Andreas

The Brits have a similar problem: No more Missions Please All the best Andreas

That leaves the strange changes over time, but I think Charles has earned his chocolate. All the best Andreas

Just to make that clear again, my points here should not be taken to mean that I support any conspiracy or bias theory. In my view this is honest error in an area that was not see as of prime importance (considering the rather low number of tanks this concerned IRL). It's a shame the beta forum is gone, would be nice to be able to go and look it up again. All the best Andreas

Err, no. Niehorster beats Nafziger hands down in terms of quality. This is as easy as it gets: 1. PD on 22nd June 1941 Or this: http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/kstn/okh/barbarossa.htm Or this: http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/kstn/kstn11711nov41.htm All available for free on the interweb, and much better in quality and accessability than Nafziger. Unless you have a serious yearning for heavy books there is no need to go for Nafziger, and even then you should get Niehorster's books. All the best Andreas

If anyone is very keen, compare the penetration stats for the captured and the Soviet field gun, and compare the differences to the differences in the T34 penetration. One more reason why I do not think the game models a rechambered T34 is that at shorter range and no angle the penetration value is identical. Maybe it would help if somebody could post the values here? All the best Andreas

If they had to retool factories, that would indicate to me that they did not use their standard ammo, unlike in the captured field guns, which were rechambered to take the standard ammo for which, presumably, not retooling was needed. All the best Andreas

If we assume everything was rechambered, the performance should improve. This is indicated by von Senger und Etterlin, who explicitly states that. But this really only applies to the captured field gun. For the T34 however it appears it is not modeled re-chambered, since it still uses the Soviet blunt-nosed round. At least if my memory about the unit information window does not trick me. All the best Andreas

Looking at the penetration data, the captured T34 does better at range, and strangely it gets better later in the war. Which to me indicates a strange effect with the lower-quality Soviet ammo/typos, but in any case a bug of some sort. Even if the ammo is supposed to be better for whatever reason, there is no reason why it should be better in 1945 than it is in 1943. What's the story on the reverse, captured Panthers and Stugs? An article I found on the matter indicated that some conversions were done on company level (e.g. installing additional alround vision equipment for the gunlayer), but that the optics remained unchanged. All the best Andreas

Just to add my two cents as a beta tester of CMBB. Any accusation of systematic bias in any direction flies in the face of what I observed during the discussions on the Beta forum, and can only come from someone who was not involved. To give an example: ISTR that the bad quality Soviet ammo is due to research results provided by Valera - hardly a pro-German source. The (not uncontroversial) inclusion of HE for LL 2-pdrs also does not strike me as particularly pro-German. There are elements where I wish I had made a stronger case when there was the possibility, e.g. about the inclusion of the 122mm howitzer and maybe the 152mm gun-howitzer as an on-map gun. But Rune is quite right, a lot of things we know now that we did not know then. But what I did know then and do know now is that there was no pro-German bias visible in anyone on the team. An honest attempt was made to bring out a game that was as close to reality as is possible, considering the constraints every project works under. All the best Andreas

The Feldkanone 295® had a remanufactured breech. As far as I know not all of the captured guns were remanufactured though, it depended on time and place of capture. Before believing that all/most/any T34 were remanufactured in the same way to take German 7,5cm ammunition, I'd like to see some evidence for that. I could not find any, but that does of course not mean that it did not happen. All the best Andreas

I believe the game models an improved captured T34, instead of a standard one (not all T34 or other Soviet tanks captured were modified). But I have a hard time believing that optics modifications were done in the field on captured tanks, but I never looked into that. It just does not strike me as a worthwhile effort to do so. So optics should not be a reason for the discrepancy. The cupola should not be a reason for a discrepancy in case of unbuttoned spotting. If I am wrong and CMBB models this, it would say so in the unit description window, where any optics other than standard are described. I am not with the game at the moment, so can not check. All the best Andreas

You can die happy now. [Picks up a gun and shoots Reichmann.] All the best Andreas

