kipanderson

Manx, hi, the Mod List is very, very useful for those as lazy as myself. Wanted to use JgpzIV today and in moments had found a great mod thanks to your site and Wolfe's hard work. Thanks to all involved. All the best, Kip.

Ski, hi, I have long wished to be able to transfer maps from battles to operations, and vice-a-verse. Appreciate the advice as to the best available way of going about it. Will give your method a try. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would just like to add my wait to those that have already recommended Tank! by Ken Tout. In my view, however little that may be worth, by far the best personal account of tank warfare. Cannot recommend it too strongly. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I owe Steve and Charles an apology. I was making too much fuss about a tweak that changed very little. I have now had the opportunity to test the same game, using the same tactics, in both 1.05 and 1.1 versions. The result is that using my PAK Front/Eastern Front scenario there is very little difference between the two. Using version 1.05 the average loss was 8 Panthers, using 1.1 it was 9 Panthers. This was over a test run of six games using each patch. As has been pointed out by others, after a short delay the attacking Panthers turned their hulls all the way to 10 o’clock even when using the 1.05 patch. What this has done is focus my attention on the issue of rotating tank hulls in a way that had not been the case before version 1.1. It is still my view that “stickiness” to the direction of advance would reduce losses further. That tanks do fight rather too much in the style of assault-guns. However, maybe they did this in reality? I own guess is that in reality there will have been a reluctance to turn a hull front away from the “main threat” because if the crew managed to hold their nerve in the long run more would survive. The problem remains that the AI is not good at judging where the “main threat” is and therefor a reluctance to rotate away from the direction of advance may be the best answer. As with most questions regarding CM there is no perfect solution. It was fun doing the tests and it has increased my appetite for CM2 even more. All the best, Kip.

A.Arabian, Hi, there has been no decrease in the performance of DU rounds. They continue to improve.It is just that tungsten penetrators have improved even more. When it comes to banning DU the reason I wrote what I did, and clearly it is just my opinion, I do not claim to "know" it will be banned, is that the mood in Europe is "very" anti DU. The British government, the most pro-DU in Europe, just, by the skin of its teeth, managed to hold the line a few weeks ago. I am relaxed about it, but the continental Europeans are not. The Germans and the Italians just will not play ball, in NATO, unless it is banned. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with all that Slapdragon and others have said. The only thing I would add is that as time has gone by, since 1990, the gap between the penetration of DU and tungsten long rod penetrators has declined, for similar generation rounds. Happily, two weeks ago Jane’s Defence Weekly, one of the foremost defence journals, addressed this very question. The quote, which follows, is from their 17th January issue. “At velocities of current kinetic-energy tank and aircraft ammunition (1000-1800m/s) DU penetrators are superior to those of other heavy metal penetrators made of tungsten alloys because their flow-softening and adiabatic-shear failure modes inhibit the build-up of a large mushroom head on the penetrator. This results in narrower but deeper penetration (10-20%). DU also has significant pyrophoric properties, normally setting the target on fire. DU is also cheaper than tungsten.” My reading of other defence journals is that the very latest generation of tungsten rounds, such as the German DM53/LKE II, are only about 5-10% behind similar generation DU rounds. So what are the penetration figures? At 1000m against vertical rolled homogenous armour the DM53 probably penetrates about 850mm when fired from the standard L44 gun. A latest generation DU round when fired from the same gun, and with the same charge, slightly greater than that used in other current L44 rounds, would probably penetrate just over 900mm. Neither would be “quite” enough to penetrate the front turret of a M1A2 or Challenger 2. For that you would need a 140mm gun, in which case life would be getting dangerous. All the best, Kip. PS. For a number of reasons DU rounds are likely to be band world-wide in the next few years. Whether for real or imagined reasons.

Hi, Vanir, thanks a lot for the information. Its a big help. Tommi, Very interesting little story. Shows just how dangerous real war is. All the best, Kip.

