Tomb

Mattius do you have a reference for the info on the 38 HEAT round ? regards Tomb

all societys have a secret one and let me tell you HOUSE MADNESS is so secret that some of its members dont realise they belong to it, clearly though some members are doing thier best to give themselves away "wadda mean wheres my turn, YOU owe me a turn" HOUSE MADNESS the true underwater underhand gang

im seem to recall somewhere a british analysis of this which if i recall the toughest and most fanatical was the SS unit with a lot of dutch in it in contrast the toughest and most fanatical resistance fighters were also dutch obviously people with strongly held and committed view points Tomb

not to confuse the issue with facts or anything WO 291/975 Tank battle analysis. This report presents the results of an analysis of 83 tank vs. tank actions in NW Europe taken from unit war diaries. The data means that it is not possible to separate results out by individual tank or gun types. It is assumed that Allied (British) tanks have 25% 17-pr tanks, and that 25% of towed ATk guns are 6-pr, the rest 17-pr. German ATk guns are assumed to be 50% 75mm and 50% 88mm. The report's conclusions are: SP guns are more effective that towed ATk guns by a factor of about 3 for the Allies, and about 2 for the Germans. The Panther and Tiger are more effective than Mk III and IV against Allied SP guns by a factor of about 4. "In tank versus tank engagements, for the chance of success to be equal for either side, Allied tanks would have to outnumber the German tanks by some 30%". For an equal chance of success against German anti-tank guns, Allied tanks need to outnumber them by about 2 to 1. The mean "success range" for the 17-pr was 2100 yards, as against 580 yards for the 75mm. The average "success ranges" for tanks were 750 yards for the Allies, 1290 yards for the Germans. Allied ATk guns were successful at 1090 yards (SP) and 870 yards (towed), whereas German figures were 330 yards (SP) and 300 yards (towed). my comment the 17pdr easily is the best gun/sight combination on these numbers Of 83 actions, 58 were won by the side that fired first. Where a side was both numerically superior and fired first, it was invariably successful. A successful tank attack typically resulted in about 15% losses; a failure, about 65%. A successful ATk gun defence resulted in about 12.5% (SP) or 15% (towed) losses; a failure, over 50% (SP) or 80% (towed). WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks. "With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement". The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit. For MG fire, "...the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected." For the main armament, it was found that "...a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement." (all (and more) availible for your reading pleasure on john salts home page) regards Tomb

i should point out that john salts table refers to homogenous armour which tends to petal IE peel back where hardend harmour tends to plug IE the metal infront of the round enters the tank "as opposed to peel back. germans favoured hardened armour which if sloped had a good tendancy to shatter a tungsten or other hardened round , the down side of this is hardend armour could fail disasterously if defeated i think the bottom line is is better to have hardend thin armour and softer thick armour the brits also concluded that APHE was useless if you could not penetrate while AP which had better penetration was better, more, if needed, could be fired until a result was achieved. the clash of british armour with the german armour around Caen produced i believe in about 300 brit tanks lost for 60 german. a german victory perhaps except the brits took the ground meaning the 60 german losses were permanant and harder to replace than the brits who put all but 40 of the three hundred back into service ..what was 40 tanks to allied production ? a day, a week ?, not much for sure the germans know how to win battles but the brits know how to win wars. regards Tomb

John, i`ll take you up on that beer sometime, have you tried trolling through the PRO website ?. its my first port of call to try and find out what i want to ask for, such a damm shame you cant actually read more than the title online. my next away day as it were will be tank museum at Bovingdon since ive never been, and i`d like to touch the metal as it were, now if you fancy claiming a beer down thier..be my guest. Regards Tomb

tks for that, very nice you have been busy I usually lurk in the air 40 files but since CMBO and ww2online have been looking at a few other areas, so much to read and only 1 lifetime. regards Tomb

