kipanderson

John,hi, I could not resist throwing in my 2 pence worth on this one.To cut a long story short I come down on the side of Charles in this debate. If you take as your starting point the "official" penetration figures for the 88mm L56 gun firing the Pzgr.39 projectile as 120mm at 100m against 30^ plate and assume identical definitions of penetration,identical quality of steel target plate and identical quality of projectile one would expect the L71 gun to penetrate 172mm of armour. So Charles's figure of 177mm is not unreasonable assuming the Pzgr.39/43 was of the same quality as the Pzgr.39 used by the L56 gun. I remember I have explained before how these calculations are done so I will leave out the detail so as not to bore you too much. All the best, Kip. PS. As I will explain in a far longer post in the next day or two in my view some of Charles's other figures are a bit off base, but nine out of ten, including the L71 figure, are right on the nail.

Emthon, hi, thanks for the hint about the MX card. I have a Voodoo3 3000 and have been thinking about getting the new MX card you went for in order to solve all the problems. All the best, Kip.

Hi, my vote goes to claranet, solid service. Kip.

Hi, I use Windows Me and the graphics from Techware with no problem. Have been playing CM a lot since installing WMe and have come across the usual 3dfx bug once, but that is about it. Good luck, Kip.

hi, just to answer David's question, would I expect WW2 troops to skirmish? The answer is yes I would, at least that is what they would be trying to do in all armies. Even the Soviets in their after action reports on the fighting in 1941 make it clear that what they are after is skirmishing. The Soviet infantry manual of November 1942 covering the squad to the company is as close as you can get to pure skirmishing, given the ground it covers. The German squad manual is also pure skirmishing, as were all the British "battle drills". The extent to which troops actually fired when advancing is open to debate but some of the latest research takes the view that the SA Marshall view that troops actually fired very little was over stated. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Its clear from this thread and others on the subject of the "sneak" command that there are a lot of people that feel it needs a tweak. The problem is that we want to tweak it in different directions. I would like to see it tweaked in such a way that a platoon given the command sneak has a high propensity to acquire targets and fire on them but then moves on with determination towards its objective. Others would like the opposite, they would like it to become out and out "movement to contact". Tweaking the sneak command in such a way that it becomes a genuine "movement to contact" and then adding a skirmish command to the list would keep everyone, or most people happy. I feel I should add that I do not want to take away any ones ability to micro-manage the assault of a given platoon. However I know from the quality of the TacAI that Charles and Steve could give us the option of playing the game from the platoon level by adding the skirmish/assualt command, like hunt for tanks. Only "having to" micro-manage if there was a crisis and things went wrong, say due to an artillery strike on the assaulting platoon. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I probably did not make clear that what I am after is a command that does everything that "sneak" does but with a higher amount of determination to reach the location the squad or platoon was commanded to sneak to. In one of the patches, it may be three or four, Charles stated that "sneak" has been changed to be more like "movement to contact". That when a unit is fired on it is likely to stop in cover and just return fire, it will not press on as before. I took him at his word and have not really used sneak much since. I used to use it almost always when in contact because units seemed to me to behave as if they were "skirmishing" and would press on while returning fire. I have not seen the numbers behind the "move" and "sneak" commands but take it the "move" command assumes less effort to make full use of cover. This is not the way men would move when assaulting an enemy village or tree line. They would move causiously, making full use of cover, return fire (in theory anyway)and press on to the objective within the normal limits of morale. This what I am looking for and currently neither move nor sneak really cover it given the changes Charles made to the sneak command. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I live in the UK and I feel the cost is very reasonable. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I will start with the usual comments that I will remain just as big a fan of CM with or without my request being accepted. I have followed CM since there were 200 posts on the forum and believe it lived up to the hype in very way. However, and there always is a "however", in the "best of all possible worlds" I would like to see a feature added that in effect was there 80%-90% but was then removed by a patch. What I would like to see is an infantry movement command which in the UK we would call "skirmish" but you may call "assault" in the US, I am not sure. This is what I mean by skirmish. 1) Troops move with great caution, slowly making use of all available cover. In reality they would be stopping for short periods and then rushing forward. A form of bounding movement. 2) The troops in a squad would be separated by 7-10 paces, but not necessarily in the horizontal plane. 3) The squad would have a high propensity to engage targets. 4) The squad would have a high determination to reach the point it was commanded to move to, but of course within the usual morale limits. This is largely what "Sneak" was before it became "movement to contact". Presently it is possible to come close to reproducing "skirmish" but you have to micro-manage the movement. The great thing about "sneak" as it was, and "hunt" for AFVs as it still is,is that it enables you to play the game at the platoon level. You do not "have to" play it at the squad level. This is possible because of the stunningly high quality of the TacAI. When I give a platoon of tanks the hunt command I know what follows will be realistic, I am not forced to micro-manage things unless I wish to or there is some crisis. This was the case with the "sneak" command until the patch changed things. When I first got the game I set up a number of scenarios to test the game. I was stunned by the result, I realised CM was really a simulation in the true meaning of the word. I could give a platoon the sneak command and unless there was a crisis I could by confident the TacAI would handle things. The fact that I would sometimes have to spend 5-10 turns reoganising after some crisis I liked as I felt it accurately represented the need to give "command time" to a given company or platoon. The problem now is that you cannot play the infantry game at the hands off platoon level the way you can tanks with the use of the hunt command. I would not like to see the "sneak" command returned to what it was as clearly there was a demand from others for "sneak" to mean movement to contact, also clearly that is what Charles and Steve believe it should be and they are the boss. What I would like to see is a "skirmish" movement command added, in the perfect world. This would restore the infantry battle in CM to a true platoon level for those that wish to play at that level, as is the case with tanks. Thanks for your time, all the best, Kip.

