danielh

Admiral Keith, First, thx for the great job of keeping Scenario Depot at live ! You're absolutely right with the Review scoring ! My Scenario (Stalingrad The Moviescene) which got quite good reviews, received two 0 point reviews by an ***hole who quoted having made the same, although mine was already there for a year and a half ! Now there are maybe 8-10 CMBB Scenarios coming in a week and it really doesn't take much time to download 100kb. Most of the time a look at the map already tells a lot about the game, and whether you may like it or not. Greets Daniel

Wicky, Sorry, i was off for a week. Unfortunately, you cannot reach me per E-mail. Try my brother's one: widow@bluewin.ch Greets Daniel

Pzman, You seem to misunderstand me, Currently i cannot see whether or not the AI is doing about the tings i try to create in the scenario, because if i switch to Fog off the AI will behave totally different(because it knows all the targets) especially on the attack. Because most AI battles are fought with extreme fog the AI changes in ways unpredictable unless i play the scenario on extreme fog for testing purpose. Maybe i have to play 30 rounds to wittnes that all the AI-tanks brought in as reinforcment at turn 10 are clogged somewhere. God View would make this clearly visible immediately, it would also be clearly visible which units take which approach, their speed and the like, now i have to fish in muddy waters. The intention of God mode is to make the AI seem better not worse in less time, and thus aid the scenario designer, because he can really see what happens ! Greets Daniel

Two important ones i forgot: - There should be a command "Don't shoot main armament on the move" to allow tanks to advance in bounds and shoot only when being stopped(Maybe with some randomness in it depending on morale and the like..). Now this is near to impossible and the using of cov. arcs doesn't help. I want for instance 3 Tanks in overwatch while 3 advance to a given point and then engage enemy tanks in sight (or other dangerous threats) immediately to allow the overwatch element to move the next turn. If i use "move" or "fast" now the moving tanks will still fire the maingun and waste very precious ammo. - Tanks with bow machineguns should be able to be ordered to use them when Coax & Gun are out of action, now a tank with damaged cannon is almost useless, and uses the bow MG almost never. Maybe gun damage should have some variety in it, for instance gun may be deajusted, gun destroyed, gun & sight destroyed, Gun & Sight & Coax-MG destroyed. However as long there are functioning weapons they should be useable (and an MG can be very important). Greets Daniel

Pzman, Wrong ! Turning off FOW changes behaviour of AI because they also see all your troops. What i mean is only the human player sees all the units, while the AI plays on the selected FOW level. OK ? Greets Daniel

I never go into a defensive battle as german without the 150mm IG. Around 45 rounds of HE will do forever and rout everything very very quickly. Add to that long lasting smoke and very good Tank killing ability. Even on Infantry attacks i almost always use one and end the game with some guns and around 20-60 men cas on the list, always a very good tradeoff for around 50-70 points, never lost one. The 75mm IG is only a complement to the 150mm, and uses up ammo very quickly. If possible i give them a HQ with a stealth bonus (don't know if it really works though). I use AT-Guns only supplementing Tanks in terrain only suited to them, long woodlines for instance. A StuG, T-34, P4 comes for around 100 points, Marder even around the prize for a Pak40, whereas a Pak40 costs around 60-70 points. Mobility by far outweighs the 30 points. On dry open ground i can move a T-34 almost 400m in a turn ! AT-Guns and the mobility of defending Tanks can create very neat killing zones, with a lot of flexibility. Greets Daniel

