Mattias

At the very least it was taught to the Tiger crews. In the Tigerfibel the crews are reminded to think about the "meals", breakfast at 10.30 and lunch at 13.30 for example. The enemy should be kept at these "times" (referring to clock orientation of course) in order to maximize protection. M.

Welcome to the discussion Hortlund This general subject, armour, projectiles and their interaction has been a hot topic for about as long as this board go back, which would be, what, early 1999. Far from wanting to discourage you I just want to say that you are in good company with regards to this particular field of interest You might want to look for threads involving one "Rexford" (member number 4402) for a host of interesting discussions on the subject. A search on that name on the CM: Beyond Overlord forum yields a number of threads for example, searching on the member number even more I guess. If nothing else he is more often than not where the discussion is. As I recall the nature of the Panther glacis is *the* most frequently discussed subject of all. - On the subject at hand I might add that the penetration figures given for the 50mm tungsten rounds did not translate into real world performance, for a number of reasons. Lack of availability was one thing, the inferior long range capacity another, as I recall it lower damage potential has been mentioned and I have most definitely read that the Pzgr. 40 suffered from atrocious rates of case expansion, leading to the crews refusing to use them. I'll have to look for the sources but they are around M.

Want to play Yelnia Stare as the Soviets but without the micro management? Well, do as a good friend of mine did yesterday, play the red army applying your absolute worst stereotypes... He lined up the infantry in one long line with the tanks a little way from them and all support weapons positioned to, eh, support. On turn one he ordered the artillery to smoke the center (fire plan), advanced the tanks in hunt mode and ordered all infantry to run, run and run like hell, not bothering with individual units but rather giving straight line platoon orders. And that's what he did, not taking more than two or three minutes to give orders every turn. Sometimes he would let a few men be and give fire but most of the time it would be new run orders for all unbroken units, with a little sneak orders thrown in now and then. He just ran and ran and finally overran the German positions. Two things did a lot to help him pull this off. Firstly, all six T-34's managed to stay alive and continually poured in fire and, secondly, the default German setup places too much of his forces in a position from which they can not retreat and hope to live. But, that aside, he managed to pull it off completely (seemingly) without finesse and not only that, he's losses were significantly lower than those of the German (205/60 vs. his 122/36 casualties/killed). He's response to my indignation, after all, he was totally abusing the gamer engine in my opinion, was that this how it was done in SL, attack and attack and attack and "never cry over spilled milk". The Soviets (in the game) lacked the firepower and moral staying power to remove the enemy by any other means than by numerically overwhelming him. I'm not saying it's right, historical or fun but I was fascinated that he pulled it off, and with such "low" losses. Just, it can be done... M.

Indeed. The reference probably relates to the L/51.5 version that was captured and put to use by the Germans themselves (Pak36 r). The gun mounted on the T-34's and KV's was not as effective. M.

Bump. M.

It has already happened Volk. There is, what, two T-34's and one KV out that I have seen so far, probably more around somewhere M.

And the SdKfz 251/10 made it in... A nasty big HMG on the ISU/SU (?) 152's and how many variants of Tiger I is that, 3? Great stuff M.

Just for reference: The 5 T-34's put out of action by one Pak 36 in the opening post where at ranges between 212-404 meters and there are no tungsten rounds available in my version of the demo. Which means you will, with a bit of bad/good luck see losses at at least 404 meters. It could well be the effect of spalling combined with moral failure but whatever the reason it was abandoned because of the Pak fire. M.

Look again, it's a map of eastern Europe, it indicates which front you are fighting on M.

Was thinking about that too... But I think I like it better without it, of course my 81 mm mortar impacts doesn't look nearly as impressive as they used to, but they do look more realistic. Just as with the tank rounds, you don't see them either flying about in real life. So far it is the "little" tweaks like these along with the much, eh, less binary damage environment for tanks and infantry that creates a much less arcade like feel... That's my impression so far... More subtle, more realistic. I'm a bit surprised at just how different it feels, in a positive way A little more dust kick-up from the fighting would be nice, but that might be in the full game... M.

Ok, things are moving too fast to follow right now Still, it did not take that many rounds and the impression one gets from battle reports is that it just "didn't" happen with a Door knocker and a T-34. Then again, the fact that you stand to loose your life in every engagement most probably influences your interpretation of what "can" be done... But I'm always keen on new impressions M.

