Tero

Originally posted by Ozzy: as Moon said, there is no total censorship in Germany. I think that is not what the media coverage abroad is emphazising too much. History, names, organizations, ideologies, and everything related to it ARE firm part of school education for every pupil in Germany. The achievements of the free world are part of family, kindergarden and school education (Well, at least mostly, as children usually are mirrors of their parents). The disparity between school and home education is not an insignificant factor. If there is an "official" and a informal truth about the greater the gap between the two the greater the confusion among the pupils. German society and media speak freely about the Nazi and the Socialist era, and try to learn from that for future generations. Do you think the rise of the neo-nazi and the ultra right wing politicians all around Europe are a passing phase ? And for THAT purpose you can use all names and symbols you want (and no teacher will be condemned for education). This is in contrast with the almost rabid (well at least how it seems from where I am standing) responce to them being used publicly. However, IMO the government (IMPORTANT: as elected representant of the society) has a certain obligation to define what is free expression of opinion and what is anticonstitutional (just as it does for crimes). On this we agree. Don't think that the prohibition of organizations in Germany is an act of arbitrariness. It is a very long and complicated process, in which several governmental institutions and independent federal courts are involved. The decision is then made by the highest German cout of Justice, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitunional Court). How well are these proceedings publicized ? If parents and family do not care about the education, it cannot be helped, censoring or not. What if their views are in stark contrast with that of the establisments ? IMO your comparation with other media sources (especially Internet) is not applicable, as German law can of course only regulate the sources within its sphere of validity. But where it HAS influence, it should define to which things children should have access to. It is not what gets censored or prohibited that counts. It is what gets OK'd, or worse ignored by these guardians. Have you ever actually watched any of the TV shows directed at small children or teenagers ? If a 10 year old girl (height 135cm, weight 35 kg) thinks she is too fat and develops an eating disorder there must be something seriously wrong. Or worse, when two 6 year olds get into their heads to kill a toddler. Everything else in their life gets combed over but what they have watched on TV over the years. Computer games they have played immediately before they develop these symptoms get blamed but not the TV shows they have watched and absorbed during the years they have been able to sit in front of the telly. And so it should to illustrations of violence, brutality, and ethically/ethnically inacceptable opinion. IMO it is a great achievement that the software (and video and cinema and TV and print media and toy) industry voluntarily defines to which software the children should have access to (in German "indizieren"). IMO a child should have to have a channel to learn how to cope with negative feelings. War toys were banned years ago. Consequently the children (mainly boys) who have been pounding Doom and other violent games or have been watching violent cartoons have no consept of compassion they would have learned when playing war or cops and robbers with other children. And it is starting to show. THAT is CDVs fear: if they would use Waffen-SS in CM, the game might be "indiziert", and hence cannot be advertised and sold free, which would be economically an *extreme* disadvantage. Agreed. I personally will not break down in tears if my copy of the game did not have the proper nomenclature or heraldry in when I first buy it. As long as it is in the store the day of the official release.

Originally posted by Moon: Tero, moot point because there is no total censorship in Germany. Reread the post from Ozzy. Total censorship is one thing. People bitching violently about nomenclature and heraldry in the game being altered according to a nations laws another. At the same time another nations standards (if not laws) are being imposed on us and yet they are not being questioned in the least. That is what was not mentioned in the padlocked threads.

