M Hofbauer

I am similarly unbiased and open to believe that the skirts were for countering the ATRs if convincing fact is presented. Your quote is interesting but does not convince me. My main doubts arise among this reasoning: 1) Mesh wire is not a good thing to stop an ATR projectile; as you know, mesh wire consists of holes with wire inbetween. To *me*, that does not look like a good way to armor something. If four centimeters of *armor* won't stop an ATR round, then wire is not gonna help a lot. And holes would help even less. 2) The material from which the Schürzen were made was non-hardened /non-armor, simple metal less than 5mm thick. If they were used for a purpose of increasing ARMOR then surely they would have been made of hardened armor not simple "soft" sheet metal. 3) I have never seen the "10mm front skirts" your source talks about....? And besides if it was designed against ATRs then why 5mm on the sides and 10mm on the front when the front already was practically immune to the ATRs? 4) On a similar note to 3), many armor areas on tanks were covered by Schürzen which were already thick enough to stop the 14.5mm ATR rounds (but vulnerable to HC munitions). I have to concede though you might have a point about the date. But even then, HC rounds for low-velocity guns had been in use long before the war had started. Also, the Germans were busy developing their own HC infantry weapons, and it was only a question of time before they would encounter them from the enemy. The British had already introduced the PIAT in 1942 IIRC. Well Mattias you *did* manage to give me doubts, congratulations :-p [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-21-2001).]

there would have to be a TREMENDOUS slope to have the effect Chesty Puller wants to see modeled. Like, the kind of slope you will hardly ever see in a CMBO map (unless you have somebody eat mushrooms while fumbling with the mapmaker)...those comparably gentle slopes we see everyday in our battles won't create those reverse slope effects to any noticeable degree.

The theory presented here that the skirts were added with the purpose of defeating ATR rounds and not as spaced armor vs. shaped charges can be easily disproved by pointing to the fact that even mesh wire skirts were made for the Pz IV. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-21-2001).]

Maxipad, you're so blatantly ignorant that all I can say is cite a quote of Horvath which roughly translates as: Nothing gives you such a feeling of infinity as does the stupidity of others.

gunnergoz, this is exactly the kind of hogwash BS that Jasper had in mind. Think of Polish cavalry as a higly mobile infantry, switching trucks for horses. They would fight from horseback as much as other infantry would fight from their trucks. It made quite a bit of sense when you take into consideration the condition the infrastructure of poland was in w/r/t roads. Those Polish soldiers weren't dumb, you really expect they would believe that tanks are made opf cardboard? There was only one recorded incident where a Polish cavalry unit charged german tanks *mounted* = on horseback. That was the 18. Regiment near Krojanty, September 1st. What actually happened was that the Poles en route through a forest with scatered trees accidentally ran into unexpected german armor that appeared from around a bend/curve in the road. With their horses panicking under the machine gun fire, they were unable to do an orderly about face / turnaround. The german propaganda then turned it into a fairy tale about dumb poles attacking armor with sabres and lances. Yeah, sure. And you are gullible enough to believe it, even more than 60 years later... Now that you revealed yourself as a shameless non-grog, go into the corner and do some reading. But this time a real book, not propaganda or fairy tales again! [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-21-2001).]

Mike, 1. no, I do not think it's a nice pic. I am not satisfied with how the sign looks. But at least it's according to regulations. 2. I am not sure what script that is, to tell you the truth I took the inscription from a historical sketch of a mine sign. 3. lastly: yet another atttempt at a new free server: [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-21-2001).]

AcePylut, I didn't want to believe it until now but it seems you really are serious about this. "Battalion of NKVD" - sheeesh, you do know the size of a battalion, don't you? Offwhite, you're dead on. I agree fully. Unfortunately, it seems for some people that executing part is exactly what they want to see.

