Ron

Browsing usenet I came across a similar discussion and thought I would post some of it here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul Vebber wrote: While we likely will never be able to answer the questions with certainty based on period data, we can make some inferences about it form that and other data avaoable. UK War Office reports document the following: WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations. A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on a Churchill is described thus: "There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable." WO 291/1186 The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII. This report is dated 24 May 1950. The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows: Theatre (tanks) Mines ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total NW Europe (1305) 22.1% 22.7% 14.5% 24.4% 14.2% 2.1% 100% Italy (671) 30% 16% 12% 26% 9% 7% 100% N Africa (1734) 19.5% 40.3% 38.2% nil nil 2% 100% Mean values 22.3% 29.4% 25.3% 13.5% 6.1% 3% 100% of which destroyed 20.3% 29% 24.4% 12.7% 5.4% - 91.8% of which damaged 2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% - 5.2% Caution is advised over the "damaged" figures because of variability in reporting. It is stated that tanks and SP guns should be considered together, as war diaries often show doubt over what exactly caused a tank loss. Percentage personnel casualties, by type of tank: Tank type Mines ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Sherman 24.6% 41.4% 60.5% 54.3% 44.7% Churchill 14.7% 45% 46.7% 30% 14.7% Stuart 34.6% 29.8% 51.7% * * Crusader * 38.5% 41.7% Cromwell. Valentine, Matilda, Grant 17.4% 34.4% 28.6% * * Mean values 21.8% 40% 46.4% 48.4% 38.6% Of which killed 4.8% 18% 21.8% 20.4% 18% Of which wounded 17% 22% 24.6% 28% 20.6% An asterisk indicates a sample smaller than 30. These are included in the mean values. The apparently greater effectiveness of mines in Italy is credited to the differing nature of the terrain, with more defiles than found in other theatres. It is estimated that about 2,000 German ATk mines were planted per tank casualty inflicted. Of note here is that "ARTILLERY" or even HE is not even a category, leading one to the conclusion that it was not a sginificant cause of casualties. WO 291/1321 The accuracy of predicted fire. "It is estimated that broadly speaking an A.G.R.A. firing at 12,000 yds with all guns concentrated will deliver about 2/3rds of the shot not very far from uniformly into an area 200 yds by 200 yds, the remainder being scattered rather thinly beyond these limits." If one assumes say a 4x6 m "foot print" for a tank a roundin needing to land within 5m to have a chance to damage the target that menas a 14x16m vulnerable area - or 224 sqm area out of 40,000 or about a .5% or 1 in 200 chance of a nartillery round landing in the vulnerable area of a tank. If we need an actual strike, then the probability becomes 20/40,000 or 1 in 2000 rounds would actually strike a tank in the beaten zone. Now the nature of artillery and tank combat mean that the noise and concussion from artillery will play havoc with both intra and inter-tank C2. THis effect of preventing effective comms in and near teh beaten zone is teh factor resonsible for many instances of artillery 'disrupting" tnak attacks. The occupants of teh tnaks being unable to communicate in teh midst of a heavy baaarrage. Thus one reads often of the "disruption" or "scattering" of armored attacks by artillery but rarely of vehicles being actually hit. Now what we would today call "operational fires" the massing of Brigade and division sived arty units against armored spearheads did cause significant actual casualties, but these are tyopically not tactical "call for fire" situations CM deals with, but diisiona nd Corps commanders acting on recon about concentration of enemy force well before an actual attack. So from the British War office data, aand a litle first order analysis, an actual hit on a tank by artillery is a VERY remote possibilty. The "effect" of a round acting adversely is less obsure, and teh general effects of disruption and C2 problems were endemic in even harrassing bararages. Paul Vebber<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Waters wrote: Here's data from the British report on the examination of captured tanks, and cause of loss where determined for each tank. *June 6 - August 7 1944 110 tanks examined: 53 - AP shot 8 - Hollow charge 9 - Artillery, HE 1 - Mine 7 - Aircraft RP 3 - Aircraft cannon. 7 - Destroyed by crew 4 - Abandoned 18 - Uknown cause August 8 - August 31 1944 223 Tanks examined: 24 - AP shot 1 - Hollow charge 4 - Artillery, HE 7 - Aircraft RP 1 - Aircraft Cannon 2 - Aircraft bomb 108 - Destroyed by crew 63 - Abandoned 13 - Uknown cause December 17 1944 - January 16 1945 57 Tanks examined: 18 - AP Shot 3 - Artillery HE 1 - Aircraft bom 3 - Possibly by Aircraft 13 - Demolished 11 - Abandoned 8 - Uknown causes *See: Jentz Thomas L Panzer Truppen Vol 2. p.189, 190, 202. Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ron