Hi, engy, Lots of good points and, yes, basically I agree with you. In my defence I would just make a couple of counter points to clarify what I was trying to say. Firstly, I did set it up as a real “test” not just as a way of proving a previously held opinion. Of course, I did suspect that the causalities would be heavier as a result of the tweak, as I imply in my post. However, it was a real experiment to find out how PAK Fronts would now be handled. It was like being back in school when you were doing an experiment, which was hugely good fun to do, and you did not have much of a preference as to how it ended. Secondly, I agree with you that under Condition B, a second AT gun opens from 10 o’clock, the first having opened up from 11 o’clock, the rotating hull tweak is a help in “reducing” likely causalities. It will sometimes happen that a hull is turned to 11 o’clock and then a threat “even further out on the same flank” opens up. However, one of my assumptions, which I should have clarified, is that the “main threat” or the “area mostly to contain AT weapons”, however you wish to think of it, is roughly in the direction of the objective. Imagine a situation in which a commander is given the order to “take that village”. In CM terms “that village” would be more or less in the middle of the second half of the CM map, viewed from the line of departure. It is also likely, but not certain, that both in the real world and in CM, the village would have the greatest concentration of enemy. I believe this would be known, or assumed, by both commanders and tank crew. In such a situation I believe, but do not claim to “know”, that tank crews would do their utmost to resist exposing their side armour to the objective village. They would know all to well that to do so would mean likely death. Against this there would be the temptation to turn the hull to face an immediate threat on the flank. But if they held their nerve, and did not rotate their hull, they would be most likely to survive. To me the advantage of a tank is that it can keep its hull pointing at the “main threat” and deal with threats on the flank by turning its turret. Assault-guns cannot do this and therefor suffer heavier casualties in attack. It is one of those questions to which there is no perfect answer. John, hi, I admit that I do not remember the detail of hull rotation in 1.05. It would be great to load it up and have a go at my scenario, but I deleted it away and empty my recycle bin regularly. Just looked, it has gone. All the best, Kip. PS. Is there anywhere one can get hold of 1.05?

JoePrivate, hi, Great find. I have the same book, best of the series on the Eastern Front produced by the US army in the 50s, in my view. Shame there are not more accounts from the second half of the war. 80% are 41/42. Goes to show PAK fronts happened. Life was tough on the Eastern Front. I remember reading a number of times that the Germans rated Russian defence and camouflage as their strongest points. Your great extract illustrates this very well. All the best, Kip.

Hi, :username, Yes, at some point I am sure that the use of tracks on the side of the turrets became SOP. Probably very early on, tank crews were only to well aware of the strengths and “weaknesses” of the models they served in, from what I have read. I have just had a quick look in one of my books, one of the excellent “Armor at War Series” from Concord, and in there only about 20% of the Panthers have tracks on their turret sides. By the second half of the war the Germans were short of everything. Vanir, Thanks for the kind comments. Just thought a CM2 style test for the tweak would be fun. And it was. I sometimes worry about the extent to which I enjoy watching AFVs getting knocked out in the one-minute CM movies. Clearly some sort of mental disorder! John, Hi, Yes, the I have read that the Germans adjusted their usual attack formations as the war went on. The usual “keil” or wedge, became more of a flattened “bell” shape because the guys at the point of the wedge were being knocked out too easily. If I remember correctly. By the way I hope my post did not sound too critical. It is very, very rare for Steve and Charles to get things wrong. But in this case I feel they may have. I still feel the best solution would be for the direction in which a hull faces to be “sticky to the general direction of advance”. To generally only rotate of away from the direction of advance if ordered to by human command, or to find a rout round an obstacle. Of course, assault-guns are different matter. (I probably have not expressed my self too clearly but I hope people understand what I am trying to say.) All the best, Kip. PS.Yes, they did use PZ IIIs as "tenders" to the Tigers in the early days. Problem was the PZ IIIs got shot to pieces because they could not "stand the heat" in the same tactical situations as the Tigers.

