tools4fools

Interesting, there is quite a difference in 120mm/30°/100m and 68mm/30°/100m... Compare to our BB Pak36 (65mm/30°/100m), which one could be more accurate? To me the 120mm look awfully powerful compared to Pak36. 47mm/30°/600m seems to look somehow OK compared to BB Pak36 with 42mm/30°/500m But then, as you mention, God knows what critter(ion)s where used... *****

BTW, has anyone penetration data for the BK 3,7 of the Ju87G-1 for tungsten shot? Wonder how effective this gun was in getting T-34's, penetration out to what range, which plates, what angle of attack...??? ****

Not enough armor battles? In game the US would have "übertanks" with Shermans or even with Stuarts. Japanese would have to use tons of "prototypes" to fight those. Not getting anywhere historically... Would it be fun having big US arty and Shermans blasting away at Japanese infantry with little AT capability? Doesn't sound like intersting battles to me... Would it be fun having your troops staggering around the jungle, fatigue kicking in real fast due to terrain, then suddenly close combat kicks in from some hidden defenders, unable to get reinforcements within time due to terrain... Not very intersting either, smale scale infantry battle isn't CM kind of battle. The moving combined arms battle would just not happen if they do it correctly, so much less interesting game play. *****

YD, not that I am against putting in a shot trap or whatever in a Stug front if this is historical. But to me this is just another fine detail and I see lots of such details discussed here. Fine with me as well, after all they make for a more realisitc game and that's what we all like here, no? I think battlefront is doing a good job here. But what is way more important is the human factor who often screws up things. Yes, the KO by panic is an improvement, yes cowering tanks are an improvement. And maybe a Stug that gets hail of fire should retreat on his own faster. Maybe such things should depend even more on crew experience (Elite crew stands their ground longer if it makes sense, regulars retreat after a few hits, greens are completly unpredictable - most will run quick, some will stay as elite would as they don't realize what's going on. Another thing is that panicked crews/units running away some 15 meters and then being completly uncontrollable and getting slaughtered... maybe a real "retreat immediatly coommand, only possible away from the enemy, should be possible for panicked and broken units? Spotting is another issue, Borg type of course, but tanks spotting maybe as well especailly closed down without cupola. Have not done any testing, but they seem to see quite a lot anyway - but then maybe that is caused by Borg. How would you want to implement something as mentioned by Carius like "Russian tankers often closing up and just driving forward". This is reading his book only but he describes often battles and actions where the Russians were fighting completly stupid and lost because of that. No, not that such behaviour exisited only among the Red tankers - I doubt some green Stug tanker with little training towards end of the war (or any period of the war) would do better. Again experience could make a much bigger difference than it is in the game now. And maybe to have the option be forced to play more with mixed troops. Maybe some "random experience" as in the rarity settings. That would mean if you buy a Tiger platoon you would probably get regulars, vets and maybe some elite mixed in if it was an "elite" unit and if you get Pz IV you will automatically get one or two greens, a regular and a vet maybe. No such things like platoons of just regular/vets mixed. More variation. And yes, I know we can do that by chosing the troops ourselves this way - but wouldn't it better to have it as an option (like in rarity) - both players will have to cope with the same. Such improvments are more important in my opinion (for all sides of course). Or it is important that they are not neglected compared to those "technical issues" - I hope (and am quite sure) that a new game engine will have even more detailed armor model with variable sizes of turret fronts, etc, etc, as such defencies in the current model have been discussed here often - but as importnat is that those other factors are not neglected! Otherwise the battlefield becomes to predictable. Guess you get the picture. Marcus ****

That's very interesting in my opinion. In CM it would make a huge difference as we could calculate how are the chances to hit that vulnerable aera of this gun mantle and if we have that and that many T-34 we will win even in a frontal encounter... This sort of thinking and calculating is as much Ueber as the whole Stug itself (or at least it is often called Ueberstug by some). - would the red tankers have ever thought like this? doubt it very much. They would certainly not calculate their chances, rather prefer to manouver to the sides, no? So at the end of the day it does not matter that much - do it like the red tankers - try not to go up front, but get to a position to get a side shot. If you can't, just die in a honorable way. Instead of asking for more chances of that vulnearble hit place chance. Like the space between the mantlet and the front plate as in one of the pics above - sure a well placed lucky shot could fit in there - if it is a caliber that fits in there in the first place - but aren't we getting lost in the details? Isn't the main point not to go up with a 76mm up front against those 80mm Stugs? I think we do not need more predictable battle results and tricks and...whatever - even if those are based facts and absolutly historical. At leat not at the present. The more we get that kind of stuff the more we need the unpredictable in the game as well (which is real andh istorical as well, no?) Otherwise the game becomes a chess like thing were you can calculate everything. How about the human factor? Sometimes tanks are cowering and retreating and people are complaining about that a lot. I think it is needed - even more often if we get all those bits and pieces we can calculate with. I remember in the old CC series that squads and tanks started to act on thier own. Attack in a completly stupid way and get toasted (if not seen by the player and stopped). I loved this. They did someting real stupid on their own! So yes, it would make a huge difference in BB. But it wouldn't in real life. The more predictable tiny bits will be included the more unpredictable pieces have to come into the game as well - otherwise the predictable will be abused in an unreal way. It's the same as using multiple 20mm to put heavy tanks out of action. Do we need more of such?

