M Hofbauer

While they sure look nicely done, I don't see the point for them. Panzergrau is nowhere realistic for CMBO, nor is a PzIV Ausf.D with the technical data of a Pz IV G (or later). Lastly, Panzergrau was a bit darker.

Thanks a lot, Joel! The map is indeed most helpful, and your suspicion about my intentions is correct see my email. Now all that's unknown is terrain types like wood etc and elevations.

I need your help, Where can I get a good online map of Châteaudun? I only have an "analgoue" (paper) map of Nord-Ouest France 1:250 000 / 1:500 000. I need something more detailed, obviously. Any help would be greatly appreciated. It doesn't have to be a historic map, a contemporary map would be okay too (bike tour map etc) as long as it shows the area around Chateaudun with sufficient detail.

though it may be disappointing to many people, there isn't that much difference between a late-war WW II squad and a modern squad, especially in CM terms. The MG42 is still in use today and, though not really comparable since they have different performance envelopes, can reasonably considered superior as a MG than the SAW, though the SAW is probably much better at close distance when used as a pseudo-assault rifle. The M1 Garands are comparable to "modern" rapid-fire rifles like the G3 or the FN-FAL, in fact the G3 mechanism stems from the late war StG 45 prototype systems. And really for most purposes a G3/FN-FAL (eg aimed single fire shooting at 100 meters) isn't that much a leap over a K98 or an Enfield. The .223 rifles which are so en vogue these days are comparable to the MP 44; different caliber but same idea of having a delaborated lighter ammo for an automatic rifle = assault rifle. IMO these weapons as a whole are undermodeled in CM in comparison to the SMG. One could argue that most modern .223s are much more reliable than the MP 44 but personally in the case of the M16 I would even doubt that Grenades still go boom. In the end, there isn't that much difference. One guy suggested "One other thing to think about is training. Modern armies are trained to do things like area fire that WWII armies were not, and modern their grandfathers were not, either. A "green" American now would be something like a "veteran" or even "elite", I would suggest." which is a joke. No peace-time soldier, even if he is a well-trained american soldier, who has "green" status could reasonably be considered "elite" over WW II, battle hardened experienced veterans. IMO.

the AA board seems to be broken. or is it just my NN 4.0 ?

Andreas - I *know*. It was an intended neologism of proverbs, a medley of metaphors so to speak. It was supposed to be funny. I am (or, rather, used to be) well familiar with Greek mythology and remember well the story about that box which contained all those plagues including that worst of all evils, *hope*. Btw, what do you think of the inconsistency Mr Emrys pointed out?

well, let me re-phrase that then, BTS decided to not give them small arms to *discourage* use of these units as regular combat units / scouts after they expended their ammunition. If you look at the screenshots in the pre-release public AAR by Fionn and Moon you will notice that in one picture there's an AFV crew armed with a Thompson (IIRC). Even though in reality they *were* armed, every tank crew had SMGs even, and gun crews had regular infantry rifles, it was an honorable idea by BTS for a compromise on this unsolvable issue. Give them their regular weapon loadout then the player will use them as combat teams, which is unrealistic because these highlyspecialized teams would not *regularly* be active in such a role. Make them uncontrollable and unarmed is also obviously unrealistic because it takes away too much acting choices which in reality they had. Michael, yes, abandoning crews are armed at low ammo, while the weapon-serving crews do not show small arms. odd enough. however, mortar crews etc. who are with their mortar still can fight considerably in close combat, so I'm wondering whether those pistols are modeled even though they are not shown (pre-abandonment), maybe at least as part of the close-combat value these units have?

talking a can of pandora here... to give you the short version: No, it's not realistic, but it was done by BTS because they felt that it was neccessary to prevent gamey use of these specialized troops as ad-hoc combat teams and scouts after they expended their primary mission ammo. It's not even a new concern, by far not. I'ld give you the link to an old 99 thread where this was discussed in depth even back then BEFORE the game came out, but the SEARCH thing seems broken (once again).

so you'ld count million, thousand million, billion, thousand billion, trillion, thousand trillion? man, I don't ebven know what's weirder, the american or your style of counting

are you saying you would usually count million, milliard?, billion, billiard? ? IOW, what do you really call a fake billion?

I always wanted to know what happened to that supposedly "cowardly" captain reportedly responsible for the premature launch.

63.4g is the data I have for the M41 (if they are referring to the M41) with steel core.

you misunjderstood me. That was exactly my point. Since most vehicles are not 14.5mm proof, the ATRs would according to your reasoning (which was that ATRs would have considerable effect after penetration) be ideal terrorist's, guerilla's and poor country army's weapons against light AFVs. The reason they choose the much more complicated, expensive and more conspicous RPGs must be that ATRs simply aren't that effective. please see my other posts where I elaborated the advantages an ATR has over the RPG and similar type weapons.