Hi, I would just like to add my congratulations for the fine work. Thanks for all the effort. All the best, Kip.

Hi, looks great, will be using it in future. Kip.

Hi, I thought I would just reinforce what the others have said by congratulating you on great work. I have visited the area twice, both times at the correct time of year, midi-late December, and you have captured the feel of the place. I look forward to playing your scenarios as soon as I get time. All the best, Kip.

hi, I would just like to add my support to those in praise of Charles MacDonald. He is my number one WW2 author. He did the business for real and writes a great account in Company Commander. However he is also a serious military historian of the top order. His only equal, in my view, others will differ, is David Glantz with his Eastern Front related books. All the best, Kip.

Hi, this has turned into a fun thread. I go with those like Los, John and Paul who point out that the T80U is no easy kill. SB covers 1993-1997 in it current version, the T80U was introduced in 1985 but Jane's Defence Weekly reported about a year ago that the US had tested one against the latest M829A2 DU round and still found it to be immune over the frontal arc. They do not mean totally immune just that it was more likely to survive than not.As John points out the Russians now have the improved KAKTUS ERA that is one up on that the US tested the M829A2 against. The KAKTUS ERA can also withstand tandem ATGM, it does this by using tandem ERA. To deal with top attack ATGM like some TOWs,Spike and Javelin there is the Arena hard kill active defence system that destroys them before they strike the tank. It has been demonstrated to the Germans and others and works as claimed. Of course it would not destroy 100% of incoming missiles but a large number would be brought down. When you get same generation Russian tanks against NATO tanks its a fairly even contest. The only computer games I play at the moment is are CM( and Brigade Combat Team now and then). I have ordered SB because I feel realism is also the niche they are after. All the best, Kip.

Hi, sounds great, I am up for a copy. I have walked the Stoumont battle field a couple of times. Its a preservation area, as is most of the Ardennes, so looks much as it did 50 years back. I did a detailed map of Stoumont as soon as I got CM but lost it when my harddisk went down. If you visit the Ardennes at the same time of year as the battle occurred the atmosphere is great, you can almost hear the panzers crunching over the ground. kipanderson@clara.co.uk Thanks for your efforts, Kip.

hi, I would go for the Churchill VII. I would not claim it is the worlds greatest "anti-tank" tank, not a powerful enough gun, but with the 150mm armour still a good all-rounder. It intersting to see how many others go for the Churchill, a popular tank. All the best, Kip. PS. I am assuming this is a western front thread, if the eastern front is included I would go for the Joseph Stalin 2m or IS2m as it is sometimes known.

Hi, try the "Order of Battle" series published by Osprey. There will be a series of six books covering the Battle of the Bulge full of detailed maps and everthing else you are looking for. The author of the Battle of the Bulge books is Bruce Quarrie. All the best, Kip. http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk

hi, I am impressed. I have not used any mods yet but that my change with this work. All the best, Kip.