Hi, I realise that I am in a minority on this one, often seem to be, but I still believe the new rotating hull tweak means tanks are easier to kill. I have done a number of tests; a more long-winded account of one test is covered in the thread “of rotating hulls, Panthers and CM2”. What it all comes down to is that tanks now fight more in the “style of assault-guns”. As such they suffer heavier losses when in attack, especially in open terrain. If the main threat is at 12 o’clock, i.e. they are advancing to take an objective at 12 o’clock, and an AT gun opens up from 10 o’clock they turn their hulls all the way to face 10 o’clock. (The one qualification to this is that they do pause the rotation at 11 o’clock in the hope of rapidly killing the AT gun with fire. If this fails, they soon rotate all the way to 10 o’clock.) At this point they can be slaughtered by other AT threats, having exposed their flanks. For me the core of the problem is that it is beyond the capabilities of the AI to judge where the “main threat” comes from. I.e. where it is likely that the greatest number of anti-armour weapons will be positioned. Reading books such as Ken Tout’s Tank! I get the impression that, just like the human player in CM, tankers did generally have an idea of the direction of the main threat. Simply due to the lay of the land. Of course, sometimes tankers, and CM players, get it wrong and suffer as a result. My view is that tanks should be reasonably “sticky” in pointing their hulls in the direction they have been ordered to advance. Remember the human player can intervene every 60 seconds to order the hull rotated, if the need arises. Also note Rune’s uncle states they rotated to 30 degrees, i.e. to 11 o’clock if an AT gun was at 10 o’clock. Very different from rotating all the way to face 10 o’clock. My reading to the TigerFibel, and the Panther manual I have seen, make plain that German tankers were taught just that. That at 30 degrees to a threat they were just as well protected as when directly facing the threat, in the case of the Tiger, better. (Due to the extreme angle against the side armour.) If Steve and Charles do not wish to make the hull rotation “sticky” to the direction of advance have they considered “moderating” hull rotation in tanks? By this I mean rotating to 11 o’clock but not necessarily all the way to 10 o’clock. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I too think it would be fun to have a camera angle from inside a turret. Just a slightly different angle to the current “unit lock” angle with a touch of artwork round the edges to look as if seen through a commanders slit. This is in no way a request for CM to move even slightly towards becoming a shooter. CM is the only computer game I play and I have zero interest in shooters. (That does not mean I think there is anything wrong with them for those that enjoy them.) The option of a camera angle that is a touch more “through the eyes of the unit commander” would be fun. All the best, Kip.

AlfieE, hi, thanks for the hint. I have used the archive at the Bovington Tank Museum many times but never made it to Kew. Will now add it to my list of things to do. If you have never been to the Bovington archive give it a try and ask them for what they have on Soviet tanks, amongst other things. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “lots of ideas for scenarios.” If that’s what you are after and the Battle of the Bulge interests you, which it probably does most CM players, then I have just “the” source for you. The Order of Battle Series, produced by Osprey Publishing. Eventually there will be six books, each 96 pages long, covering the Bulge. Currently four of the books are out. All are written by Bruce Quarrie. Normally Osprey books do not interest me but for this series they have changed gear and done a great job. The series covers the entire battle engagement by engagement. The scale is company/battalion/regiment level battles, just CM scale. There is idea after idea, and map after map, that could easily be turned into a CM scenario. You will be spoilt for choice. There are other books such as the Then and Now book Battle of the Bulge, which can be good sources for “some” engagements. (If ever you do your own battlefield tour of the area it is a great book.) And for those battles it does cover goes into more detail than the Osprey books. As serious personal and military narratives the Charles MacDonald books are, of course, better. But as a source for scenarios when what you are a after is the units involved, the place, the time and a factual account of what happened together with a map, the Order of Battle books are for you. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree. I have seen the AI award large amounts of territory to the attacker that would be difficult for a "human referee" to justify. However, I think Charles has done a great job. I can understand why coding the logic for the "hand of God" in operations must be very difficult, if it is to deal with all possible situations. All the best, Kip. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 01-21-2001).]

Hi, I also do not think this is possible. I think it would be a very useful feature if one could change .cmb maps to .cmc maps. Kip.

