Tero

Originally posted by White4: BAH, if you're really good, you'll win even if the opponent knows all your moves. Which is what TERO is doing to me now! I'm winning ???!? I mean - I'm winning !!! I'm not sure which I am supposed to be doing to you - knowing all your moves or winning. :cool:

In my experience having an FO in CC does usually make for longer delays, not shorter ones as the commanding units experience levels are imposed on the FO. And the delays imposed by the built in communications net complicated by being in CC. This is why I usually try to keep them out of CC. If you get a green FO in CC with a veteran/crack/elite command unit with loads of bonuses there might be some benefits. But since in most scenarios the experience levels are reversed (green infantry command unit vs experienced FO) and in QB's you do not get that kind of combo unless you play unlimited force selection having the FO's in CC is not worth it IMO. On-board mortars are a different matter alltogether. But then the main benefit you get is spotting for the mortars which remain in an out of LOS location, not the command bonuses as such.

Best bunch of CMBB boners I have seen. Truly magnificent.

Thanks, Tomb WO 185/195 New type sighting for tanks At the start of the war, British tank telescopes gave a magnification of ×1.9 and a field of view of 22º. German telescopes were ×2.5, with a similar field, but lower light transmission. Later telescopes had magnification ×3 and field 13º. For production reasons, moving graticules were replaced by fixed graticules. "Our optical industry was not equal to the task of producing telescopes of the German pattern in the quantities required." Later, it was possible to return to moving graticules, together with illumination, and an alternative eyepiece of ×6 power, needed to exploit the penetration performance of the 17-pdr. German improvements were, first, two ×2.5 telescopes to give binocular vision, and later a single telescope with alternative powers of ×2.5 and ×5. The Americans, "after the rather poor reception given to their first episcopic sights and to their earlier straight-through telescopes", produced the M10 dual-magnification sight (×1 and ×6), episcopic sight, and T122 variable-power telescope.

So how come I have spotted bunkers as "sound contact" in situations they have not fired or have not been spotted otherwise. And the aural spotting has been VERY accurate as to the whereabouts of said bunker.

Originally posted by Andreas: How much better is the crucial question. Or rather: how should "optics" be defined ? Just the aiming device or is a broader definition called for ? The overall visibility out of a buttoned AFV was critical and it is easily quantifiable, yet it does not seem to be have made the critical criteria list when the game engine was first modelled. (Granted, absolute spotting does undermine it). However such things as crew layout and visibility are a real concern in CMBB world when it did make a difference between a dead T-34/76 and a living PzKw-IIIJ in a snapshot duel in close terrain. tero - I have mentioned Soviet tanks firing on the move, and I always said that this was for HE and suppreession. I know. But there are others who leave it out. Nothing personal intended. It was not just a shock tactic I believe. I think it was. It was designed to dislodge the defenders from their entrenched positions by spooking them out into the open. Or keep their heads down until they got close enough for the tank riders to do their stuff. Had they come in without blasting away they would propably have been thrown back none the wiser. Even when coming in with the blasting they did get thrown back. Addendum: it was IIRC also used to mask off the slackening of the arty preparation. Would they have been better off using different tactics. Propably not. Since they made it to Berlin, I think one can assume that in general they knew what they were on about towards the end of the war. I agree with most you are saying. But the fact is all the way to the end they used massive amounts of HE (in preparation, while closing/leaning on the barrage and during the actual assault) and still they suffered huge casualties in both men and machines. It worked (but not always) and it was not without a cost. [ July 02, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Scipio: in CM terms this can be compared with TRPs and on-map mortars. Once the mortar has moved, it can't target the TRP anymore. Is it just me or didn't it turn out in a fur ball not long ago almost all on-map ordnance get targeting benefits from TRP's, including tanks which have moved. Not exactly the same thing but still intimately related. Originally posted by aka_tom_w: IMHO I honestly believe the Germans had BETTER optics with respect to range finding. The Finnish tankers who got their hands on both the captured T-34's and KV-1's and Stug-III's were quite specific about the superiority of the German optics over the Soviet optics. And I think it is telling that the captured Soviet stuff was phased out service faster than the German stuff, eventhough spare part situation was much better for the Soviet stuff. The last Stug's and PAK-40's were phased out of service in the late 80's. So it follows that if two tanks are moving (the shooter moving fast) the range would be changing and the shot ought not to be very accurate at all. Agreed. It does depend on the range. But the flight path of the shell is not all the story. How can a gunner keep the gun aligned to the target when both the shooter and the target are moving in 3D over uneven grounds and even when the speed is relatively slow the combined speed is considerable and the tank is jolting over the bumps ? The deflection, both horizontal and vertical, required to keep the target in sights alone is hard. The bumps make it IMO impossible. Even with a stabilizer. HOWEVER with both tanks moving it would seem CMBO is OVERLY generous with the "to hit" accuracy gunnery model. Conversly: (and I think this makes it even worse) there are absolutely no benefits for firing from a static or an ambush position. Steve of BFC has posted his thoughts on this siutation with regard to CMBO so lets hope there might some changes in CMBB. I have seen (long ago) a statement by Steve in which he related the consistent good/bad lucky in making the shots is being looked into. I do hope they will review whatever hard data are available on this issue and modify the gunnery model for WWII East Front tanks firing on the move for CMBB! The people who say the Soviets did do it as a part of their SOP leave out the fact it was used as a shock effect and they never even expected to hit anything. And the photos I have see almost invariably show the T-34's crashing through high brushes or small woods while firing the guns. (Not to mention the impact of gunnery Optics and range finders) Agreed. But I think the tune "Blue Moon of Kentucky keep on shining..." says it all as far as BTS is concerned.