Here's a couple blasts from the past. The first one Fionn talks about the differences between Allied and German optics and the relevence to CM. The second one Sabot imparts some interesting RL observations. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001449.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html Ron

Yes I like the Sdkfz 234/3 against infantry though I never count on it to hit another AFV with it's low velocity gun. In the same vein the US M8 Howitzer is a pretty good vehicle also. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael emrys wrote: While I have in general the highest respect for the testimony of the men who did the day to day fighting at the sharp end, I also know that perceptions can and do get distorted under the stress of combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slightly off topic but related to the perceptions of men on the line. Here's an excerpt from George Blackburn's 'Guns of Normandy' which I found interesting: "The ability of field artillery reps attached to the infantry(even the FOOs at the company level) to concentrate on a single target all the guns of a regiment, a division, or a corps, or even all the guns of the entire army, within a few minutes, has led to widespread belief among the German rank and file that 25-pounders are hopper-fed. Prisoners, taken in the first hours of the breakthrough and brought back to the POW compound at Ifs, asked to see 'your supergun - the automatic 25-pounder'. These included two prisoners who were being used to raise buckets of water by windlass from an exceedingly deep well at a house near your guns, to fill an endless line of water cans for their fellow prisoners behind the barbed wire. When they were told that 25-pounders must be loaded one round at a time, they merely smirked in disbelief, nodding their heads in a knowing fashion, as though to say of course we know you have to lie for security reasons." I could just imagine trying to convince the German POWs differently after they had been on the receiving end of Allied artillery! Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From what I can see combatboy is a TROLL, probably some bored guy at work who gets his kicks out of p****** off the people who take these topics seriously. Don't feed the troll and usually they get bored and go away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree 100%. It's unfortunate because while I have nothing to contribute technically I am still interested in following the discussion of those that do. Cheers, Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-01-2000).]

Well a couple reasons come to mind, one is to confuse your opponent as to what you really have, a split squad usually being identified as a full one initially or to create extra foxholes on the defense; the other is for scouting ahead, much better to lose a half squad to an ambush or mines than a full one. Hope that helps. Ron

Guys, I believe Steve has said earlier, probably last week or so IIRC, to not expect another patch before TCP/IP comes out. Ron

Playing with numbers and comparisons is fine as is drawing your own conclusions but that really isn't what CM is all about. It's a game simulating WWII tactical combat. It's you commanding your troops to take that hill or that village, or defend it. It's about using terrain to interdict and control enemy avenues of approach and to conceal your troops. It's about using combined arms and fire/maneuver to engage and destroy the enemy and his ability to fight. It's about using what you have to accomplish your mission. The above statements hold true and are effective whether you are playing the UK, US or the Germans. I haven't found otherwise and neither have my opponents. To imply the German forces have some sort of inherent edge because of a 25% FP or 15% cost premium from some data table is having blinkers on, but to each his own I guess. There's a tournament in progress at the RD site, Brits versus Germans in a meeting engagement. Out of 57 games completed so far, the British side has won 32 games and the Germans 25. Perhaps the Brits have some advantage that no one's discovered yet? [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-01-2000).]

