M Hofbauer

Now, to use a PzF 100 penetration as an example is just not fair The hollow charge warhead of the Panzerfaust with a penetration of way over 200mm will slice through anything. What the gentleman was probably asking for with his "no penetrations on a KT" was a reference to a Königstiger being taken out from the front as a regular hit, such as they occur in CM, *not* weak spot hits, *not* post-battle tests involving Panzerfausts, and *not* some Russians using a KT as a hard target on the firing range. Now, *personally*, I have come to peace with CM's portrayal of the tank batles, but indeed a strange doubt back in the subconscious depths of the brain remains as to the abysmal performance of german armor when compared to what we had learned pre-CM from WWII literature and battle reports. I know I can't put a finger onto it. All I know is that I prefer american tanks most of the time over german ones. Maybe part of this *is* because combat in CM does take place at very close ranges. OTOH, when you are putting tanks at ranges in excess of 750m in CM, they won't hit anything at all. Larger guns at that range do not seem to enjoy the inherent advantage in accuracy they have at such ranges, a 37mm hits just the same or better, and optics are not really taken into account. To put it into simple words, in CM the Nashorn sucks, it sucks bad, and it sucks so bad one wonders why these things were ever built. sorry, getting late, not meant as a flame. [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Given that Bailey bridges were/are "the envy of the civilised world" in terms of quick to erect, semi-permanent bridging, what would be the point of fooling about with facsines, bobbins, and the rest of the funnies if they weren't intended to be used under fire? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why were fascines used at all when there are the Bailey bridges ? - Maybe because it is a little awkward to erect a Bailey bridge just to cross a small AT ditch? [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Not if you use new Vickers non-bio 2pdr AT tablets you won't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you mean the british PzIV-Viagra ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no it is not irrelevant since it makes your explanation questionable some guy who went elsewhere to pick Gänseblümchen might be incap for game purposes, but he is *not* a casualty after the battle, neither wounded nor dead, to the contrary, he shows up healthy&happy, smiling and with a bouquet of daisies.

your experience is not unusual at all, rather it is what should be expected: the 50cal can kill the Puma from any aspect, look at the stats. Even from the front, I think it was the lower hull section which makes the Puma vulnerable to the 50cal even from the front. I remember there was a discussion back then about the lower hull section armor thickness being different in the 234/1, 234/2 and 234/3. Only one, either the 2cm or the 7.5cm stub, can't remember which, has the thicker lower hullsection that makes the vehicle .50cal-proof from the front. IIRC then that was a data glitch because the Puma was supposed to have the thicker lower hull section as well. some fink like that.

LOL...oh yes, you won't have that problem of gun hits with an PzIV... But then again, you will have the problem of immediately losing your Pz IV when exposing it to fresh air or direct sunlight

Thanks Bill for the elaborate response!! I guess it really depends on personal playing style. Since I am more of a tentative player, hesitating to take chances and casualties, it usually takes me longer to get somewhere compared to everybody else. Now I am used to that. The thought about the short scenarios occurred to me after playing a very nice scenario of yours, "Death of Titans" IIRC. It played well, and indeed, as you described above, action started soon and lasted in a very short but fun-filled battle. The problem was that the AI didn't get along too well with the 25-turn limit. As suggested I was playing the germans against the AI, and at the end of the battle, I *did* have lost most of my tanks, the problem was that I still won because the AI just didn't get anywhere near the further VLs, and still had almost half of his tanks left. So, in this concrete example, it was a bit disappointing to have the battle cut-off right there, and my victory tasted a bit strange, because I was wondering how my surviving Panther and Tiger would have fared against all the british tanks still out there had the scenario lasted a bit longer. OTOH, you are right about short scenarios being a nice way of doing a quick battle in one session. That does have it's RealLife - advantages, no doubt. sincerely, M.Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny_ Bunny: Could someone tell me how to add Victory Flags to a created scenario map ? Thx :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> set the number of big and small VL flags you want the scenario to have in the PARAMETERS, then go to MAP - PREVIEW and place them just like you place the units.

well I have been looking for these vehicles as well...so I was very happy about your link...the problem is, that site doesn't work for me. Maybe it's due to my NN 4.5 but I don't get anywhere near such mods on that site...?!

