M Hofbauer

Thanks everyone for their contribution. I am going for your explanation that the two guns have similar / identical performance, although an in-depth enlightenment about just how these two very different designs arrived at that would still be interesting. Again, thanks!

There were never enough of them. Not only for the FJ (G43 wasn't an exclusive FJ rifle), but for everyone.

this page might be of interest to you: Panzer IV Universe other comments: "H1" (h - one) looks like a typo/confusion with what should really be "Hl" (h - small "L"). IIRC we had a discussion about this, and the HL ammo was introduced late in 1941, and not available immediately. Hope someone else has a better memory, or his books at hand.

looks more like the USAF's new secret weapon to me, isn't that an Invader (A-26)? apart from that, ROTFL !

the M3 75mm (L40) gun on the Sherman is quite a different gun than the Chaffee's M6 75mm gun. apart from the caliber they are radically different designs. most probably know the story about how a regular 75mm gun wouldn't fit into the Chaffee, so the 75mm gun for the Chaffee was taken from the lightweight 75mm gun developed for the use as aircraft armament for the B-25. The latter, though being a 75mm gun, was considerably weaker (sloer muzzle velocity) than any regular 75mm tank gun. I was fumbling around with tidbits of info on the M6 Chaffee gun (for example I still didn't figure out it's caliber length (Lxx)), when I noticed that in CMBO the Sherman 75mm gun and the Chaffee 75mm have the exact same performance down to the last mm of armor performance on every distance. Is this coincidence, a mistake, or is there a relation bewteen these two guns that I had thought to be impossible (i.e., were they, after all, similar in performance after all)? sorry if that has been covered before, my skull-internal search fgunction did not recall any post on this matter in all the years.

please disregard sorry [ June 13, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

"Who Is Combat Mission's Competition?" Go

the problem is not the MG42. the problem is the 1/4" armor on the HT. technically in theory, all it takes is a Mauser 98k to kill an M3/M3A1 HT.

How about Nikita by Elton John? more seriously, please not Barber's Adagio for strings, its way too popular pseudo-classic for kiddies who heard it and want to think they are into classic music. not a bad piece in itself, but abused too much. for a real suggestion, if the BTS intro starts off with a CMBB battle german attack, slowly switching over to a russian counterattack, I would tend to agree to those who want to open with german music and close it with russian music. please no propaganda music from either side. btw Wessellied as such is illegal in germany. rather stick to classical music. nothing slow, except maybe a few tacts for the opening and end. there have been a few good suggestions already, like "dies irae". as another suggestion for the middle part that shows the battle waging back and forth, I'ld like something like the main theme "Dance of the Knights" from Sergei Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Its both well-known, befitting to the battle background of steel knights (tanks) battling each other, and both pleasant and encouraging to listen to. btw Michael Dorosh, copyright won't be an issue since the works we are discussing here as such have been publicized over 50 years ago. what does have the copyright on the CDs you are buying is the interpretation, the playing of the song by a certain orchestra/musician. if BTS (oops, sorry, "Battlefront.com") does their own midi or whatever play of these songs they are ok. [ June 02, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

great article, redwolf. bene!

maybe Battlefront is still arguing copyright issues with BigTime because CMBB takes a lot from CMBO, and CMBO was made by BigTimeSoftware, and Battlefront.com simply stole their game.

hey thanks....I think

just checked my CM again and it says Big Time right there in the lower left and right corners. if you are not BigTimeSoftware, then you are surely selling someone else's game and got some explaining to do, young man. [ May 31, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

well no ****, they are okay *now*, you should have seen them before madmatt adjusted them to the way they are now. btw, thumbs up from me (can speak only for me) for the black on green here inside the threads as it is now.

shameless bump - kicking myself in the rear. btw, thanks for the change of board colors. the new colors now are okay. again, thanks for your consideration.

the white on dark green is really really very unpleasant. I do not know if this design change was intentional or if it can or can not be changed anymore, but personally I find it horrible and will seriously have to consider leaving this board more or less (only dropping by once in a while to get a scoop on the most urgent news, reading that with squinting eyes), no hard feelings, but damn it hurts. Not trying to pressure you into changing it back, if you say it can't be done then it can't be done, but I find it very very unpleasant.

how do you know for certain he didn't do this recon patrol with a high-speed drive in a jeep...uh..Kübelwagen ?

sorry, I was just wondering once again and in a fit of associative posting I thought I'ld post my musings. in CMBO we have an AFV's silhouette base value in the in-game info window shown. it hints at the "size" the unit has in the CMBO model. IIRC it was a subjective value of conspicuousnes/ssize made as an educated guess by BTS. for AT guns their size was of vital importance. several AT gun designs were rather poor or even disregarded for deployment due to their decidedly high profile. other people on this board often hint at the importance of smokeless powder, camoflage, the conspicuousness of rapid-fire autocannonc such as the light&medium AA guns etc. I think we should be given such a base value to judge the spotting probability of an AT gun just like the other data we are given for our vehicles and guns (blast ratings, ground pressure, etc.) In CMBO we learned from playing experience just about roughly how "spottable" the different gun pieces in CMBO are, a famous example is the non-spottability of 2cm FlaK guns from excess of a couple hundred meters out. IIRC the gun spotting model has been tweaked for CMBB. while at it, I think the game model "size" and therefore visibility of gun pieces is such an important value for these items that we should be told the base value the game uses in the unit info. just the base value, obviously, without modifiers (hiding status, terrain modifiers, fog, rain, firing, commander bonus etc.) just like with the armor base data we are given (without modifications in the actual battle such as projectile shatter, slope, obliquity, armor qality etc.). if this has been covered before I must've overlooked or forgotten that, sorry.

must have been all those captured Pz IV in soviet service.

Fronleichnam. I am catholic, I *deserve* my free thursday

beautiful, both the models and their adaptation for CMBB. now for unneccessary nitpick: is it just me or do those tracks on the original models look just a wee bit too loose? I don't have any pics for comparison here, but the T-26 tracks on the upper return seem quite a bit loose, especially towards the rear. Such a mistake seems odd considering what a top-notch job the modeller did otherwise, for example check the highly commendable way he polishes the teeth of the tracks to shiny bare metal due to the wear of these areas.

you mean the 40mm and 90mm AA guns, right Barleyman, the reason is simply one of balance, since CMBO models the AA guns in an undesirable way: a 20mm AA gun is very hard to spot, even when fuiring all the time, from ranges of a few hundred meters, and can therefore safely take out (mostly immobilize) allied armor at will from distance. the model also makes these "burst"-weapons overly accurate compared to AT guns. the issue is the same with the 3,7cm FlaK and the allied 40mm AA gun (Bofors IIRC), although not as crass as with the 2cm. in essence, the way they are now, they are overly effective and considered gamey by many. edit: and, as Fionn poijts out, they are excellent for destryoing buildings, a thing at which the larger rapid-fire AA guns (3,7cm, 40mm, and quad-2cm) are better than the small 2cm. [edited because Fionn had posted in the meantime]] [ May 26, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

I'm not sure if I would call a 100mm of armor a "weak spot".

Beautiful!!! personally I like the original version better than the late green modification (greenish doesn't look authentic to me). One thing though: what is it about the mud (if it is mud) shown only on the lower part of the wheels? Shouldn't it be ditributed all over the outer wheel rim? Unless it is a purely statical Tiger IE that doesn't move.

just switch the wav-file numbers between the two.