this graticle german sight is often touted but if you have a high velocity gun with a flat trajectory you dont need much in the way of sight adjustments at all, one of the PRO documents also points out that long range shooting with AP, it is damm near impossible to see the fall of the shot or even a strike (17pdr) and if i recall one of the PC tank battle games historical commentry, i have tells of gunners aiming high for the turret since most errors are in range and if its closer than you think then you hit the turret, if its further away you hit the hull. it was considered bad to drop a round short where it would be spotted by the enemy crew. i would recommend WW2online for as feel for the different sights in real time action, where in practice i set the sight to the most likely engagement range since its far more important to hit first time than hit with an "accurate" range , at close range i aim for the middle since high shots hit the turret unless its really close. also in practice i use the sights as fixed since with practice you adjust your aim point on the target with range at normal engagment ranges. long range shooting i would adjust the sights if german but even with the top weapon (88) you use the external binocular range finder and then dial it in to the gun sight, then fire, One factor the british sights had was better low light ability over the german sights which will only matter for the dawn or dusk and perhaps other low light conditions. (not reflected in ww2online that i noticed) as John Salt says some of the PRO stuff can be quite revealing remember the brit 95mm heat debate ? thier are a few items on how to use it to kill tanks which CMBO seemed to have modeled quite closely john salt since you like reading this stuff can i draw your attention to (if you havent already) 185/194 (tank shooting direct v bracketing) 185/195 (sighting for tanks, note comment about 17[pdr having moving graticle and illuminated sight) 291/324 (first round hit in A/T combat) 291/873 (bracketing drill tank gunnery) 291/1183 (obscuration) 291/1212 (range in AT battles) 291/1240 (moving targets) 291/90 (firing on the move) 291/1202 (gyro stab systems) 291/95 (tank battle anaysis) little bit of bedtime reading for you, well i enjoyed it regards Tomb

the demo period covers one winter, the winter of 41 with no apparent effect, think i would also second the comment about africa else where Ie another hex row or two that gets some "flow" into the battle. it was after all a battle of flanking manovers. strategic bomber, no reason why germany could not develop them in the game, but in 1939/40/41 only Britain had a strategic bomber force, the luftwaffe was purely tactical in nature and used to support the army., more effective than any one else in the early part of the war thats for sure. regards Tomb

played a few times and am also playing High-command. winter is noticable and drawn on the map, my units are grinding to a halt in the winter zones, i have not noticed this in SC, going to be crucial against mother russia, it would be nice to know general winter has arrived. some sort of medium bomber unit is needed, germany never developed heavy or even strategic bombers, also the principal brit bombers carried twice the bombload of principle usa bombers while later war principle usa fighters had twice the range of principle brit fighters, this medium unit would not be as good as fighters or bombers but somewhere between ,but would have range the class of plane would represent mossie/beaufighter/p38/110/hampden/B25/he111 the major killer of subs was aircraft and its perhaps these rather than surface ships which should be able to suprise subs, subs had loads of time to dive from approaching war ships and very little from air attack. like the game for its one session play, think the subs is about right (casualties in the U-boat service was very high in ww2) , have to wonder why thier are no Destroyer/small unit flotillas since these were the major sub hunters, not the capital ship units in the game. i did like the fact i could use the RAF to wreck the german/french ports to prevent "sealion" an often overlooked contribution of bomber command during the Battle of Britain and as axis i used the Luftwaffe to hit the ports to cost the UK MPPs though as Axis i did invade britain since the AI is not wise to this tactic overall i enjoy the game but feel its nearer axis and allies than high command but as i enjoy both games thats not a bad thing regards tomb

looks like maddox games of IL2 fame are bringing out a 1941-1945 russian front style game ..it does say real time mind, it should does look real good visually something along the visual style of CMBO but updated , looks like fans of the russian front will have two games to buy. Tomb

you dont have to penetrate to kill thier is a report i have somewhere which compares the 60lb HE an AP rockets as fired by the typhoon while the AP in theory would get the most kills in practice the HE did since it had a habit of removing the turret from the tank if it hit near and since removeing the turret was rather a effectice way of killing a tank despite no armour pentration being achieved. i think i have remebered it right i,ll see if i can dig it up , its a PRO document. Tomb

