tools4fools

@ Berli & Triumvir, Flak could be -Flug Abwehr Kanone ("Flight defence cannon") -Flugzeug Abwehr Kanone ("Airplane defence cannon") -Flieger Abwehr Kanone ("Flieger" can be a crewman of an airplane or the airplane itself. Therefore it could be translated both as "Flier defence cannon" or "Airplane defence cannon" as well). But I don't know which version (Flug-, Flugzeug- or Flieger-) was actually used in "Flak"... :confused: Regards Marcus ****

Commissar, infos and lot of pics about the Tiger I at http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/history.html Interesting site.

I had a grandfather who fought on the eastern front and he told me some tales. However he didn't have a Leica with him and therefore couldn't take any pics. But from what little he told me it is probably better that there are no pics around... Marcus ****

The victory % given to you during the battle is an estimation as well if I remember right. Only at the end of the game the real level will be shown. Marcus ****

**** Hey, remember this IS the sumemer time, and other people have vacations to take to. And summer day things to do. And other family members are less likely to allow one to sit and play a little CM in the heat of summer than in the dead of winter. **** People have to take vacations. And summer things to do. Poor people!!! Some cannot and do appreciate a new Panther... Thanks for another new cat. Marcus ****

From the diary of Joachim Scholl, a Tiger commander in Russia: "9th October 1943 Our Tiger froze solid today. They had to ue a flamethrower to melt the mud & ice off the drive sprockets. Ulrich stole a portable heater from the luftwaffe liason hut. I dont think they will be pleased but it fits nicely in our rommel kist. Got the barrels on the MG changed & took out a Russian Artillery battery with Paul . It was so easy we just drove up to the top of the ridge & shelled them. It was good to see those annoying guns blow to pieces. I really liked the secondary explosions from their ammunition. I'm sure that must have taken a good few out. 10th October 1943 Paul & I have been given the job of taking out more artillery batteries. We have been give three halftracks full of Pioneers from the division to help us. The luftwaffe have shown us the positions of two Stalins organs batteries on the ridge about 10 kilometres south west. We hit the rocket sites easily what a fireball they went up with. Paul said he aimed for a funny looking bunch of trucks which we think carried the rockets. They took out everything & melted the snow in a big circle. The Pioneers did well taking out the infantry with help from us.11th October 1943We have been frozen up. The temp dropped to 20 below last night. The fuel has frozen in the engine & the tracks are all iced up. There is a blizzard blowing now. I dont think the Russians will attack today. I wish I had gone to Africa. 12th October 1943 We are still frozen in. the snow is so deep it is making moving about difficult. The cossacks attacked this morning but we fought them off. I have heard were being pulled back to Kiev soon. We have big heaters round the Tiger trying to unfreeze us." For more see "Tiger tales" at http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk

Here a test I did some time ago, 10 M4 against 10 Pz IVG: Test No.1 Range: 475m 10 runs with 10 tanks each (immobile) facing each other each pair separated by a line of tall pines. M4 is given a hit chance of 38% Pz IV is given a hit chance of 42% First shots were about even (51% for Pz IV to 49% for M4) In two test runs each side got once a first shot ratio of 7:3, but usually they were about even. Kills: 65 M4 got knocked out while 49 Pz IV got knocked out. In one test run all M4's were knocked out with a loss of only two PzIV. However this was an exception. Highest number of Pz IV knocked out was 6 with 4 M4's lost. No Ricochets on both sides were observed. The advantage on kills for the Pz IV seems to result on the higher accuracy of the 75mm L/48 gun. Of course this test does not include where the strenght of the M4 is: manouverability and a fast turret. On a different test (same range) with the M4 showing its side and moving into LOS of a stationary Pz IV I observed some ricochets on the front hull of the M4. While turning to face the Pz IV shots hitting the frontal armor ricocheted sometimes. Once facing the Pz IV there where no more ricochets on the M's front armour. It seems the combination of the sloped armour and the the angle of the hit made it possible to deflect the shot.

Did some tests on this topic the past two days. Most has been discussed in the meantime but here are the results anyway: Pz IVJ against Sherman M4 Test No.1 Range: 475m 10 runs with 10 tanks each (immobile) facing each other each pair separated by a line of tall pines. M4 is given a hit chance of 38% Pz IV is given a hit chance of 42% First shots were about even (51% for Pz IV to 49% for M4) In two test runs each side got once a first shot ratio of 7:3, but usually they were about even. Kills: 65 M4 got knocked out while 49 Pz IV got knocked out. In one test run all M4's were knocked out with a loss of only two PzIV. However this was an exception. Highest number of Pz IV knocked out was 6 with 4 M4's lost. No Ricochets on both sides were observed. The advantage on kills for the Pz IV might result on slightly higher accuracy of the 75mm L/48 gun. Test No.2 Range : about 475m 10 Pz IV were immobile in the open. 10 M4 were positioned behind 4 tiles of tall pines each and moving into LOS at about 60°-80°. Again 10 runs and each pair separated by a row of tall pines, however first shots were only on nine runs counted (I simply forget to count on the first test run). First shots were 35:55 (39% to 61%) in favour of the Pz IV. Even if the M4's had to turn the turrets first to aim, they did reach a 50%:50% ratio of first shots on several test runs. M4's however never reached a higher first shot rate than the Pz IV's, while their rate was up to 8:2 in one test run. 87 M4 were destroyed and 17 Pz IV knocked out. The Pz IV had much more hits on their first shots compared to the M4's. Once in LOS with the PzIV, the M4 shot while on the move; some used smoke to hide (even if they had no smoke rounds in their ammo load). No Pz IV ever used smoke. At least two M4 got knocked out before they even spotted the Pz IV. Three front upper hull ricochets appeared on M4's, none on Pz IV's. Test No. 3 Was done already except I didn't count the date yet really. Setup was as in test 2, except that the Shermans were on move fast command this time. Results were 77 shermans ko vs 28 Pz IV ko against 87:17 in test 2 with the move command. It seems that the move fast command did help the Sherman during test No. 3 not because of its own shoot-on-the-move capability, but on the reduced hitting capability of a Pz IV on a fast moving target. Engagements lasted longer this test as well. First two tests it was usually 1-3 shots until one tank got knocked out. Last test (with the fast move command) had much less first shot hits on both sides and engagements lasted more like 5-6 shots. I will try to post the accurate results of test No 3. as soon as rael life allows and there are some more (a lot more!!) tests I'm planning to do on this subject. Overall I agree with BTS that vehicles shooting on the move score significantly less hits than stationary vehicles. Same moment it seems that fast moving vehicles (compared to moving vehicles) are much more difficult to target and therefore get less often hit. 1:45AM here, any other testing when real life allows it. Cheers Marcus ****