The NKVD is infamous also for the crimes it exerted onto their own soviet population. There were several occasions were they shot ordinary citizen, peasants etc. simply because these people chose to flee and the soviets didn't want them to. There was an interview once in a documentary featuring both SS and NKVD veterans and it was really....uhm...strange to have these friendly looking grampas tell over a cup of tea how they had shot and killed like that. The arresting and handling of deserting german troops usually was by the Feldgendarmerie, the military police, aka "chaindogs". But I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a bunch of SD villain troops shooting war-weary Wehrmacht soldiers they'ld encounter deserting. Besides, Streifendienst (patroling the rear to look for deserters) could also be be done by regular troops.

Jeff, first of all, the quote is from peacetime exercises with the RR80 in the swiss army. IIRC the arming of the RPzB warhead was in a shorter distance. For the Panzerfaust, I recall a figure of 3 meters somewhere but that is from the back of my head...

Maximus, your ignorance is showing in an appaling way... of course minefields were marked you ******... mines weren't just strewn around like that...for every regular minefield a detailed map had to be done...the laying of mines was to precise measurements...signs which showed passage ways etc. pp. may I refer you to pp. IV-35 of the HGMF for a little first enlightenment about german minefield practice...

the signs look good but.... they are not according to specifications, even though I have to admit that it was allowed to use white only if red was not available, and that many other, non-regulation forms of markers were probably used. Even then, the original CM ones were probably closer ... Even then, maybe we should have authentic markers... the problem with minefield signs is that in reality minefields were handled quite a bit different to how CM portrays them - it seems german regulations don't provide for a special "AT mines" sign, only the regular red-white-red "Minen" sign, since the large minefields often (usually) had both varieties. Also, the attempt to create authentic minefield signs will always fall short because the bmp file is used for both sides, germans _and_ allies.... ok I've tried to do the german ones, but they look a bit cartoonish with their bright-red etc. (no, the image link is not wrong, if you don't see it it's because of geocities...sometimes it helps to copypaste the image url into a new browser) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-20-2001).]

HWH, there is a workaround. You can save an empty, user-created map. This map is saved and sent to a third party. Then both players choose their equipment and sent their respective "shopping lists", in accordance with a maximum point score, to the third party. Third party opens the empty map scenario, buys the equipment of the players and saves the scenario again. It helps a bit, but you will always need an honorable opponent in CM PBEM since there are several ways to cheat that way.

oh, juju, it's you, I hadn't realized at first how are things going "up north" ?

Even though the PTRD and PTRS are probably among the best ATRs ever made, they are still ATRs and you would not kill a tank with one single round, even with penetrating hits you would need several ones. So the intitial post to the effect that a PTRS took out three vehicles with one round each does not look very believable to me. The M41/44 ammo used by the PTRD and PTRS has a much higher punch than the .50cal ammo, it's projectile is faster (1000m/s vs. 850m/s) and heavier (199g vs 140g) than the 50cal, making for considerable more punch (Eo of almost 32 kJ vs barely 19kJ for the 50cal). However, the 50cal is fully automatic, so in essence would be more effective IMHO.

Bullethead, perhaps you didn't understand what i was trying to say: you know that and I know that and pretty much everybody else does, but try explaining this to "killmore".

Hehe I can feel what it is like to have many people copmpletely not grasp what you are gettinmg at and in consequence give advice/comments that must looks smartaleck in consequence ... yes I know what you mean, I understand your situation and yes it looks like a FOW "bug". It would tell you rear-facing vehicles like the SdKfz 7 AA types, the Achilles and so on. Hmmm....well the only smartaleck workaround advice I could give is maybe just don't jump to the enemy unit, you couldn't do that in reality either, proper ID or not....yeah I know it's weak but I don't charge you money for this

not me

I am puzzled. His humor, sarcasm re. that movie, is excellent, yet somehow I am unsure -as he's a newbie- maybe he's rather dead serious and w/o irony after all? ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

All your base are belong to Rob/1 [edit]: ...uhm that should read base files of the UI [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-19-2001).]