Originally posted by Ozzy: whose intent is mainly to protect children and teenager from excessive or abusive brutality, porn, and politically, ethically or ethnically radical thoughts. The problem here is: how can you teach they are "wrong" if you do not expose the children to them in a controlled manner ? Total censorship is a double edged sword. The media is filled with this kind of crap, excessive or abusive brutality (porn is usually out but not sexually loaded imagery), politically and ethically or ethnically radical thoughts, only they are directed at other groups like aliens from outer space, ugly people, under achievers or other such like groups which are not considered to be sancrosanct and inviolate. But all the same incredients are there and they are directed directly at the children. Compare Band of Brothers to Power Puff Girls. You would not even imagine exposing a 4-6 year old to BoB but you do not think twice about PPG. Yet the stuff in PPG is much more horrendous and sickening, if you take into account the frame of reference a 4-6 year old should have. What is more, "kiddie" shows like PPG teach intolerance and violant behaviour much more effectively than the parents and the establisment can teach tolerance and "pasifistic" way of life. When the children reach the age they go to schol the damage is already done and no amount of education will divert them from the path of bias, intolerance and suspicion to anything foreign and unconformist. If they shun, ridicule and abuse the underadchievers in teenager shows how can they possibly think it is wrong to act the same way towards minorities and/or the less fortunate IRL. More over, if you outlaw for example the heraldry in its entirety you make it more fascinating in the process. Can you teach a swastika represents evil and is bad without teaching the ideology and motgivation behind the movement which used it ? Is the teacher in violation of the law if in order to teach what a swastika looks like he has to show it to the pupils ? [ July 23, 2002, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Also, they should pause for a moment and think why they do not feel as outraged when MTV/MTVE censors lyrics, exhibition of human anatomy and common gestures in the videos they air. Or why, at least in Finland, the aired foreign music is mostly the same censored stuff they air in MTVE. Or why some BBS boards choose to censor what they consider to be profanity and you can not for example use the proper name for Camecock aircraft because it would come out as Came**** or such like. IMO the German laws are appropriate and serve the purposes they are intended to serve. The effects they have on the game play are only cosmetic. Now, I would object if they would insist the KIA markers should be changed to zombies. Or the sides be named Orcs, Goblins, Fairies or the like. Or they would insist the explosions be made less violent. Or the firing graphics be made to resemble Flash Gordon death rays. Rant mode off...

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Even if your reasoning is correct here, Tero, the final results would be that all hits that would have struck the hull are subtracted. Only those that strike the turret are counted. Hull strikes are not magically moved to the turret. Instead they would hit whatever is providing cover to the hull. Or so it seems to me. No hull down = 100% of the tank is visible (say 65% hull, 35% turret). Hull down = 35% of the tank visible. Mass size reduced by 65% in hull down. Calculations are made for the 100% being visible in all instances. The hull strikes are not moved. But the aim point being in the center of a reduced area while the calculation is being made as if the aim point is in the center of a bigger area the chance to hit the center reduced area are not correct. For it to be correct the aim point would have to be in the center of the entire vehicle. Of which 65% is not visible. Consequently the correct aim point would be in a location which is not visible to the gunner. There is a logical trap involved here. You can hit the bulls eye in the center of the target. If the target is smaller it is harder to hit the bulls eye. (DUH ! ) If you model the chance to hit the bulls eye in variable size targets you can not use a constant value for the target size and just shift the aim point. The results you get will not be statistically valid, if you are hitting the bulls eye in variable sized targets. The results would be valid only if the target size was constant. Modelling a hit chance in a given point in the constant sized target is not valid in this instance because the target size is not constant (relative to the AI gunner). The fact the gunner may know the type of tank he is engageing is irrelevant since he is aiming at the center of the visible mass of that tank, not the entire tank he knows parts of which are lurking behind cover. He could but he would not be hitting the intended target, ever.

Originally posted by Andreas: This could indicate that they were hit by the breakthrough operation to such a degree that they needed a bit of R&R. That would be in line with other reports of similar operations. A spearhead unit would be expended and it would remain behind while other elements go past them to press the attack home. In that case, they would lose the attachments, and these would scuttle off doing what they do best elsewhere. Which attachements are these ? The support elements ? I'm not sure they would be transferred outside their assigned infantry battalions/regiments. They might dig in with the spent infantry to form a defensive perimeter around the objective in case the counter attacks were succesfull. I have scanned a map that shows German defenses in the strongpoint of Leontina, and should answer some questions about positioning of guns etc. It does. But it also raises a few more concerning the events. 1) What kind of guns were they ? Only 2km's from the front line would indicate their max effective range was not more than 5 km. One explanation could be they were field guns and not howitzers and if there were obstructions (hills etc) that they could not fire over and hit the designated fire zones. Or they were prepared to fire direct fire support as well as regular fire missions. I think mortars they were not, if I remember my tac markers correctly. 2) Why were they grouped so tight together so close to the front ? 12 guns (3 batteries, approx 50% of the arty in this sector) of them in a 1sqkm box. Was that standard SOP ?