Hi, Once again I can only say that I agree with all that others have written since I last posted. And yes, I did kill ¾ or more of the defending force. In fact if I remember correctly the defending Germans surrendered, I wiped them out. I was down to my last few rounds of HE for the Churchills and was about to call it a day anyway. We have agreed that the mixture of “realistic” modelling of weapon lethality and the “unrealistic” ruthlessness of human players leads to heavier casualties than would be the case in the real world, in common with most simulations. However, I would add a third factor, which was much in play in my city battle. The AI in CM sets new standards, but is still not at formidable an opponent as a human and is also very ruthless. This was part of the reason for my extremely light casualties and the Germans very heavy casualties. I was also having a “lucky” battle. In order to deal with all these issues simply tweak up the forces commanded by the AI. I am sure a lot of people do this. Then one gets a more challenging game. When I next play my city battle I will reinforce the defending Germans. The frustration for me is that due to the inflexibility in the length one can set for battles, in the operations editor, it is impossible for me to design operations that are as realistic as I believe they could be. (This is 100% personal opinion, I am not claiming my vision of a “realistic” operation is correct and others are wrong.) If the maximum length one could set for battles in operations were increased what follows is the type of operation I would like to play. The attacking force would be comprised of one company of infantry and one of tanks with some artillery support. The defender, a reinforced company of infantry. The objective, to take a large village in the Ardennes or Normandy. I would set battle length to 60 turns and the number of battles to 6. If I were successful I would expect to have captured the village be the end of battle two or three. The six battles I set in the editor are “just in case”. The art is in giving the defending AI enough forces and reinforcements to create a challenging game given its weakness when compared to a human player. The point of all my games is for me to judge afterwards “did I do it right, or did I make too many mistakes”. The fun is to watch a “realistic” battle unfold before my eyes but without any real blood. The problem is that at present I either play a .cmb type single “battle” of say, 60 turns or a series of “truncated” 30 turn .cmc battles in an operation. If I go for the .cmb, 60 turn single battle, the job is often not complete by the time I run out of “puff”, ammunition. If I go for a series of .cmc, 30 turn battles, the “hand of God” intervenes ever half hour to stop the battle regardless of the position on the ground. In my view, neither is realistic. The .cmb type battle is very “realistic” in many ways because CM is a true stimulation, but it only represents “one” assault or attempt to storm a village in “real”, historical battle terms. As far as I can judge from the dozens of military history books I have read, I realise this is true of a very large number of CM players, an “average” battle for a village would last between 2-6 hours and be made up of a series of assaults each one of which is a separate “battle” in CM terms. This is what I want to model but cannot at present without having the “battle” artificially stopped every half-hour. Still hopeful that the powers that be at BTS will take mercy on me and agree to the very modest, but to a minority, important change I am lobbying for and increase the maximum battle length that can be set in the operation editor. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip. PS. Reading what I just posted I sound very rude about the AI. I am a huge fan of it. I just think that when a human is having a “lucky” battle the AI is stretched to keep up.

