Andreas

Dima, it would deflect and deform an ATR round that is already pretty marginal in terms of penetration. ISTR that the added armour of the first Schürzen was exactly the minimum amount needed to prevent ATRs from penetrating.

That should make Kip happy

Juardis, at 150m off target I would agree with you. But at 50m my suspicion is that endless firing of spotting rounds is just not realistic, and would not have occured IRL. Once you are 50m near the target the FOO would just ask for FFE, and that's it. The footprint of the rounds coming down should cover your target now. Again, that is how I believe it was done. The reasons for that would be that the firing battery really has better things to do, and that this 'walking' your barrage to the target would alert the target that something was coming. Which is not what you want. But as I said, maybe it was done the way you say? Now there is an issue with CMBB (and CMBO artillery for that matter) now that I am not happy with, and that is sheaf form and orientation. Couldn't be changed though between the games. So in terms of realism, I am not unhappy (unless someone tells me that my idea of 'precision' is mistaken) with 50m. In terms of realism I am unhappy with the sheaf though.

The inside of a Panzer III I doubt there is a lot of ricocheting going on in there, looks awfully crammed to me. I would assume that earlier, smaller AFVs were probably more, and not less crammed?

Juardis, my point was that I believe that in the WW2 context, 50m 'off target' was actually quite precise, and not 'incompetent'. I would be interested to get some input into that from others. Jon? The question of wasted rounds when adjusting is a different one. I guess you can justify one volley coming down after the 'cease-fire' has been hollered down the line. That is a limitation of the engine though, and the 60sec turns, I guess.

Senior compared to whom? </font>

Regarding your last point, I would not really consider 50m to be 'off'. Seems okay to me. Certainly less accurate than CMBO, but not unrealistically so, IMO. Especially considering the footprint of a mortar shooting smoke.

Herr Picker would like to point out that if they can shoot out of the building, they can be shot at inside the building, unless they all use the famed Krummlauf SMG. Fortified buildings are not really in CMBB as I understand it, and I would like to see them in the engine rewrite. Placing bunkers into buildings is a crutch that helps a bit to get there. I am not saying that it isn't a problem. Just pointing out some other possible explanations.

Senior compared to whom? </font>

One thing to note here is that if the infantry in the buildings is not 'hiding', they are standing at openings fighting out of them. So they are actually at the windows, doors, whatever. It sounds a bit funny to me, but this could be part of the explanation, and the other could again be the bell-curve. How many shots have people observed where cannister fired at infantry in buildings was ineffective?

Talenn, regardless of your basic point, you are overlooking a critical element here. The criticism was about the rarity factor, not the base-point value. One could argue that the base point value is quite alright. So if your concern is balance, turn rarity off. Then you get a Soviet 152mm Howitzer spotter with 30 rounds for 136 points (June 43, South), and a German 150mm spotter with 25 rounds for 245 points. The German is a lot more responsive and has 15% more ammo, so that would account for the price differential I guess. Whether he is worth his money is a completely different question, depending on the individual battle you fight. BTW here is one beta-tester and senior poster (I am not at all in favour of the number of posts being shown!) who thinks that price is about the least of the issues with artillery.

Jason, I really don't get it. We started this discussion with you believing that the 122s were as common as 150s, and that their rarety was falsely at 65%, and they were therefore unfairly penalised. Now that we have dealt with the misconceptions, you are coming along asking for all-singing, all-dancing QBs, which allow you to explore doctrinal differences, and stage Soviet attacks properly. Seriously, why don't you use pre-built scenarios for that? If you play these (as I suspect) against a mate, just agree on a budget, and you even get your budgetary constraint. If you play the Soviets, ask him to buy about 50-70% of his 1st and 2nd line fixed defences and place them. Then show you the map, and let you fix TRPs on them. The real way to do this is an operation anyway. Yes I do want QBs to do all that too, and bring me a cup of tea to my bed in the morning. It is just not very realistic to expect them to do that, and it seems to me that by now in this discussion you are just trying to make up something that is wrong, instead of looking at the game to see how you can actually do it. As Steve said - is heavy Soviet artillery a risky investment in a QB? Yes. So are King Tigers, airpower, and a host of other weaponry. There are lots of things that are not perfect in the artillery system. IMO pricing is way down the list. BTW - if you are so keen on playing doctrinally relevant battles, why do you want to use 76mm guns in indirect fire?

Jason, I could further elaborate on what it seems your mate did wrong, or you could just agree to argue about QBs. In scenarios there is no ban at all, because price and rarity is irrelevant. So your example is still a red herring. It wasn't a response, because that is not what I said. I said that prep fire without knowledge (or observation) of the enemy positions was often wasteful. QBs do not model breakthrough battles of the 1944 style very well, if at all. Neither should they, because they just would not be a lot of fun. If you want to play something like that, set up a scenario. Because the other thing you then have to agree to is that the German player buys only 80 guys for every 750 the Soviet player gets (those are ratios given by Niepold for the actual ratio of the attacks in the breakthrough sectors in Bagration). And no tanks, while the Soviet player can have SU76 and IS2 in close support. On a good day the German player would get a 75mm ATG and a few pillboxes, but then again, one could argue whether these should not be deemed destroyed in the first instance. It is only in the second and third line of defense that things get interesting again, because it is there that the soviet player runs out of artillery, and the German player should be given tanks, Stugs and Alarmeinheiten to counter-attack. On the more general point, as raised by Cogust, if you think your artillery is only of use if it kills the point value it did cost you to buy it, your thinking is very seriously off the mark. If it suppresses at the right time, and enables you to move other assets in, it has done its job. The aim is to gain fire superiority at the critical moment, to achieve freedom of movement. To do that properly in a large-scale assault, you need the intel on the German positions to set up your attack and a fire-plan (which, after all coming back to your example, your mate could not set up properly, because he did not know where you were).

