M Hofbauer

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I don't think any of your points are in dispute CDIC, though I was interested in reading them (again). <hr></blockquote> Michael, I disagree (w/r/t the "nothing in dispute"-thing). Namely I disagree with the original poster's and Pullus maximus' comments of use of the flamethrower on the defense. Using the flamethrower in ambush situations like the ones described above is ahistorical and gamey. You cannot argue for the usefulness of a unit in CM by citing ways of employment which are decidedly off the realism scale.

Chad, as you suspected yourself, CMBO models small arms fire with periodical volley fire. This will not be changed for CMBB.

I would see the benefit in a different thing. Namely, that if you stopped the enemy advance cold, then the enemy attack should be getting reinforcements based on how well you are doing. This feature however suggests itself more to a prolonged, long scenario, for which CM is officially not made (30 turns being the norm, and 100-turn monsters being the exception). As you know, there *is* a dynamic reinforce feature already in CMBO, videlicet the battalion/divisional/regimental reinforcements during a campaign, which are triggered by the respective progress of the player (or, rather, lack thereof). This is extremely helpful for fine-tuning an operation in terms of balance.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Soddball: On second two .50 cal fire from another halftrack - range 300m - killed Wittman.<hr></blockquote> what exactly do you mean by that? did the .50cal a) knock out the tank lead to abandonment of the tank c) kill one of the crewmembers of the unbuttoned crew d) kill all the crewmembers after a) or occured ?? [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]</p>

very interesting. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The one caveat to all of this is that the graphics are similar to the current depiction of foxholes. In other words, they lie flat ontop of the terrain. This is 100% unavoidable given the limitations of the CM game engine. <hr></blockquote> that is not a problem, and a minor issue that fades completely when compared to the potential and greatness of the "trench" feature as such. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Functionality first, all other things are of secondary concern to us. <hr></blockquote> oh yes! looking forward to CMBB!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: SU 85, T34/85, KV 85 and IS-1 (85mm gun) were failures against Tiger and Panther, IS-2 was developed to take on Panthers and Tigers and blast the heck out of German bunkers and emplacements. 122mm HE was much more effective against structures than 85mm HE, where 85mm HE probably caused less fragmentation than 76.2mm HE. IS-2 was developed to fight German "cats" and blow up emplacements and structures. Slow rate of fire and limited ammo load are the trade-off. But a limited ammo load is not as much of a problem as it would seem if the rate of fire is very low.<hr></blockquote> I do not argue with the fact that the IS-2 turned out to perform well against german tanks, but my point remains that that was not its intended main employment. to quote from Valera's excellent site which has repeatedly been cited in this thread: (when comparing the IS-2 and it's AP performance with the Panther) Today, most tank enthusiasts are interested in the AP ability of tank guns, forgetting the HE ability. However, that is ridiculous and stupid! The IS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, i.e. a tank intended for breaking through the enemy's lines of defense. In other words, the main targets of this tank were infantry and artillery. Thus, a tank with a large gun with great HE capability was needed. History showed that the IS-2 used about 70% of its HE ammunition and only 30% of its AP ammunition. That's why the HE ability was considered more important. It is even more important when you consider that with..what, er, 28 rounds ...and most of it being HE then there isn't much left for AP *or* APBC. Which was my priginal point.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg: This is what I want to know: 1. Can they be linked together to form larger trench systems? 2. Can units move unspotted from one end to the other? 3. Will it be possible to link trenches, pillboxes and dug-in possitions together?<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Answers are "yes" to all your questions. <hr></blockquote> ok let me see if I got this right. I buy 20 of these trenches and move them right along all over the map, linked-together and all. Then, my troops can move *unspotted* from one end of the trench system to any other? wow.

I was under the impression that the IS-2 with it's 122mm had mostly HE in its ammo loadout, since -although it proved to work well in that regard - it was not meant to engage other tanks (apparently that was the job of the 85mm-equipped AFVs sich as the SU-85 and T-34/85) but to support of main assaults. Considering the generally limited ammo storage of the IS-2, there won't be a lot of slots left for either AP *or* APBC if a historical ammo loadout will be modeled. If those half a dozen rounds of AT ammo should be further split between AP and APBC I'm not sure. If CMBB will model the IS-2 with an ahistoric, substantial amount of AP/APBC ammo, it will turn the vehicle into something it historically never was meant to be - a tank-hunting tank. [ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: 4) Great armament. At the time of it's debut on the battlefield, most other AFV's were equipped with 37mm and 50mm main guns. The T-34 was armed with a good medium velocity 76.2mm gun.<hr></blockquote> an interesting but not totally inconsequential side detail is that the T-34 (and most other russian tanks at that time) used the DT as machine guns, which used a 49-jam drum (therefore usually only filled with 47 rounds), as opposed to the Pz III which used the excellent MG 34 with belted ammo.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb: Well, wouldn't the squad opt to throw grenades in first to clear the way? How is that going to be modelled? <hr></blockquote> Please read what i wrote. I did talk about the various techiques used to get inside. I did not say it is impossible to enter a house and that everybody dies doing so. I said you cannot walk in with 12 people at the same time at all locations. Your suggestion of "Handgranate-Feuerstoss" would be included in an abstracted way by the delay which I am suggesting. You are not suggesting that the squad enters the house together with the grenades, do you? See, even if they used the grenades, there would have to be a delay. Since we do not see all the various microtactics, there should be a short delay instead of all twelve walking into the house as if they continue walking on the street. Besides, who says that all doors are open? Locked doors would have to be broken open first.

