civdiv

I have read (I can try and find the sources) that while the Panther did not cost significantly more than the MkIV it required twice the materials and significantly more man hours to build. And it was unreliable. And I believe the biggest shortcoming of the Panther was the final drive; was that ever fixed?

I think they built a number of useful variants off the Pz I and II chassis. Does anyone have an opposing argument to the claim that Luchs, Marder I and II, Wespe, Strumpanzer, Flakpanzer I, and Jagdpanzer I were useful?

In my opinion, the Germans lost a lot of resources and time tinkering away at stupid ‘pet projects’ in terms of tanks. Sure, a lot of this was driven by Hitler who wanted ever bigger dumb stuff, and defying him could lead to a dirt nap. And is anyone aware of any analysis as to what positive benefits (likely in terms of increased numbers of vehicles) this would have allowed? Yes, their was the E-series but it was too late and just stupid at the upper end of the series. So off the top of my head, the vehicles they should never have considered were; Tiger I, Tiger II, Maus, Lowe, Jagtiger, Nashorn, Sturmtiger and Elephant. Plus all the design work done on a couple of others like Panzer IX and X for example, or the E-series. I am sort of on-the-fence about the Jagdpanther and the Panther II. Should they have built the Panther II or just fixed the Panther? Should they have skipped Panther because it required too much time to build? Now, in terms of not building (or designing) Tiger I and Tiger II, they were over engineered, over weight, and unreliable. They already had the unreliable Panther, they probably should have fixed it first. And for the Tigers they were the wrong tank by that time of the war. Germany was on the defense at the time so throwing in heavy, mechanically unreliable ‘breakthrough’ tanks was the exact wrong decision. In ‘Sledgehammers: Strengths and flaws of the Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II”, Mr Wilbeck states that around 90% of total Tiger tank losses during WWII were destroyed by their crews while retreating because of breakdowns or running out of fuel, or bogging. Another huge mistake is the Germans never provided a Tiger recovery vehicle. The Tiger battalions on the Western front frequently used captured Shermans for that. So my two basic questions are; - What tank designs should the Germans have skipped to save time and resources? - What would have been the positive effects in terms of increased numbers of tanks they actually should have produced? So flame away, I am thick skinned and I know Battlefront well!

Your post that I responded to said it was an unbuttoned APC gunner compared to the buttoned vehicle itself.

Remember that Russia invading the Ukraine is defensive in nature. It must be true, Vlad said it.

Yes, as others have said, point enough tubes at it and it will be erased. My point is we do not know the composition of the target that was basically made combat ineffective by this barrage. Was it a company on a 100 meter frontage or a battalion on a 1km frontage? If it was a company then you just used your entire Brigade’s dedicated artillery ammo for the day to inflict 50% casualties on a company. I think we can agree if it was a battalion it might make sense; if was a company, then less so. And we haven’t even considered an artillery battalion firing for two hours w/o changing locations is kind of a bad idea.

The original article that OP posted lacks scale. In the last test we have 24 155 tubes firing 108 rounds per gun (2,600 total rounds) against ‘an infantry team’ with vehicles, including armor in support. How big was this team, how many vehicles, dispersed over what area? Now throw in the fact that it is going to take almost two hours to fire those rounds, so very much against doctrine. Maybe in the opening salvo of the war but that is about it. I am sure the actual test cited had the missing data; curious as to why it isn’t in the article.

Those ranges you are quoting are for an area target, I.e.; not some dude’s head.

Wouldn’t that be the product of aiming at something the size of a soldiers head as opposed to the entire width of the vehicle? In regards to the one shot kill at 215 and 3 shot kill at 400+, it could happen but it is very unlikely. If it happens 1 in 100 chances, probably good to go. If happens even 1 in 10 then no, it’s broken.

I just ordered a copy. I will report back (as if anybody cares about my feedback).

When I was ATTACHED to a Counter Mech unit (so ground launched TOW) the given range for a TOW was 3,750. This was circa ‘93.

