M Hofbauer

Germanboy beat me to it. To elaborate from there - the reason the PzF and the RPzB even existed is the poor state the german army was in. Their existance is proof of the chronic shortcoming of the german military in the AT department. They started the war with insufficient AT means (at that time simply insufficient capable AT guns and inefficient AT rifles), and the situation deteriorated from there. Late in the war, the german footsoldier had to make up for the vast disproportion in armor production (esp. on the east front) by facing down armor himself if he wanted to do anything about the T-34s swarming around.

I like the one who replaces that ugly british FO picture. not sure about them new startscreens, though. CMBO neither features medics nor do AFVs block fire so that anybody could take cover behind a tank.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sergei: It works perfectly, I just tested it with conscript Volksturm against Crack US Army, and of course the Finnish conscripts won.<hr></blockquote> now that was a bit easy and an unfair setup for the allies. Now, to really test the quality of your non-ethnic finns you should throw a finnmod Kübelwagen against a company of crack Pershings. In such a setup, ethnic Überfinns would have a fit of laughter at the pathetic enemy force while they unpack their toothpicks from the glove compartment...

hmm, well that Rheinland action wasn't really fought all along OOB and TO&E, and was far from what the german command had in mind for their Fallsch.-Jäger ( ) ... it was not very representative to extrapolate it onto the whole FJ branch and label it as an arm with gratuitous artillery by default and during the whole war. IIRC, not sure, but wasn't one reason for the widespread use of inherent 120mm mortars within the FJ the notoric lack of artillery support?

Late war FJ had their own StuGs. http://www.ww2.dk/ground/goering.html FWIW.

maybe the chance of recovery which works for AFVs inbetween battles of an OP also appliesto gun pieces.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: What about the rear-facing driver? Does the CMBO drive faster in reverse than other vehicles and/or does it see better to the rear?<hr></blockquote> yes FWIW

(just passing by) just for the record, IIRC it was Cunningham ("RMC") who initially found this out, not me.

commendable! beautiful!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Heres another one of the landing zone creation value of these toys. Keep in mind these trees are about 50 ft or more tall.<hr></blockquote> What trees ?

Is that report referring to the Tiger I or Tiger II (aka Königstiger, IVB)? If it's referring to the slab-sided Tiger I no wonder. Steve, I see your points but I think the main problem of poor übertank performance lies elsewhere. Which is, that apart from that technical minutiae (plate quality, allied AP performance of some weapons etc. pp.; for example, the hollow charge munitions have *specific* armor penetration capabilities which are not only results of diameter; you seem to equate diameter with AP performance, which is generally true, but then it also depends a lot on the design of the shaped charge itself) CMBO does not allow them to successfully perform in the long-range standoff gunnery which they preferred so much (and which they preferred historically). Partly due to terrain, conceded, but mostly because the CMBO ballistics/to-hit formula is tailored for the close fighting below half a mile and does not accurately represent true conditions for long-range engagements, nor gun/optics characteristics (a 37mm on a Greyhound is better than a PzIV's 7.5cm KwK and just about as accurate as a Nashorn's 88mm, apparently due to accuracy being based on Vo (??)). Anyway, all this just IMHO. It's still a damn fine game. Excuse me but I gotta get back to playing it

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: BTW, can anyone identify this plane? I've been asking around but so far no one had been able to ID it. Michael<hr></blockquote> oh, thatone's easy. going by the looks it's obviously a Weihe, official designation Focke-Wulf Fw58 IIRC. roughly in the same class as for example the Anson, it was a liasion, training and ambulance (medevac) aircraft also used as a testbed for equipment.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: quote: Originally posted by Hanns: Anyone offhand know the weight of the Mk82 "Daiseycutter"? I want to say it's 26,000 lbs but my memory is probably faulty. 15,000 lbs.<hr></blockquote> beware, "Mk82"-bomb is not synonymous with "BLU82"-bomb. "Mk82" refers to the 500-pound (nominal weight) version of the Mk80 low-drag bomb series developed by Douglas (Mk81 = 250lb, Mk82 = 500lb, Mk83 = 1,000lb and Mk84 = 2,000lb). The Mk82 is the most numerous and wide-spread one. Subversions with different nose, fuze and tail fin assemblies create the Mk82 Snakeye (retarded), Mk82 daisy cutter (nose probe fuze) or Mk82 Paveway laser guided bomb. the BLU-82 which we are talking about here is a specialty weapon in a completely different class. btw, the (current) FAEs have the respective designations of BLU-73, BLU-76,and the latest designs, the BLU-95 and BLU-96. again, while both are in the blast class of weapons, the BLU-82 is not a FAE but an HCLC HE-bomb. I could give you intrinsic details on all these weapons but my references are nowhere to be found (I'm currently moving).

