Mattias

Ah, a nice subject Jg Pz IV´s: Basically there are four "versions" to consider. The first type was armed with the 75L48 KwK. Early production vehicles had 60mm frontal armour and later (chassis 320301 and onwards) were fitted with an 80mm front plate. I guess the two versions in CM will reflect this too. The JgPz IV/70 version mounted the 75L70 KwK as has already been mentioned. It was built with an 80mm front plate from the outset but there exists "two" versions, this time due to the necessities of war rather than a real development of the vehicle. The Pz IV/70 (V) was the basic version, 930 being produced before the end of the war. The letter "V" in the vehicle designation stands for Vomag, which the abbreviated name of the manufacturer. The second version of the Pz IV/70 is the Pz IV/70 (A), here standing for Alkett. All in all 278 were produced and though they seem to have been intended primarily for units fighting in the East the desperate need for replacements saw a lot of them fighting in the west, at least 38 in the Ardennes offensive for example. The "A" was an interim solution that used a standard PzKw IV hull and put the Pz IV/70 superstructure on top of it. The result of this union is interesting because it highlights on of the best features of the other JgPz IV´s (the "V" as well as the 75mm L48 versions), namely the excellent shape of the front armour. When considering the similarities between the JgPz IV hull and that of the PzKw IV tank it is important to remember that the hull front of the former was completely redesigned. So, on top of being much higher the "A" thus suffered a significant reduction in survivability due to the less than optimal layout of the armour in the old PzKw IV hull, with the vertical plate in front of the driver being a critical weakness. As far as I have seen the "A" model is not in CM right now but I´m sure we will see it, if not sooner, then later M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-22-2000).]

Fionn, Thinking about it I realise it should be no different than considering the restricted elevation of a gun, right? The shell leaving the barrel of a tank is governed by the laws of physics, as implemented by BTS, and so should the rocket leaving the launcher, ok? What got me wondering was if this has been implemented “completely” with regards to weapons with “minimum” ranges, like mortars? If, for example, I put my mortar on a steep hill side, will the minimum range be different down hill or up hill? Basically, are all weapons coded to consider the most extreme situations imaginable for their firing or is there a measure of abstraction “accepted” in each end? Or more to the point, do you think, in theory, that vehicle mounted sWF 40 could be put into CM as it stands today with firing ranges from absolute minimum (arming range) all the way out to maximum range? I’m not really pushing for its inclusion but the discussion is furthering my understanding of workings and potential of CM. M.

What to me seems to be the deal at this time: The vehicle mounted sWF 40 could fire at targets at any range within the envelope of it’s 1925/2200 (Sprg/Brd) range, the only limitation being arming distance which could be set to almost nothing. It was intended as a Pioneer weapon for clearing of obstacles and in a secondary role for “simple” bombardment. As the primary task requires accuracy it was usually done at close range. However it “looks” like the six-pack of launchers mounted on, for example, the Sd Kfz 251 was unable depress the launchers below 14-15 degrees when all six were in place. Enter game considerations: I cannot see how anything less than the fully loaded vehicle on a bombardment mission could be modelled in the game. The game, as it stands today, simply isn’t flexible enough to, usefully, model the pioneer missions envisaged for it in real life. If this is the “truth” the vehicle would be limited to +14 to +50 degrees In order to achieve a certain range you could move the vehicle to a spot where the ground is sloping slightly up or down in order to get an elevation outside of the limitations of the mountings. Alternatively you could hit a target at a higher elevation than yourself, or something really tall, like a big building, in which case the target could be very close. However, back to the game: My impression is that this is not modelled in the game or would require extra coding. I shan’t dwell on it as I don’t know anything about it but it is my impression that a sWF would be limited to operating from “flat” ground when the trajectory of the projectiles is calculated, no matter the inclination of the vehicle. Would be happy to be wrong though. So, where does this leave us in game terms? Considering the limitations mentioned above the vehicle mounted sWF 40 could be added but would be limited to bombardment missions at ranges of app: 1000 to 1925m for the 28cm Sprg 1200 to 2200m for the 32cm Brd Considering that map sizes of 2x2 km does not appear to be extreme it is tipping on the edge of being an on board weapon system rather than an off board one. I have a range chart supplied by an Australian friend but am sadly lacking in ability, thus I cannot post it here. But as an example of the “accuracy”, consider this: At maximum range the 50% zone of the 28cm rocket is. 80m in length and 90m in breadth. At 1000 meters it is 150 in length and 30 in breadth The same figures for the 32cm Brd is 100/110 at max and 180/40 at 1200 meters. Now, if this would be fun/good/possible in the eyes of the powers that be I humbly leave for them to judge. M.

Nice idea Ghost, However as search on "books" (subject line only) will probably go a long way to instantly satisfy your curiosity M.

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-14-2000).]

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-14-2000).]

Fionn, As I am the one presenting the “facts” I think it would be wrong of me to refer to any other person, should I be wrong. Not least because I didn’t bother to ask him if he would object to me presenting the information here. I have no primary source of my own so I suggest looking at the sources indicated by my “informant”. As for “achieving” minimum range, how about increasing elevation of the launchers instead of decreasing it? Anyway, will look into it with the aim of getting the hard facts for myself Ill be back.. M.

Bullethead, The situation is probably meant to be when they tried to retake Schmidt after having lost it the first time. At the briefing while looking at their pathetic map the order to take Schmidt again is given. What follows there after might, with a lot of good will, be thought to depict the failed attempt to cross the Kall again. Failed because they didn’t get over it and they didn’t retake Schmidt. None of the heroic "special missions" took place in reality, at least not there and then. As for the tanks. Supposed to be Pz.IV´s no doubt, my guess is that they are "based" on the old Russian 122mm artillery SPG (can’t remember the name right now). Turret far back, the look of the road wheels and the fact that the gun really looks like it’s being fired (as supposed to, say, a BMP with a mock up gun) M.