*Tutorial and Yelnia Stare spoilers* . . . . . . Playing the tutorial I confidently rolled forward my T-34's only to have, first one, then two shot up and taken out of action after some three hits each. I played the scenario through thinking it could have been a 50mm Pak, perhaps a 75mm or some kind of hollow charge something. Well, as we all know, it was a 37mm Pak. Well, I thought, it did happen after all, then I set out to play the same scenario again. And again I lost both T-34's to the Pak, but this time I looked a bit closer and got the impression that the penetrating hits where against the turret, all of them if I recall correctly. Perhaps I was unlucky but when I played it the third time I made a point of not going hull down with the tanks, and they lived. What really brought this home was when I played "Yelnia Stare". Taking my impression from the tutorial I decided to engage the T-34's when they were hull down, with the Pak 36's that is. Waiting for a turn or two until a few of the tanks were out of LOS (lessen return fire) I began firing away with my Pak's. And there has to be a bit of the old Pz IV situation here (much weaker turret that is) because a few turns later I was two Pak's down but one of them had put 5 (five) T-34's out of action, all with shots from the front and, as much as I could influence it, to the turret (range 404-212 meters). The outcome was greatly influenced by the fact that the Pak was placed in a position that was hard to return fire to but the big surprise for me was that it was actually possible to, on a regular basis, put T-34's out of action with Pak 36's, not to mention from the frontal arc (actually I could not do it from the side). Well, it would not be the first time a myth was punctured (the Tigers vs. Hellcats back in the beta demo days springs to mind) but what I am curious about is, what is this turret weakness that allows the T-34 to be defeated like this? I can think of a few things myself but non of them seems to really have come forth in the day when the Germans were struggling to fight these tanks, or was it just that they were really though most of the time? It was not like I got an amazing string of "weak spot" hits but rather all kinds of messages came up and one after the other the T-34's fell out (all abandoned). Oh, and of course I loved every bit of the demo, high points so far being the much more dynamic feeling from the armour damage model and the improved MG's M. [ September 02, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

I don't know what your sources are or what your definition of "worry" is but I can tell you that reading German divisional war diaries gives quite a different picture. It is true that the most common armoured opponents were tanks and AC's of inferior capability when compared to the Pz III and IV but the modern Soviet tanks were most certainly a cause of considerable worries in 1941, and indeed downright alarm in a great many cases. Try asking 4th Panzer Division how they felt about it in October 41 for example... M. [ August 31, 2002, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Good idea Chad! A few observations Panther prevalence in 43 and early 44? Wasn't that one of the "official" questions asked by BTS a few months ago? As I recall it, as usual, deteriorated into mess but not before the numbers where pretty much on the table and a pretty convincing estimate could be made. Make a search -As for the T34/85, it was introduced in late '43 and entered the fray in early '44. -Early '43 you have, what, three times as many Pz III as Pz IV in inventory. -There were about three times as many Pz IV G produced as there was F1's and F2's -Twice as many StuG F and F/8 produced in '42 as there was ever StuG B's, StuG's only from December '42 -The Marders seems to have a greater staying power in real life than in CM:BO but in late '44 and '45 they would have been superseded by the JgPz's, there were more (or at least as many) Hetzers made than there were Marders (of all types). -A significant period of '44 you would have as many, or more, Panther A's as G's. M.

Indeed, as it is by deforming the projectile and disrupting the flight path that the skirts work. When they were first tested it was shown that 30mm armour surfaces suffered no tears or penetrations what so ever from 14.5 mm ATR rounds (no mention of ammunition type) when protected by mesh or plate skirts (100 meters @ 90 degrees). I'm not much into ballistics but I would think that it is, primarily, the mass of the projectile in relationship to, primarily, the resistance of the obstacle that dictates to what extent the flight path will be affected. My impression, based on this, is that the skirts would have been about as effective against tungsten projectiles as they were against normal AP, the difference being significant but not exactly radical. M.

Whats your source on this Kill? The same subject and numbers were brought up earlier this year and turned out to be a bit hard to substantiate. Somehow I can't wrap my mind around this idea? Of all the things that could conceivably happen on the battle field this could be one, at random. But as a standard tactic, well, it's a stretch isn't it? Anyway, your ATR's would be stopped by the schürzen hence preventing the danger of, eh, preperforation M.

Ultra quick before work: Does Schürtzen stop ATR rounds effectively in CMBB? M.

I am exchanging turns with Ari but all is quiet on the other fronts. The game against Toumas was just a turn or two away from being finished and the one against Cogust was hovering at about 40% done. M.

Yes, looks like BFC has gone extra generous on us StuG lovers, offering three versions of the model G. Early production, with saukopfblende and the ultimate late production with remote MG and, probably, Nahverteidigungswaffe. Then again, with almost 8000 units produced the G deserves a bit of attention. Nice M. [ August 08, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

Likewise, Ari looks tough indeed And, Cogust has been gone since , what, may and no hear from Toumas lately. M.

T-34/D, 50mm PaK, early production Brummbär, PzJg I (not really a official name I think) and the Pzkw 35R (German identification number 731 (f)) I havn't seen the 4 SP sIG's (lower right pic) before either, confirms the double crew spotting in any event. M. [ August 03, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]