Andreas

The 15cm sFH18 had a hollow charge round (15cm Gr Rot HL/A)that could get through 160mm of armour at any range - provided you hit the bugger. Rather unlikely beyond 500m. The 10,5cm lFH had a hollow charge round that could get through 80mm of armour (10cm Gr Rot HL/A) - it also had a real AT round (10cm PzGr) that could get through 52mm of armour at 500m. Again, hitting would be a serious challenge, since you would have to bracket the target beyond 500m - which means that you more likely than not lose the duel. Only the 10,5cm lFH can be bought on map, the 15cm sFH is not in the game. The real killer was the 10cm K18, a cannon that fired a 10cm PzGr Rot and got through 100mm or 138mm of armour at 1,000m, depending on the charge used. It is also not in the game, but can best be modelled by either an 88 (in which case the 360° rotation is unrealistic), or a 75mm ATG, in which case the low nature of the gun is unrealistic, and it is not available in 1941. A combination of 10cm K18 and 88s saved the day for the advance GHQ of 1. PD at Rossienie, when a bunch of KVs came to visit.

TRPs.

So, what's stopping you from learning German?

Well, the first test I ran with 5 M17s after this thread came up, they shot down a Ju87, and the second one then never appeared. Was effective enough for me

Abbott, you have probably noticed that Fernando's site link gives you the status as of 22 June 41. I checked in Glantz 'The early period', and it does not seem as if 18th Panzer was in massive fighting until Smolensk, so for early July, just two weeks into the campaign, I would set the regiment at 80-90% or thereabouts.

Another thing that I just came across in v. Senger und Etterlin 'Die deutschen Geschuetze'. Towards the end of the war, the German 2cm was deemed inadequate for trying to get rid of Jabos. 3,7cm was the way to go - to quote 'single round hits were not sufficient'. I guess the same would apply to .50 mg rounds, only worse, since they did not have shrapnell effects. There are also issues about how fast the turret turns, and what kind of sighting mechanism you have (German light AA had a stereoscopic range-finder per gun as part of TO&E). The German counterpart to the M17, the SPW 251/21 should be sh*te in the game against air targets, since it lacked any sort of AA targetting mechanism of that quality. Just a few things to ponder - I would expect the M17 to be by far less effective than a light gun throwing out HE/Incendiary rounds.

The honest answer is 'I don't know'. The other answer, and take it for what it is worth, is that I would infer a regulation of throwing lead at the target. Two reasons for this: 1) Flak 38, compared to Flak 30, had an increased practical ROF of 220 rd/min, compared to 120 rd/min for the older model. 2) The quad Flak 20mm could be fired with all four barrels, but in standard fire only fired two barrels. That would indicate to me that there was a value in throwing it out if push comes to shove. As I said, inference - unfortunately I am not sure where I could find the correct information. [ September 27, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

How many machine-guns were opposing Pickett's charge again?

Sorry, I really fail to understand what you talk about here. Biased towards or against what? Attacker? Defender? Infantry? Tanks? How can 'CMBB' fail that test? Individual scenarios certainly can. How often have you played it to come to that conclusion, how many games against the AI, how many against humans?

That's what I thought as well, I quite like it.

I think one thing about CMBB is that the learning curve appears a lot steeper than in CMBO. The game is less tolerant of mistakes, and punishes it harder. I am still trying to come to grips with a lot of aspects in it, and find myself learning as I go along, after playing it for quite a while.

Visom, you can do that now. Just hit SHIFT-C again, and your request is cancelled.

Peter, I think that is quite realistic, really. I have read many battle accounts, and the thing is that you don't just advance under fire. You try to maneuvre around it, shell the sources of it, or do anything to avoid having to advance under fire. That is why the Germans had Stugs, lightweight infantry guns, very portable HMGs, and Stukas.

I think it's by you. [Hint]It has a dry stream bed as the Sov. setup zone.[/Hint] I'm on my fourth try at it, and haven't managed better than a draw so far because the verfluchte Jabos keep killing all my brave tankers and giving my infantry a case of brown trouser syndrome.</font>

If it was a squeeze gun, would the gunners be Squeegie Kids? Or somefink?

Johan, how about we get started on some arm-ripping as well?

Well, what if their 'spotting duties' do take them beyond the point where you can take a jeep? Which is going to be the case 9 times out of 10, since it is a very bad idea to motor up to the point from which you want to observe - remember, if you can see them, they can see you. Also, I would be interested in the German TO&E that you have that says all spotters had access to a Kuebelwagen (let alone a jeep). Or the Soviet one for that matter. Seems a very sweeping, and quite incorrect statement to me.

I think what I am trying to make sure is that Shatter understands that there is no in-game effect from representing a 105mm gun instead of 150mm gun.

Look in the data window, the data for both Grilles and the Wespe should differ. The graphical representation is irrelevant to the game calculation. To all intents and purposes it could be represented by a 1951 Oldsmobile with a huge carrot on the roof. That will not affect the game.

How 'realistic' is the appearance of an Elite Sturmtiger anyway?

Regarding the general notion that infantry is too brittle. I always felt (and my reading on WW2 action indicates that that feeling is correct), that casualties in CMBO were far too high in a battle. I am much happier with my men no longer pressing on in the face of a dug-in defense. Casualties are lower in CMBB, and that is good. It also means that the super-human performance under fire that we have seen in CMBO is no longer going to make up for the tactical failings of the commander/player. CMBB rewards real life tactics much more than CMBO ever did. I would be fundamentally opposed to a patch that takes us back to the bad old days of super-hero infantry. In all, CMBB is a slower game, rewarding good planning, forward thinking, tactical acumen, and patience, as well as the knack of knowing when the time for some drastic action has come. Regarding Gefechtsaufklaerung - SPOILER!!! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The German force in that scenario has a platoon of infantry, and a veritable sh*tload of fire assets. Anyone thinking that you should even use the infantry before you have exhausted your fire assets very seriously needs to re-examine their tactics. As the two AARs show, there is a way to win this scenario that makes it 'too easy' for the Germans. This is what it should be like if you use real world tactics. If you use the old CMBO tactics of smoke/run/bit of suppressive fire into the teeth of an intact defense, you will get your ass handed in almost any CMBB scenario. Which is again as it should be. On your return to your unit you would probably be cashiered into the bargain.

You've obviously got the AA blues, man...</font>

You've obviously got the AA blues, man...

Have you started another QB since? if not, the settings are saved.