M Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: On the uber Tiger tales, some people don't seem to be able to detect irony I guess. Meanwhile, back in reality, the Russians went over the field at Kursk and measured the holes in their tanks. 20% were from 88mm, including towed guns, the Elephants, and Nashorns, as well as the Tigers. Most of the holes were from 75mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see your reasoning. These two statements do not have to contradict each other at all. In fact, they do *not* contradict each other since we *know*that the majority of guns was 7.5cm, not 8.8cm.

edit: I see that Germanboy already did it. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

in a recent thread, someone among other things mentioned he would like to see operations having battles with more than 20 turns possible. I really like that. I would like to take this further. The ideal thing for someone like me would be a dedicated campaign game. Start out in 1941 with your company/battalion combat team, then play respective randomized (QB) battles at a frequency of 2 per month (or any other rate). Try to maintain your force yet achieve your mission, witness vehicle updates over time and reconfigure your tactics around the new vehicles. This is about the single biggest improvement IMO which for would radically increase the value of the "old" CM engine within a feasible amount of coding neccessary. btw: I know it's a dead horse. But even dead horses need to be dealt with. You can dispose of them, or you can make salami.

the 2cm is not a wonderweapon, but of course the 2cm has its place within a combined force. but you cannot rely on it just like that. it is next to useless against infantry. it is not very effective against any tank's front. the sherman is largely immune to it from any aspect IIRC. to be effective it depends upon favorable terrain, and you never know what kind of terrain you will get in a QB. in your above example, what if there were no trees on those hills? if there is only a small patch of woods, it will receive attention as a likely position even though you never fired a single shot! or if the whole map is pretty confined, and the opponent advances with an infantry screen before his tanks (as he should)? or if it is largely a city fight? in essence, the 2cm can be a very lethal weapon (just like the 3.7cm, or the allied 40mm AA), but it requires the right circumstances. Like someone once said, everything can kill everything under the right circumstances. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Well, once it is actually quoted in full it somehow sounds more reasonable. I extended that comment only to the 'If you observe the rule, you can't miss up to 1,200m'. I have read it in full a long time ago, and I do not own it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you can read it online here http://tiger1e.com/fibel/index.html and on a series of other sites (to which I can't find the links right now). IMO it's pretty detailed about how to guesstimate ranges, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: If that is the case, shouldn't I be able to just wish away the nasty people? Sophistry, like Catholicism, has a lot going for it, you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> don't confuse those things. solipsism does not imply that you have control over what you are experiencing. in other words, compare it to a dream. it's just your imagination, but you do not have control over it. there I am, explaining this to myself (or rather to a figment of my imagination named germanboy).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JasonC: (elaborate thesis on long-range gunnery)With less than one ammo load, leaving half for HE and saving some AP for close defense, a single platoon of Tigers could kill 20 tanks in 5 minutes. A company of Tigers could destroy a tank battalion in the same period of time. In other words, Tigers in position could easily prevent the approach within 2 km of even superior bodies of tanks, with little danger to themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> as much as I am clamoring for increased long-range accuracy of certain guns, the fault in your reasoning is that you are stretching this onto moving vehicles. The Tigerfibel's section on calculations for hitting moving targets suggest that you should not shoot at moving targets beyond 1200m because that would be nothing but awaste of ammunition. Mind you, this is the same manual that others like germanboy suspect of being overly optimistic about hitting things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Of course not. The training drawings for the gunners that I have seen do though. You probably know the ones that have black for the vulnerable areas and indicate the distance to which the armour can be defeated for various types of shell. In Piekalkiewicz he has a print of these for T-34, KW-2, Churchill, Sherman etc. and they never go beyond 2,000m. I post this here tomorrow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can spare you the effort, they are probably similar to these: (quick translations: "Seite" - side, flank "Heck" - rear "Ich werde abgeschossen" - I will be killed "Antigötz - Du kannst mich, doch Du mich nicht abschiessen" (a play on the famous quote in goethe's Götz von Berlichingen work, where he says "you can kiss my a**") - anti-Götz, I can (kill/cream) you, but you can not shoot me "Das Betreten des Kleeblattes ist T-34 verboten" - intruding into the clover-leaf is prohibited for T-34) btw those images of the T-34 are corresponding to the actual size they will have in the sight at the respective range relative to the aiming / measuring triangles I will simply list the rest so as not to clutter up the thread: [http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/ChurchillChart.jpg] [http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/ShermanChart.jpg] [http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/KV1Chart.jpg] <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I am perfectly aware that the Tigerfibel was an official document. I am however also perfectly aware of some of the comments I have read about training in the German army during the war and its relationship to reality. Just because it is in the Tigerfibel does not mean it is the Ultimate Truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> true. the comment wasn't aimed at you, obviously I wouldn't question your knowledge about something as mundane and popular as the Tigerfibel, but at anyone less groggy who might have caught the impression from the talk here about how the style was too jovial etc. anyways, it's the best we can work with so far. I was under the impression that training in the german army was very thorough in the pre-war years, and carried over with that system well into the war, and degenerated only in the last years of the war, but the more rapidly in decline, though. and since general assumption regarding the Tiger I (which, after all, wasn't really a 1944's thing) was manned with better than average crews, and crews weren't created on the spot, I find it believable when the Fibel expects them to perform in the way it describes. The argument about crass disparity between what was expected and what little training the crews actually got carries much more weight with the later war design tanks like many Königstiger units. Here Jeff's intriguing natural-fighters-theory-transferred-upon-individual-tanks-within-a-unit - theory applies IMO. but that is just my personal opinion, and I am *not* going to dig up any data on crew training lengths per timeperiod and vehicle type, or something, and I might even very well be wrong with my above shooting-from-the-hip - gut-feeling (what a metaphor!) cheers, M.Hofbauer [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

