Kanonier Reichmann

I believe the term "Ind" stands for "Independant" and not "Individual". Doesn't look like anything approaching a "bug" to me. Regards Jim R.

1. Point a barrage in the direction of the enemy. 2. Let the Fire For Effect roll in. 3. Watch lots of enemy die. Sidenote...don't bother with the FFE if the enemy crunchies are protected by buildings or the enemy units are mainly fully enclosed AFV's that are already buttoned. Regards Jim R.

Yes, come on Dorosh! We're almost two thirds though our game and seeing as it's the last one for me, get a move on you slack bugger! I want to gain entry to the special website to discuss all the games. SHEESH... Regards Jim R.

Judging by all the responses on when 88's were used for AT and now anti shipping roles I'm beginning to wonder whether they were ever actually used against aircraft! Regards Jim R.

Well I must admit I felt a bit the same way Jason after seeing the report posted by John but I perhaps wouldn't have tackled the reply in quite the same "agressive" manner as yourself. Personally, I would love to see some sort of evidence of reports going back to the Soviet high command highlighting the difficulties T34/76's and their same calibre AT guns had in dealing with uparmoured Stug's from their frontal aspect. Seeing as Stug's weren't exactly uncommon I would have expected some sort of bleating from Soviet troops on the ground if this was really the case. Regards Jim R.

Thanks for the response John. Good luck with your searching. Regards Jim R.

An interesting report John but I don't think it really addresses the issue of the imperviousness of late model Stug frontal armour to 76.2 mm AT rounds. You mentioned that the Stug's were in fact impervious to the 76.2 mm gun except for the "sub-calibre" round but where did you obtain this information from? One final question if I may, from when was the tungsten round commonly available for the 76.2 gun if you happen to know this information? Based on what your saying, it seems that the T34/76 will not be able to tackle the Stug frontally until tungsten became readily available. However, I thought I read somewhere that the gradual improvement in round quality from the early years of the war meant that the standard AT round for the T34 was sufficient to penetrate 80mm of armour from early 1943 onwards yet we're not seeing this in CMBB. Does this situation co-incide with your reference material? Thanks in advance. Regards Jim R.

I think one valid point has been raised which might bear further research. Have there ever been any reports from the Soviet side (or German come to think of it) that deal with the Stug III F & G models being virtually impervious to 76.2 mm rounds from the frontal aspect during the 1942 to 1943 period? I would have thought that continual inability to penetrate frontal Stug armour (which were pretty common German types of AFV's by then) would have caused some sort of official acknowledgement and consternation at the time. My simple logic is that if no such reports exist regarding this problem then possibly the modelling in CMBB is a bit awry when T34's & 76.2 mm AT guns are simply unable to penetrate the frontal aspect of Stugs even if within 100 metres. If there are such reports dealing with the virtual imperviousness of frontal Stug III F & G armour at the time then you can safely ignore my hypothesis. Regards Jim R.

Shhhhhh.....don't let on to the guys at BFC. They may still include them if you keep your trap shut and don't let on. Regards Jim R.

A GI Combat fanboy perchance? Regards Jim R.

Nah. No need to bother with the New Zealanders. After all, they were simply bit players and can more than adequately be represented by Aussies. Besides, who would want to have that strange accent on their hard drives where the phrase "enemy at six hundred metres" would have to be "inemy ut sux hindred metres" :confused: Regards Jim R.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh Forget your bleedin' website. How about a return file for so we can meet the ROW III deadline! Regards Jim R. [ April 05, 2003, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

I'm guessing that Dan Olding may have that job already nailed but if you're looking for some local flavour (i.e. South Australian accents rather than those 'orrible Eastern seaboard ones) I'm your man. Regards Jim R.

Hey. Isn't Headshot the same as Gutshot who is the same as Emil Seibold etc, etc? This guy is one seriously twisted individual if you're right Jaws. I take it back then, Kiwi Joe was never schizophrenic. BTW, well done Kilroy. Your judge of character came through superbly when needed. Regards Jim R.

I'm sure Edwin is organising the celebratory party already. BTW, P.O.S. (how apt this abbreviation is BTW), you wouldn't happen to be one Kiwi Joe who has perhaps migrated to the U.K.? Your persona seems so familiar somehow. Regards Jim R.

Mere babes in the woods those kids. Kind of depressing really, that photo. I wonder whether they survived the war? Regards Jim R.

'Tis a shame that J.K. cannot participate in this tournament. His AAR's are always well worth reading and will be missed. (Just like they're still missed in ROW II!) Regards Jim R.

I'm shocked! Fancy allowing a deceased John Mellion (who does the voice over in the VB ads) to hijack the Peng thread. What is the world coming to. Regards Jim R.

Just letting H, Tuomas and Bertram know that I haven't managed to send of turns the last couple of days due to problems with my ISP. I'm hoping it will be fixed shortly but can't guarantee it that's all. Regards Jim R.

Captured units are still susceptible to direct fire when it is targeted at enemy units and the captured unit just happens to be nearby and cops some of the firepower. What you can't do however is area target nearby a captured unit no matter which type of unit is trying to area fire. Regards Jim R.

You're not whingeing again are you H? Bleedin' Poms. Regards Jim R.

The prodigal son returneth. Regards Jim R.

So, what's the ultimate essay if this is the penultimate one? Regards Jim R.

I second this bug/feature. It was also a problem with CMBO and still is with CMBB. I don't have a huge problem with no area firing when the spotted captured unit is within 10 metres (say) but when you have no idea where the captured friendly is, that is patently ridiculous. I'm sure the reason for not allowing area fire against a spot with captured friendlies is that we'd all be doing it if possible to deny the higher victory points our opponent receives from captured troops rather than killed ones. Whether this problem can be fixed if the opposing side can't spot his captured troops anymore is another matter since the internal workings of the game clearly knows the captured troops are there. Perhaps a partial solution would be to simply not allow the area fire line to "stick" when aimed at an area where captured troops are located (whether spotted or not). Regards Jim R.

Careful how you word that Para....Aussie dollars are worth a hell of alot less than their American (or Euro for that matter) equivalent. Can you really buy an upgraded system for $27.19 US? Regards Jim R.