Wild Bill, just a question out of interest, since as a matter of personal taste I personally like longer scenarios better: why do you always make your scenarios so short? (absolutely no offense or anything meant)

A good look at some of the problems inherent in the current infantry model. Not the first look, but a good one nevertheless. And very commendable ideas to handle some of the problems and improve the model within realistic development/engine constraints. Overall, very commendable IMHO. Hofbauer ---------- Proud holder of the Gillette repeatedly used single-use groomknife, trophy for early-morning bathroom combat

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AD: There are lurkers... and then there are the true lurkers. The few, the proud, the ancient junior members....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> that combination of member number and member status is just... Impressive. I mean it.

I agree with the notion of searching italian players. Somehow they always try to smuggle a handgun or a knife into QBs or even tournaments. - J/K!!

starting a thread is inconsistent with the definition of lurker...!? [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

From Valera's excellent website: (quote)There are some accounts when a single KV-1 tank delayed whole German armies for days. A single KV-1 made a stand near a road not far from Ostrov (Baltic states) and delayed the whole German tank army. The battle casualties: 7 German tanks, an anti-tank battery, one 88 mm AA-gun and all it crew, 4 halftracks "Hanomag", and 12 trucks. This tank was destroyed on the next day with German 88 mm AA-gun. The KV-1 tank could be destroyed only with 88 mm heavy AA-guns or with 105 mm howitzers. The 105 mm howitzer couldn't penetrate the KV's armor but could immobilize it with a track hit. However, most KV's weren't destroyed by enemy, they were lost because of technical failures and abandoned by their crews because of a lack of repair time. Here is a report from the commander of the 10th Tank Division, 15th Mechanized Corps: "We have lost 56 tanks in total (of 63 tanks - Valera) where 11 tanks were knocked out in battle, 11 lost without a trace, and 34 were abandoned by their crews due to technical failures". In the 8th Tank Division, 43 tanks (of 50 tanks total) were lost, where 13 were destroyed in battles, 2 sunk in swamp, and 28 were abandoned due to breakdowns.(end quote) as we can see it is a bit like the story of the late war german heavies. I'll see if I can dig up my german AT Gun unit diaries from early eastern front engagements to see what they say on the matter, however these are currently stacked away. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

methinks most KVs were not destroyed in CM-type engagements but broke down mechanically, were abandoned, or isolated and destroyed, you know, the kind of close assault at night by engineers with charges, or setting up some 8.8 Flak 18/36 pieces (as hinted by JasonC).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MBT AP FFS: Perhaps the increasing weight of evidence and argument is finally penetrating your smug exterior?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ! what evidence? where?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from above would increase dramatically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTFL....

easy there Slap. lets do first things first, and get the basics right, befiore we move on to more complicated stuff: right now Cauldron is still trying to work out exactly who won WW II. btw: nitpick about your impressive calculation on ww2 literature: did you take into account the massive amount of non-english literature, and account for the fact that there are many personal memories and unit diaries which aren't often referred in major book lists? If not, mind you this then makes Cauldron's 80%-feat even more impressive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I may just take up the nettle on that one, like how did they come up with their numbers exactly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well ok you got me there. I don't know anything but what was written in that greek army press release I reproduced here unedited. I can only assume they would arrive at these numbers by checking certain criteria which they felt representative and important w/r/t the intended employment of these MBTs in the greek army, therefore apart from the fact that I suspect they would do these tests to have a workable result I cannot offer anything. The other fact however is that noone outside the UK really wants the Challenger. I mean, no other country. Apparently it's not even cheap in relation to its slightly suboptimal performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: You, however attempted to paint it as a disaster waiting to happen. Such hyperbole, Herr Hofbauer!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> haha says who? tu quoque, kettle! who was the one coming in here roving about how the funnies were oh so innumerable compared to the blue Mauritius - Puppchen? I think it was Mr. Hyperbole MBT AP himself who did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: I believe I posted quite a good link to "numbers", did you follow and read it, Mr.Slapdragon? One suspects not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That link shows numbers which are nowhere near to be even in the same dimension of the Puppchen figures, and if anything represent a total embarrassing smack in your face re. your preposterous original statement. You are still due to deliver any facts to *support* your original statement (otherwise there's only two choices left on why you made your original statement - either it was stupidity or just a blatant lie), not facts that support *my* view. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: BTS chose not to include obstacles or even water tiles narrower than 20 metres. I think that was foolish of them but its their choice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> EXACTLY. It is *their* choice. As Germanboy pointed out, and numerous people repeatedly before him, it's the way the game *is*, it will *not* change - and for good reason, I might add. And that is that. RMC, I think it was called Shir Iran or somefink. I think shir might mean something like lion. [edited due to my ongoing battle with UBB] [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