I would tend to agree with the age of the munitions. When I was attached to a Counter Mech unit, all of the TOW failures in training were from stocks that were decades old. The one exception was when a gunner forgot to hyper elevate for a berm and the TOW hit like five meters from me. Luckily it did not explode.

That’s why I will not buy anything until the new engine comes out.

I can’t speak to WWII, but for at least the last 30 years the above isn’t entirely accurate. And the devil is in the details. So you have organic artillery (usually mortars), Direct Support (DS) artillery, and General Support (GS) artillery. DS artillery is dedicated to your unit, and thus almost always has a Liaison Element with the infantry Bn HQ. So the Company Cmdr could call Bn and have the artillery shut off because the Liaison Element is on the right nets. It would be fairly quick For GS artillery, it can work a couple of different ways, depending on what unit the FO is with. An FO from a DS artillery unit can get GS fires but it will take longer. This call, say a juicy target like an infantry battalion in the open, will go from the FO, to the artillery battery, then to the artillery Bn HQ, and then to the GS artillery unit. So it can still be turned off by the infantry company Cmdr calling the Infantry Bn HQ. But shutting the fire mission off will take longer. You might also have a GS FO. And once he takes his dirt nap, turning off the fire mission is harder because as you said, no one is on the right net. it’s been a while since I did this stuff so please correct the above as appropriate.

What about folks seeing ‘RTS’ and thinking Red Alert and then getting slapped in the face once they hit ‘go’?

I have seen some complaints about performance on the Steam version versus purchases direct from BF. I suggest BF checks that out and either quash or fix that early.

Cool war movie. Has nothing to do with what actually happened (your usual Russian eff-up in Chechnya), but good fiction.

Thanks for the quick replies!

Forgive me if this has been discussed, I did a quick search. For a target in front of you, does angling your tank slightly to the left or right increase the effective thickness of your armor based on increasing the angle?

I think Pantsir, at least the export model, has significantly underperformed. I think at one point they rushed out some upgrades.

I don’t understand what you are arguing here but then you likely don’t either. Are you complaining that the mission might get ended? Yeah, that is realistic because another, higher priority call for fire might have been received or they just don’t want to wasted anymore ammo or they need to displace, etc. Having been an artillery FO myself, I might call for another adjustment, but the battery might say no.

Actually, most of us bitched even after we joined the military, just about different things. I haven’t read this whole thread yet, but I would point out that the most unrealistic aspect of this game series is the Borg spotting; once one unit can see something, everyone then can see it (as in YOU are everyone because you have control over everyone). So your scout spots the Panther, and your Sherman knows where it is and moves to find a keyhole to engage. And it is close to instantaneous. And it is also an unavoidable mechanic. Then there is luck, which is also present on the real battlefield, combined sometimes with skill, or the lack there of. You might want to rage quit when the M8 kills your Tiger from behind, but you let it get behind you based on lack of skill or lack of luck. And we know it MIGHT have happened once in real life. Or the burst of 40mm flak that missed my half-track going long, but slaughtered a hidden FO team that the Germans could not see. CM gets it right better than anything else I have seen out there but it is far from perfect. But that is inherent in a game/simulation.

I have only recently returned to the forum after only checking in intermittently. But is it possible that English is not Semmes native language and might be a contributor to him being both too direct and not really being able to explain his point of view/complaint? @semmes And in regards to billions being spent on military truck design, how can you even argue this point? Military vehicles are designed to be able to operate off road. Yes, there have doubtless been many cases where non-military vehicles were used, but that was due to necessity, not choice. And being designed for off road movement makes them more expensive than their civilian counterparts. I mean, look at the HMMWV; it has ‘high mobility’ right in its name.

GFC? Ground Force Commander? You would have to add tons of new mechanics to get even close. I assume there could be some work arounds and some stuff could be ‘fudged’ but it doesn’t sound very compelling. The assault force gets dropped off in the middle of the night and then walks six kilometers to the target. And then three fireteams enter a building and shoot people! Rinse, repeat. And if you lose an assaulter it is a mission fail unless you killed/captured someone along the lines of Sauron.

I do not understand why they do not take gender out of French. But then I am not French, just a French speaker who lives in a Francophone country.