No you are not. You are either a liar, or monumentally stupid, on top of batting 0 and being a Nazi fanboy. And you seem to think those reading your drivel are stupid. But as we say in Germany, one should not draw conclusions about others based on oneself. If that was your idea of a tactical withdrawal, it failed. Regards Andreas

I assume no such thing. But go on inventing strawmen, you are doing well. Not as well on the facts front though - still batting 0. Regards Andreas

Gpig and Kanonier are right AFAIK. This was done to avoid triggering vehicle covered arcs with gamey jeep rushes. All the best Andreas

Still batting 0 on the facts front. But at least now it is just vapid, not offensive. Bets are being taken on how long that will last. Regards Andreas

All this has been done by Wilbeck in 'Sledgehammers' (MSc thesis free download, book from Aberjona press, but don't bother with it even though it is cheap). With the massive flaw that he accepts German claims as fact, with no research in Allied archives to validate them, even where he could have done so easily. But even so, he does not get better than 1:10 in combat, and 1:5 overall (factoring in non-combat losses), IIRC. Of course, he also counts as a non-combat loss a Tiger that is overrun at a repair depot after having been damaged in combat (your example of mine damage overrun in mobile operations) to the point that it needed to go into repair. Which is just more nonsense linked to the definition of repair states. By that definition thousands of Soviet tanks overrun in 1941 were non-combat losses. All this means that reality was nowhere near 1:10, no matter what Carius or Nazi fanboys like to make us believe. Jason is right - anyone doubting it must have gone to Goosestepping class while he should have done math. The Soviets lost probably 1/3rd of all the AFVs they would lose before the Tigers and Panthers even arrived. And out of the rest, Tigers got 1/3rd, with Panthers getting even more. That leaves another third to be distributed between mines, Mark IVs, Stugs, SPAT, towed AT, and all other causes. Right. Anyone seriously believing that needs to do learn how to do some simple arithmetic. 1+1 does not add up to 3, and no allowances are made for Nazi fanboys. Ron Klages is in the process of creating a history for every Tiger tank, AFAIK. Massive undertaking, but should be doable. End of story. All the best Andreas

Quite so. All the best Andreas

German actually, and secure enough not to have to refer to other human beings as 'little better than animals'. Regards Andreas

Must be one of the 'benefits' of network centric warfare. All the best Andreas

Unless Carius walked the ground after the battle, counter-checking on the battle claims, he only reports what he believes happened. How many Soviet officers were shot for stating that T34s were vulnerable to 88mm? But I get your drift. You are a racist Nazi admirer who is full of sh*t. Regards Andreas

That's funny. I was not correcting you, and I have said so twice. I was expanding on your statement. Get over it. Or maybe better not, it is actually amusing to see working yourself up like that. I look forward to you coming up with another post that completely misses the point. You are rather good at that. All the best Andreas

By that definition, neither did the participants. They can just form a good hypothesis, based on their one-sided experience, but they can not know what happened either. All they know is what they believe happened. So, in the end, based on your definition, nobody knows anything that is of particular value. Oh well, back to reading "Infantry Aces" I guess. All the best Andreas

You were the one who brought up historical accuracy. If you are not interested in it, why bring it up? If you are interested in it, why do you think that an elaboration on it is not needed? I think you suffer from something that is known as 'muddled thinking', but that is hardly a surprise, reading your posts elsewhere. All the best Andreas

This post is utter nonsense. We can well know if someone exaggerated, lied, or told the truth. E.g. without having been there, I feel confident to state that Hans Seidemann lied or exaggerated, and certainly did not tell the truth, on the matter of Bruno Meyer's air attack at Kursk. Discussion Your comparison between Otto Carius and JasonC is also non-sensical. Carius was a participant relating first-hand information from the lowest level. JasonC is an analyst looking at a large range of sources and looking at things from a higher level. If you say you'd rather believe Carius than JasonC, then all you say is that you are not interested in analysis. Which tells me all I need to know about the value of your opinions in the future. All the best Andreas