Hmm I would suggest perhaps the wrong thing is being attempted or done in “operations” First what is a front line…. Not the neat little line beloved of news papers or what is drawn in CMBO ..there is no way you would give up an advantages postion the way it occurs in CMBO as is. The more modern terms of FLOT and FEBA are nearer to reality . what would perhaps be a more accurate way in CMBO is to link the placement of troops to flag capture in that an area surouding the “flag” is owned by which ever side has it..the other is forced to withdraw.. it behoves the designer to place flags on important tactical postions…tops of hills dominating buildings..fortifications etc. this would be more “realistic” as especially at this tactical scale the troops are not standing shoulder to shoulder and thier is no front line as such since the troops are intermingled in the Forward Edge of the Battle Area ..key postions would be largley tactical in nature ..and so would supply…perhaps one flag at your edge could be your line of supply..lose it and your units are not resupplied or are forced to withdraw , It would also be obvious that if you own no key points “flags” you are forced to withdraw (ala CC) since most units will be unlikely to remain out of supply and will generally retreat to obtain supply ..in the special circumstances such as para drop etc where you start out of supply they perhaps allow some two or three “battles” allowed in an out of supply situation ..but then I would argue that even companys would have a supply line back to some battlion source etc. not every man would carry every round the unit had, some would be left at their smaller unit areas an MG fires a lot of ammo..more than perhaps a well supplied team could carry..and even the longest battles in CMBO are what less than two hours..no way would a unit fire or even be able to carry every round the unit had in two hours and be “out of supply” ..their would be a constant stream of supply trucks every two hours ..not likely..the supplies are disbursed from higher echelon units to the lower ones during the course of action are are availble over a longer period than two hours… its more likely to be days supply than hours . …if you insist in staying “out of supply” then those days will count down and may well become hours ..and eventualy withdrawal or surrender for the player concerned. Supply need not be checked for every unit but for the map…is the supply link open yes = in supply, no = not, if you want to keep it dead simple force the unit out of supply to withdraw or add a number of battles in an operation where this may be so..then forced to withdraw . In CMBO I actually don’t play for the flags since they opposing player is often drawn to them like a moth to a flame..its very advantages to set up your fire lanes and arty strike points on them..after you have caused sufficant damage, him owning them wont make up for the losses he suffered getting them ..how diiferent that would look if in an operation I knew he would be setting up their..the game is about points and that means killing things ..not fighting for position..unless the postion allow you to kill even more..the flag just makes it conveniant so you know where he is heading…in all but a small battle the flags are worthless as such. CC had its problems but in CC 4 they did sort the bridge problem out..hope fully something that will be sorted for CMBB since its rather good to shoot at the player as he drives through his own burning tanks but cant shoot through them..but you can hit him as his nose pokes through..a very intersting pile of burnt tanks do not block the bridge or stop inf passing through ..not just CC has problems with bridges second weakness is to fire at 90 degrees to a bridge or line of travel since tanks in CMBO have the limitation of pointing the turret in the direction of travel and not in the direction of a known threat ..the player needs the “rotate turret “ command I feel …the turrent will turn in CMBO..not in time usually but if you could have your turret pointing down an anticpated threat line (rotate to)…you would be more tank than Stug with a turret.. thats my thoughts on tactical manovering and supply Shall we save operational manovering and supply for another time I gotta go Tomb

I think i would agree , better to not have the front lines adjusted at all from the cease battle postions than the current system during operations... certainly CC 2 has to be one of the best battles around and CC4s concept of manovering units and those that met..fought is clearly a concept that some have tried to emulate here via various "meta campaigns" CM's tactical level matched with CC's operational level would be an unbeatable combination. any one noticed how dam hard it is to get a good wargame on a computer these days...CMBB will be on my list but i cant help wondering if its all it could be...now that CC5 was disappointing and the whole series now seems to have bit the dust. its berlin or bust (CMBB) for me CMBO did re-introduce for me a kind of wargaming i thought had gone forever and the anticipation of each new turn in E-mail is a thrill, and for that i'll live with the lack of ability of the game in other areas. keep up the good work regards Tomb