14.18kg</font>

damn, now what's a friggin' 38bls in SI units ? [ April 13, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Kip, ok, you got me there. My reference calls it a steel core but since they are more fixiated on the use and employment of the 14.5 HMG, esp. the KPV, I guess they are confusing it with a later AP version of the M41/44 ammo. You still haven't answered about my musings on relegation of ATRs, and their non-use after WW II even by guerilla troops due to their relative ineffectivity. Whaddaya think?

The russian M41 round (as used in the PTRD and PTRS) has a steel core, not a tungsten core. Btw, you cannot extrapolate the ballistics (AP performance over distances) from a single date (25/500). You need two such dates and then use the respective formula. You also need to account for slope (0° in your case, I suppose). You can use a different slope for your second date, but you need a second date.

Grisha, careful, your shirt is showing. It is NOT a Wehrmacht issue, and nobody ever said anything remotely like that. It is much more a RedArmy issue, because at the outbreak of Barbarossa, it was *only* the germans who had ATRs, and in respectable quantities, I should add. Facing, I shopuld also add because it seems neccessary for your understanding, a myriad of russian AFVs and tanks/tankettes that would have to be labeled "light armor" in this discussion (mind you, contrary to the belief of some people the red army was not entirely made up of T-34s and KVs in 1941). Therefore, what I do not want to see is each and every russian T-60 or BT-7 or whatever to be taken out by some PzB-39 team, and every T-34 crippled by PzB-35(p) hits to vision slits, just as much as I do not want to see a late-war Panther company assault stopped cold by two PTRD teams. wrong inclination in this statement. this is exactly the issue I addressed. these ATRs are NOT close assault weapons. their energy bleed-off is such that it is very reasonable to open harrrassment fire (and that is all you should reasonably expect from them) from several hundred yards. Only in desperate situations can you try to squeeze the last millimeter of AP performance out of them by using them within "spitting distance". (Das Heer) mind you, production of the russian ATRs really began only in fall 1941. the germans did not lose a lot of tanks to soviet ATRs in the initial phase simply because at the outbreak the russians didn't have any ATRs; the PTRD, the first reasonable (maybe also the PTRS even though its auto-loader often failed, especially in cold temperature) russian ATR really in service after all those experimental screw-ups, was just beginning to be accepted for service August 29th 1941. I do agree with your notion that a well-placed russian AT regiment would spell trouble for a german tank unit. But it would spell trouble without the ATRs just the same IMO. Kip, then why were they put out of use after WW II? the reasoning you give applies to all modern AFVs as well. A PTRD would after your reasoning be the penultimate weapon for any guerilla troops, be it the Afghans battling the russians or the amis, or be it the somalis, the jungle fighters/gueriileros in south america/latin america, the palestines, the uncountable opposition and revolutionary forces in third world countries anywhere etc. late-war russian developments of ATRs had penetration capabilities of 55 to 70mm (RES, Bljum). Still, they were not produced and filed away after the war. Now again to your notion about how glorious those ATRs are against lightly armored vehicles. surely a shaped-charge RPG or a law derivative has even better AP performance, but this is, according to your reasoning, overkill, because your average off-the-shelf John Q. Doe APC from today or other lightly armored scout or other AC (most anti-guerilla wars are fought not with 70-ton MBTs but mainly with lots of light AFVs as support) is just as vulnerable as the light german tanks in WW II were to the russian PTRDs. And obviously it is much easier to home-build and maintain a simple bolt-action PTRD, and I am not even strating to talk about the M41/44 14.5x114 ammo for them which is practically universal in third world countries, and can be manufactured with a minimum of infrastructure. It is also much less conspicous, conceded it has a loud bang but you can use it from half a kilometer to a kilometer afar, from inside a building, and it doesn't have a big smoke cloud pointing at you. Hmm, seems like an ideal AT weapon against lightly armored targets... kip, ever contemplated that? maybe those ATRs were not *that* effective after all? [ April 13, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

They (SdKfz 251 m sWurfrahmen 41) were not used as single pieces for attack (but engineers indeed did use single rounds carried on foot -*hence* the name "Stuka zu Fuss", on the HT it would be a "Stuka auf Halbketten"- for tactical battle uses) but were used for area saturation, relying on their blast (Gasschlagwirkung) effect because of their high inaccuracy which became irrelevant in mass use. Therefore inclusion in CM is not recommendable. They were fired from outside the vehicle. Mounting them on the HT was simply a good means of transporting and, especially exiting the launch area quickly in an armored vehicle since the rockets were rather conspicuous in terms of both sight and sound. Mounting them on the HT made them much less susceptible to counter-artillery. Oh, and yes, Mattias is (as usual) right, it was available late 1941 IIRC.