Not sure why John, I had a Firefly in a RD tournament game with no HE initially. Once the armour was gone I had no problem with it firing AP on infantry in woods and buildings. I observed it's effect to be more psychological than real however Ron

Sorry guys, my computer is out of commission, requiring professional(!) help. Hopefully I can get it back up by the end of the week or sooner and resume our games then. Ron

SPOILER * * * * * * * * * * I am playing L'Elle as the US (doubleblind pbem), currently in the last turns, and it has been one hell of a ride. I'm coming to the conclusion also that the odds were stacked against the GIs. The actual river crossing went quite well. I feinted on the right flank with a smoke barrage and 'showed' a platoon on the left. The Germans responded with artillery and MGs. Five platoons, right center, then crossed in tandem under smoke cover. Casualties were relatively light as I discovered and destroyed some MG nests and wooden bunkers. The German artillery responded by harassing my main force. Three platoons advanced up the central woods, the other two towards Chateau de Rochefort. The left feinting platoon was having a hard time from artillery and MG fire trying to cross with limited support. I set up the attack on the Chateau with two platoons and MGs. A third would conduct a flanking maneuver from the central woods. Artillery was prep firing the area. A jeep did a recon. I also set up a MG fire base near the bridge at Moulin Jourdan and attacked les Duchemins with the remaining two platoons from the central woods. German artillery continued to harass my forces. The attack on les Duchemins went off without a hitch. The attack on the Chateau not so well. My artillery seemed to have little effect on the strong opposition there, casualties were becoming heavy, I didn't think my force was strong enough to take it. In response I loaded up one of the reinforcing platoons in trucks to act as a fire brigade and sent them to the Chateau to carry the battle, which they did. The three initial attacking platoons were of no further use offensively though Rochefort was now in US hands. The fire brigade I loaded back in the trucks to help take le Mesnil. The left feinting platoon finally crossed the river only to be decimated by ambushing Germans. I retreated them. They were only a feint anyway. The other reinforcing platoon moved to les Duchemins to support the troops there which were cautiously advancing on le Mesnil. I now had four platoons(two fresh), MG support and artillery to take the last objective. I probed le Mesnil with two platoons and artillery, one platoon guarding the flank and the other in reserve. They were met by heavy fire and return artillery. It looked like a tough nut to crack, casualties mounting, when I was attacked by superior German forces on my flank. Artillery was switched to cover a withdrawl as I attempted to extricate my troops back to the safety of les Duchemins. It turned into a rout as only one platoon managed to retreat relatively intact, two more were virtually wiped out. I am now in a defensive position at les Duchemins with two platoons(one battered) and MGs. There is no more artillery support. I have no expectation of taking le Mesnil, only preventing a further rout in the remaining turns. I have a slight edge in the overall score at the moment but that may be illusory. From what I have seen thus far the Germans had/have as many troops as the US and as much if not more artillery, some definitely larger. I too would like to know what is a realistic result for US in this scenario as it appears quite difficult though very enjoyable [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 09-09-2000).]

Drifter, Here's a suggestion to get the turret facing the right way, have the tank area fire in the desired direction without the main gun. I have done it several times and the tank will generally switch to a threat from the area fire pretty quick, faster than waiting for the turret to swing around anyway. Ron

It is funny how a post defining a player's preference on something degenerates into irrelevant issues. How is one to respond to such things? Don't, play the game...

You can 'see' exactly what your units see from their present location with the LOS tool, always. There is no compromise or approximation to this. To suggest you as the player should be able to see with certainty all points on the map before any of your units got there is unrealistic to say the least. Sure scouting a map beforehand for safe avenues of approach etc. is done, but until your troops are there, you won't know with 100% certainty if it was truly covered or not. The 3D terrain gives a very good rough approximation of this, it shouldn't be more than that IMO. To make it an exact thing as you suggest would take away a lot of the flavour of the game. Ron

Try playing the Carentan operation as the Germans and you'll see what artillery does.

