George MC

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much.
Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available.
That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank.
I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.
 

This is also my long time understanding.  IMO it would be useful if the UI read immobilized/breakdown or something similar in these situstions.    

That's Part 3 up and live.

Page 47 of the manual does say "When issuing Movement commands, keep in mind the ground condition that you want to order a unit to move over. All vehicles are rated for Offroad performance. To some degree better quality crews lessen the chance of bogging. However, if you order a non-tracked personnel carrier to move across a muddy field the best crew in the world won’t likely help you out much." So yes I've always worked on the assumption the vehicle off-road capability has an impact on its bogging probability.

Well If the germans would have had sufficient numbers in tanks and crews that would match or come close to the T34 I'm quite certain that the eastern front would have went in another direction. 
But the thing is that the germans did not had the resources nor the manpower to do it. Most of the German tank force were still designs from prewar. Updated designs sure but they were at their limit and the newer soviet armor was more than a match. 
There is a reason why some heavy Panzerformations were called "Feuerwehr" (Firefighter) as they had to rapidly close gaps in the fronts that had been breached by the soviet armor because of lighter resistance there. 
So your teast might be a bit misleading in that regard. Maybe try a 1:1,5 or 1:2 ratio for the soviets to match the actual numerical superiority. 
Now you are jumping conclusions there. Because of some tests that did not match your expectation it is now wehraboos and German bias? 
I know CM has flaws and all and to some, certain things don't go in the direction they have imagined but I doubt that BFC is in any kind "infected" by this "desease" as lots of my burning Panzers show.
But well the German army was in my opinion one of the best armies back then. And that would concern training and technological tier they had. 
That doesn't make them in any kind unbeatable but otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did. They had many flaws on the contrary too that all played a role in the endgame, like bad logistics, over engineering and well... Hitler. 
If you just alone look at the battle of Kursk and watch the casualties and compare them there must be something to it. 
Sure T34/85s and JS 2 weren't a thing there but still. Keep in mind that the soviets knew that the germans would be coming and had enough time to prepare themselves: build up ATG positions, entrench themselves put up reserves etc. pp. 
 
The germans lost the battle because they didn't achieved their main goal but the death/kill ratio for an attacker is astonishing. 
As you mention Wittman so much: Maybe you are underestimating green and regular troops to much maybe? 
What makes a regular trooper any different to an elite one? Accuracy? Of course through more firing in battle conditions you should be getting better or fine tune that ability but as a regular you already should have some decent gunnery skills. 
You should know the advantages and disadvantages of your given weapon, how to maintain it and how to solve simple errors if something went wrong... At least if you consider a normal training time. I know these were shortened at some point in the war. 
I'm no tanker but looking back at my conscription time in the German army I could hit a target with my G36 at 600m without much effort considering the scope was zeroed properly. I could disassemble and reassemble my rifle and the MG3 pretty fast and blindfolded. I could build up the MG3 in a tripod position and make it a good covered MG position. That are your traits as a soldier, you learn that. 
Does it make me a veteran fighter? Surely not. 
Now the difference between a trained soldier and a battle hardened (veteran, crack, elite) one is to be on the actual battlefield. Experiencing and overcome battle stress like being under fire or witnessing death all around. Making those fast decisions while under fire. Know when to retreat and when to attack and maybe being a bit reckless from time to time. 
 
So while accuracy surely is a point and is represented in CM it is not the main thing that defines an experienced soldier. It is the battle brain if you can call it that and the endurance to keep on fighting while being fired uppon. 
At least that's my opinion on the matter. 
 
To the subject Panther VS T34 again:
To get a better insight on why these two tanks, which are somewhat similar, perform so differently I would recommend you some videos where people actually have an insight into the tanks. 
People like "The chieftain" that make complete walk-around videos that  sometimes have multiple episodes. 
I remember that he and other mention that the T34/76 and the T34/85 (though it being a good upgrade to the former) are not very pleasant to be in. And that would also reflect on the performance of the crew, be it in spotting or actually shooting. 

Most of my playing time et the moment is PBEM. 
My opponents tanks, infantry and artillery are always way more accurate and effective than mine. Fact

@PEB14 British gunnery discussions echo similar points.
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000067.html
As this is CMRT. I used German examples as that is what o has immediately to hand. Search 
If interested in Soviet take check out https://www.tankarchives.ca/?m=1
it’s all there. I’ll let you enjoy hunting for the info. 

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

That's Part 3 up and live.

That's Part 3 up and live.

That's Part 3 up and live.

Apparently coincidence according to a thread of many many many years ago which I cannot find.  However, what you do in your description above is exactly what I do when my vehicles bog.  Sometimes I get lucky, sometimes I don't.

This topic goes as far back as Cmx1 itself but I stand with my opinion :
It is more for the feels and does nothing significant. 
You see that the driver of the vehicle starts his "unbogging" process right then when it gets stuck by turning the wheels/tracks back and forth. User movement input is blocked for the time being. 
 
It is hard to test this to either approve or disprove this. How often does a unit bog down? And from this instances how often do they free themselves? 
To be 100%sure we would need to have a programmer insight. 
But either way I say that your unit just got lucky in the "unbogging" process-dice roll and it has nothing to do with you putting it in reverse. 

I played as Germans. i did well initially as my oppo came out swinging and my Panthers managed some long range kills, which spooked him. Then I moved forward to see if I could find where he'd hid and that's when i started rolling into ambushes. Then became tad too aggressive and rolled into even bigger trouble.. It was fun though and my oppo played a brill game.
Ah cool - be interested to hear how it goes

That's Part 3 up and live.

That's Part 3 up and live.

Yeah work took a turn which combined with RL gave me a bit of a kicking this summer, so lot of stuff went on hold or just deleted as no time. I'm back up and on a more normal keel now.
Ah cool - yeah I don't think I've played Mit Karacho PBEM think it could be a tougher fight for the German player. Yeah I had my arse kicked in a recent PBEM of 'cat and Mouse'  It was fun though!
I've a few unfinished projects, thanks for asking, plus vid stuff bubbling away. Next finished project will be the tank training scenarios. Think the wrinkles have been ironed out so will punt them to TSD soon. I've a modern Syrian REDFOR campaign in very early stages, though at the moment I'm super invested in CMRT just cos like playing it!
Thanks again for your kind words.
Cheery!

Thank you  Always gratifying to hear people enjoy my stuff, so thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you  Always gratifying to hear people enjoy my stuff, so thank you, appreciate it.

That's excellent!  I have to give you props again as I have just finished playing Deep Raid by PBEM and have just started Tip of the Spear by PBEM as well.  I'm also still working through 5 days!  Your maps, attention to detail and well crafted scenarios are both stunning to look at and amazing to play through.
Thanks George!  Your work is MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!
 

Heart of the Dying Sun Tank Combat Sequence
https://youtu.be/xYZKLskEhrQ