Degrees of Frost

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: Nobody, so this lazy Big Cat will retire in a nice quiet little area just behind the fighting before making a grand re-entrance! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it a wholly direct fire weapon ? I thought it was a short range rocket launcher capable of high angle fire ... So if CMBB allows platoon HQs and the like to spot for vehicle mounted indirect fire weapons it probably can stay behind cover while it finds its range. And won't your opponent love that it lands short :eek: it lands long :eek: it lands on the map

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As for Dupuy, it was really designed to prove that the U.S. and British aimed fire systems were not as effective as small arms used by the Germans. He proved it, as can be seen by the weapons carried today by all modern forces. He was never trying to prove national superiority, especially in a simulation that looks closely at variables involved in victory or loss at the tactical level .... .... But using Dupuy to argue a mystical as opposed to real difference between nationalities is misusing the research. The game already takes into account the larger number of automatic weapons in German formations, which was Dupuy's point (echoed by other researchers such as Dunnigan).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for that Slapdragon !! I was hoping someone would step up and say that succinctly. I was dreading have to try and write the same thing in a way that wouldn't in some way be misinterpreted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: yes, they (german armor, esp.StuGs) seem not to achieve the actual RealLife successes in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't this another instance when absolute spotting becomes an issue ? Defending tanks are spotted almost immediately on most occassions allowing buttoned up attacking tanks to begin firing back effectively - immediately. The units doing the spotting are probably not the buttoned up tanks but supporting units. The good old "borg" thingy. PS: its a great dissapointment to me that I was never assimilated properly

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Poll: who hates the new look of the fourm? 1. It's worse 2. Hate it 3. Don't care<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I have to say I don't care. Just hope it spawns no more completely pointless threads like this one

even when they don't ..... if I read the rest of this post correctly.

Did any Cromwells with 95mm guns ever get used in a desert ?

Well barbed wire can INDIRECTLY cause more casualties than AP mines. Once a squad has committed itself to crossing barbed wire its %age exposure goes up enormously. In my experience exposure of a squad moving into AP minefield goes down as the infantry hit the dirt. If you get your guys to open up on an opponents squad while it crossing wire you can cause many more casualties than a AP minefield could inflict. You can make an approach one that will require heavy commitment by your opponent - those scouting half squads may get tangled up crossing the wire and then be shot down in very short order. The problem comes when you try to site your barbed wire in such a way that your opponent has to cross it to get to an objective. Here's where I agree with Forever Babra - it would be much more valuable if you had a look at the map before picking your forces. Sometimes it very difficult to site barbed wire in positions where it may have any real impact on the course of the game. Tiger, I would argue that most anything else is a bit more flexible than a couple of (5 or so) strings of barbed wire.

And the observant crew members might think "thats an interesting Humber mark to see in CMBO - or have things changed in v1.12" Why has the poor Humber had is teeth ripped out ? This particularly ugly AC only gets one MG in CMBO. My understanding is that even the most underarmed Humber had two machine guns. Some got the 15mm Besa in the turret - some got a 37mm gun others the 40mm. I don't know which marks saw action on the Western front but I am pretty sure I have seen pictures of Humbers rumbling around Europe with turrets sporting guns bigger than a machinegun. And no Staghounds ... imagine an AC with a 6-pounder.

Hi ho Hiramanany ... OK I am all up to date. I unsure how or why you expect me to keep you constantly informed as to my location. I think it has to be pretty unhealthy. Accurate profiles ? Thats a pretty big ask, methinks, given the fantasy land some of the regular posters around here appear to have immersed themselves in. Including the "all the reserves (read all available units) I am keeping back in a corner will win the game once my one advancing infantry unit has savaged my opponent"-land you appear to be inhabiting at the moment.