Hi, I am fortunate to have been a couple of times. Just jumped in the car with some friends and off we go. On both occasions I went just before Christmas. You can still find the old, collapsed trenches and dug-outs. Standing in the forests one can almost hear the Panther tracks squeaking and crunching the ground as the Panzers roll forward! I look forward to going again. Have fun, all the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the continuing firefight regarding the merits, or otherwise, of tanks rotating their hulls I thought I had better take Steve’s advice and give the feature a full test drive before giving an opinion. Of course, tanks are vulnerable whenever they expose their flanks and this can happen in any terrain. However, it has long been my view that the more open terrain of the east will lead to an increase in causalities amongst attacking AFV once we move on to CM2. This was reinforced recently when I bought the book The Battle of Kharkov, by Jean Restayn, and viewed the pictures there in. Superb picture after superb picture of the undulating terrain of Russia and the Ukraine. (For the “look of Russia” during WW2 this book can have no equal. It has to be said that they are all winter pictures.) The reason I think causalities will be higher is that the broken terrain of Normandy and the Ardennes often protects the flanks of attacking AFVs. If you are attacking through the wooded terrain of the Ardennes you have to protect your flanks against short-range fire but often the nature of the terrain means there is no risk of long-range anti-tank fire from your flanks. In the east this is not the case. When playing CM I normally play with a map about 800m-1000m wide and 1600m-2000m deep. When I move on to CM2 it is my view that the maps will have to be wider to fully represent the possibility of long-range flanking shots, that there is no real “cut off” to the terrain on the flanks. Looking at the pictures in the Kharkov book it is clear that this will often have been a problem. So, given that the rotating hull question is really a flanking shot question I thought I would model a quick and crude representations of “typical” eastern front terrain, if there is such a thing. I also went for a type of anti-tank gun with a penetration typical of Soviet guns that may have made up the famous “PAK fronts” that Germans always refer to. I went for the US 57mm gun. This has a penetration slightly greater than the 76.2mm M1942 Soviet gun but slightly less than the 57mm M1943 Soviet gun. A good representation of the “average” penetration of Soviet anti-tank guns during the second half of the war. When it comes to the type of tank to use in my test it had to be the Panther. The reason being that I wanted to use a model with heavy frontal armour but light side armour to fully show up the effects of flanking shots. At a range of 500m or more the US 57 gun could not penetrate the side armour of the Panther when fired from anywhere between 11 o’clock on one flank and 1 o’clock on the other, 12 o’clock clearly representing the front of the tank. Its only when you get out to angles of attack from around 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock that the 57 gun can penetrate the side armour of the Panther as these sorts of ranges. There were twelve Panthers and a company of armoured Panzer Grenadiers on one side and nine 57 guns together with a company of infantry on the other. The map was 1600m wide by about 900m in depth. Along the northern 1600m edge there was a large amount of woodland with a road running from north to south through the middle. Other than that the map was largely, but not totally, clear. We are talking about a caricature of Russian terrain. Around the road on the northern, wooded map edge there was a cluster of “objective” flags to give the attacking AI something to aim at. The nine anti-tank guns were set up on the edge of the woods in three groups of three. One about 250m in from the western and eastern map edges and one in the centre. The German kampgruppen was set up within 200m of the centre of the southern edge. I played the Russians/US in order to ensure that I opened fire from 10 o’clock first so as to observe the extent to which the Panthers would rotate so exposing their flanks to the “main direction of the threat”. When the advance got under way the AI sent 4-6 Panthers straight up the road towards the objectives. The advancing tanks were unbuttoned and “looked” as though they were in hunt mode, but who knows. The other Panthers took up covering positions with the half-tracks a little way behind. Could have come straight out of a US Army Field Manual, a credit to Charles and the entire team. When the lead Panther was within about 300m of the woods I opened fire with a 57 gun from 10 o’clock, all other “Russian” forces being covered by a “hide” command. The lead Panther was knocked out with the second round. The surviving Panthers, in column formation behind the lead tank, but correctly spaced, rotated their hulls to 11 o’clock and their guns to 10 o’clock. Within the space of 30 seconds the action was over, the 57 gun destroyed and the Panthers rotating back to face the objectives and continue their advance. For the next turn I ordered the two