Originally posted by Andreas: This could indicate that they were hit by the breakthrough operation to such a degree that they needed a bit of R&R. That would be in line with other reports of similar operations. A spearhead unit would be expended and it would remain behind while other elements go past them to press the attack home. In that case, they would lose the attachments, and these would scuttle off doing what they do best elsewhere. Which attachements are these ? The support elements ? I'm not sure they would be transferred outside their assigned infantry battalions/regiments. They might dig in with the spent infantry to form a defensive perimeter around the objective in case the counter attacks were succesfull. I have scanned a map that shows German defenses in the strongpoint of Leontina, and should answer some questions about positioning of guns etc. It does. But it also raises a few more concerning the events. 1) What kind of guns were they ? Only 2km's from the front line would indicate their max effective range was not more than 5 km. One explanation could be they were field guns and not howitzers and if there were obstructions (hills etc) that they could not fire over and hit the designated fire zones. Or they were prepared to fire direct fire support as well as regular fire missions. I think mortars they were not, if I remember my tac markers correctly. 2) Why were they grouped so tight together so close to the front ? 12 guns (3 batteries, approx 50% of the arty in this sector) of them in a 1sqkm box. Was that standard SOP ?

Originally posted by Scipio: The global moral is always displayed, and if it falls below 15% (maybe this number was changed in later patches), it will cause an auto-surrender. And that's the whole idea, start with a global moral below 100%, and it is more likely that you fall below 15% during the battle = auto-surrender. One curious thing is that even a single tank (even if it immobilized) will ward off an auto surrender even if the global morale is 10. It will not ward off auto cease fire though.

Originally posted by Andreas: the information here is from Mazulenko, and concerns the Soviet side. OK. The Soviets had the MLR completely mapped, but unlike e.g. in the offensives in AG Central sector, did not send long-range scouts behind the enemy lines. There was no partisan activity in the area ? BTW: almost no Axis arty survived the preparatory barrage. How far behind the line were they ? The trenches would have been a problem for both sides, probably more so for the Soviets, since the Germans had the advantage of the terrain. I still wonder the use of the term auftauchen. It translates "rise to the surface", right ? I know for a fact the Red Army dug trenches so they could get closer to the enemy positions in preparation of assaults like this. In comparable wet/marshy terrain too. Is there anything mentioned about the Red Army preparations for the assault ?

Originally posted by Andreas: the information here is from Mazulenko, and concerns the Soviet side. OK. The Soviets had the MLR completely mapped, but unlike e.g. in the offensives in AG Central sector, did not send long-range scouts behind the enemy lines. There was no partisan activity in the area ? BTW: almost no Axis arty survived the preparatory barrage. How far behind the line were they ? The trenches would have been a problem for both sides, probably more so for the Soviets, since the Germans had the advantage of the terrain. I still wonder the use of the term auftauchen. It translates "rise to the surface", right ? I know for a fact the Red Army dug trenches so they could get closer to the enemy positions in preparation of assaults like this. In comparable wet/marshy terrain too. Is there anything mentioned about the Red Army preparations for the assault ?