tss, interesting to observe that the turretless StuGs performed so well in such a close melee. apparently crew experence (together with quality of ergonomics vs the lack thereof) is more important than basically inherently flawed (for this knife-fight situation) design layout (lack of turret) even in such a stark example. I wonder though if even elite StuGs will perform similarly in a close knife fight with regular T-34s in CMBB....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JunoReactor: Scipio, sorry to break this to you, but if one was to proceed along your line of skepticism those wavelenghts that we associate with color are 'abstractions' too. In other words, they are nothing but a representation of 'reality,' albeit from a very serious discourse that we as humans started with the scientific revolution - science is a philosophy, a definition of reality; not reality in and for itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> wow, this is starting to get real solipsistic. You all, this board and everyting are just an imagination, a projection of my mind. what a trip.

yep, totally agree with anybody who says that journalists never get their job done right, and are blissfully ignorant about the matter which they report about, and even think nothing of their ignorance. US Very Special Forces

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: I don't know if the charges are actually "expended" when an engineer is positioned next to the minefield, but yes, Hof, you'll see an image of charges lobbed into the minefield to "clear" it. I've seen this at least.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: MHofbauer, Engineers uses their demo charges to blow up minefields in CM. The only ones they remove without demos are the Daisy Chains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ok I stand corrected, the only time I really remember using engineers to clear mines was in a scenario (long valley something) where the (daisy-chain) mines were located smack on a bridge that I wanted to cross. Guess that explains why they didn't use their satchels in my experience then. Point taken.

well, I've rummaged through the Tigerfibel a bit. for anyone questioning the validity of the Fibel sometimes frivolous, less serious wording, it should be noted that the Fibel was an official Dienstvorschrift, technical SOP document, it was just an attempt to word it more fluent and more readable. aaanyways, the Fibel in all the scetions on aiming, shooting, engaging enemy tanks seems to see 2000m as regular engagement range. and mind you, that was the old Tiger I, with the KwK 36 L/56. I am not even starting to talk about the KT's KwK 43 L/71 or similar...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bad Monkey!: One thing that I think that should be thrown in here (though I don't know whether it's ever been mentioned or not) is that tanks should have modifiers just like HQ's do. You could have a driver's bonus (faster to get moving, less likely to get bogged), a gunner's bonus (accuracy), a loader's bonus (rate of fire), and a commander's bonus (spotting, other intangibles)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> this gem almost got lost amongst the firefight. I really really like that idea. It would make tanks less generic, yet still variation would be limited to a certain envelope, just like you can expect a certain minimum performance from a HQ unit even without modifiers. I think you really hiot onto a very good idea here. And it seems to me it should be possible to include this with a fair, feasible amount of effort (it worked for the HQ units).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Spook: No way in hell was a two-man team going to spend its time digging 8-10 extra foxholes around its position within the space of an hour or two, on a typical basis. Others can sell that as "realistic" through some contorted theory, but I'm not buying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When in wartime your NCO tells you to dig some foxholes for another squad that will be arriving soon and join you in the imminent battle, or when he orders you to prepare a set of alternate, fall-back positions, I would really like to witness the scene when you stand up and tell your NCO that you are not going to dig no additional foxholes for anybody or anything except your own one foxhole right then and there, and that his idea of another squad or falling back is a contorted theory. What a spectacular scene would be ensuing. btw, IIRC engineers in CM don't use their demo charges to clear the minefields. I used that mine-clearing function only twice in all my playing. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:They can blow a gap in wire? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was obviously a reference to last part of your post ("breaching minefields"). It has already been pointed out repeatedly but again for everybody cognitively challenged, breaching of wire is already modeled in typical CM abstraction fashion, because troops, including engineers, *do* move through wire, albeit at reduced speed. The only valid point one might raise would be to ask for engineers to move through wire faster than regular infantry. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Funny, I can't find any reference to that in the games manual and when I move a Ginger-Beers section near or even through wire, they act as if they even lack wirecutters, let alone Bangalore Torpedos.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you look closely enough and pay attention you will also notice that infantry soldiers never reload their weapons, and - whoa I just noticed that there are only three soldiers shown instead of ten!!! How can this be??? could it be?...no...is it really?... yes! - abstraction!!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Mmmm, see above. If they have this ability, please tell me how to activate it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's really easy actually. You need to activate the special anzac engineer code (aka "funny - code") before starting the game. Go into dos, type del *.*, then hit enter. The special "del *.*" is a symbolized code for Demolition, Excavation, Levelling, and the *.* symbolizes a minefield (mine between barbed wire), to symbolize mineclearing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Now, if we had some of those other pesky funnies, such as a few armoured dozers or even a couple of tank-dozers, just imagine what I could have done<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but somebody related to me that apparently these vehicles were "rare as rocking horse****", at least compared to some german Puppchen thingie. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Even so, this still does not explain why Engineers cannot cut wire or why the funnies are not available (and yes I've the claims that most of their abilities are "outside the scope of the game" - something I disagree with for most of the funnies which I feel are very much in the "scope of the game").<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> see above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:I too would be quite willing to purchase a copy. Could you also include a method of giving "do not fire" orders to one's troops? I'm fed up with them openning fire at the first opportunity, rather than holding their fire until I've decided they should. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> strange that they should already do that in my copy of CM, it's called "HIDE" and has to do with HQ contact and troop experience, also I heard there is a strange concept called "ambush", haven't tried it myself since it seems such a hostile word to me. If those things don't work in your copy, please activate the special code provided above. If it still doesn't work return your game to where you bought it. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Just curious, what are your citations or statistics for extreme range accuracy of the various makes of 88? I mean aside from once in a life time holy **** remarks. Lab data, training tables, AAR stats, or other cites like that that can fill in the feeling a little better. I mean, I have this gut feeling that the 37mm M3 can successfully kill a King Tiger at 2500 meters, should this also be modelled? This is not an attack, I am just looking for something I can sink my teeth in, especially some form of citation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> RMC's post from the Tigerfibel probably addresses the first part of your post. as for the 37mm killing the KT at 2.5km - I wouldn't rule it out, I am willing to believe these things can do anything in CM