remaining 57 guns on the Panthers left flank, at between 10-11 o’clock to open fire. Two more Panthers were knocked out and once again the remaining Panthers rotated towards the 57 guns. By the end of the turn only one of the two 57 guns remained but some half a dozen Panthers had rotated to face the surviving gun, some having rotated “all the way” so that their hulls were facing 10 o’clock, not just their turrets. At this point I opened up with the anti-tank guns at both 12 o’clock and 2 o’clock. Mass slaughter resulted. By the time all the anti-tank guns were silenced a total of nine Panthers were destroyed. By the time the last anti-tank gun was being destroyed the AI kicked in as impressively as it had started. The three surviving Panthers went into reverse, keeping their hulls facing more or less at the centre of the “threat” area. They took up covering positions. The remaining half-tracks, about 9 out of the original twelve (I had culled some in the editor), took up position behind what little cover they could find. The Panzer Grenadiers disembarked and began a textbook assault. At this point I ended the game. The fact that the Panthers took heavy losses within the “perfect kill zone” of the PAK front will be a surprise to no one. The question is, did the new “rotating hull” tweak lead to heavier casualties. If a Panther was advancing straight up the road towards the objective and fire was received from the direction of 10 o’clock what tended to happen was that the Panthers would rotate their hulls to 11 o’clock and their guns all the way to 10 o’clock so as to engage the threat as quickly as possible. If the threat did not die quickly, the Panthers would rotate their hulls further, all the way to 10 o’clock. They tended to behave like this even if there was fire coming from multiple directions. So even after the entire PAK front was ablaze along its complete length the Panthers tended to rotate their hulls towards what ever threat they had “locked” on to, until that threat was destroyed. In doing this they were disregarding threats at 12 and 2 o’clock and paying a heavy price. I played two games. In the first nine Panthers and three half-tracks were lost. In the second ten Panthers and five half-tracks were lost. I used identical tactics in both. A reasonable question would be “what would the likely casualties have been without the rotating hull tweak?” They still would have been heavy. Firstly, if the 57mm guns opening up from the extreme flanks, 10 o’clock on one side, 2 o’clock on the other, they would still have been able to penetrate the hull sides of the Panthers. Its difficult to estimate, but in my view, between 2-4 tanks would still have been lost due to this fire from the extreme flanks. Probably not more due to the fact that once a given anti-tank gun opened up it did not last long. But Panther losses would have been higher still, even without the tweak, due to what I always think of as “the” weakness of the Panther. This weakness is the critically thin turret side armour. 45mm at 25 degrees slope was not enough by 1943; in fact by 1942 it was not enough. To take an example. Imagine a Panther advancing somewhere on the eastern front in late 1943. It swivels its turret to engage a target at 1 o’clock. If even a lowly Soviet 45mm M1942 gun then opened fire from 11 o’clock, relative to the facing of the hull, the Panther’s turret side armour could be successfully penetrated out to a range of about 600m. If the attack came from further out on the flank, say 10 o’clock, or a more powerful gun was being used, the range at which the Panther is vulnerable to such fire greatly increases. In short, even if the new rotating hull tweak had not been made some Panthers would have been lost due to turret side armour penetration as the tanks engaged targets on their flanks. The turret sides of the Panther are a “lot” smaller than the hull sides but, in my view, 1-3 tanks would still have been lost that way. If the tweak had not been made I estimate that between 3-7 Panthers would still have been lost. This would have been the case even if one takes into account the fact that the rotating hulls allowed marginally quicker engagement of anti-tank guns on the flanks. You are exposing a “lot” of side armour in return for only a small increase in speed of engagement, in my view, but it is difficult to quantify. With the tweak tanks fight in the same style as assault-guns. As a result, in attack, especially over open ground, they suffer heavier losses than before the tweak. If the direction in which a tank points it hull was “reasonably sticky” to the direction of advance, it uses its turret rotation to engage flank targets, losses would decrease. Remember that every 60 seconds the player can intervene to “manually” rotate the hull. As far as I know it is very rare for Steve, Charles and the gang to get things wrong. However, on this occasion my vote would go for a return to the “pre-tweak” hull rotation AI. Thanks for your time, all the best, Kip. PS. Sorry to have been so long winded. PPS. To put things in perspective the turret side armour of the T34/85 was 75mm, of the JS2 95mm. The JS 2 weighed the same as the Panther. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 01-17-2001).]

