M Hofbauer

#1, as Dorosh points out in a very subtle way, it is dark grey, commonly referred to as Panzergrau (color 46 as per order HM 40/864 of 31.7.1940), not "Feldgrau" (color 3, still carried at the beginning of war on small parts and motorcycles and military cars etc., dating back to the original SOP HDv 488/1 from 20.4.1933). #2, it *is* unrealistic for CMBO (dark yellow (RAL 7028) being the new standard color for practically all vehicles and large equipment as per order 43/181 from 18.2.1943. only some special items such as certain engineer equipment (boats, pontons and other bridging equipment) retained the dark grey color. [ February 04, 2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

You're gonna send your Heer into combat without grenades? I bet they'll be cursing you out when fighting closes to within 20 meters! </font>

It probably took the author and the translator a lot of time and effort to write this nice article. When someone simply rips this and pastes it elsewhere with 5 seconds worth of cut&paste, the very *least* one can do is cite the original source. I would want you to consider how you felt if you took the effort and wrote such an article, and then someone simply grabs it like that without linking to you or even mentioning you. Just IMHO. [ February 02, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

oh, thanks for clearing that up. I see now that it's a stick grenade. Never mind.

Looks like a Nahkampfspange. Looking good Andrew TF! Where to get it? But why are the K 98k - equipped riflemen having MP40 mag pouches? Shouldn't they have the small ammo pouches for the Mauser clips? Are you making this mod for all those gamey bastards who use SMG troops ?

Madmatt, thanks for the replies. just wanted to reaffirm that fire right now in CMBO does *not* hurt the soldiers. You can try this by making a map full of burning tiles and put a unit right into the middle. they will run out of the vast fire to any map edge, but without taking casualties. Now, this wasn't a big issue in CMBO, where fires do not spread. Because squads will simply refse to enter burning tiles. However, imagine in CMBB a fire is spreading, and you have an infantry squad being encircled by the flames, wouldn't it be strange to see them running out of the burning wheat field without taking any harm from the fire? Well, after reconsideration,. it isn't much of an issue really. Looking forward to the trees swaying in the wind!

what's that white bottle they carry on their belly?

oh yes, good point by Steve about the majority of Panzergrenadiers, in the Panzergrenadier Divisions. Forgot to add that. They were called Panzergrenadiere because they supposedly had special skills (training) in the cooperation with tanks, combined arms tactics. They usually did not have armor themselves, apart from occasional HTs and StuGs as SP AT assets. Dorosh made a good point about the WW II literature highlighting famous units who did have shiny HTs and thereby skewing the image of how the war was fought for the majority of soldiers outside the high-profile unts. For example, there were very vast areas of the russian front devoid of any tanks at all. [ February 01, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Iron chef suggests that Motorized axis troops ride their transports into battle, flags waiving in the wind. Now, is he seriously suggesting they are attacking while riding in their Opel Blitz trucks? First of all, terminology. Motorized Infantry would be using trucks. Only "Armored Infantry" uses the SdKfz 251/1 halftrack transports. Towards the time span that CMBO covers, many of those units did not have their organic transports. they would then *have* to fight on foot, so even if someone frontally lobotomized would suggest they should always fight from their transports these units who lack them due to attrition to their transport equipment simply could not.

problem is, you cannot control the tacASI of these vehicles, and they will shoot at enemy ground targets just the same if they happen to get close to them. another thing is that if you keep them to your rear, chances are they are the only unscatrhed units left at the end of the battle, and many players will then start to use them, because they are the only thing left.

Madmatt, it all sounds *very* good, thanks for the bones! a few questions, do fires simplyforce the soldiers away or will it now actually hurt them? (in CMBO fire doesn't hurt, it simply makes the soldiers go away). when I'm on moderate setting, will I have to toggle through the most extreme setting to get back to the most basic graphic setting? Because computers like mine probably can not take the extreme settig and might get hung at "extreme" while I am cycling through the different settings. will those stong winds affect ballistics of guns (less accuracy) ? If I start a QB with someone, and he gets to select things/settings, will there be a message at the beginning of the game telling me he used an imported map (the way we are now shown force bonuses) ? [ February 01, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

I should have been more specific...I meant the ermans would be hard pressed to come by russian 47mm AT guns because the only 47mm AT guns were some weird ones on the axis side, notably the ones I mentioned from the back of my head, not the soviets. Neither do I. The russian 45mm AT gun is called 45mm and it is a true 45 mm caliber.

I should have been more specific...I meant the ermans would be hard pressed to come by russian 47mm AT guns because the only 47mm AT guns were some weird ones on the axis side, notably the ones I mentioned from the back of my head, not the soviets. Neither do I. The russian 45mm AT gun is called 45mm and it is a true 45 mm caliber.

well the Romanians did use the same belted 7.92 Mauser ammo.

well the Romanians did use the same belted 7.92 Mauser ammo.

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937.

I do agree that sometimes they seem to be identified a bit easy; in general they could be identified due to the FO teams' scissor binos and their radio equipment incl. antennae. That's the only explanation I can offer. [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]</p>

It *is* beautiful. Thanks AndrewTF!

