle maps. Saves huge amount of time.... If people have the time.. easily done.... . All very good fun, Good luck... keep us informed if you give an operational game of any type a go.. All the best, Kip.

Vanir Ausf B, hi, I compared AFV losses in 1944 once it came out to about 2 to 1. Or more... a lot more. But that is in big part because if you have say 600 AFVs spread over section of front and your opponent say 50 AFVs the great majority of your losses will be fighting the other guy’s infantry. It does not mean if you lost 200 and the weaker opponent all his 50 AFVs they all clashed and the loss ratio was 200 : 50. But... I agree Soviet tanks crews were less well trained. I have read the detail so am happy to believe it. A lot of the figures I used are incredibly robust in terms of the sources. With more to come should I have time. I think by ’44 it turns out the Soviets improved just a bit more than most believe. All would agree that they had improved... but just a bit more than most probably think. All fun stuff, All the best, Kip.

Kieme, hi, Fantastic... very keen to give it a go... . And... yes this is in many ways the most rural of the Great Patriotic War settings... no big city fights in Bagration... but in Quick Battles there is a great city map that could be tweaked... which I am off to do... . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Have been doing a quick additional digging around. Glantz’s figure of 2,130,000 German casualties on the Eastern Front from Nov.’43 to Nov ’44 includes disabled, as stated above. Happily I have now found a table that gives some German casualty figures in the same categories as Glantz. Killed, missing and disabled. Disabled are 41% mark up on the killed and missing. So for the Soviets I will increase the percentage for disabled to match the way the Germans counted. You start with the figures Glantz uses for Soviet killed and missing, 1,412,335, increase by a full 47% to take account of the Glantz forgotten battles giving 2,074,383 then increase this figure again by 41% giving you a final 2,924,880 for Soviet casualties in ’44. But we are assuming 85% of Soviet troops were engaged in combat v Germans in ’44 so the final figure is 2,486,148. This gives you slightly higher casualty ratio of Soviet to German 2,486,148 : 2,130,00 or 1.2 : 1. If you take the ‘44 German figure for killed and missing on the Eastern Front, from German records via the US Army military history department publications you have figure of 1,066,000. And take higher figure for Soviet killed and missing from G F Krivosheev of 1,763,891 in ’44 you end with a ratio of 1.65 : 1. But... you have to decrease the Soviet figure to take account of the fact that 85% of Soviet fighting was against the Germans and you get a casualty ratio of 1.4 : 1. So taking figures from Glantz for killed, missing and disabled you get a casualty ratio of 1.2 : 1 and using traditional killed and missing 1.4 : 1. Consider that German strength on the Eastern Front was 2,460,000 in June ‘44 and losses including disabled 2,130,000 for ’44. The Soviets figures, assuming 85% of their strength was committed to fighting the Germans, strength 5,461,250 with losses for ’44 including disabled of 2,486,148. it’s unavoidable that the Germans were both suffering a shorter average shelf life at all levels and suffering higher casualties in percentage terms. If you turn to the Western Allies, taking your figures from The Green Books.. official US Army histories of WWII, 6th June to the end of March ’45 Western Allies losses were 741,128 killed and missing. German for killed and missing 570,200 from their official sources used in the Eastern Front calculations above. From the US Army sources. Casualty ratio of 1.3 : 1. Not nearly as favourable to the Allies as I had expected. All of the above must be seen in the light of remembering that if the Germans had been fighting clones of themselves, but in the force ratios that actually existed attacking German clones would be expected to suffer higher casualties than the defending German clones. If you follow me . Scarily, in a huge number crunching exercise I once did the expected casualty ratio Attacker German clones to Defending German clones was 1.4 : 1. But whatever the figures, the attackers would suffer higher aggregate casualties but lower in percentage terms. Those who believe that the Soviet casualty figures were even higher than Glantz believes have significant hurdles to overcome. They have explain why the Soviet Front Armies did not drop to say 4,500,000 by the end of war. Where they were getting their replacements from. In all my ranting and raving I have given the benefit of the doubt to increasing the Soviet figurers. I increased the Soviet casualties to take account of the Forgotten Battles by 47%. When in fact Glantz makes clear that by ’44 there were few such battles. If my figure for the Soviets is wrong, it’s likely to be overstated. It can confidently be concluded that by ’44.. When Soviet and German forces clashed the Soviets normally suffered the lower casualties in percentage terms. The ratios of casualties in ’44 to force strength make this clear. That the average, frontline Soviet soldier of ’44 had more experience than his German opposite number. In straight ”time survived at the front..” terms. Again, ratios of casualties in ’44 to force strength make this clear. That both the Western Allies and Soviets were suffering similar casualty ratios fighting the Germans, from mid ’44. And that the casualty ratios suffered were close to what one would expect if all players were of similar quality. Unbelievably lucky to have CM to argue about in the first place... All the best, Kip.