Originally posted by Soddball: I think that's a wise move - too much time would be spent tweaking ice thickness and explosive wossname with no firm data to back up the figures. There is plenty of firm data around. IIRC BTS said it is actually the actual programming that makes it a virtual impossibility. HE shells are not what you would normally use to break the ice. You would use AP shots. And this makes nations with coastal arty available stand out as they had the stocks of ordnance needed and the precision needed to make the shells fall in tight enough pattern to make the ice break (as they had practised hitting targets from rowing boat size up at several kilometers). Granted, even relatively light HE can do the trick, even a 81/82mm mortar round. But what makes it so hard to model is the way barrages are handled in the game engine. To break the ice you need concentrated, preferably TOT barrages. And impact fuses with delay capability. High angle of attack also helps. This limits the likely armies to be able to use it to participants and sectors in the far north with access to coastal arty, shipping lanes, large bodies of water and ground actions within or near these, ie. the Soviets and the Finns. The Soviets were bottled up in the bottom of the Gulf of Finland from 1941 until the summer of 1944 and the Finnish sector was not very active between early 1942 and the summer of 1944. Further south there were large rivers that froze over but winter actions were generally restricted to firm ground during winter months anyway. With this in mind I lament the exclusion but I can see their reasoning for not going into it in detail.

Originally posted by Soddball: The problem here is "what IS weak ice"? "What IS a heavy tank"? You will get people arguing about the modelling of the KV1 and how it could cross 6 inches of ice: "Well, I ran some tests driving 8 KV1s across 7.7inches of ice. I have checked the pressure capacity of ice across a lake of size J and it doesn't work." Too fiddly. Dynamic ice breaking is out IIRC. So no busting ice with arty to form barriers and/or sink armour and infantry on the ice.

After many, many of these kind of debates I think these kind of occurances in the game are due to separate characteristics of the gun platform coming together. The incredients are: inherent gun capabilities, charateristics of the ordance it fires, fast turret, stabilizer and the inherent lack of random deviation from the stats in the code that makes this kind of inconsistent consistency possible. The "problem" is when the accuracy is rated the platform stability gets the lions share of attention in the calculation. (Then there are things which are not rated at all, like optics.) The gun capabilities are in line with the historical facts I guess. Although I have some doubts about the reload times in stabilized turrets (ie when only the gun is stabilized, not the entire turret). Ordnance characteristics, well.... hmmmmm... I find it hard to believe the 76mm Allied AP shots were THAT much more accurate than the 75mm German AP shots (when speaking about first shot hit accuracy). Or that the 75mm (or even 88mm, 105mm and 150mm) German HC shots were THAT much more accurate the 75mm (88mm, 105mm, 150mm) German AP shots. Fast turret: that section of the race track has been well trampeled in previous occasions. Stabilizer: that section of the race track has been well trampeled in previous occasions. Ceterum censeo: it would not hurt the historical accuracy to have them (like other intricate mechanical devices in the game) malfunction occasionally. The inherent lack of random deviation from the stats in the code that makes this kind of inconsistent consistency possible: I think NOBODY is consistently THAT unlucky with their first shots as the German gunners are in the game. Recently I have had some incredible long range first shot kills while playing as Germans. The only thing is they have all been with recoilles guns, most notably 8cm PAW in a recent PBEM and 105/150 RCL in an ongoing tourney game. The only way I can explain this to myself is the German AP shots get a bum rap because of the platform gets a bum rap, be it a Stug, a tank or an AT gun.