Kump, hi, sad to see you go. There is no question but that your site is one of the best, no question. Quite understand that the real world comes first. All the best, Kip.

Jasoncawley, JenDragon, hi, Jasoncawley thanks for taking the time for your considered response. Strange as this may sound, I agree 100% with all that you wrote. I agree that the mixture of having weapons systems with “realistic” lethality and the fact that players are “unrealistically” ruthless in their use of their “bitmap” armies leads to far heavier losses than those which were historically suffered. I also understand and agree with the point about the shorter battles in operation forcing players to attempt to converse their forces. However, I forgot to describe just how slow and cautious a player I am. I really do try to look after my “bitmap” men. I regard even light casualties as failure. I regard causalities of 20% as the upper limit of acceptability. I view CM as a stunningly/mind blowingly realistic simulation of WW2 tactical problems. What follows is a brief example of one of my battles. Dense, city terrain. 800m by 1,600m. Attacking force, one company of Churchill tanks. Eight heavy 150mm-armour versions, eight light 100mm-armour versions. Also one company of British infantry. Defending force. One company German infantry reinforced with extra light anti-tank weapons. Plus two 75mm and two 88mm anti-tank guns. The battle lasted about 70 turns and I cleared ¾ of the map for the loss of one immobilised tank and about twenty infantry causalities. I was a very slow, very cautious advance street by street. It was against the AI and not a more cunning human. In short, I fully understand why most people go for the shorter battles both in single version and in operations. At times I like to play the same way and find myself wanting to take an objective regardless of losses. But mostly I do play very cautiously. I am not slow in the time I take for each turn but do not expect too much of my men in any one turn. JenDragon, Absolutely correct. If the changes I hope for were to happen only those operations you intentionally edited and changed would be effected. No one that wished to continue with shorter battles would be forced to change. Because there is no adverse effect that I can think of to the tweak I have requested I remain hopeful that BTS will give us the “option” of increasing the maximum number of turns per battle within and “operations editor” above 30. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I fully recognise that for most people the length of battles within operations is not an issue. Most are happy with things as they are; they find a maximum of 30 turns per battle adequate. I also realise that BTS cannot, and should not, agree to every tweak that is suggested. I have had suggestions politely turned down before, and am relaxed about it. I still enjoy the game just as much. However, I am a little disappointed that the request to give us the “option” of building longer battles within the “operations editor” has been turned down, i.e. did not make it into patch 1.1. No doubt we all think of “operations” in slightly different ways. When I think of an “operation” in CM I imagine an event or series of events that to most military historians, i.e. in most books, would be described as a single “battle”. By this I mean that when a historian talks of the “battle” for the village of Marnach, in the Ardennes, he is talking about an “operation” in CM terms. Lets assume that the struggle for Marnach took most of the 17th of December 1944, say 6-8 hours. This struggle may have been made up of 2-4 separate “assaults” or “attempts” to storm the village. Each one of these “assaults” taking between 20-120 minutes. The gap between “assaults” being used to re-supply and reorganise. In some of these pauses there may have been a company orders groups, i.e. the assault plan may been tweaked. In CM terms each “assault” is in fact a “battle” within an “operation” to take Marnach. Or at least this is how I imagine things. Given the above it seems unrealistic to assume that each separate “assault”, or in CM operations terms each separate “battle”, should be limited to just 30 minutes. Clearly, this is just my personal opinion and I am not claiming I am correct in this view. It has long been my view that there were two remaining minor “gaps” in the realism of CM’s modelling of WW2 battalion level conflict. One was the fact that the mantlet on the Panther was not modelled in enough detail. I considered this “a detail too far” even for BTS. However, this issue has now been dealt with in patch 1.1! The second is the issue I have been hammering away at here. The fact that the maximum number of turns per battle in the operations editor is only 30. If this maximum was to be increased to 60 those that wish to set a shorter maximum could still do so, but those of us that feel 50-60 turn battles are more realistic could also set such limits. Given that making such a change would take very little work and given that it would be a change without any “adverse” effects for those that prefer shorter battles, they would still be free to model shorter battles, could you not find the time to increase the maximum length of “battles” in the “operations editor”? For me it would make a big difference. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip.

Hi, may I just add my congratulations on the great work. For those of us looking for realism in war games CM really is something very special. I cannot get over just how lucky we all are that BTS took up the project. CM is a true simulation, in my view, however little that may be worth. There is a classic example of this in the changes to deal with "curved mantlets" such as the Panther's. I had long thought this the last gap in the realistic modelling of armour/armour penetration but considered it a "detail too far". But not for BTS. Given the curved nature of most Soviet mantlets, in WW2, it is great to see the detail will be there for CM2. May I just add my weight to the question already asked above. We have to delete the program file its self, but did not the betas change some of the folders and do we have to delete them? Most likely I am just being thick. All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, Very interesting post, great stuff. Do pop over and take a look at the post, "German armour penetration overstated?" If you use the search engine you will find it. The search engine lists it under someone else's name, no idea why, but it was in fact by me. It covers the exact same ground as you do, but reaches different conclusions. That, of course, is what makes life interesting. If you have not read it yet you should enjoy it. We clearly have identical interests. All the best, Kip.

Major Tom, ASL Veteran, hi, I may have expressed my self badly, not for the first time. I am not lobbying for the “removal of time limits” in battles in operations. All I am asking for is that the maximum number of turns one can set for battles within the “operations editor” be increased. Those that prefer 15 or 20 turn battles could still set such limits within the editor. I am not asking that players with such preferences be expected to give up the option of short battles within operations. I am requesting that those of us that believe longer battles are more realistic, I am not claiming we are necessarily correct in that belief, should have the option to set a limit of say 50 turns per battle in a given operation using the editor. I agree with much of what you both said but cannot see the harm in having an option to set longer limits on battles in the editor, for those that wish to. My view is that in reality there may often have been periods greater than 30 minutes between pauses in battles to reorganise and re-supply. Which is what the break between battles in operation represents. My average battle goes something like this, 1) take full advantage of set up phase, 2) then 5-10 turns preparation within the battle, 3) 10-20 turns assault 4) 5-10 turns reorganising/gathering forces, 5) 10-15 turns final push. Clearly more often than not this extends the battle over 30 turns, the current limit in operations. Hoping I have expressed myself more clearly, All the best, Kip.