hey Mr Cauldron, why the need to start another thread on this thing? Isn't it the Puppchen what you are referring to with your mysterious "Peschwar" reference in the other thread started by you? btw, I didn't know 80% of WW II literature was revisionist. I'm shocked.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Might be a feature to add to all future CM games - familiarity beforehand. Then during the setup phase, you set your troops up, and afterwards, the terrain outset your setup area is altered by a varying degree - to reflect the accuracy of your maps and skill of your reconaissance troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now THATs an interesting idea, the first really constructive-creative post in a long time, now after all something good might come out of this thread after all.

If we had the faintest idea what you are talking about then we might actually be able to help you.

PDF, Leclerc is an excellent improvement over the AMX-30 (which the brits probably wouldn't even call a tank but a light reconnaisance asset); however - an autoloader with only 22 rounds of 8 types? Mr "Beazley", <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, you have access to the actual armour penetrations of these weapons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are confidential. If I told you i would have to kill you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd suggest that in reality, as there is nothing which has the capability to withstand even the shorter barrelled 120mm, whether smoothbored or not, adding the extra length and hence extra MV is IMO a tad pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> reminds me of the allied view in WW II that the 76mm would be the be-all end-all forever to deal with everything since it worked so well against everything when it was conceived... IMO you are dangerously underestimating the capabilities of modern armor (one aspect where the Challenger II *really* shines bright!). actually, although the russian 125mm does suffer from accuracy, its sheer power is comparable. still, iraqui T-72s failed to penetrate M1A1s from the front in the Gulf War. as to the rest of your world view that the Challenger is the best MBT since the Bob Semple and that rifled MBT guns are superior even though *everyone* else but the british designers think differently then I cannot help you further here, I suggest you try it over at the flat earth society (it's noteworthy that noone else but the UK considers or uses the Challenger II, the Swedish even refused to accept one for their evaluation tests for their new MBT (only looking at M1A2, Leclerc and Leo2); btw the following just in from Greece: (quote) Leopard wins Greek tank shoot-out The winner of the Greek Main Battle Tank (MBT) competition is expected to be announced in August this year but results of competition trials obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly have placed the German-made Leopard 2A5 in pole position. The first batch of MBTs will be for 250 vehicles plus variants. Between October and December 1998 six MBTs carried out extensive firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122 configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U; Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams. Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19% The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements. The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted in both the Leclerc and the Challenger 2E and these two vehicles had the best cruising range and lower fuel consumption. According to JDW sources, the recommendation of the Greek Armour Directorate to the Council for Defence Planning and Programme was that the choice be limited to just two vehicles: the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams. In addition to the results of the operational and technical trials a number of other factors were taken into account, such as the total number of vehicles built, number of users, NATO interoperability and experience of the Greek Army with current German and US MBTs. While these operational and technical trials will play an important part in the Greek decision-making process, other crucial factors include: the offset arrangements; Greek added value; and politics. Of the above four MBTs, three are currently taking part in the Turkish Land Forces Command MBT trials. These are the Leopard 2A6; Leclerc; and M1A2. Vickers Defence Systems decided to concentrate on just one market, Greece. (note: and failed miserably ) The first batch of 250 MBTs and 12 armoured recovery vehicles will be followed by a second batch of 400, with most of these expected to be manufactured in Greece. (end quote) (besides, while your view re. the Challenger II is almost as laughable and shows a similar lack of knowledge as do your previous statements, if we continue the topic of MBTs instead of refocussing on your original preposterous untrue Puppchen statement, this thread might get moved into the general forum by the powers that be) [edited to add the greek tidbit] [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]