Captain Wacky, I think you are confusing the regular, natural vulnerability of walking over pavement with no cover at all, with the even higher vulnerability of entering a house through the only one or two available small entry locations.

Currently, an infantry squad entering a house does this anywhere on the house's outer walls. This is obviously necessary because doors and large windows are not modeled. My point is that currently they cross into the house at no reduction of speed, they walk into the house just as if they were crossing from one open parking lot into the next. In an abstracted way, their crossing into the house simulates the entering through the door and large windows. However, a full squad of 12 soldiers doesn't enter a building just like that. Even soldiers trained to do that would have to line up and (quickly) enter one after another, or at best two at a time through a large door. Therefore, I suggest that in future versions of CM, the squads don't cross into the house at no penalty in movement speed, but rather that they are held up a little bit in the same way they are currently held up when crossing a hedge or a wall. The duration would be shorter than it is when crossing a hedge, but they would be at increased exposure during that time just the same. This would simulate - in an abstracted way - that the defender of a house (or an enemy across the street zeroing in on the entrance of the house) has an advantage of having to cover only the entrances to the house, for example in one of those large heavy buildings you can set up a machine gun or other weapons at the end of the doorway and shoot anyone that enters through there. Basically in reality you need only one guy to cover that door-entrance. Of course there are several ways for an attacker to overcome that, involving grenades, firebursts etc. (those with military background will remember town fighting drills in their training). One thing is clear however: you do not enter a house the same way you enter an open field, even when the entering is abstracted. Just an idea.

A bit late and maybe a bit short on but here goes nevertheless... My grampa was an assault engineer NCO in the Wehrmacht, albeit in the east, around Leningrad. IIRC he said that the flamethrowers were not standard issue of the engineers in the frontline (like their MP-40's and K98k's) but were handed out for certain assignments/operations/attacks/missions. Not always, but they did use them every once in a while depending on the situation. However, when they used them, they were part of a larger squad ("Stosstrupp") which had to cover them close with regular small arms (additionally to the general covering fire). They were regular part of the assault, not some third-wave cleaning-up sort of teams like it has been suggested in this thread. (btw, when I asked about the use against tanks he couldn't comment since he said that the whole area where they operated was devoid of both friendly and enemy tanks due to the terrain). Literature on the subject states that the FTs were usually used as part of a larger assault squad (as stated above) but for special occasions used as single teams. The personal armament of the FT-gunners was a p.38 - pistol. My personal opinion is that yes, they were rare, but the way they currently are modeled/handled in CM is a bit unsatisfying. Due to the short range they have, I think it would be better to have them integrated into a Flamethrower engineer squad. Because they more or less work inside a team just like satchel charges (or PzFausts; you cannot order the Panzerfaust-equipped soldier individually, you have to use the full squad forwhich the PzF is part of the equipment the squad has, and the PzF is used at discretion of the TacAI of the squad). It would be nice if they had a limited amount of shots that would be shown in the ammo screen, but they would be used at the TacAI's discretion, just like the satchel charges. The reason is that CM currently fails at showing individual infantry combat sufficiently for a satisfying recreation of the tactics with which they were used historically. Since combat engineers weren't using the same equipment for all purposes (as it is currently modeled), I would like to see several versions of engineers that can be bought. Just like in reality they would use different equipment for different missions. A mine-clearing engineer platoon would have mine-clearing equipment (in this case demo charges), a demolition engineering team would have demo charges and assorted explosives, and, eventually, a flame-thrower - equipped assault engineer platoon would have a flamethrower in two of it's three squads. Or somefink. Different engineer platoons which you can purchase at different prices. It might also be nice to have a mix within an engineer unit, with one element being equipped with satchel charges, and one with FTs, etc. Players could then employ them accordingly. The point about the handling of a squad-inherent weapon such as this flamethrower is a good one. It begs to be compared with the assault MG42 found in grman squads even as we speak. This MG42 does not seem to limit the squad's movement. However, when used as a seperate LMG42 team, it cannot run. the reasons for this are mysterious and elude me, since the only thing I could think of (both units after all have the same MG42) is ammo supply. However, when the LMG team is dry it still cannot run. So if you want to limit the squad's speed to that of the then included flamethrower I say be it. Not a problem. I do not want the inclusion because I want to boost survivability, but because the use of a flamethrower happened in small-unit tactics within the assaulting enginner squad which cannot be recreated in CM with it's abstraction. Unlike, for example, Panzerschreck or HMG teams, which had their own purpose and acted as individual teams outside an infantry squad, the flamethrowers were an integral part of the assaulting engineer teams. Btw I cannot comment on american or british/commonwealth FT tactics, and my opinions above apply only to german FT teams. I do not say that CM is broken, and I'm not even sure if I am *asking* for a change in the FT teams because I'm not an advocate of them. You *can* use them now, you are discouraged to do so which is also generally ok because they *were* the exception, however I still think they are a bit overpriced. The same usage-discouragement through pircing does apparently not apply to the Jagdtiger, Flammhetzer, the american T8 et cetera. because they didn't operate on their own, I personally think they would be handled better within the TacAI of an assault engineer squad. addendum: Steve said that <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>First of all, if the FT was integrated then aproximately 1/3 or 1/4th (depending on formation and year) of the Platoon's men would not be able to provide covering fire wihout risking the FT.<hr></blockquote> which is exactly my point, well, er, more orless. The covering and employment of the FT would happen on such a closely interconnected manner within the squad that the FT has to be part of that squad. they would not operate on their own and be covered by the seperate other suqads, but they would work as part of a larger Stosstrupp squad.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker: I hope that no one will ask for Sondereinsatzkommandos...<hr></blockquote> wrong terminology. S.E.K. are today's german police SWAT - teams.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: To use them you almost have to have 2 of the squads pin the enemy target squad, and advance the flamethrower team up once the enemy squad is pinned. Use the third squad to screen the flamethrower from attack while it moves.<hr></blockquote> once I have done all that there is little need left for the flamethrower.