Aris, hi, First... add my congratulations and thanks to the others.. So... that explains a lot... the your vehicles have that top end 1 : 35 AFVs look . You will know what I mean... Fantastic.. !! All the best, Kip.

Mikey, I think the deep marsh now look so good that I have filled in the water areas within marsh areas so they are deep marsh... If you follow me... . Great mod... . All the best, Kip.

Damian, They look very good... Look forward to their release... All the best, Kip.

Kieme, I think you are doing very well... Soviet , WWII industrial, certainly had a cheap, low build quality look to it from the photos I have seen which you pick up excellently. Look forward to the first release. Thanks... All the best, Kip.

Mr.X, You spec for your campaign sound great... Look forward to it... All the best, Kip.

H1nd, hi, Wow... stunner... for those who have not downloaded.. don’t hesitate. It looks unrecognisably better in the real world, on your own machine.. than in the pics. It really is right up there . Now difficult to find helpful criticism but I know from experience that is what you want, not just praise.. I would replace quite a few of the taller trees in the urban parts of the map with clusters of bushes. One, two even the odd three at a time. From all I have seen in pics... WWII Soviet Union was a bit messier with lower level, un-groomed vegetation... But... this is a stunner... the equal of the shipped Master Maps.. Did you say I am allowed to tweak my downloaded copy.. say as I described when I have time for my own use ? Grab it everyone... grab it while it is there . Congratulations.. . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Crikey... just saw this... They do look fantastic.. Stunning stuff... congratulations.. . All the best, Kip.

Vanir Ausf B, hi, Indeed... I would not really argue in that it surprised me too that the figures worked out to be so close. The figures I would have given and have been familiar with for some years now are.. casualty ratios Soviet to German.. ’41 6 : 1, ’42 4.5 : 1, ’43 3.5 : 1, and last fifteen months to end March ’45 1.6 : 1 i.e. before the frontline totally disintegrated into pockets and the German chain of command went down. (For ’44 alone I would also have used 1.6 : 1 ) Mind you... the above figures are indeed total Soviet losses including against Axis allies. So Soviet v German would have to be decreased some. Glantz gives German losses during Bagration at 450,000 and Army Group Centre losses at 50%, attacking Soviets at 33%. Also note that even given such losses Glantz explains that the Soviet Front armies continued to grow in number even if only a little from spring through to fall. In the brutally grim language of the Eastern Front from ’43 onwards the Germans were just not inflicting enough casualties on the Soviets. Until then the Soviet army was increasing in size but by using up its reserves. Not in ’43. It just about broke even. My hunch being that from August ’43 Soviet losses in percentage terms started to fall below German losses. It is fantastically difficult to compare figures because finding like for like is so difficult. Units fighting each other had different boundaries, were present for different periods of a battle and so forth. Also do remember that if the Germans had been fighting “clones of themselves...” all quality ratings identical but using all the Soviet, actual historical numbers for men, tanks, artillery and forces in every detail.. the casualty ratio Attack German clones v Defending Germans would have been about 1.4 : 1. So if the casualty ratio really was 1.1 : 1 it’s likely the Soviets were significantly better at what they did than the Germans by ’44. If the casualty ratio was in fact 1.6 : 1 there was still not much difference. The figures of 1.1 : 1 may be correct, may not. They certainly come from very high quality sources as explained. But am confident that from ’43 onwards the Soviets were pretty much braking even in terms of the butcher’s bill. Their casualties were not greater than their ability to replace their losses. Also.... that from around August ’43 the casualty ratio Soviet to German fell below the force ratio and Soviet to German and in terms of percentage losses Soviet losses began to fall below German losses. All interesting stuff... All the best, Kip.