If your unit is in a damaged building or you trace a LOS to it then the asterisk will show up, ie 'light building*'. If you press Shift-G then a 'damaged' marker will be floating over it. Hope that helps. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"...all armor QB..." "...couple of Hellcats, several Sherman..." "...3 Panthers beofre one of them ran smack into a KT..." by gawd, this reminds me of the proverbial fridaynightzonedeathmatches in cc3, no, this is worse. Those all-armor, grog-nemesis cc3 flashandbangers at least had _some_ infantry for spotting etc. Here we are discussing a cm more or less on some front armor, FP value of individual small arms, etc. pp., and then there is people who would probably be better off playing nobrainer FPS flashandbang instead of a game that tries hard to strive for historical authenticity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, now, M Hofbauer, you know you're not supposed to leave your room and bother the children. Come on, be a good sport, let's go back. It's quiet and all your friends are there, come on... Ron

No I don't think it is a glitch or an error. It is in a very good position IMO to fire on any infantry trying to cross the bridge while it's restricted LOS increases it's survivability. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you like to blow up Allied Armor this is the one for you..I mean a real Turkey shoot.I'll have to try it on the Allied side,that would be really challenging.It was Fun as the Germans,but I never felt for a second that I could lose.Maybe if the 88 gets knocked out,but it didnt happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SPOILER * * * * * * * I'm currently playing Meyer's Wrath PBEM as the Germans. On the first turn I was shocked to see all the Polish armour right in front of me. Sure enough the 88 pillbox got KO'd immediately. What may have been a turkey shoot has become a desperate attempt to stave off elimination as the Poles are easily walking thru my right flank...all the while avoiding the 75 pillbox of course. However all isn't lost as I just received the first reinforcements which I promptly threw at the Shermans and ended up bagging five for no loss(lucky?!?). There seems to be a lot more Shermans coming and hopefully I can delay them long enough until further help arrives. This is a tense match and I sure don't feel confident of winning at this point Great scenario Wild Bill. Ron

Tough, but not so menacing when a Sherman's first shot and hit damage the gun!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, I question that a lousy light- timbered bldg when crushed would take out 19 out of 20 men. A brick bldg-perhaps. Certainly they would be shaken up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but they could well be shaken up enough to be combat ineffective. Not all the casualties shown in CM are 'kills'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, you'd think the TacAI would have the sense to evacuate the men instead of letting them cower inside while a tank pounds them for 45 seconds- this with a thick copse of trees waiting in the back yard. I've noticed AI-controlled units hightailing it out of burning structures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the challenge of the game no? Sometimes frustrating, sometimes helpless, but rewarding for the players who are planning ahead of the next turn. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a similiar vein, you get the feeling that AFVs could use a "Withdraw" option like inf. You turn a corner at the end of a turn in your HT and your're looking at the turret of a Tiger slowly traversing in your direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From my experience if you don't give any orders for that turn the TacAI will take over and reverse to safety. Any player input with the accompanying delay seems to override that. Ron

Hmm, I don't understand either because I hadn't seen that type of result, even after several run throughs, so was just speculating. The only thing that stood out was the snow, were your troops running or moving? Ron

Well I don't know, perhaps the snow is having an affect on the cover. I ran some tests before and after 1.03 and there is a significant difference in the lethality of MGs versus troops running in the open, so much so I am very careful now of doing it. Try that scenario again with the troops in clear/open terrain and I am positive you will see this. Regards, Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Waters wrote: *8.8 cm KwK 36 L56 fireing Pzgr.39/43. % of hits on gunnery range, vs 2m high 2.5m wide target with range predetermined. Combat % in ( )'s. 100ms - 100 (100%) 500ms - 100 (100) 1000ms - 100 (93) 1500ms - 98 (74) 2000ms - 87 (50) 2500ms - 71 (31) 3000ms - 53 (19) *See Jentz Thomas L "Germany's Tiger Tanks" p.10<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that tells a different story. What kind of factor would the predetermined range play in the resulting percentages? Ron

Thanks for the response Michael. I probably have the same misconception also of long range engagements from reading ancedotal accounts on the Russian Front. Ron