I tried a test at 300m. ten Panther G vs ten Churchill VIII, all regular. situated in ten seperated firing lanes, so that they would be facing each other one on one. Redwolf is right, at 300m the Churchills die like flies when hit by the 7.5cm/L70. I broke off after three tests since the results seemed convincing enough. test #1 Panthers dead: 2 Churchills dead: 9 test #2 Panthers dead: 4 Churchills dead: 6 test #1 Panthers dead: 3 Churchills dead: 8 (totals are more than ten because in some instances the tanks would kill each other simultaneously) There you are. 9:23 in favor of the Panthers. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

why don't you post a picture of what the hell you are talking about? In your situation I am sure a picture is worth a thousand words, and would illustrate to the interested parties what it is you are describing.

Rexford, in the original post in this thread, did the test you are referring to take into account the face-hardening of *armor* as opposed to regular homogenous steel plates? *armor* is especially tough on the surface due to the treatment the surface area gets - this effect does not work inside the armor plate. I don't know if you have personally worked with metal before, but remember when you saw/cut through face-hardened steel, it is very tough on the surface but once you get beneath that it is **much** softer? Therefore, could it be that your statement The inferiority of two 1.5" plates to a single 3" plate was related to the ease with which material on or near the surface of plates can be moved. Two 1.5" plates in contact have considerably more surface area than a single 3" plate, leading to less penetration resistance. and the conclusion that massive material is superior than same thickness in layers should be toned down for *armor*, for the reasons that the thicker the armor the harder it is to create it without faults in the first place and the fact that in layered armor the face hardening factor is multiplied ? I might be way off, those are just some thoughts, curious to hear what you think. [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AndrewTF: Well, that is a problem. The rear fender texture repeats itself on both the inside and the front of the fender. I fixed it in the 3rd picture by changing the camera angle when I took the screenshot! I will try repositioning the unit markings to the upper part of the fender by incorporating them into the BMP that depicts the top of the vehicle. I did this for the bridging disk on the front, so it may work ok, but with a little distortion.<hr></blockquote> another idea: have you thought about dirtying the unit markins so much that when they are repeated on the inside of the wheel well they are not as obvious as the bright red fresh markings? not sure, obviously it doesn't *eliminate* the problem, but mabe it would lessen it a bit. btw, great work on BOTH the Daimler and the Archer, congrats+thanks to both of you.

In your first picture comparison.jpg it seems the image on the fender/mudguard is used for the inside as well. How did you work around that in the later pictures (which don't seem to suffer from that)??

yes, it's either hull down or not, there are (unfortunately) no grey shades inbetween.

kick.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valve28: web page<hr></blockquote> Das Dokument konnte nicht gefunden werden. Bitte überprüfen Sie Ihren URL Hinweis : Bei Dateinamen wird auf Groß- und Kleinschreibung unterschieden We are sorry, but the private homepage server could not find the file you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct. Telekom - die machen das.

on the way.

you forgot the Pz IV (all models) - do not expose to sunlight or fresh air.