John,hi, March-April 1999 issue of Military Parade, article called "Projectile or Armor:Which is the Stronger?". Says everything you do about the third generation ERA. Proof against tandem HEAT rounds such as TOW2A and HOT-2T, latest APFSDS long rod rounds such as M829A2 and DM43A1 and "technical problems pertaining to the protection against particular weapons attacking the tank from the top are also resolved." All the best, Kip. PS. First shown, or fitted, to a T90 at Abu Dhabi'99. Somewhere else in MP they explain it is done by having "tandem" ERA, as one would expect.

Hi, I also subscribe to both the monthly and weekly Jane's magazines and would like to reinforce what John says. It was mentioned again just recently that "same generation" Russian tanks are immune to all NATO 120mm ammunition. The armour John refers to is the second generation ERA. They have now just introduced the third generation ERA that is also immune to tandem HEAT rounds. It achieves this by the not very surprising means of having "tandem" ERA. There is also the Arena active defence system that destroys incoming ATGM some 30m from the tank. It has been demonstrated to the Germans and others and works. If you take equipment that is mature and available for export, rather than fielded in large quantities by the Russians themselves,its a far more even contest than is generally believed. India may be the first to field Arena in large quantities. Yes, I would love a Soviet/NATO CM. An OPFOR CM would be even better.As I say if you take mature ,off the shelf Russian equipment, even if it has not been sold in large numbers, it is a very even contest. http://www.milparade.com Military Parade is the Russian Jane's. $29 for six years back issues, stunning value. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that there is a general problem with the "one figure" for turret fronts if they are at all "curved" or of uneven thickness as many were. This problem will get worse when we move to CM2, think of the T34/76 mantlets and the "turret" fronts of the T34/85 and JS tanks. However the Charles solution of say 40% 100mm and then 60% 100mm- 150mm as a type of formula has a lot of mileage in it. However it will have to be applied to a number of tanks. Charles and Steve have set themselves such high standards for realism that it is my hope they will support the idea of similar solutions for a number of tanks. When it comes to the extent of the "overlap" of mantlet and turret front in both the Tiger and the Panther I intend to go down and "crawl around" inside both at Bovington Tank Museum in September. Chap that runs the place is not keen on that sort of thing in the holidays because there are too many kids around, they all suddenly want to do the same. When it comes to the exact figures for a given tank we are never all going to agree, we just have to leave the final word to Charles. But the "Charles solution/formula" certainly helps even if we do not all agree on his exact figures. All the best, Kip.

hi, just reinforcing previous post, I am also a fan of ClaraNet. The really cheap ISPs all have some kind of catch. In the autumn Clara will get a lot cheaper. £15 a month for 24 hours, seven days a week. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I thought it would get round to the Panther's mantlet. 110@11 degrees seems reasonable to me. I have just pulled out my copy of Jentz's Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy and there is very little overlap of the mantlet and turret front so modelling "100mm curved" should be the aim. The problem is the same as the Tiger's mantlet. On the Panther there will have been a band across the centre offering not much more than 100mm of protection with far more protection above and below as the "curve", angle of strike, increased. I would have gone for 100@25 degrees if I had to go for one figure, but 110@11 is almost the same. It seems fine to me. Jentz even gives an example of the Soviet 45 penetrating the mantlet, must have been the "arrowhead" round, so on a bad day a number of rounds will have been able to penetrate the centre portion of the mantlet. All the best, Kip. PS. I am not giving too much weight to the 45mm example, I do not think one should to any one example, but what I know of German armour quality, the thinkness of the plate and the power of various guns there were around at the time.

hi, John thanks for the extra advice. I also did an online search and could not find "Effects of impact.." but then emailed their "info" desk and they found it. Thanks to you and the others I have now successfully ordered Charles's document, Effects of Impact... and German Explosive Ordnance. All it well that ends well. Thanks again, Kip. PS. Did you know that NTIS doubles the price of everything if it is going overseas, plus airmail charges. Must be because you guys have already paid part of the price in your taxes, and I of course have not.

John, Paul, hi, thanks for all the help with regard to interesting reports at the NTIS. I have already ordered the one Charles recommended so I will have to turn down Paul's kind offer of an exchange. (Paul I have emailed you with more information on cost. Happy to do any sections you want.) John thanks for the hint regarding the "Effects of Impact.." report, sounds great. All the best, Kip. PS. Did a search regarding "armor penetration" at the NTIS, mind blowing. When you guys over the pond talk about "freedom of information" you are not kidding.