Let me clear a few things up. First, I never argued for the inclusion of the FT into the engineer squad for any "soaking" effect. My point is not diminishing vulnerability, but to increase realism and game handling by putting this engineer asset within the engineer squad just like the explosives they use. CM does not feature a seperate two-man engineer team with 3-kg Geballte Ladung charges, instead they are carried by some engineers within the engineer squad. The same should apply to the flamethrower. They were an integral part of the engineer squad, and the option in CMBO to micromanage them in detail as a seperate team is not more realistic than letting the TacAI of an engineer suqad decide when and how to use it. Finally, the FT tactics of the US Army in the pacific and of the Wehrmacht in russia or the ETO do not neccesarily have to be the same. In fact. They might very well have been different for a number of reasons, and personally I think they were different. My point was that having FT teams as seperate teams allows a level of micromanagement that is not usual for CM. Having seperate teams is realistic in terms of HMG, Bazookas and mortars, because they *were* broken down like that and not part of a compact assault squad. FTs however were engineer assets just like explosives etc., carried by engineer squads. Personally, I think the best for people who do not agree or aren't satisfied with the current and most likely future portrayal of flamethrowers in CM should simply not use them. It is hard to model a weapon like the FT in a game like CM. I am not only referring to the technical ways that a flamethrower works, or the tactical individual soldier behavior, but not the least to the psychological effects that such a weapon had in reality.

rexford, are you referring to real penetration by HEAT or AP ammo? because I think the main reason the Zvierboy came to its name and reputation as a killer of heavy german tanks was not due to a "real" AP capability, but because the huge blast effect of its HE ammo would usually produce lethal structural damage to whole armor plates and structure breaking and ripping, turrets jamming and being torn off etc., rather than the usual "clean" Armor Penetration people think of when talking anti-armor capability. [ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]</p>

Jason, two face-hardened plates give more resistance for the reasons I originally pondered about above. If you never worked with metal yourself, then use your common sense. It's just the way it is when we are talking face-hardening. The only thing I am concededly not sure about is if and what kind of face hardening the germans used on different armor, be it original armor or add-on armor added later. Even then, it still makes sense to produce homogenous plates instead of add-on armor. Homogenous armor still has many advantages over bolt-on armor. For one, the bolted-on armor might tend to break off completely and therefore provide very little additional protection at the areas near the edges. Second, in contrast to a solid cast full homogenous armor, the bolt-on armor does not add to overall structural integrity, but to the contrary it adds an additional strain on the underlying skeleton. And, as Jason pointed out, face-hardened add-on armor doesn't handle too well. The historical aspect which you are raising has its merits but is not conclusive either. The point whether the germans did or did not use or produce a certain thing does in itself not neccessarily reflect actual facts. For example, the application of Zimmerit onto all german armor in 1943/44 should - using your logic - prove that the allies made extensive use of magnetic attached mines, while we all know they never really did.

Michael, I agree that this "gamey" use is valid for estimating the effectivity of FTs in CM. However, it does not speak in favor of the degree of realistic modeling of FTs in CMBO if the effective ways to use these troops are ahistoric and gamey tactics. That's what I originally meant, hope it becomes clearer now.

It sounds smart to add a fifth guy to handle the business and administrative things and to free up resources for game engine work. I am very glad that this fifth person turns out to be Moon. Moon, I wish you all the best in your new job and function, I am sure you will need it, I think there's no little effort involved in your new responsibility. Alles Gute!

JasonC, to accept and live with volley fire in CMBO because with the cuirrent engine there is no other way to do it is one thing, but to go so far as calling it more realistic than nonvolley fire is plain ridiculous. Sure volley fire is realistic and historically correct - but only for Napoleonic-type warfare. The comments you made about the soldiers not always having their head up, and reloading, cowering etc. are correct - however, in a squad of twelve, spread over a small front, not all are doing everything at the same time. The total amount of ammo available which you cite as another reason "for" volley fire does not apply either. First of all, volley fire should stop completely when the ammo is gone, not continue at reduced frequency. Second, the soldiers don't just blast away all their half minute worth of ammo (which btw is wrong, ammo for example an MP-44 would last for a practical time span of about 5 minutes of effective fire, with a Kar 98k it would be considerably more) like that, instead they wait for opportunities to fire it at targets that present themselves. Which in this case would mean that if 12 people cross pavement in front of an enemy squad, then they shopuld be engaged by at least some of the soldiers in the squad which happen to be "up" at the time, and not reach some place else before the enemy reacts. You are probably envisioning the gratuitous use of ammo in a spray and pray manner, as we are plentifully shown in poor Hollywood war movies and MiamiVice. I refer to real-world usage SOP as outlined for example in the WSS document Nr. 392/44 - Merkblatt 34h5 Nr. II/6061/44 and the addendum to the DV 1854/2, Doc. 393/44 72a Nr. II/12100/44, both referring to the firing policy w/r/t the MP-43 / MP-44; quote from the first document, E.1. (rough translation by me): "Fire bursts are only to be fired at large and rewarding targets, they consist of 3 to 4 rounds. Auto fire is never to be used under no circumstances, they are waste of ammunition. The soldier must know to use carefully aimed single shots at favorable temporary targets of opportunity." In other words, instead of blindly firing their weapons at the enemy in the other house every ten seconds, they would tend to wait for moments of opportunity and then open fire with aimed shots. Your idea that a realistic portrayal of continuous firing ability would lead to a depletion of the ammo within half a minute is therefore hilarious, just like your praise of volley fire. Again, I accept squad volley fire as a current part of the abstraction in CM, but to call it the best thing since sliced bread is simply ridiculous. Please note this refers to a fully automatic assault rifle, and not some sniper bolt action rifle.