With CM's abstraction of infantry into squad markers, and the surprising immunity of these markers even to point blank or sweeping fire, human wave attacks will nebver be the same again...because they will actually make a rather sound tactic now. warmaker, according to "killmore" (and apparently despite all the clear historic evidence) russian human wave attacks never happened after 1941....! ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

Fine with me *cough* *cough* finally, killmore, all I'm saying to your ravings is: unsubstantiated flamebait

It looks very good but I would put in my vote for a camo-ing and zimmerit-ing of the rear as well. the rear if anything was one of the areas most likely for zimmerit application I know it was never needed at all but if it had ever been needed the rear would have been the most in need of it. Camo is a wrap-around thingie, yes maybe some crews / field shops wouldn't get the paint job done completely before anything happens but that wozuld be the exception, not he rule (far from it). Doghouse: where did you get that from? ------------------ "Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

Steve BTS wrote: "Basically, if the shot was determined to be a "hit", it is a "hit" regardless. Since LOS/LOF is requires when the shot is taken, there is no need to check intermediate terrain at all since by definition LOS/LOF rules out intermediate terrain blockage. At least at the second the shot is fired." well, I think it *is* an issue to worry about. Projectiles flying through solid terrain to hit a vehicle that couldn't possibly be hit anymore... I just come from a quick DYO scenario I had made to test this out, several Tigers which can shoot at 2 halftracks running back and forth more than a kilometer away. Inbetween I have placed small hills which will allow small "windows", fields of view, through which the Tigers can and can not aquire the target. Already in the first turn a halftrack was killed in the problematic manner which is at issue here - he was targeted and shot at while he was barely in view, but knocked out when he was clearly behind one of the inbetween hills which were blocking LOS at that point. When I rechecked the movie, sure enough the lethal round went THROUGH the hill which had moved into the flight path due to the neccessary leading of the moving vehicle. In conclusio, I think this is a real problem which potentially affects all vehicles moving out of LOS which are being fired at just as they reach safety. It is easily reproducible and has practical relevance. However I want to thank you (Steve) for explaining that it is a design limitation of the static formula used by CM. This means we now know what we are up to, and that we'll have to simply live with it. And even then, CM is (obviously) still the current king of the hill of it's genre, no doubt. Yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 03-14-2001).]

well, the "no-padlock-yet" thing is easily explained, currently there are no "instant padlocks" since Madmatt himself has been padlocked bny whatever virus he did catch in that french etablissement...

ok, the TUNNEL FORCE movie can now be downloaded HERE (200k zipfile) This movie is the one where zahl created a depression into which the Greyhound will disappear. The Panzergranate projectile with it's name on it will head right for the Greyhound, which means it will tunnel into the terrain, pass under the church, and exit on the reverse slope of the depression and then kill the Greyhound. Again I can only encourage everbody to see for himself. The most recent movie by zahl also again shows that all the other (non-successful) projectiles fired at the disappearing but doomed Greyhound, will take an entirely different flight path roughly in the direction of where the Greyhound was situated when the shot was fired; i.e., they are not even being led to follow the moving target. What this whole issue means to me is that the 3D world, esp. animations/movies, we are being shown are basically nothing more than eyecandy. The hit is predetermined by a non-dynamic, static formula just like in any other wargame (albeit a concededly way superior formula than any other to date), and after it has been decided by the dice whether there will be a hit or not then a nice colorful movie, a fireworks display, is produced by the game and shown to you to keep you fed and happy. We all sorta knew that before, still it's quite sobering when you fully realize it because it suddenly becomes so apparent. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer p.s.: nick, read the above posts again. There are three issues discussed here. Only one is explained in the manual (although even that has been declined in Steve's comment above), but the issue of projectiles flying through everything on their way to the target which has already escaped to safety is not covered by that. Please check the movie to see what I mean. Again, anybody volunteering to host the movies? geocities is so unreliable...