**** Another rariety setting will be variable, with some units more "available" than others, and thus relative bargains, price-wise. **** This rariety setting will be important; Otherwise in a QB we would see 5 or 6 T-34 command tanks with radio instead of one command T-34 and 6 regular T-34's without radio!

I had my experience with the ambush command for tanks as well. Situation was the following: my opponent tried to outfalnk me in a QB with a lone Tankdestroyer. I had a tank and a infantry team covering the flank and easily had a sound contact with his tank. the TD moved into the cover of a lone farmhouse. I expected the TD to move on next turn coming into LOS of my Stug IV right in front of the building. That's why I placed an ambush marker there. The TD came drove right over the ambushmarker as I expected it, but being on move fast my Stug was obviously not fast enough to target and shoot the tank. The TD came now closer and closer to my Stug on its right, out of LOS, but still being a sound contact. Now my stupid Stug crew obeyed their order and turned their gun back on the ambushmarker. The TD soundcontact came closer and closer until it came back into LOS of my Stug some 25 meters away at 45°. If it wasn't in a war it would have resulted in a traffic accident. Needless to say that the turret of the TD turned faster than the Stug and...boom, no more Stug. How could those guys ignore this sound contact? They had seen the TD and knew where it was (approx), coming closer and closer towards them, but no, they just ignored it and back to their orders. Real stubborn Krauts. My opponent told me afterwards that he never knew that I had a Stug there and that he was completely surprised. I only use the Ambush marker now if I do want that the tank does exactly stay on that target. Like when a tank will be moving into LOS within a few seconds but far away there is some infantry already in LOS. Not using the ambushmarker the tank might engage the infantry first and might be reloading right when the tank gets into LOS...but even in such a situation I prefer to order a move command towards the point where I expect the tank to appear. Most likely it will not engage the infatry this way, but if something happens - lets say the enemy tank stops and never gets into LOS - my tank won't sit there and aim for the ambushmarker for the rest of the turn and ignore all other threats.

I hope that the new ambush order in CM2 will not be limited in range. In CMBO it's up to 300m I think, but with AT guns or tanks sometimes I would prefer longer ranges. Additional sub orders like "enagage any target", or "engage priority targets" could allow your AT gun to stay hiding when that scouting HT passes by and the open fire once the following tank gets into LOS. I would like to see an improved "Hide" order as well . Currently it seems sodiers which are hiding do only engage if a target is VERY close. Now for infanty that's OK with me sometimes. But sometimes I would prefer if they open fire earlier. But on longer ranges too often just nothing happens. Only option is to "unhide", but then the unit is easily spotted. I would prefer "Hide" split in two orders, "hide & ambush" for enaging at close range (as "hide" is now) and "hide and defend" for opening up fire at targets for which a resonable hit and kill chance are given but staying hidden until then. Regards Marcus For forward observers and onboard arty I would like the ability to shoot a limited number of smoke shells at a aera target.

Capt. M I never heard any German elders saying ever anything against Americans because "America went to war with Germany". They might have had some anti-American feelings because of what happened after the war. As example: GI's taking German women back home... But most looked down upon were these German women not the GI's. Not really anti-American, happened with other nationalities and on different places as well. Always does if one looses a war and is ruled by another nation(s). What definitely still is there among some of the older generation are the "pro-nazi ideals". Maybe not in a way that they still do believe in these ideals but that these ideals are still in their mind because they heard it often and for a long time. Here an example: My grandfather was in the German military 30-45 (no officer), never a member of the party. When my cousin was born, my aunt wanted to name her "Sahra". My grandfather jumped out of his chair and shouted:"never, that's a jewish name"! Again, he was no nazi, he was no racist (lot's of turkish people in the neigbourhood he alway respected) but this "jewish-thing" stayed in his mind. In a way he surely believed in the nazi's before the war. He had lost his job and could make a living as a pro-soldier in the army. Live was getting better. But then, he (and lots of other Germans too, I think) realized that Adolf and his guys weren't really good news. This is reflected in some of his thoughts about the war and politics he told me years ago, before he died. "Don't believe in politics; politics is nothing but lies, and it doesn't matter if it's left or right." "Don't believe in these stories about "honour" and war. War is just about you or me... After the war, being an experienced soldier, he was asked to help to rebuild the new "Bundesweer", but he refused. No more military, no more politics, 'til he died.