Any info in how that "Richtungsanzeiger" worked? Which tanks had it? Marcus ****

True enough, but you better hurry up when that mantlet armor is at exactly zero degree pointed towards you... It might be already a tad late aiming for that vulnerable part of the Stug front. Myself, I would prefer not to have to try. Marcus ****

Yep, ATRifles, but wouldn't want to try the same if they have proper AT guns - even small ones...

Who will do the tracks....???...!!!! Great model. Now is the a "Papiertiger" (paper Tiger)?

Just read about T-44 in Russian battlefield. Interesting that the: - glacis had no more drivers hatch - as Panther. The russians now took it even further and did without hull MG. - Turret moved back (same as done from T-34 to Panther) to accomodate even bigger gun. - Skirts!!! - "height of engine compartiment was lowered by relocating the air-filter" - this makes for a way lower hull overall as seen as in the Panther/T-44 comparison pic. Otherwise the tanks look almost like brothers on the pic, no? Marcus ****

One of the tanks I was thinking about was the T-54 when I mentioned *new designs*. Actually I think the IS/2-10 "heavy tank" idea (and comparable projects in the west) was later abandoned for this new line of "main battle tanks". Or "medium tank" as the Germans called their Panther. T-34 right there in the same league.

Dunno about "best tank". "Best tank" you want to sit inside when you meet an enemy tank (or 3 or 4) right ahead of you? Panther me thinks. Capable of killing them, capable of deflecting some of their shots, manouverable enough to retreat if necessary without getting outmanouvred (this gets difficult as more enemy tanks are around...) "Best tank" for general? Well, the one who gets the job done. Now suddenly 20'000 Shermans and T-34's start looking way better. Never mind those guys that burn to dead in their 'not so bad' or 'good enough' tanks as long as we get the jobs done. Question is here: - Why did the allies not build a tank like the Panther? Well, they actually did - IS-2/3 and Pershing as well as Centurion were all heavier tanks which became standard or were further developed (or new designs) after WWII. All those furhter designs were way more in the league of the Panther than Sherman/ T-34. To me that shows that the Panther was the way to go and therefore gets the vote "best tank". Sherman and T-34 were more of less outdated once Panther came into play. Even gunned variants still lacked the armor protection and were overall not as effective. Point is that the Allies decided that they could do with the greater numbers of their 'good enough tanks'. Or their heavier new developments were just a tad too late to play a significant part in the war. Is kind of similar the Germans attacking Russia; They encountered T-34 and KVII in 41. Despites their inferior tanks they managed to get quite close to Moskow. But they realized that their tanks weren't good enough anymore and decided to come up with something new (inspired by T-34, using sloped armor plus wide tracks). Marcus ****

Beertank. There were many variations of it but in general the rule "as bigger the better" applies. Way better than the WurstundBreezelpanzer.

Does Carius explain the use of the gun sight triangles for range estimation, or the use of battlesight aim where one sets the gun for 950m or 1000m and is theoretically able to obtain first round hits on targets 2m high at any range from 0m to 900m? The Panther 75mm would still miss more often than not at ranges beyond 700m, and it would be expected that the gunner might have as good, if not better, range estimate than the commander if the triangles were used. Two heads are better than one if the driver cannot see the target (a hulldown position would almost automatically limit or rule out a driver range estimate, especially if the tank were hidden in the brush). </font>

"Pay and Pray" is all that Air Support is about. Those Flyboys do really hit with their bombs, makes me wonder why they invented laser guided ones since WWII... Only problem is you never know if they will hit your own or your opponent's...

Maybe coding it that a "move" or "reverse" order up to 20 or 30m lenght would not cause a dust cloud? That would mean the careful repositioning of a vehicle for a short distance would not kick up a visible dust cloud. As said I do agree that vehicles and groups of vehicles on the move kick up dust and can be spotted that way. But backing up a vehicle for a couple of meters?

Pffff! DER Sturmtruppentränkenschlepper

Rune, the 1000m were an exaggeration as somebody mentioned "hills being small in the desert, so neglectable anyway". I know that there are no 1000m mountains in CM. And I completly agree that large numbers of vehicles kick up big dust clouds that can be seen from miles away. However that the number of vehicles can be counted is a bit too much. That dust clouds give the accurate position of vehicles which are only a sound contact or not id-ed at all is not good either. Emphasize "accurate" here. That backing up a Kübel on a road for 5m behind a 80m hill will show up to the enemy. Marcus ****

By reading as well (tanks of the world, David Miller and Christopher Foss).