title says it all, while i love the set piece battles thier is very little sense of continuity. i dislike intensly the loss of towns or areas that were fought and won in the previous days fights..an important tactical area is often just given away without the otherside having to take it..certain key building etc. the Close combat series gave an excellent sense of operational continuity..lacking in CMBO . considering the time period of CMBB i would hope for some continuity, unit upgrades in equipment (or down grades) experiance levels etc. while the CM series makes for great table top gaming without the usual hassles involved i guess i would like to see it go that bit further and each battle could rely on the next one fought, or the last one. it removes the "nothing to lose" principle in One off battles. Games such as CC3 the russian front tend to eliminate that factor...lose all your equipment in 1 battle with reckless abandon could cost you the next two three or even a substatial defeat in an operation. just a thought, it would be nice to see CM move beyond a table top recreation into part of a wider battle i mean barbarossa to berlin..thats a long way to go..with out links between battles and periods..well that limits it a bit...to unconnected one off battles..that may well be the intention of course. two pence worth. Tomb

Have to say I enjoyed this battle . I played as the brits and it went to 23 turns the result was all german AFVs killed (8) and I lost just 12 vehicles of which only 4 were tanks which broke down into 1x stuart 2x sheman 1x 17pdr sherman the other eight vehicles were halftracks/jeeps/bren carriers/trucks … strategy was not subtle..straight down the middle through the woods with everything I had… with the max number of gun tubes I had difference was probally the tactics in that my tanks are not supported by infantry ..they support the infantry..a subtle but crucial distinction ..so basically the infantry led the way if it was clear the supporting halftracks..jeeps…brens came up and if still clear the tanks came up… the first bren gun carrier died to a hidden AT gun but it not survive the cross fire from flanking tank maneovers basically a flanking tank would fire as the gun turned the tank would retreat and a second tank on a flank would advance and take over on the newly exposed flank the stuart was perfect for this due to its speed and rate of fire and tendency to reverse as the threat gun turned to face it , the next anti tank gun was stumbled over by the skirmish line infantry ..they soon killed it with the crew surrendering..the third anti tank gun nailed a half track giving its postion away..i could not flank it so dropped a smoke shell in front of it …formed up most of my tanks ..as the smoke cleared it fired 1 shot and missed…most of the return fire also missed from the tanks but I only needed 1 hit which a few tanks scored for a bit of overkill.. a tiger blasted one of the scouting half tracks giving it position away and was picked off by the alternate flanking tank method this time using 17pdr shermans ..by now my advancing infantry had got near the woods overlooking the road supported by massive tank support which basically slaughted the german inf spotted by my own inf …a solid wall of HE and MG fire swept any german inf spotted into oblivion…a stug attemted to give support and died under a hail of AP then the german inf slaughter continued by now several tigers were spotted and went down to flanking tanks again but not before a 2x sherman and a fire fly died ..the sherman will retreat but got hit before it could reverse out..the firefly kept missing and did not retreat and died…a second 17pdr sherman finaly got into postion after a reckless charge through the woods and nailed the tiger ..now the range was point blank at the town edge and the surviving german units (tiger, nashorn etc) were destoyed as soon as spotted but not before a stuart charged right pass a tiger while his buddy fired a 37mm ineffectually at the tiger one stuart died before a torrent of sherman AP shells took the tiger out from very close range ..a final dash with half tracks and brens and jeeps to secure all the flags backed up by just about every brit tank firing at the shattered german infantry brought the game to an end…never got to use my arty spotters much since the battle was too fluid … I felt nervous about taking on hidden tigers and hidden AT guns but the war gods were with me in this battle as I had very light casualties while the germans were simply butcherd… the german AI defense was disjointed..the attack was not, a large factor in this battle. Next I will try as the germans but the surprise will have gone since I know what the allied force consists of Fun scenario all the same Tomb