Sorry, but Zaloga gives the TO&E figures, i.E. full strength assumed. I am not just talking 1944 either, but from the official 29th July 41 TO&E onwards the 122mm is only 1/5 to 1/4 of the gun mix (on paper). Your assumption is wrong because it seems the heavy battalion only had two batteries @ 4 guns ea. Leaving aside actual issue. Yes, and what about the other formations I mentioned? Independent brigades, mech corps, tank corps, cavalry corps (neither of which had any), or 1942 infantry corps (which had fewer than divisions). Leaving aside the thorny issue of how many really were on the battlefield. Wartime production given in Zaloga says 13,100 122mm Howitzer produced, compared to 68,800 76.2mm guns. Well, I agree that 65% does not make sense, so it is good to see that a quick look in the editor shows you are quite wrong with that figure. Soviet 122mm Howitzer always 50% (tested Inf wire for June 41/42/43). German 150mm div howitzer (wire) ranges from 5% to 20%. which makes sense, if one takes into account the fairly evenly distributed independent heavy regiments. The soviets did not distribute their RVGK rgts as evenly because they were massed in breakthrough sectors.

This is an interesting example, but I wonder what it has to do with the problem at hand? I would certainly not accept the conclusion you draw from it. It appears to me that your scenario set-up modelled a heavy weight of artillery fire with no previous intelligence. There are a number of accounts on how heavy concentrations of artillery fire failed because of insufficient recce before the attack. All those shells wasted (sounds familiar?). By 1944, when the Red Army had a good idea of what they were on about, they would not contemplate firing a preparation without very good information on enemy firing positions. I have Soviet officer memoirs speaking of Koniev personally showing up at a divisional CP, chewing out the commander for only having reconnoitered some 40 German firing positions in three days. He expected at least 70, and he was not going to waste a barrage in this sector if the number did not go up. To simulate this in a scenario, you have to give the Soviets not just the artillery, but also the information. So you have to give them padlocked TRPs right on the defender's trenches, bunkers, and minefields. If you do this, I suspect you get realistic results, with good suppression and kills. If you don't do it, you also get realistic results.

I would be interested what you base that statement on. According to Zaloga, for the divisions it is: July 41 8 out of 36 (22%) March 42 12 out of 44 (27%) Dec 44 20 out of 64 (23%) The 5th April 41 configuration has a lot more, but I would seriously question the amount to which it was ever implemented before the attack. At the same time, rifle brigades had '0' 122mm guns, and I am not sure about the number of 122mm guns in the initial rifle corps that put together these brigades under a higher HQ.

MikeyD - I think he listed those as the active/alive sites. He did not list the 'gone to meet their maker' sites, at least that is how I read Adrian's post.

Yes, in response to my question along the lines of: 'Why were you still training on the door-knocker (3,7cm) in 1942/3, when it was clear that you could not harm enemy tanks with it?' He also said they got quite good at it - but that was training, mind you, I wonder what it would have looked like under fire.

Zitadelle, I own the manuals on Soviet Armour and Soviet Infantry, and German Panzer tactics. Quality of printing (limited number of typos, good binding, etc...) Soft-bound, seems to be good quality (i.e. will survive constant reading); have not noted any typos; dense lay-out which makes it a bit difficult to read at times; some pictures could be clearer, especially the ones scanned from Soviet manuals. Quality of material Very good, highly informative look at small unit combat tactics. Usability In CMBB? Not sure, I have just had a quick read through them, not studied them with a view to apply the lessons in CMBB. Especially the platoon tactics, and formations, should be applicable though. Valuable source references or bibliography There are TO&E listings in the back, and the soviet ones have a good number of STAVKA instructions on how to use tanks etc, putting the manual nicely into context. Overall I think they are well worth the money.

Agua, probably best to not feed the trolls on this one.

Lorrin, it was me who mentioned that. The relative is the dad of a friend of mine, but he never saw the east, instead sticking to hanging around Italy and France (smart move). The only thing I could think of that would help you is the actual training manuals, which you maybe able to get from the Bundesarchiv in Germany, or maybe the National Archives in the US.

That is a very interesting one. Quite unusual I thought. Makes a nice change from the usual ra-ra stuff.

Minor technical detail is that not all scenarios are actually hosted at the Depot. Most, if not all, Der Kessel scenarios only have a link-through to our site homepage. Not sure if this would throw up problems with such a scheme. Just thought I'd mention it.

I am almost certain that should refer to the T50. There was never an alternative of either T34 or T60/70. The T60/70 were produced in automotive factories that could not produce T34s. So when they were abandoned from 12/42, the production at these plants switched to the SU76, an open-topped SP 76.2 gun. (see e.g. Zaloga 'Red Army Handbook')

Because in reality the German setup was often quite different from a CMBB game. E.g. while you maybe able to handle the scout platoon of Panzer IIs coming right at you (that would be the CMBB battle), it is usually followed by a bunch of Panzer III 50L60 shortly behind (which you won't see in that particular CMBB battle). Another issue is that your world is not just limited in time, but also in space. You can circle at 500-600m, because there is little danger in a CMBB game that there is an 88, or a platoon of IV 75L43 in overwatch about a 1,000m further back. If you don't play with historical OOBs, and in historical map settings, particular vehicles can shine. Once you do, that usually stops. Jason's post appears to me to be clearly about in-game use, and does not appear to be referring to any real-life 'success' of these light tanks.