I think the point is not that ANY dust cloud can be seen - if it is a large dustcloud (kicked up by one or several vehicles). Everything OK that those clouds are seen and I believe those were seen about to 20 clicks in real life. But if you moved your Kübel 50 Meters at slow speed and you were out of LOS hidden behind a 1000m high mountain, that dust cloud will not be seen in real life. In CMAK even a fart of dust will be seen, even if it is behind that 1000m high mountain. Another thing is that if a gun kicks up dust when firing you always can see that dust cloud as well - at the accurate location. Even if the gun is only a sound contact... At the beginning of movements when the dust cloud starts to build up you can even count how many vehicles are around, therefore you can count enemy vehicle numbers per dust cloud. Any dust cloud can be seen by the opponent. Even if a single Kübel reverses for 10 meters on a concrete road. If you guys think that all that is no problem reagarding realistic FOW, well, then up to you... Marcus ****

Is this so difficult to understand? You would not see the DUST CLOUD in real life as it is hidden behind a hill. The DUST CLOUD itself is out of LOS of all of your troops!

I was just using the Valentine as an example as I thought that if you have a fast hydraulic motor but have to do the final adjustment by a hand wheel then this final adjustment might take more time to do compared to a system as in the Tiger where the turret "slows down" when roughly pointing towards the target and is then moved right on the target. What I am talking about is those extra 2 seconds that a system like the one used in the Valentine might cause (IF it does cause an extra delay). Just moving your hand from the grip used to control the hydraulics to the handwheel takes time. How about other tanks - were there significant differences that made it easier and faster to aim the gun of a tank? Turret speed and optics are taken in account in the game, but the mechanics of laying the gun and their handling is another point on how fast you can aim your gun and get the first shot out I would think. While Valentine is hands for rotating the turret and shoulders for elevation and Tiger is feet for rotation with hands most probably for elevation (I am guessing here), what would other tanks use? Instead of shoulders in particular? Feet/hand combo as well?

Panzerman, I think GreenAsJade means that the ENTIRE small dust cloud is behind a hill and smaller than that hill and therefore can not be seen by his units. As it is out of LOS it should not show up at all.

You don't need to dig your tanks in that they won't run from the big cats. - put a little lake around them - put the tank on the shooting range and put terrain not passable for vehicles "under" the tank afterwards (rough and marsh). Tanks still can turn on those, but no more running away. Got another question myself. Are gun laying systems modelled in BB or AK? What I mean is that I read few times that German tankers liked their waepons better as they found they were able to lay their guns accurately and fire faster than their counterparts (those comments were about Russian tanks, IS 2 in one particular case (Tigers in the mud by Carius. He states there that a good gunner did not need (horizontal) fine adjusting after turning the turret). This is seems to be a very important fact as especailly on short ranges often the ones who gets the first shot out will win. This is usually the tank with the fast turret. My point would be that even if you have a fast turret but fine adjusting will take too much time you might get your shot out second. Particularly the case if you have to turn the turret only a few degrees - fast turret with slow gun laying for 22,5 degrees turn would be 2,5 sec plus x adjust time, for slow turret it would be 7,5sec plus x adjust time. Now the Tiger would slow his turret rotataion down towards the end of turning the turret, so its turn time would be a bit slower than those 7,5 seconds, but it a shorter adjust time could make a difference if it saves several seconds. How long does such adjusting take in real life? No idea myself here. In CM it seems a uniform 4 seconds. If a less precise gun laying system would result in lets say 6-7 seconds instead and a precise and fast one uses only 3 sec, then the total time for first shot would be 8,5 to 9,5 sec for fast turret with slow gun laying and 10,5 sec for slow turret - not much difference anymore. For short turns under 20 degrees the slow turret with precise gun laying would get a first shot then actually. The above times were measured shooting at aera targets. A tank like the Valentine with a fast turret but where final adjusting was done by handwheel would probably take more time to aim the gun. Wonder how the vertical gun laying was done on this tank, the book mentiones "using the gunners shoulder piece". If it is as I imagine, that gunner better doesn't have a cold... Shooting at tanks head on (no turret turning needed)it looked like that better optics not only improve spotting but accuiring of the tartget as well - elite and regular Tiger got first shot out early in second 5, conscript Tiger and elite Sherman in second early 6, regular and conscript Sherman late 6. So good optics do seem somehow to improve gun laying time. Other observations: - conscript tanks do not have cover arc (did't know that until did the time tests I needed for the above) - elite crew gets first shot out way faster - Reload time (and readjusting the gun) of elite is way faster than conscript. - Hit % at 1000m were 45% (elite Tiger) to 16% (both conscript Tiger and Sherman). Didn't realize that conscripts are that bad (seldom use them...)

Tiger ace Carius got almost killed doing recce with a motorcycle. So maybe it could be included the same way: only available in combo with an elite Tiger and if you loose your recce motorcycle, your elite Tiger will loose its commander and its overall experience will be reduced to veteran... Marcus ****