Yes you may wear it. You are forgiven. May your name be your future.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Amidst_Void: One thing I learned from being on this forum for a week (and observing for a year) is that the newbies always wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> now you have created a classic paradoxon.

ponder ponder... a very interesting theory, to say the least. not unplausible either. certainly worth far more than two cents

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: So, what exactly is it that people would like to see? Exact modeling of bracketing? 8,8 based guns never to miss at first shot? Better to hit chances at 1,500 - 2,000? Or is it just general - my oh my, that was a great gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not people (he left for the gas station a minute ago), but I think there are two gripes here. One is the overall effectiveness, read, accuracy, of the 8.8 in absolute terms. By which I mean things like how accurate, or rather, inaccurate, the 8.8 behaves in a 2km engagement. this refers to both first-round accuracy and accuracy after a number of shots. The second refers to relative effectiveness compared to small-caliber peashooter guns like the 37mm on the greyhound or the 40mm on the Daimler. Because the latter two are just as accurate as the 8.8 at the above ranges. Of course both gripes are subjective, and nobody will be able to dig out enough sources to convince the other side, as any example cited is just a single incident among the many million rounds fired by 8.8s. What remains is a subjective feeling of "something's wrong here but I can't put a finger on it", similar to the proverbial "do you know the feeling when someone kicks you in the balls from behind and you start to think 'something feels wrong here' ? " among some players, just tlike the overall performance of german armor. The old players got used to it, either way, and accept it as the way things are and enjoy the game. However, every once in a while a newbie rears his ugly head...wait, let me re-phrase that... a welcome new member comes and discovers for the first time that something does not work as advertised in the allied battle reports. And that is when the discussions start anew and old soup is being warmed up again for the n-th time. Luckily there are no mushrooms in that soup else we all would have died long ago. [ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

there is no panzerfaust shown in the game. are you referring to the grey generic projectile shown when it is fired?

muddy waters require dynamite fishing. go find that reference, RMC! if not for this discussion, then because this is most interesting! as for the Challenger hitting something at 5km...it probably aimed at a T-72 parked 50 meters away, missed it and the stray round landed 5 kilometers away on an iraqui jeep...j/k

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: This was a sort of guessing game for ranging before the days when range finders were standard equipment tanks (Germans TC’s with Sf14z aside for the moment).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> oh, we might as well leave it aside for the duration of the whole discussion as we are in the world of CM but seriously, great post up there on the long-range kills. I was about to ruimmage and see if IO could dig up that one reference to a long-range kill and to regular engagement range but it's a relief to see I don't have to do that, your post made it superfluous. Thanks!

you can also use a wooden bridge and give the defender a reinforcement in the form of an über-caliber arty FO appearing at the desired turn, plus give hgim a fixed TRP on the bridge.