problem is that there is plenty of evidence that all those "thin" AFVs were not used that way, but were right in the thick of it. Think 251/16. The whole problem I see with this AT rifle discussion these days is that my only fear is that they will be overmodeled. The public opinion seems to be similar to a teeny seeing a KingTiger and thinking it's the penultimate weapon, invincible and oh so cool. Now the people hear about ATRs (for the first time, or take a closer look for the first time) and think woah boy these are oh so kewl bigbang weapons. Fact is that most armies had the AT rifle in their arsenal immediately before the outbreak of the war, but these weapons were relegated to non-use or other use (super-sniper rifle for MG emplacements, bunkers etc) for a reason: they simply weren't THAT effective. If you are going to aim for specific parts of a tank then a regular sniper might work just as well or even better. Besides, they do not produce a BANG that will make every pair of ears within a 500m radius turn for them, and they do not have to fear a shoulder fracture after firing a dozen shots. They are way less effective than a 50cal which is practically a full-auto ATR for this discussion's purpose. However, if a 50cal penetrates a SdKfz 251 (or hits tracks), there will be a burst of bullets penetrating it, not just a single bullet. ATRs did have a place, but it was a backseat place. There's a reason why ATRs quickly went out of style and are gone today even though today's common APCs and thin-skin AFVs around the world (aluminium-M113s and BMPs) would make just the same kind of target for them as the vehicles back in WW II, and bunkers and vision slits are still the sameas 60 years ago for the sake of this discussion. ATRs are bulky, unwieldy, conspicuous weapons with too little bang for the effort. And that even applies to the russian PTRD which is probably the most reasonably efective ATR there was.

it is not possible to include this exact data in the ingame unit data sheet since it is not a fixed value but dependant on unit experience level.

although Fionn is correct that the maximum penetration of close to 50mm for the russian M41 cartridge (as used in the PTRD and PTRS AT rifles) would only be achieved at ranges below 100 meters I feel the need to point aout a misunderstanding that might be gained from that post. These AT rifles by nop means were a close-assault weapon that only worked at very close ranges. Although the energy of the AT bullet did bleed off a bit faster than a tank bullet's, it still held its energy well enough to have AT capabilities at reasonable ranges. the PTRD and PTRS were still considered a threat to lightly armored vehicles at ranges of 1.5km where they would still penetrate 15mm of steel. The flight path of the high-speed projectiles of AT rifles were very flat, hence for example the sights of the polish Maroszek (used by the germans inder the designation PzB-35(p)) were not graduated but set at 300m because any range below was considered point-blank in terms of bullet-drop/sight adjustment. Similarly, the intended combat range for the russian AT rifles was 200-400 meters. Of course, if you want to gain the last few millimeters of AP performance out of the weapon then Fionn's observation is right in that you would have to get as close as possible, and close ranges also mean that you can go for vision slits etc. even on heavy tanks. But that doesn't make the AT rifles a close-assault weapon in the league of Panzerhandmine or Hafthohlladung.

Mattias, you're a genius! Thank you very very much! The -authoritative- figures you give are a treasure for my quest/riddle! Besides, they seem very credible to me. My initial assumption that these areas, which are not of neglectable size even from the near-horizontal, represent a considerable armor strength (using geometry alone one arrives at figures of 65mm for the Pz IV, 430mm for the StuG and 120mm for the Tiger, and this toally neglects the added bonus which slope offers beyond the geometrical increase) that exceeds that of the usual frontal armor ratings, seems to carry some weight, at least in the case of the Tiger, and, to a limited degree because due to the sharp angle it represents only a fraction of the area visible, the StuG, but even the Pz IV would probably benefit when you consider the extreme slope. What do you think? Nochmals vielen vielen Dank, Markus

I have a question for the armor experts out there. Picture a Pz IV or a Tiger I or a StuG III / StuH. between the lower fron hull armor and the upper front armor there is a "step" of almost horizontal armor. What I am looking for is the strength of that armor plate for the respective vehicles. So far I could not find that data. All references do distinguish between the lower and the upper frontal armor plate and slope, but this characteristic "step" area is apparently neglected so far. I would find it hard to believe that this area, although it represents only a small area of the visible frontal silhouette, would have only the thin top armor strength, since it is situated at the most endangered location of the vehicle. If however it would be of a rather respectable strength then this area due to its almost horizontal angle would represent a practically invincible area. Most hits there would likely ricochet onto the upper vertical plate of the hull/superstructure. specifically: (1)In the case of the Pz. IV Ausf. H the lower hull is 80mm at 14° for the lower "vertical" hull and 80mm at 10° for the upper "vertical" hull/superstructure. What I am looking for is the strength of the almost horizontal area between these two areas. (2)In the case of the StuG III there is a similar horizontal area between the frontal lower hull and the superstructure, directly beneath the main gun. I am looking for the strength of that horizontal plate. (3) In the case of the Pz. VI Ausf. E Tiger there are also two distinct and rather vertical armor plates at the front hull, the lower one being 10cm at 24°, the upper one ("superstructure") 10cm at 10°. What I am looking for is the plate strength of the almost horizontal area of the step between these two almost vertical plates. any and all help is appreciated to solve this mystery. btw I do not have rexford's book, if he reads it I would be happy for info on where/how I can buy it.

Recoilless rifle or mis-IDed mortar? hmm hmm pondering what it could be... care to send me the result file?