Hi, Crikey... Steve brings up so many interesting points with just the odd line, each of which I am tempted to shoot off pages and pages in response to that I could very quickly send all too sleep and spend all day typing.. I will struggle to keep things as short as possible . Central to my point is that by ’44 all the major players will have been within the thickness of a cigarette paper in any real quality, competence is probably better... measure. And for very understandable reasons. However... I do agree with all Steve says that we are really talking “combat power...” per unit. If you take a typical infantry platoon from Commonwealth, US, German or Soviet forces by ’44, at typical combat strength, say eighteen men, attacking a small portion of village Normandy, village Ukraine, Belarus... it makes no difference.. how they assaulted will have been dependent on the exact mix of individuals thrown together by chance. By then all sides had enough men with the experience, both in training and in straight time at the front, to understand the most sensible risk adverse but still effective way to get the job done. How good or bad they were will again have often been down to chance. More guys “of the right stuff...” finding themselves in some platoons than in others. All had their mix of veterans, green troops, guys with high morale and low morale. . With all nations having more elite and sometimes very ordinary units. Another quick point. Reading some of the threads on the forum it would be easy to get the impression that by ’44 the Soviets were somehow running out of men close to the extent that the Germans were. All the talk of reduced infantry divisions, companies at 80 at the start of operations and such. All quite correct.. but there is reason. In fact ’43 was the tipping year when things roughly stabilised for the Soviets. Starting in summer ’43 and quickly picking up speed through to the turn of ’43/’44 the Soviets greatly expanded their mobile forces in number and size pre-unit. If we go for very rough ball park figures, no time to look them up, Front Armies, 6,000,000 and forces within the homeland 4,000,000. Within the Front Armies the number of mobile forces ballooned, 24 gun mobile AT regiments by hundreds... and SMG units and infantry units for anything with AFVs. To give two examples. The Front Armies stayed at 6,000,000 but within that, infantry units instead of being disbanded were held at 4,500 – 6,500 even if rebuilt. Probably because they wished to keep the same cadre of men, institutional memory, intact. BTW... they did value keeping the cadre of units going... they understood its importance. Ok.. after this ranting what were the most likely casualty figures for ’44 Soviet and German . In a 2001 article by David Glantz, Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay... just do a search and you will find you can legally download a copy.. he uses a figure for German losses on the Eastern Front of 1,200,000... 20th November ‘43 to June ’44 and 903,00 for June ’44 to November ’44. Total 2,103,000. Interestingly these are for dead, missing or disabled. Checking these figures I found he uses the same in this book When Titans Clashed in ’97 and in turn the figures were used by Earl F Ziemke in his great book From Stalingrad to Berlin. If the two foremost Eastern Front historians to emerge from the US military think the figures are the ones to use...then who am I to argue. German casualty figures are in fact unreliable in that they differ from different sources. Counted differently. If the two above think they are sound figures, so do I . BTW.. as I amusing ballpark figures anyway will take late November ’43 to November ‘44 represent the twelve months of ’44. It is rough relative figures I am after. Now to find like for like Soviet numbers. The Soviet official losses for killed and missing in ’44 are 1,412,335. As given by G F Krivosheev and used by Glantz himself as the official figures. Of course the thing Glantz is most famous for, apart from his interest in the Eastern Front to start with, is his “forgotten battles..” and the losses associated therewith. That is losses that did not make it into the official figures. So you have round up the official figures to take account of these forgotten battles. To do this you have to increase the official figures by around 47%. Giving a figure of 2,074,383 for ’44. However... this figure is just for killed, missing or captured. Now it needs to be rounded up in turn for disabled to match the German figures. For the disabled number I turned to G F Krivosheev again. His book is massively detailed and don’t be put off by the “forgotten battles.”. It is packed with details for the operations it does cover. If you use his figure for “invalided out” due to wound or sickens, greater than his disabled figure.. you have to round up the figures by 33%. i.e. the Krivosheev figure for invalided out is 33% of his killed, missing and captured. So... Soviet killed, missing, captured and disabled is 2,758,929 for’44. Counting as in the 2,103,000 for the Germans. For both there would be a wide margin of error but if any attempt to match casualties is to be made we must work with what we have. We are not quite there yet though... the German figure is... 99% anyway... for casualties suffered fighting the Soviets. The Soviet losses include those suffered against German’s allies. On May 1st there were 2,460,000 German forces on the Eastern Front representing 73% of Axis forces. But to be on the safe side let’s assume 85% of the fighting was done between Soviet and German forces during ’44. So the Soviet figure for killed, captured, missing and disabled fighting the Germans in ’44 is 85% of the 2,758,929... 2,345,089. This gives a casualty ratio Soviet to German for ’44 of just over 1.1 : 1. For the force ratio Soviet to German, making the same assumption as above that 85% of the Soviet forces were up against the Germans, that gives us 85% of 6,425, 000 .... 5,461,250 for the Soviets. So force ratio Soviet to German 2.2 : 1. Remember casualty ratio Soviet to German.. 1.1 : 1. I think there is no avoiding that by ’44 it was all a very different world from the early years. If you take as an example a great book by Stephen Barratt about the Zhitomir operation in early ’44 an average strength German battalion of 250 fighting with an average Soviet regiment of 1,000 over a village in the Ukraine, on a particularly bloody morning, would often have suffered 40 casualties while the Soviets suffered say 75 casualties. Far less in percentage terms than the German losses. Germans were being knocked down at a higher rate per 100 frontline men, shorter average frontline life, than the Soviets. Thus often Soviet platoon commanders and NC0s will have been the more experienced. Also.. have done the same trick for the first six months of ’44... when there were no big pockets... at Korsun survivors walked out without and vehicles or heavy kit, but were not rounded up as prisoners. The figures hold as above. All of the above is subject to margins of error, but remember, in both directions. When it comes to force multipliers.. of course... and I think it’s often under estimated particularly how big the difference in the artillery support was between the different forces. Gap in deliverable, real combat power due to artillery support was huge between the average say Commonwealth infantry division and German opposite number. Equally it was huge between the average German infantry division and average Soviet infantry division. This does, in my view, explain the greater part of the difference in combat power between all three. With West Allies having massively more, Germans in the middle and Soviets far less per infantry unit like for like. All interesting stuff.. Lucky to have CM to argue about and even more to play.. , All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to playing style and such I sympathise with those who find it hard to loos men.. me too . Every digital hero counts... whether playing as Soviet, German, Commonwealth or US. I jack up the length of scenarios to that which I think would have been realistic at the time. Most go to two hours or more. Then play slowly and carefully... taking periods to reorganise as needed. Casualties do fall as a result. Two hours just rush by as if forty minutes. Playing slowly and carefully... really caring about every life ... you can get the casualties down. By taking as long to do the job as would have been the case in the real world... being just as careful . All the best, Kip. PS New turn based, live play is tremendous..