IRL hull down is indeed where you want to be. I wonder if the way cross section targeting and hit propabilities are implemented in CMBO affect this. AFAIK the cross section of the tank is calculated from the entire vehicle, not just the visible part. The gunner aims at the center of the mass, which I take it is the visible mass. However, if the AI uses the cross section of the entire vehicle (silhouette) in its calculations (like hit propability) then going hull down is only partially helfull in denying killer shots from the enemy since there is not separate value for the turret and the hull silhouette. They are aiming at the turret center but the hit propability is calculated from the entire vehicle silhoutte, not just the turret silhoutte. So in reality the hull down position in CMBO is akin to the emperors clothes as it were. This would account for the phenomenal performance of the Allied assets armed with the 37mm gun and the Germans assets armed with the 20mm and 37mm FLAK guns. Because these vehicles are normally small silhouette vehicles they get the upper hand in the AI calcualtions. Can anybody verify or shoot down my reasoning on this one ? [ July 22, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Andreas: Paths had to be made through thick underbrush, which severely restricted the mobility of Soviet troops. It did ? Lakes and swampy areas led to a splitting up of formations. German or Soviet ? In some areas trenches had to be created by piling up earth, and tanks supported by logs. How were they disguised (if at all) ? The "auftauchen" bit made me think the Soviet troops managed to burrow in and dig trenches all the way up to and inside the German defensive perimeters. The network of country lanes, alleys, and particularly the rail network was poor; there were few villages inside the bridgehead. The majority of settlements was on the rivers, in gorges and valleys.' Sounds like the German defences were poorly designed, given the terrain and the restrictions it presented. Trenches constructed so they were clearly visible. Or the Soviet had all the positions mapped and pinned down. No doubt they had rehearsed in exact replica mock ups in comparable terrain too.

Originally posted by Andreas: Paths had to be made through thick underbrush, which severely restricted the mobility of Soviet troops. It did ? Lakes and swampy areas led to a splitting up of formations. German or Soviet ? In some areas trenches had to be created by piling up earth, and tanks supported by logs. How were they disguised (if at all) ? The "auftauchen" bit made me think the Soviet troops managed to burrow in and dig trenches all the way up to and inside the German defensive perimeters. The network of country lanes, alleys, and particularly the rail network was poor; there were few villages inside the bridgehead. The majority of settlements was on the rivers, in gorges and valleys.' Sounds like the German defences were poorly designed, given the terrain and the restrictions it presented. Trenches constructed so they were clearly visible. Or the Soviet had all the positions mapped and pinned down. No doubt they had rehearsed in exact replica mock ups in comparable terrain too.

Any data of the topology of the terrain for this operation ?

Any data of the topology of the terrain for this operation ?

From a purely gaming POV: It is already possible to disregard casualties in CMBO. Why should it be any different in CMBB ?

Originally posted by Triumvir: The Sten was copied, extensively. It never made it into service, So how extensive was that copying then ? Personally, I think more highly of the Sten than the Suomi. A cheap nasty piece of stampings, but so fast to produce that you could probably arm at least four people for the cost of one Suomi. Another good weapon, one that never made it into as much use in Soviet time as it should have done thanks to internal Party politics was the PPS-43, which went on to inspire at least 3 post-war copies. Simple, cheap, and producible by starving workers. The Finnish army took on surplus Stens (and even made copies of it along with the PPS-43) after the war for that very reason. But only the Suomi was retained long after the introduction of assault rifles. The different sets of benefits and problems associated both crafted and stamped, mass produced weapons are evident. Curiously enough it seems the mass produced model gets always thrown out first after the immediate need for quantity over quality is overcome. To claim that the Suomi inspired the PPsh is quite untrue; the mechanisms are quite different with the PPsh having simple blowback while the Suomi has an interesting mechanism where the ignition of the primer creates the seal. The Suomi's drum magazine, however, influenced the Russians to build drum magazines for their weapons. Quite different. Inspiration is more than just copying the mechanical characteristics. Before Winter War the Red Army regarded the SMG to be of no real military value. After their experiences against the Suomi SMG they thought differently. I hear the MG-42 inspired the Americans already during the war but there was a clitch in the reading the measurements of the original model (metric vs inch) which rendered the produced copies totally unworkable and useless. Yet the copy emerged as the M-60 GPMG when all the bugs were worked out. Accuracy is nice and all, and in our present world of war by mercenaries -- by which, of course, I mean regular troops as opposed to a levee en masse -- is perhaps the most important characteristics in a weapon. But for arming the masses, nothing beats a weapon like the Sten or the PPS-43. True. I think a balance of ROF and accuracy culminated in the AK-47 and other early assault rifles which were built according to the war time experiences (with such features as freely selectable semi/full auto). There are still conscript armies around and they regularly outfight the western "regular" troops using cheaper or "outdated/obsolete" weaponry. It is folly to think you can win a real war with remote control gadgets and gizmos. When cost effectiveness overriders centuries of experience the outcome can only be a disaster. Here is a link: http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html [ July 18, 2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Triumvir: But in any case the obvious answer to his question is neither, of course; the Suomi beats all of them hands down with both thumbs broken. But of course. Not too many SMG models were copied during WWII, either by friends or foe. The Suomi was copied. Off hand I can't think of any notable copies of the Thompson, PPsH or MP-40 which would have reached widespread front line service. The Suomi inspired the PPsH which in turn was instrumental in beating back the Germans out of Soviet soil. The Swedish K-model was also a copy of Suomi.