Originally posted by lewallen: Also, the idea proposed by Gen-x87H about not having your tanks know exactly when an enemy tank is dead would, I think, add a lot of realism to the game. Yes. And for campaigns the distinction between different level of KO'd would be good. That way the realistic and historically accurate practice of shooting them until they burn and are assuredly out of the loop would reward you but just leaving them standing there abandoned would mean they can return to haunt you later in the game if you do not control the battlefield at the end of the game. By the same token any repairable vehicles could be captured and taken into use in subsequent games to supplement your force and/or replace losses (provided you have tankers in your force who can operate them).

Originally posted by Lord Dragon: They have thrown approximately 600 rounds of artillery within a 50 yard radius of my position. What kind of rounds were they ? Not very big and effective I would imagine if they get 600 of them within 50 yards of his position and not one hit the man or the machine gun.

Originally posted by Holien: Now Tero be good to the kids and they will let you play on their computer. The four year old has a machine of his own. It act s as a back up in case my better machine blows. Nothing more important than keeping the CM PBEM games going....

Originally posted by Visom: Tero Finland, GMT +2 Usually returns files at 6.00, 17.00 and 21.00. Work as an XXX at YYY, work hours 8.00-16.00. Home late monday and wednesday, picks up kids from daycare. Don't return files saturday evenings (note: find out reason). Vacation in July and a week during Xmas. Finnish holidays: ... Wife birthday: YYYY/MM/DD Kids birtday: YYYY/MM/DD Anniversary: YYYY/MM/DD Playing style:... etc Tero, hope I didn't step on your toes, above info is for example only... Edit: A few smileys just in case... (Aren't we all addicted?) You got it down pretty close actually. Return files at 06.00-07.00hrs and around 22000hrs only 90% of the time. If at all possible at least once every 24hour cycle. Kids are at home. I have managed to maintain a housewife and kids at the same time - with the skin of my teeth. Incidentaly: I'm working late tonight so I may not be able to make the evening rounds as usual.

Originally posted by Brian: So, should AT guns be considered infantry weapons or not? Depends how you look at it. IMO artillery is pure and simple artillery only if it fires at targets out of immediate LOS using indirect fire under the direction of a FO. From a organizational POV the AT guns may be artillery but if they are an integral part of a infantry regiments OOB then it could follow they are infantry support weapons just like the direct fire IG's are and thus classifiable as (heavy) infantry weapons. Different armies had different organizations. Some had designated direct fire support artillery pieces for point support and separate indirect artillery pieces (and/or mortars) for general support even at lower (down to regimental level) echelons. http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/heer-org-infanterie-44.htm lists the organizational chart of a typical German infantry division. 3 x Infantry Regiment Regimental Staff Regimental Staff Company 2 x Infantry Battalion 3 x Infantry Company Heavy Company Cavalry Platoon Infantry Close Support Howitzer Comapny (2 x 150mm sIG, 6 x 75mm leIG) Panzerjäger Company (3 x 75mm PAK 40, 3 x 50 mm PAK 38, 18 88 mm Panzerschrecke) Then there are the separate artillery regiments and Panzerjäger battalions within the divisional organization.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Ah, but my dear, those AT assets were not in the hands of the infantry! The AT guns were grouped either in battalions at the division level or in companies at the regimental level. There was nothing that the grunts had at squad or platoon level, unlike four years later. True. But that does not mean they were totally out of means when going against tanks with no infantry support. Unless they were under orders not to do anything to remedy the situation. To what degree were they (the armies) victims of their own, pre-war propaganda and doctrinal hazzles ? The individual soldiers had been indoctrinated during peace time to hold the armour in high esteem and to regard is as an allpowerfull, unstoppable force. That indoctrination was reinforced by their training. They were taught to leave the undefeatable beasts to the specialists. Similarly, the armor was either in brigades or battalions of armor. The infantry guys seldom saw any of their own armor. When did they penny packet them out then to be lost piece meal to the Germans instead of massing them and using them as a cohesive fist ? To recapitulate, at the squad and even company level, the infantry neither had the weapons nor the training to stand up to tanks. Their only hope would be if there were some AT guns in the vicinity, and those were usually gone in pretty quick order. It's no wonder they often broke and either surrendered or ran. This has intriqued me. Did they open up on the tanks and reveal their positions prematurely so the Germans could stand back and call in arty on them while their infantry huzzled up to join the battle ? Was it totally out of the question to let the tanks go past the positions and engage the infantry that was following up ? You make it sound like a widespread bug out syndrome developed that foiled the defences almost more effectively than the actual attacks and that it was preordained because the infantry had been indoctrinated and trained not to respond to the new set of battlefield stimuli as a matter of doctrine. I must admit my personal frame of reference does incline me to think in slightly different terms. But then again the period reference I have does entail troops with absolutely no armour support and very few "proper" AT assest defending static positions for the better part or a 105 day struggle against a formidable force using combined arms tactics. They managed to KO over 1200 enemy tanks, quite a few of them with Molotovs and satchel charges. The similarities are: few regular AT assets at squad level The differences are: long campaign (which gave the infantry enough time to get accustomed to fighting against tank/infantry teams), static positions (the Germans did not attack the Maginot line head on), climate and terrain (IMO these are marginal and the reason for this is the fact the armies develop their tactics and doctrine and also trained to act in the kind of terrain they are supposed to defend/invade).

