rune

Thanks guys....I have a lot of respect for my uncle and don't like to push him on a subject he never has talked about, even to his own family. I am the only one he ever answered questions to. As for the pictures, I will certainly ask. However, be warned the entire process will take about 2 weeks untill I get a reply, so remind me, my email is in my profile. I will talk to my mom when I get home from work. Rune

I have debated posting this, because some of you don't know me. Those of you that do, may recall I have an uncle who served in a Tiger unit at the end of the war, but did serve in Barbarossa. When this first popped up in another thread, i debated asking him about this, as he is a private man and only talked about the war ONCE since I have been born, and those who have been here a while, recall my posting about the naviswhatchamacallit, and him using it three times. The way this works, is i send a series of questions to my mom, who translates it to German [unfortunately, i neither read nor write it] who then gets the reply and translates it back to English for me [well the best she can, some technical terms are hard for her to translate]. To those who asked before, no, he has not stated what unit he was with...and I will not push the point, the man is 86 and deserving of some peace. Question: Was the T34 tank a tank to be feared? Answer: Absolutely not. The tank itself had problems and at least in the units I was in, was not feared at all. I have no idea where this myth came from, other then the sheer numbers of [unknown word] that would be sent against you. Question: Before you served on the Tiger, did you destroy any Russian Tanks? Answer: Yes. During the beginning of the invasion of Russia I served as a gunner on Panzer IIIs, several versions, the Russians had several early types, none of which were particually effective. Question: Did you destroy T34s in other then Tigers? Answer: Yes, the Russian tanks were used piecemeal [not sure of translation] and the few times they were in numbers, were destroyed easily by us, or our Antiaircraft assets. [Rune: I assume he means 88s] Question: Could a early Panzer destroy a T34 from the front? Answer: There were many types of T34s. We taught ourselves to shoot at the weak points. However, the gun [casing?] was weak and easily penetrated by the short and long barrel Panzer IIIs. {Rune:I assume 50mm] I have some photos still of some of the kills, taken after the battle. Last Question: Any long range kills? Answer: Not sure what you are asking. If you mean in the Tiger, it was a poor crew that could not kill within 3 shots at 2000 meters. There were very few poor crews in the Unit. We were taught from early war to destroy at a distance. We adapted when we found we could not destroy the T34 above 1000 meters. [i assume he meant in the Panzer IIIs] The rest of the letter has to do with family and cousins. I have not been back to Germany since my tour in the Navy, when I was there in 1977, or was it 1978? Don't remember. Again, I debated posting it, but I do think it has good information. Believe it, or ignore it, that is up to you. I am lucky he answered at all, as he does not like to speak of the war at all. Rune

von lauchert is the panthers... Rune

Been discussed before. You base this on the demo, which had the KV-1S, the under armoured version, and the Model 40 t34. Umm...Even the Russians stated the panzer III was a better tank, and up-armoured the T34. The majority of tanks in 1941 were Panzer IIs. Did you select panzer IIs and take on the T34? No? Instead you took the StuG, with 80mm of front armour, the T34s were ineffective against them. I have posted many times the links, and they are available, but here are two quick ones. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm Look at the kills racked up in the StuG. Here is the Russian opinion on the Panzer III against their T34. http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html Notice that in 1940 the Russians did note the Panzer III was better then their current version of the T34. Did you use the later models of T34s? Did you know there are over 7 versions? Looking at infantry, I opened the editor and looked the the squads in 1941. Look, 1 smg per platoon, which was their TO&E. So you based they are using so many Russian SMGs, what year? what time? what scenario? As you said, not going to change your mind. However, since i KNOW Russians sources were used, with Russian references, and that the model for armour penetration is the most accurate out there...maybe, just maybe, your perceptions are wrong and maybe the game has it right? Rune

The fix would have to come from NVidia, since they changed something int he drivers. If you go back to older NVidia drivers, like 30.82, you will NOT have the problem. Rune

Carl, But that is a different model of tank then the 1940 and had more armour. Don't forget there are multiple types of t34/76s, and the one in that scenario are the early models the Soviets themselves said were inferior. Rune

If you saved games and cannot see them, look in the saved games folder, are they in there? Rune

It is not a prisoner bug, but a bug found and fixed in the 1.01 patch. Matt has it listed in the bug fix list. Rune

Scots, The scenario is historical, but the tutorial. I included the web link. Seems there were a couple cases of a single tank holding up a column, but the amount of days is still subject to debate. Rune

Follow up, what the Soviets thought of the T34. http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html In the summer of 40, the Soviets themselves thought the Panzer III was a better tank. Read the article above and be surprised. As always, thansk to Valera and his wonderful site. Rune