Hi, The big difference between Stalin and Hitler... as war leaders no matter how appealing in other ways.. was that Stalin was often a good judge of his marshals and even when on the face of things events went badly stuck with them. If they performed well... given the prevailing circumstances... he seemed to judge that correctly and did not sack them as Hitler would. The Soviet spring ’42 counterattack around Kharkov was a disaster and Stalin’s baby. He seemed to realise this and then for two yours did stand back and allowed his generals to have their way on most matters. BTW... have also thought of the “pocket issue...” re casualties. Looked carefully at the first six months of ’44 when in fact there were not all these huge pockets. What surprised me was that the same formula as for late ’44 held. In the NWE the casualty ratio was often Allied to German, 1 : 2. The Germans were routinely out fought. This was largely due to resources... but that is not cheating... . If NATO uses air and artillery against poorer enemies it’s not cheating. As in comparative advantage in economics armies play to their strengths. I don’t think the evidence is overwhelming that by ’44 the Soviets still lost more as a percentage of their forces than the Germans... even at the CM level.... . More later... but the ratios moved so far to the advantage of the Soviets that if at the tactical level the Germans were still routinely so much better if should really show in the figures in a way it does not. All fun stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Very quick post... as usual during the week just don’t have the time.. also only very quickly scanned posts above. Where I disagree with what Steve implies, or may imply...not sure from a very quick scan through... is that by ’44 Soviet casualties were on average/in a typical clash.. whatever that may be... still higher than German casualties in percentage terms. In aggregate maybe... for discussion another day, but for now let’s deal with the percentage casualty rate. Let me illustrate by looking first at the six months of war in the East in ’41. Ok.. quick ballpark figures. Casualty ratio Soviet to German 6 : 1 for the six months. Force ratio Soviet to German lets go for 1.7 : 1. It will instantly become apparent that the Soviets were suffering far higher casualties as a percentage of their forces than the Germans. Germans where outnumbered 1.7 to 1, but inflicting casualties in the ratio six to one. Soviets survived due to their ability to generate new forces that in turn were then knocked down only to be replaced by more. This happened so often that the casualty ratio reached 6 : 1 but the Germans still ground to halt due to attrition. For ’42 it’s the same. But less extreme. Let’s go for a casualty ratio of 4.5 : 1 and a force ratio of 2.7 : 1. Soviet ability to generate forces resulted in the end in the Germans “victorying themselves to death...” . Of course in ’42 it ended in defeat at Stalingrad... but let’s not quibble . Now... fast forward to ’44. The figures I will use are for illustration only.. saves me having to defend them with sources and stuff ... but will at some time... when I can drag myself away from actually playing CMRT... ... post what I believe the actual figures were. So for illustration... in ’44 imagine if by then the casualty ratio was “below..” the force ratio. Soviet to German. Say casualty ratio of 2 : 1 but force ratio of 3.5 : 1. What this would mean is the reverse of the situation in ’41. As a percentage of their forces the Germans.. typically, on average, would have been suffering higher casualties than the Soviets. I believe this was the case. By ’44 the casualty ratio... Soviet to German.... had fallen below the force ratio. In a typical clash, but with any number of exceptions you wish to imagine... when Soviet and German forces clashed in ’44 the Germans did normally suffer higher casualties in percentage terms. And in fact had done so from around August ’43. This has some big implications.. means for example that if there was a difference in experience, in straight “time survived at the front..” terms... more often than not the Soviet field officers, even NCOs and LMGers will often have had more experience. All very good fun, cannot believe my luck, all our luck that... Steve and Charles did not decide to develop Space Lobsters.. the horror of how close it came gives me nightmares..!!! I like a good argument... but like playing CMRT more... and sleeping... All the best, Kip. PS. CMX2 is so good it’s a form of military history... really... not kidding... !