Originally posted by Holien: As for the Uber Finn I did not have enough time to plot all my movement paths so that will have to wait until tonight. No worries. It seems the natural flow is I go first in the morning since I am GMT +2. That way I send you a turn in the morning and I reply to your turn in the evening. On a more personal note, Hussah!!! The plasters turned up this morning and the messy building work end is in sight. I just hope they plaster the walls and not the floors... Does that mean you can sneak off to play some turns even when you are supposed to be working ?

Originally posted by JasonC: And the AARs I've read leave little doubt that plenty of German units took that doctrine pretty literally. Which was really a 1918 era system. Not surprisingly a certain former corporal in the Imperial German army during WWI was supposedly calling the shots from Berlin down to individual unit positions in the far corners of the frontlines.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: When the quoted German doctrine was annunciated before and during the early war years (1939-1941) it worked that way pretty well because opposing infantry had little to nothing to fight the Panzers with. I think this is not exactly the case. The opposing infantry thought they had little to nothing to fight the panzers with. At least in the case of the Polish, the French and the British armies. All of these had a substantial number of AT assets and armour comparable to or better than what the Germans had, technically speaking. What made the difference was the fact the Germans did not play ball with their tactics and doctrine. In addition to that: in the case of Poland the attack came when the army was mobilizing. And in the case of the French there were serious problems with morale.

Originally posted by White4: Replace him with someone who sends files as fast as Holien!! So where is your turn you are supposed to send to me ? Or am I the one holding back ?

Originally posted by Holien: Head for the Hills is in the early phase and I need to give that some thought as Mr Uber Finn is too good and I have too little. I hope that does not mean you will slow your ROP down. Status report: Head for the Hills progressing at a steady pace (so far ) as are Fire on the mountains and St Mere Eglise. The other two game have not progressed past set up. I have not heard from Cogust since the start (in fact not at all, I sent him my set up but he never replied).

Originally posted by Moon: Guys, thanks a lot for participating in this. Our poll, and another poll made be "pelit", have been very interesting. Does anybody have the name of the poll for that one (assuming it is on the pelit.fi site) ? I looked for it and could not spot it. If there will be a finnish manual, and it looks like there will be ADDITIONAL to the english one, rest assured that it will be done by native Finns, so I think you will be positively surprised about the quality of the translation. I am surprised the totally localized full page add for MoH uses the archaic translation for mortar (which I assume is used in the original version). AFAIK a mörssäri is not a kranaatinheitin. Well, at least they did not make it a huhmare.

"Saatanan tonttu, mä survon sun suohon" for the ultimate insult to cowards. I'd say it would be worth the extra (but I think not too steep) cost to use soundtracks from Tuntematon Sotilas (either version), Talvisota and other domestic war movies so the game soundtrack would be by actual actors and their voice talents. Please, PLEASE spare us from the Turkku version a la CC3 Finn mod. It was fun... for a little while.

Home again, home again. If any of my opponents did not get his fix please let me know...

Could the lines separating the message body from the other stuff be other than white ?