M Hofbauer

It just occurred to me that actually they could have used "Soldat" in the slogan "Welcome to the russian front, soldier". If I'm not mistaken, Soldat applies to both german and russian. Might have been catchy, just a thought, better than reversing the letters. ParaBellum: slight correction: it should not read "There was just a small bug in the new Micro$oft ebusiness software Madmat got cheap from a 'connection'." but instead "There was just a small bug in the new Micro$oft ebusiness software called Madmat which BTS/BFC got cheap from a 'connection'. or "There was just a small bug in the new small and soft ebusiness software administrator Madmat which BTS/BFC got cheap from a 'connection'. [ July 05, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

maybe we shoulöd also keep in mind that the British commanders and especially the tank crews of 95mm-armed support tanks didn't know back then that an opinion exists that the 80mm @ 55° front glacis of the Panther, which translates into a geometrical effective thickness of 140mm, could maybe be rated at 85% quality which means that it has an effective thickness of 119mm which means that their main gun which might be rated at 125mm armor penetration for their shaped charge ammo could just penetrate the Panther front if they hit it and all those paper thesis assumptions are true... in other words, these people had a support tank with a low-Vo support gun, and were facing dreadful german tank-killer tanks. It would seem to me they never ever intended to go toe-to-toe with german tanks. In reality, I don't think a bunch of 95mm-equipped Cromwells were regularly setting out to go hunting for big cats...

sorry but I think PANZER ELITE is probably more of a valid reference than your personal impressions from riding a Leopard once. I have done the same, I have ridden unbuttoned in a Leopard over uneven surfaces, at considerable speed and my impression/opinion is opposite to yours. And contrary to you i would not think that it is so very easy from such a position to spot a tank at 800m distance during a battle going on around you in full swing. And maybe, just maybe those folks at Panzer Elite gave their product *some* thought, too, and maybe they do not like being talked down and dismissed just like you seem unappreciative of being talked down to. and either way, the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference, but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics, which were there for real. if or how much they perform better in PE is not the issue at hand.

Agree completely. The tough decisions of a game designer...

Andreas, just three comments w/r/t those two snippets. 1) you know as well as I do that "optics" and "ergonomics" are hardly quantifiable. if you do not bow to common wisdom or general opinion, the closest to an objective comparison you get is if you go and take a look at the two interiors, and look through both optics. and even then you can argue very good with another person about his personal opinion. things such as "7.5 x maagnification" might sem objective values but don't really say anything about blurriness, inaccuracy in the reticle etc. if the finnish who used both types of design / manufacturing philosphies concluded (probably publicly when the political decision for/against one type was reached) that the optics in one type was so much better that this means retaining it against another vehicle even though the latter would be better politically and economically then that is one valid argument in my book. 2) we are specifically talking about hit accuracy against another tank. hence the notion that "soviet tanks did fire on the move regularly" really doesn't add anything to this issue at hand when this regular use was not of the type discussed here (just wanted to clear that up, I guess you agree).

...which again raises the interesting question whether post quality is reciprocal to size of member number. and which brings to my mind the question (and cold fear) what the content of the posts of member #10,000 will be. [ June 27, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

that's the way it is in reality. nobody with a sane mind wants to be the machine gunner in any of today's armed forces infantry. only guys with an overinflated macho ego strive to be the badass macho with the big gun. anybody sane simply realizes that in the reality of daily army life all it means is that you are the poor bloody SOB who is lugging that 20-pound piece of sh*t wherever your squad is strolling to in the field. and in wartime, as the machine gunner you are the most conspicous and likeable target anywhere. even a higher priority target than stretcher bearers it would seem to me. in other words, no need to be extra soft on tex, the likelyhood of him being a nut case is definitely increased since the percentage of nut cases among machine gunners is definitely higher than among the rest of grunts, just IMHO.

Panzer76 is dead on. KV-2 turret traverse was somewhere in the milky way galaxy rotation league, and it would not rotate on anything but level ground. the simple workaround a la CM is interesting though. if it could neutral steer/rotate the hull so easily, one would really have to wonder why the russians bothered to actually build it with a turret in the first place (instead of a semi-fixed gun a la the german and soviet assault guns). surely the solution in reality wasn't as simple as that.

ah, I suspected that, there aren't that many pics of that vehicle around. I wonder what's so special about that pic, Jason. I've had it on the Panzerfaust page for two or three years now. It's the same pic: http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/panzerfaust3.htm (bottom of page) Btw, the context in which the salman page shows it is misleading. Because although it is technically a captured vehicle, the soviets obviously never used it. It is from a series of pictures taken in berlin *after* the fighting. The russians in the pic are just posing with the abandoned vehicle. edited to insert url [ June 27, 2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

ouch. and there I was reading all these ryan books, thinking that operation market garden was the last major battle where there was still chivalry and honor, respect for red cross etc. thanks for clearing that up.

can't find that pic there. I'ld be interested to see it. can you tell me where that particular pic is?

:eek: are you saying that until now you actually missed out on half your order phases in all your PBEM games?? :eek:

JasonC, the Panzerfaust site is still there. But geocities sinca about a year ago is continually reducing the bandwith allocated to free sites. I get about one "you exceeded your data transferlimit and therefore your site is shut down for x amount of time" every two to three days nowadays.

7,5cm Kartätschenpatrone KwK. Contained 960 steel balls of 9mm diameter each. Useful out to 200m range. As rexford said, used only by the short 7,5cm L/24, which means early StuGs (StuG III Ausf.B, C, D and E) and early Pz IV (Pz IV Ausf. A, B, C, D, E, F1).