Erwin, hi, Good tests... Your tests represent a 1 in 10 chance of the Panther’s glacis plate suffering a sudden decrease in protection of around 30%. Given that it considered flawed by Lorrin... what is there to debate? All seems to fine.... All interesting stuff.. All the best, Kip

Mad Mike, hi, Congratulations.. great stuff.. . It is a credit to CM that it attracts the attention of such talented people...! Looking forward to it.. All the best, Kip.

Erwin, hi, The Panther.. . It’s a G and has flaws. (BTW... so does the A according to Lorrin. ) 85mm glacis plate at 55 degrees. Given T/D ratio of 1:1 that gives an equivalent in millimetres of vertical plate of say 170mm. Soviet 85mm APBC ammo has a penetration against the vertical of 121mm at 500m. So from your screenshots what we have happening is that about one in four strikes on the glacis plate are penetrating. What this means is that in about one in four strikes the Panther G’s glacis plate is experiencing a sudden decrease in protection levels of 29%. Penetration of 85mm projectile 121mm, protection level of glacis plate normally 170mm but in one in four cases failing against 85mm APBC round. Given that we know the Panther’s glacis plate is flawed, I don’t think there is a problem. You may not be using a range of 500m.. but this is just for illustration. All interesting stuff.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Ok did a quick test again... MarkIVJ Early, fired on by T34/76 Early. 600m range. 9: Hit : Superstructure Front Hull. Plus 1: Armour spalling on Superstructure Front Hull. And.. as a bonus.. . 1 Hit : Lower Front Hull. I did not see this happen.. but did see the silver, plate like ricochet mark. No more I do.. on my machine, 76mm APBC ammo is not penetrating MarkIVJ Superstructure Front Hull. In all ways it’s performing perfectly... i.e. within the expected range of results. No more I do... . All the best, Kip. PS will get some more of my beta testing chums to run my test... see if they also get my results..