A few remarks: - the gauge of the German and Soviet rail systems were different. Anybody know if they converted the tracks so the guns could move around or did they convert the gun undercarriage to suit the existing system ? Or if they built extra tracks ? - "regular" armoured trains. A bit obsolete but still used as fire support platforms, both in direct and indirect mode. - naval guns were mentioned. Coastal artillery (anti-shipping) installations were equally effective and accurate. Rail guns can be devastating against large fixed fortifications (which is what the Germans used them for in Russia, if I remember), but would be completely ineffective on a tactical battlefield. Imagine them in preplanned arty preparation commencing in the first round. IIRC they worked in pairs. For XXX(X) pts you get the Dora and Karl lobbing one big arsed round every 1,5 minute. Further, because rail guns were intended primarily to destroy fortifications, much of their ammuntion was designed to punch through large amounts of concrete and steel - similar to the AP rounds of a battleship. Such rounds would be worthless agains "soft" targets, as they would mostly bury themselves in the ground without exploding. You are forgetting the concussion effect. I would not say a projectile weighing several tons would sink into hard ground and have no effect on people and materiel standing near the impact point. Also, the dirt the round is displacing is be enough to bury dug outs and bunkers/billboxes even if it is only a "near miss". IIRC there were also delayed impact fuse HE rounds. That means they would bury down deep and then explode. This I have to check though.