Thank you very very much, Mr. Bird! edit: now that you mention it, "T"-rounds seem to be sort of experimental rounds, right? I had been wondering about this ever since I came across the T-4 for the 76mm and the T33 for the 90mm gun. Again, thanks! [ June 23, 2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

was there or was there not HE ammo for that gun? I cannot find any reference to HE ammo for it, and the US Army Ordnance catalog doesn't even list substitute standard HE ammo for the 57mm AT gun. Now, my references are limited, and since CM has HE ammo for the 57mm AT gun, they sure had some sources to do that, so the info must be out there. I would be very grateful for any info on that mysterious HE ammo for the 6-pdr / 57mm ATG, especially shell weight, Vo and HE charge.

let's just assume that the MP40 - equipped soldiers use their bandoleers for a whole lot of cigarette packs :eek: excellent. looking forward to DLing!! are they released yet?

cool idea with the Mauser ammo bandoleers for the Fallschirmjäger, they are a very characteristic item for them. However, they look kinda silly on soldiers that carry MP-40 and StGw-44 as their personal weapons... The Kübelwagen is excellent, is there any way you could weather/dirty the number plate? Otherwise it looks like it's coming right from some POV inspection for which it has been polished (the only time clean mine)

it was called Erdzielgerät or Erdzielfernrohr 3x8 and replaced the Flakvisier 35 and Linealvisier 21 on the 2cm FlaK 30, the Flakvisier 38 and Schwebedornvisier on the 2cm FlaK 38, the Flakvisier 40 and Linealvisier 21 on the 2cm Gebirgsflak 38 (mountain AA gun), the Flakvisier 40, Linealvisier 21 and Schwebekreisvisier 30/38 on the 2cm Flakvierling 38 (quad-2cm AA gun), Flakvisier 33 on the 3,7cm FlaK 18, Flakvisier 37 resp. 40 and Schwebedornvisier on the 3,7cm FlaK 36 resp. 37; Uhrwerksvisier 43 and Schwebedornvisier on the 3,7cm FlaK 43 when these weapons were used in the ground role. The magtnification was *not* 8x, it was 3x with an 8° field of view (3x8).

commendable! The concerns that this method makes the tanks look a bit cartoonish and Talonoft / SuddenStrike-esque, and that the contrast highlights the polygons and therefore makes the vehicles look edged (especially relevant for rounded surfaces) are valid but can probably be addressed by a refining of this idea. For example, to avoid the stark contrast between the vertical side graphic and the brighter top graphic on vehicles where there is no sharp edge between these two areas, but a rounded soft edge (like Sherman hull top to sides), the darkening of the side ghraphics could start a little below and the transition could be done gradually, which would help with creating the rounded edge effect. I hope I could explain what I mean. A very interesting idea, very commendable, and despite the objections voiced so far, it is clearly something worth mulling over (mull...mull...)

you would have to direct your question on why the G43 is omitted at BTS/battlefront.com, not me. I had been quite uncomplacent from the start with how CM handles and rates various small arms. My personal solution so as not to die as a grumpy old man is to accept that it doesn't really matter with all the infantry abstraction whether the StG44 performs better or worse than an MP40, or whether the inclusion of one G43 into a german squad instead of one Mauser K 98k would mean an increase of +2 in the total firepower value rating of 120 or 150 or whatever. In other words, it doesn't really matter, it is all abstracted anyhow. The infantry squads in CM can perform their intended role and fulfill their purpose no matter whether they have the G43 or not. For a game of the nature of CMBO it is not entirely but largely irrelevant. The numbers you cited are correct btw. Please keep in mind they represent the production numbers of the weapons as accepted by the Wehrmacht, and does not nessessarily represent the number of weapons actually fielded (which might be a bit lower, depending on weapon type, as some would go to testing, evaluation, arsenals, be destroyed during transport etc.) The K43/G43 started out as a Garand-like semi-automatic replacement for the K98k as the main rifle with the regular 7.92x57 Mauser infantry ammo. The MKb/MP43 / MP44 / StG44 was a radical new concept, namely that of an assault rifle. Eventually the Wehrmacht concluded that the Sturmgewehr proved to be a better overall weapon for their needs than a Selbstladegewehr semiautomatic rifle. The G43 was nevertheless a fine weapon and was retained for the sniper/sharpshooter role. The shift from G43 as the intended replacement standard rifle towards the StG44 together with the shift from the G43 as a future standard rifle towards a sniper rfile becomes apparent in the production numbers. In 1944, almost the same number of both StG44 and G43 were made, 277,862 G43 compared to 281,600 StG44. An additional 22,000 G-43 were produced as sniper rifles with scopes. In the few months of 1945, a total of 124,616 StG-44 were produced, but only 68,207 regular G43s. At the same time, an additional 31,499 G43 were produced as sniper rifles.

yeah, what Yankee Dog said, plus keep in mind that your average P-51 or P-47 fighter bomber was 50,000 to 100,000 USD at the time, which means that it would be in the same price league as a tank is right now. And artillery would what? the price of all the guns of the battery, or just the price of the limited number of incoming shells? the "prices" have to be adjusted manually by BTS...ooops, "Battlefront.com", it's the only way to make it work.

my post was obviously an answer to Michael Dorosh's post, and not KNac's post (and just for the record, obviously I do not agree with the latter's statement that their low production was because they "performed very bad") [ June 17, 2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Yes, but then my answer works just the same, get it?