Andreas

At the start of Barbarossa, some German PDs were at above TO&E strength (110-120%), so after just a few days you would not notice any losses. </font> APC BN 1 S.R.1 (w/HTs) reinforced by 15 Pz II and 3 Pz III </font>one TD coy 3x 50mm and 9x 37mm </font>mot 2nd BN S.R.1 (trucks) heavy weapons towed by HTs, 3 ATGs </font>2nd BN AR (mot)73 12x 10,5cm lFH18 and HTs </font>1 Battery AA BN 85 (mot) 2x8,8cm AA (SP) and 3 2cm AA </font>Medical team </font>Hope that helps a bit

This is so factually inaccurate, and gratuitously fatuous, I do not even know where to begin. With that said - Parabellum, who hates his first name, and Andreas are Germans, they are therefore genetically incapable of possessing this 'humour' thing you take about. In public no less! Soddball is a public school boy, and we all know what happens when they drop the soap. I won't even mention the others, because unlike that French soccer pinko, they are not worth it. I can let you know though that they are but a bunch of slackass posterboys. Now, on top of that, I have been accurately certified by our resident shrink Cpt. Kloss as being a loser with a life so f*cked up that all that was left to me was to become a CMBB Betatester. I can also assure you that this German Boy you talk about is in fact nothing but a figment of someone's imagination and in fact my schizoid twin. On top of being a 2nd rate 3rd class scenario designer. So, next time get your effing facts right before you post and waste bandwith. In closing, I would like to add that CMBB could have been a much better product, if instead of the bunch of nitwits selected for beta-testing and graphics production, such eminent and respected board members as Maximus, Lewis, MG Mannschaft, GunnyBunny, and Fred had been selected. It is good to see though that the torch carried by them is held up to this day by the likes of Cpt. Kloss, Scatterbrain Kid and Licensed Fool. I salute them.

That should be 'Borisovka Station'

What about Cpt. Kloss? His contributions are sorely missed, and he could have a role too I am sure Maybe as the mad white-van driver masquerading as a shrink in the corner.

My guess is the craters are covered by rubble. The sheds are very fragile, and the blast of the bombs is enough to destroy them at quite some distance.

Ammo load has been increased for normal infantry, by at least 20 percent I think (average is now about 45-50 I would think with figures going as high as 60, as opposed to the standard 40 in CMBO). I think it could be argued that ammo management across your force is part of what distinguishes player skills.

Ammo load has been increased for normal infantry, by at least 20 percent I think (average is now about 45-50 I would think with figures going as high as 60, as opposed to the standard 40 in CMBO). I think it could be argued that ammo management across your force is part of what distinguishes player skills.

Yeah, sorry about the bug with the reinforcements. 'Waltzing Matilda' is a lot smaller than huge.

I sort of like his 'War on the Eastern Front' - I despise his approach in 'Kampfgruppe', and I dislike his lack of corroborating evidence in general. His books are a Curate's egg type story as far as I am concerned. Then again, I am picky. YMMV. Carrell/Schmidt: I emailed a few people a long time ago, amongst them Steve, an English summary of the German page. Suffice to say Carrell/Schmidt lied about his military background as a war correspondent, and instead was Chief Editor of Signal and Chief Propagandist at the Nazi Foreign Office.

Kevsharr is quite correct about the makeup of the 15cm Nebelwerfer (the larger calibres were of standard design, since they were anti-bunker, not anti-personnel). Lucas (another of those grain of salt types) in the source Kevsharr uses actually has a Soviet account of the effects at the receiving end, so that should be a bit more correct. A 15cm NW rocket would have a poit 60cm above ground as its detonation point. AIU the blast effect of one rocket would not work that well - saturate the target area however with 4x6 rockets from one battery, and the story is ever so slightly different. The described effect in that quote would gel with how I understand Nebelwerfers would work. I am not an expert though.

It is my understanding there is no specific code in it. I'll elaborate tonight or tomorrow on my thinking about this (it may well be flawed).

They needed something for Zhukov and Koniev to drive to Berlin in

What do you mean, shot from under him. The reality must be broken, BFC fix or somefink Seriously though - I think people would have reacted very differently to your posts if you had actually supported your statements with some information. To just come in and call everyone who did not agree with Redwolf 'blind' was not particularly helpful to your reputation. With that said, since you have a lot of expertise, I hope that in the future you will share that with us. You should not assume that people on this forum are just a bunch of gamers with no clue, there are some very knowledgeable people on this board - I don't know how long you have been lurking, and with the current activity here it is easy for good threads to be drowned out, but I am sure everybody coming here can learn a thing or two. All the best, Andreas

You crack me up. Seriously, have you thought about stand-up comedy? You could be the David Brent of Poland!

