coe

Hmmm, yes but the 20mm is much bigger than the 50 cal? Besides the slight explosion effect it seems the 50 cal might be more versatile. What were the 20 mm penetration stats? Did the Germans make any adjustments lets say to their half tracks with the 50 cal around... likewise did they do anything to their own machine guns when then found their MG42s couldn't knock out a half track?

Were there any axis equivalents of the .50 cal did the axis try to match it once they found how useful a weapon it was/is? Conan

Hmmm, if two shermans are lost taking out a panther how does that compute tonnage wise - does a panther weight twice as much as a sherman?

Any opinions on this? Which side is better suited for attack in the bocage? Allies or Germans Howabout for defense. Since you can't defend every bocage square as germans, what makes it difficult for the allies to bypass various bocage squares since it is hard for those in the bocage square to see out of it (I assume this would mean that the defense places troops at the edge of the hedgerow?) perhaps anyone has suggestions on this? C.

so anything info about german attacks assuming both sides have trained infantry but germans have the ratios in arms that the allies usually enjoyed (i.e. airpower, artillery, ammunition, etc.)

Ok so you do have naval gunfire and airpower at Normandy. Perhaps there was a belief (a false promise) that the Luftwaffe would be able to put a dent into the air umbrella. Even so, I think the German strategy might have had a chance at Normandy, assuming that they could attack en masse on the first day or on DAy 2 (if there was bad weather too?). What if they managed to eliminate one of the beachheads?

the interesting match would be a more even terms battle - of course this is a battle that commanders seek to avoid. How can we analyze the success of Allied attacks or the failure of. If you remember operation Goodwood, the allied attack encountered a rather deeply layered defense (if not heavily manned) But for instance suppose this: No one has air superiority, artillery is in ample supply to both sides (lets just say that the U-boats sent all the battleships and cruisers scurrying for cover). Even at Salerno there was already an unbalance of material and manpower it seems - in favor of the Allies.

You would have thought that after encountering the Garand the Germans would have developed something new rapidly (ok ok we have the SG44 but that was only produced in limited numbers)

Curiosity question: Does anyone know what happened to the 88mm Flak battery that von Luck pressed into service at gunpoint during Goodwood? I know they shot up a significant number of tanks but did the battery survive. Was the Flak battery commander awarded a medal (if what von Luck actually said what was reported (I can't remember the exact words) "You're a dead man or you can get your self a medal" or something of that sort. C

Is there a thread on this topic: Let's say you are on defense, you have the quick ARTY fire targets (presited etc.) but what is the feasibility for vehicles Let's say you have a panther on defense. Assuming it doesn't move, it might lets say have something already pre-sighted/ranged, like the bend in the road where an enemy tank might first pop into view. That of course should give it a significant benefit when something does enter that spot. Of course if the defending vehicle moves all bets are off.

I've heard that deployment of these big guns and of others were done successfully under fire - I've never been able to do that successfully though. Any idea as to what ranges probably (given that LOS in CM is rarely beyond like 3000m) or what to do to give cover? I've considered popping smoke on the deployment area.... but for 6 minutes? C.

There's been alot of talk about pentration at various ranges, etc. etc. Would it be safe to assume that trajectory is factored in here. E.g. for a slow velocity projectile, the course is more eliptical I assume. Therefore the impact might have less deflection than a shot trajectory that is flat. I can imagine for example if armour is sloped 45 degrees and an airplane makes a strafing run at 45 degrees to the ground it's cannon shot will be 0 deflection (could this be a reason that lets say a mortar shot dropping directly down over head has a good chance of nocking out a tank (factoring of course that the overhead armor is perhaps thinner)....

Howabout Hermann Balck?

My bad, sorry I reposted this a second time, someone please delete this double of a post Actually I was thinking more about the GErman tanks... where supposedly the instruction manual says for them to move like mad halt fire, then move like mad... can't be good for the engine! [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: coe ] [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: coe ]

Actually I was thinking more about the GErman tanks... where supposedly the instruction manual says for them to move like mad halt fire, then move like mad... can't be good for the engine!

Hmmm, hunt seems to be the tank is moving a bit slow, stops and shoots and moves on What about fast hunt? That is the tank is going along fast, (also its ability to spot is much poorer) but when it does find a target it stops and shoots. Of course one would assume that the first shot would be far less likely to hit than in a regular hunt mode.

If the 17lbr as an AT gun was much better than the 88mm why didn't the germans try to produce the 17lbr... was the 75mm Long better than the 17lbr? By better I mean smaller, can be carried around easier, better profile, better penetration values at various distances.

As for individual tanks making it through the war, I was thinking if they were due to be retired after only a year or two of combat (and not refitted and upgraded let's say coudl you make a Pzkw IVJ from a Pzkw IVA) then it would accent the production disparity between the combating nations. as for my other question - maybe a jadgtiger seeing a column of Allied Trucks and half tracks lined up in front might be better off firing an AP round it could theoretically knock out more vehicles in one shot! (assuming of course the kinetic penetration itself causes explosions as it goes through each vehicle!)

Do you know if there was any frontline style panzer (probably the Mk IV) that survived pretty much from the start of the war (say 1940 or so, not so much 1939) to the end and was used in front line situations pretty much (not like a somewhat stand back command vehicles). I'd also be interested if any of the first production run Tigers or Panthers made it too. Last curiosity question - any idea if there have been any real life double tank kills (like 88mm goes through a stuart and kills a sherman behind it?) C.

Well if it is a true prep barrage, it might be more like unguided indirect fire. Thus the shells would be scattered more. We're not talking about FO directed fire missions we're talking general bombard the front type of deal. I mean theoretically it could kill some troops, churn up some guns, and maybe blast a few holes in barbed wire and maybe even turn some buildings to rubble (which can make street-fighting even more hellish) At the same time the trench/bunker system would have to be really effective so that soldiers can hide out. I'm not envisioning having to pay for it because it might be inherent in the scenario/attack style

What do you think of this, to assume an opening arty barrage, the defensive player sets up and then without really being able to see the defensive player, the attacking player can call down an opening arty barrage (that might go on for one or two minutes)... on suspected positions...this would kinda model the pre-attack artillery?

that makes sense, I was thinkingof the late model 88 mm AT Did the 88 have tungsten ammo too? How was the 17lber without sabot and just regular AT ammo? Although I guess by that time some Panzerjagers had the 128 mm? C.

How hard would it be to adapt the scenarios from CMBO to CM2. I mean if the basic behavior of troops and vehicles, etc are the same then in an ideal world it wouldn't be too hard. i.e. an American squad still gives 100 gunfire factors at 100 m etc. etc compared to a German or Russian, etc. I guess i'm thinking of the concept of compoenentizing the game so you can do separate modifications to separate parts. I assuem though that the engine of CM2 might be heavily influential on this.

What about this, your crew can voluntarily abandon its weapon or vehicle (you'd want to do this if you aren't under fire but you know that you'll be screwed if you wait around). This is kinda like scuttling. Details: 1.) Vehicle/weapon is disabled/destroyed 2.) Crews are not shaken 3.) Crews have better firepower and ammo. Note this kind of abandoning couldn't be done while under fire (i.e. you can't just leisurely abandon your Sherman when a Panther is about to brew you up) I guess the issue is how to determine if a successful abandoning takes place if you suddenly become under fire that turn.

Any pointers as to the comparisons of the 17 pdr and the 88mm? which would be "better" against an identical target. I assume like 88mm 1943 version