Andreas

You really should do a search - we have had the hit discussion before. Also, you need to say what parameters you are using in the test, otherwise it is impossible to understand what is going on. As I said, I could not find anything wrong with it, and I ran a number of tests when this first came up. My English tanks always died. Just fine.

It's "kleinen Lederhosen".

Yes. I believe I tested something along these lines a while back and posted results here when someone raised similar complaints. I could not find anything wrong with the game, or the 88 for that matter. The results were fairly consistent. Lots of dead tanks, not so many or no dead 88s, IIRC. Try a search with my username, and see if you can dig it up.

There are lies, there are stinking lies, and then there is Finnish propaganda. Let noone be fooled by the tripe served up by that reactionary, chauvinist-bourgeois traitor to the Rodina (aren't all Finns?) Sergei. Here is what the Motormouthpiece of Truth™, aka Pravda, had to say about this heroic battle in which outnumbered Soviets had to assault the most strongly fortified elements of the Finnish occupation line, in an effort to prove once and for all who has the balls in the Isthmus area. Now that! is the Truth™!

Some info from Frieser 'Blitzkrieg-Legende' The Stukas only appeared when the battle was over, and attacked retreating British tanks. The 7th RTR lost its connection to the infantry, and attacked without infantry support, around Wailly, with no success. The forward elms of SS-T which were quite far west of where Sven's grandfather was, were attacked by French tanks as well, and it was probably here that some rapid reverse relocation was undertaken. The whole attack was a bloody shambles, the regimental history of the RTR notwithstanding.

Michael Grossdeutschland did another air assault (Operation 'Niwi' by Fieseler Storch (tactically great, operationally bad) in the Ardennes. 10. and 11. GD. They needed 100 Storch planes for that. Are you sure they used a whole battalion in the Netherlands (that would need about 200 Fieseler Storch at least)??? Also, that would only leave 1.5 battalions to go on to Stonne.

Probably MG08/15? This maybe one... Water-cooled MGs all look the same to me. Thanks for the scan!

Sven on the Axishistory.com forum there was a thread about the SS-VT and tanks, and I think that the SS actually bought some tanks for evaluation, which maybe the ones your grandfather remembers. Another thing - can you resend the von Mansteing memoir scan please? I lost everything in a HDD crash (that'll teach me to use PCs). Excellent stuff you posted BTW. [ April 13, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

The PIAT was also used as a platoon mortar, giving better performance than the 2" mortar, according to Alex Bowlby.

It is good because it makes you more careful than you otherwise would be (i.e. more like a real life commander than a CM commander). It could be a way of balancing the scenario without using more forces on the map. Note that it is not necessarily in those terms, this is just an example that randomly entered my head.

I think the fact that this topic comes up again and again, tells us all we need to know about the chances of it being resolved in a consensus. I fully agree with what Sergei has said above. Briefings should be ambigous, and there should be scope for surprises. That does not mean outright lying, and it is not a black & white issue. The difference to me is that e.g. the presence of enemy tanks in a sector would normally be known (although not how many, or what type), while the exact location of a trench-line, an MG post, or whether a specific set of buildings was occupied or not was not necessarily known. So while I would not give someone false information by saying "the enemy will have no armour", when he has it, I could give them false information saying "a patrol last night found the farm building ahead of your left flank unoccupied", when it has since been occupied, or "it is likely that the enemy has strong AT assets in place" when he has few/none. The briefing also needs to put the tactical situation into the operational context, in my view. The question of why this fight is occurring, at this time, needs to be answered. Otherwise it is just arcade gaming. A clear mission should be given to the unit. EDIT - I am a bit rushed today, will come back to it after Easter sometime. [ April 09, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

The British tank battalion should be 3rd RTR, I just read an orbituary on one guy who received the MC at Calais on the flight yesterday.

Maybe if you find a Schuelerlotse (traffic warden for school kids) somewhere, the Soviet tanks will stop to let you get across the road? Your PF is most likely manned by some 15 year old HJ boys anyway.

The unit of my grandfather building a Knueppeldamm in the Volkhov sector. Knueppeldamm is the appropriate word, as Joachim said.

From arnhemarchive.org Clearly this shows that tank cower behaviour did exist. That does not mean that the way CMBB handles it correctly, of course, but it shows that tank crews had a self-preservation instinct in real life, even against low-level threats. This has to be allowed for in a game purporting to be realistic. Jack Carr's example is very good at showing that - I see nothing wrong with the Stug cowering in those circumstances. And again, if this behaviour is observed in CMAK, then you must collect the movie files and send them to the support email with a clear explanation of what you think is wrong, if you want action to be taken in amending the game code. Recounting interesting tidbits here is totally pointless, because the parameters of the situation are completely unclear.

21.ID did a river crossing near Pskov in summer 1941. XXXXVIIII. AK (Gebirgs) undertook crossings of the Dnepr (IIRC) in summer 1941. German mechanised forces crossed the Meuse at at least three different places in 1940. Usually they seem to have used inflatable rubber dinghies (sp?), or special assault boats.

The liberation of Ukraine was not over in one week. It started in summer 1943, and ended in Summer 1944. So even 'the final stage' would probably be the half-year from November to May.

That is exactly how I read it. Why would they advocate re-arming the IS-1 12.2 armed version with the IS-1 12.2 gun if that gun had been insufficient?

From my reading of the text on page 2, it does say that the IS-1 with the 85mm gun saw action.

Oi Sergei, when did you start employing a German ghost writer for your posts here?

Bevor oder nachdem Du Dir die Hosen mit der Kneifzange angezogen hast?

John Excellent read. Good to see that Sydney Jary MC is still going strong. Regarding the use of APCs in real life , compared to CM, I think it is worth remembering, as Claus alluded to, that IRL there may well be far less fire assets around in the defense than there are in CM. German divisions in the east covering 20km sectors with a grand total of 12 ATGs come to mind. So not only would the attacker have far more APCs or tanks then in CM, the defender would often be a lot weaker (not everyday was Kursk).

What simple set-up? You are jumping to conclusions. As I explained, I had taken a real map, those were hunt across crest/hull-down situations that you would find in a standard QB. It was not a shooting range, the tanks were not in view when they started the turn. If I have to artificially design a map to make this behaviour happen, then it can't be much of a problem, now can it? Is that what you are saying? Well, I am irritated by people who mix the general issue (on which I have not expressed a view) into this discussion of the IS-1. I am also irritated that you are jumping to conclusions in the way you do. Why don't you just set up an example where an IS-1 runs away and send it to me instead of being irritated. Do something constructive.

You did notice this thread is on the IS-1? Not 2, 1. One. Uno. Un. Eins. Ichi. Half of two.

Treeburst - I suspect that part of the reason mine dies is that it is commanded by me. It seems to happen to a lot of tanks. If you want to go ahead and test it, I would be interested in what you find. Won't change anything for CMBB one way or the other, of course, since it will no longer be patched. When it comes to opinions on the matter - I am in favour of variability, unpredictability, and a coded-in attempt of my pixel soldiers to try and survive despite the orders I give them. I must say that my IS-1 did very badly in their attempt to do so. Clearly what I have done is not an exhaustive test, but it also shows that the idea that this cowering is standard behaviour is incorrect. I managed to convince my IS-1 to fight. It was smarter than me though, but still died.