Oh data analysis - fun! Let's go down that route, shall we? Right, how many people have actually taken one side or another? How many people who initially were pro-Redwolf or on the fence have changed their view as part of this debate (e.g Kan. Reichmann)? Those are the key bits of data, not the raw numbers. To give you an extreme example, if you have 69 pro-Redwolf replies from someone like Captain Kloss who shouts 'superior tanks always retreat', and 89 pro-Steve from 89 different people who actually tested the problem instead of shouting and found there was no problem, which set of answers would you value higher? I look forward to the answer to all three questions.

I don't have an analytical history of the Brandenburg Division (that was what it became later), but I do own a 'factual' novel by Will Berthold which he claims is based on real experiences, and it mentions this raid. ISTR either Glantz in 'The early period of war' or Erickson in 'The road to Stalingrad' mention it somewhere too.

Well, I fully agree there seems to be a case in this discussion not just of unrealistic expectations of Soviet assault guns, but also of unfamiliarity with the new armoured commands. On that I fully agree. I have not yet tried with a BT7 against a King Tiger, but where you have a reasonable chance to get a kill, Shoot & Scoot is really the command to use to force the crew to fight in adverse conditions. A combination with hull-down maybe a good idea, but I remember the discussions about the introduction of hull-down, and some people would probably claim it makes the game too easy, and takes away the advantage they have because they find a hull-down position by eyeballing. In general I like the fact that slow ROF vehicles retreat immediately, because it gives me a chance to fight on my conditions, not on those of the opponent. I think this whole discussion has been very helpful in general, since it brought out some issues that were not very clear in my mind. I think that Redwolf was quite right to question this behaviour of what at first glance appear to be Soviet Ubertanks, but on closer inspection are not. I think the problem started when digging in happened. This thread will probably enter board folklore, like the running HMGs, or Bren Tripods. For anyone who still thinks that BFC or the beta-testers don't care about reported odd behaviour, I suggest the thread about PBEM file sizes. That IMO is a model example of how to go about reporting odd behaviour and getting it looked at. An observation at the start that something is not quite right, no wild accusations, or gratuitous insults. A bit of a discussion. I posted the thread in the beta-board, and a number of beta-testers immediately went to work looking at it, trying to isolate what was going on, and reporting back that yes, there was something odd (all of their own back, with no prompting from BFC to do it). BFC then goes into the thread and says it will be looked at. Thanking them for their time, as Kayser Soze then did is optional, but makes a nice change I find. Compare that thread to this one.

Err that due too ammo problems the KwK 40 could at closer ranges out penetrate the ZiS-5-53, a pretty good case that the KwK 40 was a better Anti tank weapon. Err technically the KwK 40 could penetrate the Panthers mantlet at similar ranges to the ZiS-5-53, what's your argument?</font>

The 75L24 equipped infantry tanks were in the medium companies, while the ones classed as 'III' (Panzer III, 38(t) and 35(t)) were in the light companies, as were the Panzer II. I think birch forest is never wrong in that area, but scattered trees will also do the trick.

CMMOS has winterised guns???

God, Pansen Leader... Wasn't the spanking you received from my ATGs enough for you to crawl in a deep dark hole and stay there?

Borisovka Station does indeed feature one of the most effective tank killers. It is intentional that the German airpower is ripping your advance to shreds - unless you are fast enough and close with the German positions. I would not take that to arrive at any conclusions. In the games I have played I have seen various outcomes, over a range of the bell-curve, and it looks alright to me.

I am really getting more and more convinced that this is an issue where people do not use the commands in CMBB correctly. I.e. PEBKAS. IN CMBO, the Hunt command was needed for this type of action and you used it to put an automaton tank into action. In CMBB we have vehicle morale, Hunt, Cover Arcs and Shoot & Scoot, and they all combine together to give the player more control and the game more variety. If you use the correct combination of these, you will get your tanks to engage. To expect that just the Hunt command should work as it did in CMBO is probably the problem here - too much has changed. Have you seen the retreat before firing issue if you gave a cover arc to the IS2? My guess is you won't. Personally I am quite happy to see the IS retreat immediately if it hunts and suddenly finds an enemy. That is because it gives me a chance to engage the enemy on my terms, rather than on his. After thinking about it, I think that this increases player control, and is therefore a welcome change. If I want my IS/ISU to fight, I use cover arcs and shoot & scoot. I am just glad that this mistaken notion of the IS/ISU Ubertank is slowly being put to rest in this thread. I'll take a Panzer IV anyday thank you very much.

But the question is Andreas, is it reasonable for the IS2 to always "chicken out" first in the circumstances, with or without a covered arc, bearing in mind the differentials in kill chances once hit. Regards Jim R.</font>

Try it again with a cover arc - worked for me.