About the Wurfrahmen. Being curious and asking around about the firing ranges for the vehicular mounted launchers I was given the following clarifying answer: ---- Two classics, Field Rocket Equipment of the German Army 1939 - 1945 by TJ Gander and Deutsche Raketen-Werfer, Podzun-Pallus-Verlag. 28cm min 300m max 1925 m 30cm min 400m max 4450 m 32cm min 400m max 2200 m The minimum range is taken from the range tables of the frames (sWuG 40 and 41). The 251 was fitted with the sWF40 frame and rated with the same ranges. TJ rates the 30cm as having a higher range of 6000m but I believe this applies to the 15cm rocket when fired from the same launcher. The 15cm had a max of 6900 m. You could use them at shorter ranges, but you would start to suffer from the effects. --- These figures seem reasonable enough and, if so, would put the launchers on board rather than off board in the CM scale (thinking 2x2 km map), more akin to medium calibre mortars in range than "classic" off board artillery. I had a few doubts myself, but thinking about it they probably were more due to the way the weapon system was portrayed in CC3 than anything I have heard or read about them in real life. Not exactly a priority system but perhaps a nice addition in the long run. M.

Hey Max, Weren’t you referring to suspension protection armour, not "schürtzen"? If this is the case Id say you are pretty much correct in your assumptions, especially considering the development of suspension systems demanding more freedom of movement, externally. In short, it is inefficient and uneconomical in relation to weight. It´s easier to just exchange a destroyed suspension arm. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 02-13-2000).]

Good thing you found it Mike Target indications? Please clarify. Pre planned artillery targets? The kneeling position of the squads is only there to differentiate between normal stance and that of hiding or being pinned, the latter being the prone position. It is just a graphical solution, the "kneeling" men will be using the terrain and stance to best effect too but it is "hidden" in the system. M.

AH64D If indeed you have been following the board as closely and for as long as you say I must say I find it odd that you have so completely missed how to post and how not to post. No matter how well founded your arguments might seem to you they come out as inflammatory ravings. All you are accomplishing by this is to insult BTS and make yourself look like a troublemaker. M.

Snark, In order to give us a chance to help you must give information, as detailed as possible, about the software- and hardware environment in which you are running the demo. An evergreen of an advice though; it is always a good idea to get the latest drivers for each and every one of the parts in your computer. Cheers! M.

This inflation thing is horrible! The last time I went to the UK a pound was 454 grammes. Where will it all end? M

Containing highly flammable material it was no doubt removed M.

Speaking of which... Madmatt The "C" ammo type on the POTD SdKfz 250/8, is that HEAT? If it is, what does the "C" signify? Gr38 HL/C? M.

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-29-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-29-2000).]

All physics in the world aside, it is a game mechanical concession. Above all, calculating deceleration causes some quite complicated and processor intensive problems for the AI. In the end it was left out. It has been discussed in detail earlier so no need to argue really. M.

Fionn, could you please give the reply to your question Is the Gepard a SPAA conversion of the Pz. 38 (t) or is it something else? M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-25-2000).]

FAE, Fuel Air Explosives. Used to detonate mine fields or people by over and under pressure. Has the "advantage" of bypassing all non air tight cover. So it does not matter how deep your hole is unless you have pressure doors in it. Rips out your lungs, burns you and finally smothers what’s left. Comes as air craft bombs or rocket launched. I’m pretty sure I have seen a rocket launcher system mounted on a US marine LVTP-7, intended, primarily, for mine clearing. M.

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-22-2000).]

- [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-22-2000).]

Flakpanzer 38(t) Ausf L Gepard / Sd.Kfz. 140 -Panzerkampfwagen 38 fur 2cm Flak 38. 140 produced between November 1943 and February 1944 1 Converted Nov 1943 Model: Ausfuhrung A Weight: 9400kg Crew: 4 men Engine: Praga EPA / 6-cylinder / 125hp Speed: Road 42km/h Cross-Country 15km/h Range: Road 250km Cross-Country 160km Lenght: 4.60m Width: 2.12m Height: 2.40m Armament: Single 20mm Flak 38 L/112.5 gun (or possibly 20mm Flak 30 in some vehicles) Ammo: 1040 Rounds. 360 HE tracer, 360 HE, 320 AP Armor: 8-25mm Model: Ausfuhrung G Weight: 9850kg Crew: 4 men Engine: Praga EPA / 6-cylinder / 125hp Speed: Road 42km/h, Cross-Country 15km/h Range: Road 250km, Cross-Country 160km Lenght: 4.61m Width: 2.14m Height: 2.40m Armament: Single 20mm Flak 38 L/112.5 gun (or possibly 20mm Flak 30 in some vehicles) Ammo: 1040 Rounds. 360 HE tracer, 360 HE, 320 AP Armor: 8-50mm Conflicting sources it seems... M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-22-2000).]

Testing in CE, firing at area targets, no enemy contact what so ever. Shermans get off the first shot usually, but after that: (approximately) Regular StuG: 1/11 seconds Regular Sherman: 1/12 seconds Veteran Sherman: 1/10 seconds Major glaring error? Well... Why not wait for the final release before going "major glaring error" on the game mechanics...? This is just one of a multitude of possible game decisions or possible mistakes... M.

Chamberlain & Doyle: Leichte Ladungsträger (Sd Kfz 302 & 303) 7579 produced(two basic models, electric and later combustion engine). Production started in April 1942 and ended in September 1944. Used by engineer units on all fronts for demolition work and mine clearing. Personally I think you could actually, usefully, model Goliath in CM but you would have to code quite a number of "special scenario rules" for it that might make it’s inclusion hard. M.