No, i think they are modelled exactly the way they were. Remember the tank was not designed to go up against other tank, it was an infantry support weapon, that happened to be good agains the early war German Tanks. Two man turrets, lack of radios, lack of trained crews, a transmission the drivers hated and all. The values are based on a formula. Firepower/mobility/and other stuff. Rarity is what you are looking for, and can be handled that way. It was common so the cost drops at certain points, then goes up as a newer version of the t34/76 comes out. Again, play with them against the panzer I, or the Panzer II or early Pz III. This is when the lore was built. It is a perception issue. Rune

Thanks TSword....and that is what the tutorial is supposed to do, teach you the commands and new ways of thinking. Try Cracking the Egg, I got a lot of positive feedback on it. Rune

You got it, the Panzer IV was not that common. However, the tanks in that particular scenario are close to the real thing. The attack was stopped after tearing through columns, by a mix of airpower and some panzer IVs. Look how the early tanks do in The Iron Roadblock. Modify that one to a single T34, and see how it fares. [Hint: It does rather well, the T34 that is]. Also, the T34/76 was modified by lessons learned against the Germans. It is why there are like 7 versions of the thing. If i remember right, the T34s were the early versions in that scenario. If you think that is bad, you should see the TO&Es I got. Tank amounts differ from unit to unit, no matter what the TO called for. Rune

Your thought is wrong. Stack Pz Is or Pz IIs against T34s and see how they fair. The 75mm can deal with the early t34s, remember guys, there are multiple versions of the things. Rune

Guys, Also remember there are three version of the IS-2. The 1943 model, the 44 early and 44 models. The ones int he scenario are the earlys, and have less armour then the later versons 105mm compared to the 127mm in the later versions. There was a reason they uparmoured the tanks. Rune

What's funny is the original author just received the scenario...which means it was NOT on the CD. Hmmm.... Also, the US version WAS spell checked and grammar checked. Every scenario even the ones that didn't make the cut. Translations, the guys would have to answer about... Rune

Hmm...let me look, yes I definitely said it, if you are getting snow and hot it could be a problem. So you ranted when I said it could be a problem. I already pointed the guys to this thread. Next time try reading what I said. Rune Ah, but does it snow in Chicago when it is 100 degrees out? Being originally from Cleveland, Ohio I can safely say --no it doesn't. It doesn't do that anywhere or anytime -except consistently in CMBB. I just did ten tests where "Hot" and "Snow" were mutually selected on the QB parameter page and that is what I got. A HOT day with snow on the ground and snow falling. Not realistic at all. Look, I'm not saying that that a whole lot is needed to fix this. It is just something that should've been caught -that's all. I'm sure that a minor tweak is all that is needed.</font>

Not from me....however, I am willing to make some, but need some maps and unit details in English. If you can come up with that, I can see what I can do for a scenario/operation. Rune

Guys, these conditions can happen. No one has ever been in a rain storm during summer when it is over 100 out? I know I have, and the ground can indeed be damp and the temperature be hot. Living in Chicago, ever see a fog roll in? How about a morning mist in a light wind? Seen both. These conditions can happen, but should not be the norm. If you are seeing it all the time, then there is a problem. Also, if hot and you get snow, could be a problem. Rune

This is a GIGANTIC battle. Even the fastest PC out there has problems with it. Try a different battle. Rune

Because you are covering an arc, not a piece of terrain. You want the tank in formation to cover the left side, hence the covered arc. Rune

That is even too much for me to take.... ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww rune

Look for a scenario called Pride of the Luftwaffe, heading towards you soon. Rune

Guys, This was debated back under CMBO, it was debated under CMBB. The standard I posted is what BFC used for the scenarios on the CD. Some wanted it loosened up even more. Bottom line, by definition, the second a scenario starts it is no longer historical. So, if the map is as accurate as can be made with the scenario editor, if the units are the best you can find as an author, if you tried to make everything exact, then it is historical. The reason Semi-historical was removed, was almost all battles fit under this category. We needed the space in the briefing. Fictional is a made up/alternate history type thing. In my briefings, i post the references, and why a scenario is semi-historical [i could not get an accurate enough map, etc.] Since we have had the SAME standards since CMBO, please do NOT change them now. Feel free to call yours semi-historical if you want, but degrees of historical is going over-board. This is a game, enjoy it. Rune

A scenario designer who thinks a scenario is balanced if playing AI against AI would be in for a shock. Get two people to test it for you, playing pbem or head to head. There is NO way this will be in a patch. Rune