Originally posted by wwb_99: Reseating probably depends on the drum. I am sure the finnish designed drum magezines for the suomi are the most wonderfully designed drums in the world, seatable in an instant, reloadable in seconds and light as a feather. As a matter of fact the PPsH drum is a copy of the Finnish magazine. And the PPsH magazine was completely interchangeable with the Suomi drum. A Suomi could use a PPsH drum eventhough it was built to house the 7,62 round. It was found out the 9mm Suomi round could be loaded into the PPsH magazine. Now, seatable in an instant: yes. Where do you get the notion a (Suomi/PPsH) SMG drum magazine is hard to seat ? reloadable in seconds: a two man team can rotate 5 drums and never run out of ready drums even in a fierce fire fight. Ie. they act like a magazine fed LMG team. You have to keep calm when reloading it, yes. But if you know what you are doing you can reload the drum quite fast. light as a feather hmmmm... for a shoulder fired full auto weapon having some weight is good. Exactly how does two times the bullets weigh out to nearly the same? What is the exact weight difference you are talking about ? How much less do 7 loaded MP-40 stick magazines weigh compared to 7 loaded Suomi/PPsH magazines ? The weight of the magezine itslef is usually immatierial once it is loaded, because bullets are heavy last time I checked. What you have to take also into account is the other stuff the gunner is hauling. The Finns and the Soviets rarely carried such stuff like gas masks in actual combat conditions. And since neither a Finnish or a Soviet squad carried a belt fed LMG the main task of the squad members was not to haul extra LMG belts in addition to their own kits. You are too hooked on magezine pouches. Pockets work fine for holding 30 round box mags last time I checked. Last time I carried 30 round banana magazines they did not fit into any non-purpose pouches so that they were easily accessible. Around that time I also carried some Suomi magazines and because of their size and shape you could stack them upright into any pouch large enough to hold them and it was quite easy to take them out quite fast. WWII era uniforms did not have too many large pockets you could stick many box magazines into and still have the easily at hand when in a prone position. That you can arrange with a pouch very easily. While I have no evidence, save anecdotal, I highly doubt, given avaliability, any trained german would go into battle with ~120 rounds for a SMG that could eat that in seconds. I have read a number of first-hand accounts, and dont recall anyone running out of ammo after the third clip. Ay, there is the rub. There were very few trained Germans in the Finnish and the Soviet armies. Marlow has a very good point--if drums were so great, why were they phased out of service? Because it is easier to put factory loaded belts into canvas pouches that have the same function as the manually fed drum magazines had in the WWII era SMG's. In the field manually loading a drum is easier than loading a belt, actually. BTW: the Finnish army phased out the Suomi SMG in early 90's. And AFAIK the military pretty dispensed with the box magazined in favour of the drum after the war so the ROF could be maintained. The law enforcement usage might have had more use for the box magazines. When I was in the service we were tought to load both but only the drum magazine was present in the live fire ranges. [ July 17, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by wwb_99: What about reload time? Drums are a pain to reseat. Actually they are quite easy to seat. Also, 70 round drums are not as insignificant in weight as you think. You should compare a drum to a stick magazine. The weight difference is not that pronouced. In addition, you are also presuming all ammo is in 70 round drums. Looking at photographic evidence, I see if anything more of the 30-40 shot clips for the PPsH at least. True. But usually one gunner would carry only one type of magazine. I doubt there is a reason why a finnish or soviet SMG gunner could carry nearly twice the weight in ammo than his german counterpart. You forget one thing: the German magazine pouch held only 3 magazines. Usually 2 was all that a gunner could carry. The Russian and the Finnish uniforms were less formalized. It was quite usual to carry extra drums in your gas mask bag or bread bag. You are too hooked on weight alone. The drum magazine was easier to carry because you could use any bag large enough to hold it. And, at 300m, I would rather have a LMG 34 with a 250 round belt on it. I will be shooting you while you reload. You see, MG34s did have a very nice single shot feature on them, and could even be used as sniper weapons. Then again it was not as easily moved around.

Originally posted by wwb_99: Regarding SMGs, 900 RPM is great, if you can feed it ammo, the barrel does not melt and you can manage to control the thing. Those 200 extra rounds you speak of would not exist, because both SMGs would have ran out of ammo long before. Not necessarily. When talking about the MP-40 and Thompson with a 40 round bar clip you are correct. With a 70 round drum magazine (Suomi/PPsH SMG's) those 200 extra rounds mean about three extra magazines. And since they are pistol caliber (9mm /short 7,62mm respectively) the extra weight of the extra magazines would not burden the SMG gunner too much. I think a combat load of one magazine in the gun and 5-7 in a pouch/carrier bag would not be unheard of or unrealistic for a SMG gunner fielding a Suomi or PPsH. 7 x 40 = 280 rounds 7 x 70 = 490 rounds Add to that the more control over the duration of the burst (you could actually fire aimed single shots lethal up to and beyond 300 meters with the Suomi at least) there are conditions when such a SMG is much better than a standard LMG. [ July 17, 2002, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

If there is room I think I want a seat. As for the side: since everybody seems to want to be Allies I think I'll take the Germans to keep the balance right.

Originally posted by redwolf: Announce tomorrow... ... that the game comes out November 30 :eek: What could be more appropriate than the anniversary of the start or Winter War ? The anniversary of the start of operation Barbarossa ?

Originally posted by Jussi Köhler: Soooo, does this mean that I should set up my tent in front of my favourite game-store allready??? ---Filling backpack with spam and beer--- You better also pack mace and a nightstick so you can ward off all the Swedes and Russians who come to a day trip and expect to get preferential treatment because they are tourists.