Hi, Apologies for butting in, this has probably been said before, but quick comment on the effect of slope, compound angles, on German APCBC ammo. Long and the short of it is that APCBC ammo it’s extremely vulnerable to the adverse effects of slope. Quick rough example. 80mm armour struck at 45 degrees by 75mm APCBC ammo offers a protection in equivalent millimetres of vertical plate of around 120mm. When struck by the same round at 55 degrees... the protection offered in equivalent millimetres of vertical plate is just over 200mm . MarkIV and StugIII gun have penetration of 123mm against vertical plate at 500m. The figure for the Panther’s gun is 168mm. Now look at the shape of IS tanks, their amour thickness. Armour is often 80mm, 100mm or 120mm and often the compound strike angle will be 45 degrees or over. We are lucky to have CM... think of the alternatives.. .. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Quick add on... With tungsten projectiles fired the 76mmm guns MarkIVs and StugIII are very vulnerable out to around 700m – 800m. All the best, Kip.

Erwin, hi, Just did the tests and am not getting “impossible...” results. You probably know all this, but just for fullness and for those less unhinged than you and I on the subject... will give some detail I am sure you already know. So... just to get it out of the way.. do always use the Early T34/76 to be sure not to fire tungsten. I am sure you are doing that anyway. The MarkIVJ at 600m.... blasted away at it with 76mm APBC and found the following results. From top to bottom. Turret Front penetrated with ease as it should be. Superstructure Front Hull resisted as it should. Most were straight ricochets, just reported Hit and where it hit. Some resulted in armour flaking, I think CM calls it Armour Spalling. But overwhelmingly it was a case of Hit report and where hit with no adverse effect except to morale. Upper Front Hull penetrated as it should be. Due to APBC’s exceptional penetration at high strike angles the Upper Front Hull offers no protection to 76mm APBC ammo at any range. Was waiting to witness a Lower Front Hull hit, quite a few to get a sample, but witnessed non in the time I did the test so cannot say. In test the rounds don’t always hit where you want them to . However... did do a quick test with StugIII Mid at 600m.. just to see if there is a problem generally with 76mm APBC ammo. Achieved no penetrations. Not on lower hull, upper hull or front superstructure. There was some Armour Spalling but otherwise all just ricochets. All as it should be. So in conclusion based on my tests.. 76mm APBC ammo is penetrating or failing to penetrate exactly as that great Lorrin book would predict against MarkIVJ and StugIII Mid. It certainly would have been nice to witness hits against the Lower Front Hull of the MarkIV... but did not in these tests today. One day hopefully when I have time and just keep going . Panther. 85mm APBC ammo has a penetration against vertical plate of 121mm at 500m. Panther’s glacis plate gives a protection in equivalent millimetres of vertical plate when struck by an 85mm APBC projectile of 160mm. But.. as you will know both the A and G models of Panther had flawed armour in their glacis plate. I know not what that flaw is modelled as by Charles. You certainly did hit the plate numerous times and there is range of outcomes in there.. Bell curve and all that . Just to confirm what others have said.... Panther’s Lower Front Hull plate of 65mm gives a protection against 85mm APBC ammo of 114mm in equivalent millimetres of vertical plate. As mentioned above... 85mm APBC ammo penetration at 500m is 121mm. So Lower Front Hull is vulnerable out to 1000m if D and A models and if G model out to 2000m. Would have been nice to have witnessed a MarkIVJ hit on the Lower Front Hull in my test, but that is statistics for you... but with that qualification all currently seems OK. All very interesting stuff.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes... I too have noticed some great animations.. little head nods and such from tank riders... Cassio Lima is the guy we can thank... amongst others.. Fantastic . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes... excellent... congratulations... . Will be using them... Thanks, All the best, Kip.