When you advertise something as a cesspool/cesspit you really have to occasionly expect some human garbage (yes I mean you, Mr Hopeless) to float in. Before any of you regular pool-lurking types take umbrage:- Mr Hopeless = Mr Happy .... and not you just so there is no confusion ... you are supposed to offend people on purpose in this thread aren't you ? .... sometimes it is hard to tell with all the bonhomie one finds around here (and you would think Canada would bring the worst out of people ) BTW congratulations Stuka I hope it went like a dream - you know nice but in a kind of dazed way. Those sharp focus weddings can wear the guests a bit thin. Oh and Hiram how about that PBEM file mate ? I know I didn't challenge you on this thread but I think you can remember our game. You know the one where all your units are, unaccountably, squished together in a corner of the map doing absolutley nothing other than keeping their, no doubt, eagle eyes focussed on an entirely empty church. Why is a mystery, but how is easy to work out. Give them some orders - then they will move. While there are reports to the contrary the TacAi is not real spontaneous. edited to better fit Madmatt's specifications (see below) [This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 02-03-2001).]

Given that the Churchill was viewed as an infantry tank the HE benefit was probably given heavier "weighting". Maybe someone knows whether the brits were keen to get more 95mm armed Churchills over the 75mm armed models. As to the controversy over going with the 75mm over the 6-pounder - I understood this was more of an issue with arming the Cromwells.

its AUSTRALIA DAY ! Its almost the same thing - of all the public statues erected in Australia in the last 200-odd years who most often stands astride (or rests - busts are big in Australia - thanks Kitty) the plinth ? Why Robbie Burns of course ! There's a useless bit of trivia for the lot of ya ...

Didn't they have to widen the hull of a standard Churchill to make the turret ring just that much bigger ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Toward the tail end of the thread I posted a "to hit" based on British Army Tests conducted during the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for re-posting those graphs Jeff. Do you have any idea how reduction of size would alter these "to hit" curves (given that a Tiger turret is on the largish size ) ? But is that pattern of decrease in the "to hit" chance plotted against range what we see in Combat Mission ? It certainly backs up some individuals observations that getting your tank hull down against attacking enemy guns/tanks that have closed to shorter ranges (less than 500m) does not make you necessarily much harder to hit. But we still don't know how "to hit" is calculated in Combat Mission. How is silhouette "weighted" in these calculations ? Does a 37% reduction in silhouette make a hull down tank significantly harder to hit at ranges under 500m ? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: The percentage of a tanks silhouette that is covered as a result of being hull-down has several variables. The first of course is the vehicle geometry. The second is the relative elevation between target and firing tank. Third is the maximum depression or elevation possible within the gun tube of a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that most people would agree with you there Jeff. But in the wonderfully abstracted world of CM there is ONLY hull down or not down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USERNAME: In my opinion a vehicle like the Panzer IV in a true HD situation is short changed. This tank (which until recently was over sized) has a very small turret in comparision to other vehicles. It should be reduced to about 1/3 its size in a hull down position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The data presented by Jeff (for the second time) would suggest that maybe at short ranges the Mk IV isn't being shortchanged but at long ranges perhaps it is ........ ? On the otherhand maybe tank destoyers like the Nashhorn and Marder series aren't being penalised enough ..... not to mention Priests and Sextons. Maybe I should run some tests of my own ...... might be a while though given I am having enough trouble keeping up with my PBEM demands.

I was hoping that some other members of this forum might like to comment on the reduction "to hit" associated with targeting a hull down AFV versus targeting the same vehicle in the open. Lt Bull has suggested that his/her (you never know) calculations suggest that the silhouette of ALL vehicles is reduced by 37%. I do understand that hull down is abstracted in CM. A vehicle is hull down or it is not. But surely some vehicles are able to "shed" more or less silhouette when they are hull down. Things like the Marder tank destroyers have a large and highset gunshield that one might expect to stand out like a sore thumb even when the vehicle is hull down. Should these vehicles "shed" the same amount of silhouette as a turreted tank (say a panther or a Mk IV) ? And I still would love to know how silhouette effects "to hit" ? Is it the most important factor after range for example ?