first, I see that reuters has deteriorated in niveau so much that they can't even spell right anymore ("milles"). second, the term "daisy cutter" is unspecific and has been around for considerable time. Up until now it usually referred to the fuze extension in combination with the Mk 80 series bombs (preferrably the Mk82)(used gratuitously in the Vietnam war). Specifically, it was the M904 fuze extender that earned a bomb fitted with it the name "daisy cutter". Incidentally, it is said M904 fuze extender which is fitted to the BLU-82 and probably lead to giving it the "daisy cutter" nickname. Of course, such a catchy term easily sticks with the media. However, the M904 (working on the simple physical principle of extending the fuze in front of the the bomb's body) shown in the Reuters sketch is rarely in use anymore and had been replaced by a more modern proximity fuze, the FMU-113 proximity fuze (which looks more like a fat knob on the bomb's front), as far back as the Gulf War 1991. third, no, it's not a FAE weapon, and although it also relies on blast effect, FAEs are even nastier. btw, eleven BLU-82s had been dropped in the Gulf War. the current use of these weapons shows one thing for sure: since they are dropped by MC-130E's, you can only employ these when you have a totally suppressed, inactive and defenseless enemy. I guess I don'T have to elaborate opn what even a medium-threat AA environment would do to a Hercules.

the change of ammo boxes is already accounted for in the ammo counter. the ammo counter represents total ammo for the flex MG, including additional ammo boxes stored elsewhere. to compare, why do you think the MG 42 on a SdKfz 251 has an ammo counter of 57 when actually it had a total of 2,100 (and more) single rounds of ammo for the MG.

I think it is because of the same reason that buttoned (incl. tanks that lost a crewmember and therefore remain buttoned) tanks can't use their flexible/AA MGs. for some reason CMBO handles both the bren's Bren and the HT's MG just like one of those flexible MGs mounted outside tanks. the reason why the Bren MG carrier gets a "hull down - can't fire MG" message might be because it doesn't have a turret. in conclusio, CMBO's Bren MG carrier sugffers from an unfortunate combination of hull machinegun in terms of hull down usage restriction and flexible MG characteristics in terms of needing exposed crewmen to operate it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Diceman: One thing I wonder though, does CM take into account the possibility of hitting the side plateof many turret designs from the front, and does it recognize the sharp angle sush a shot would have? If not will CMBB model front hits to this detail?<hr></blockquote> Q #1: no, CM does not account for this. the 3-D models used for the mathematic hit calculation resemble the generic grey sound contact marker tank symbol more than anything else. Q #2: I do not know.

hehe, I would have restrained myself, but with the thread topic I can't help myself to observe that seeing the pictures, it becomes obvious to me how the tripod would considerably enlarge ammo capacity and astonishingly facilitate barrel change and therefore completely alleviate the Bren's main drawbacks...

I really really like it! Commendable! Splendid! I am very inclined to use it. PDF, the two steel (non-rubber-rimmed) roadwheel pairs to the front is probably a tribute to the nose-heavy design, especially of the JPz IV/70. The pressure/strain on the front roadwheels was excessive, rubber wheels would have worn off faster than you can spell Abnutzungserscheinung, and the vehicle generally maneuvered very poorly (hence the nickname "Guderian's duck").

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson: Well, does it not? The contents is great, but the looks... For instance, when I'm browsing a topic I would like to see it more full-screen, instead of having the "Battlefront"-banner on top.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I go to the board via direct access. No frames for me. My browser hates frames, btw. Tends to belly up, y'know. I never understood why people are so frame-ish.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: When looking at the Germans the VG has always been belittled. But was their supposed ineffectivness due to the lack of training or was it attributable to something else (like poor or fragile morale) ? These formations were comprised of young boys and old men. But since the early 1930's there had been various government schemes that were nothing more than military training in disguise. That would mean that they all were for all intents and purposes troops who had undergone basic training similar to the regular conscipts. The quality of the troops inside a unit was uneven. They were out of shape and untested in combat (do WWI veterans apply ?). They had also been subjected for years to the demoralizing effects of the Allied bombing campaign more than the frontline troops (who had suffered reverses but they were not helpless bystanders).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> are you sure you are not confusing Volksgrenadier with Volkssturm?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: - MG42's and Panthers - much better than the Allied equivalents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> oh how very wrong you are! apparently you have been misled to this very wrong impression by playing CM, because BTS despiccably failed to model the ground-breaking, incredible "scourge of the german army" tripod-Bren, and CMBO lacks the funnies and therefore doesn't show how pairs of Churchills carrying fascines successfully took on whole companies of Panthers for breakfast.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Jon, Did you ever try to use the Hide command with tanks in any of your games? Don't. Unless of course you want to have your tank get shot and and not return fire, because currently, thats about the only thing the Hide command does for AFV's. As for hiding the AFV's behind terrain, it is of course a logical notion, but its besides the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I once played a scenario in which I was given a SdKfz 251 which was placed in a wood tile. Since I couldn't move it I decided to *hide* it. The attacking american infantry and tanks didn't detect it until they were almost upon it. To me it seemed that the "hide" command in combination with the wood terrain for some unexplainable reason (afv's shouldbn't be in woods in the first place so the game really wouldn't have to provide for this) gave the AFV a considerable concealment boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Oh, and by jiggering around with the dates you can get VS whenever you want (same method works to get NGS after July)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> in *CM*, yes, but I was talking about *reality*. VS right up there with Overlord is a bug I pointed out long ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: (...)One way to depict this in CM is to use a lot of Volksturm troops in battles set in that period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> keep in mind that when the article talks about August then Volkssturm is not an option. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner: Our infantry platoons could not match the firepower of the MG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> apparently they forgot to use the tripods for their Brens. now it dawns on me: WW II could have been over in fall ("autumn") 1944 if those british infantry platoons hadn't forgotten their bren-tripods stashed away in the trucks.