Improvements: - Tanks simulated with correct relative Turret/Hull area values - Tankcrews with appropriate historic weapons after bailing out - Possibility for Tanks going into full defilade and still observe when equipped accordingly, or even one crewmember leaving the tank to reconoiter. - Automatic cannons calculated correctly (not like now, being abstracted like artillery shells) - Abadoned guns can be remanned - Horse drawn units, an absolute must when german troops being simulated. - Motorcycle-units - Introduction of "real" trenches (Communication, Observation, Fighting, earthbunkers etc., pakemplacements, ) - Ammo supply points for long scenarios - Possibility to camouflage units, either during unitselection (added prize) or during battle using time. - Infantry guns can do indirect fire - On map artillery with indirect fire possibility (for huge maps or special tactical situations) - Better sighting/spotting algorithms in general, taking into account masking, and camouflage. - Taking selected troops from one battle to the next -> Aiding campaigns - Abandoning of smoke creation for vehicles, which for now only distorts gameplay (Tanks zipping into and out from fog forever while being shot at) - Introduction of coloured smoke and/or liasion radios/HQs to control Aircraft strikes more efficient as was standard praxis with the germans in the east, of course for a prize. - Aircraft being equipped with historical weaponmix (for instance Cluster bombs, as being used later in the war) - Single Aircraft lethality dramatically reduced vs. single AFV, especially when being camouflaged or in camouflaging terrain like scattered tree. - Possibility to group units and lay multiple waypoints (reduce wear on the mouse). - Scenario-Editor allowing import of Height-color coded countourmaps. - Scenario-Editor allowing creation of oversized map of which parts can be used for scenarios or campaigns - Scenario-Editor as a separate Fullwindowsized Program - If possible larger Height differences possible in the map (best no restriction). - Godmode View for Scenario-Creation debugging - Smooth Zoomlevel change with "memorize" feature, so one can set zoomlevels freely (current jump from Level 2 to 3 is to great). - A Scriptdriven-extension to the current AI-system to guide units in more complex AI-battles, enabling better historical Battles. (Preplanned Artillery, Approach sectors, triggers and the likes) - Simple Interface to import textfile unitselections -> Aid modders, Monstercampaigns, Operationlevel third party extensions - Vehicle Bogging reduced to believable historical values - More diverse terrain, Tall grass, Sunflowerfield, ploughed field, olive grove orchards, open wood, dense wood and the like - Artillery being able to fire ground ricochet fire -> airbursts if terrain facilitates it. - Terrain, especially Wood being transformed by Artillery fire - And only if everything else is done: Dynamic Lighting, Shadows, weather and only if having impact on gameplay. - In the same category: Even better vehicle models with moving suspensions and higher polygon count and higher resolution textures. - Squads using appropriate formations and space. - If not simulation wise (not really necessary), then atleast visually correct representation of a squad (10 men and not 3, eventually changing formation visually only again to represent different battleconditions). Greets Daniel

Bump !

Some of my Brother... Greets Daniel [ September 18, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: danielh ]

I've just measured my Panther A 1:35 scale model. Targetarea exposed to enemy in Hulldown: ca. 1.2 square meters being 80 cm high, 1.2 m width at the top and 2.1 m at the bottom, sidewall tilted 25° degrees. Vulnerable area to T-34/85 is smaller than 0.6 square meters. I measured the zone of the mantlet which is tilted less than 30° degrees (T-34/85 doing 100 mm at 500 m AP). This zone is an area about 30 cm high and roughly 1.9 m wide. One can assume that the probability to hit this zone (50 % of whole area) will be quite below every third hitting shot (and to do so quickly the gun must be zeroed perfectly). For the (CMBB) US 76mm of the M4 it would be even worse, the zone being even smaller, because the 76mm is only doing around 90mm for 30° at 500 m. In case the Tank is not Hulldown: Frontal area of Panther Turret + Hull roughly 4.5 square meters. Assuming the enemy aims for center of mass (visually around a line 20-30 cm below the bow MG), probability can be assumed to be around 1 out of 10 (4 m2 : 0.6 m2). Not included are the lower mantlet riccochets. Roughly 20 % of the frontal turret area is protected by the Mantlet + Turretfront (+200mm) and about the same area is only protected by 100 -105 mm near vertical plating thus about canceling eachother out. So the 37% for fully exposed is far to high (should be around 15%), while the Hulldown 28% being atleast very optimistic....(perfect zeroed gun, very small scatter(assumed being within 80 cm Height of mantlet, a kind of sniper gun)) Greets Daniel [ September 14, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: danielh ]

Xerxes, i never do something else in CMBB than extreme FOW.

JasonC, Correct, but doesn't help much if one tries to simulate a massed attack, a real shockforce, as was often done by the Russians at their point of main-effort (and surely too by the germans if enough manpower was available). Where they tried to saturate the surviving enemy direct fire with numbers, and uncover them to the interspersed Tanks and the following Assaultguns and Tanks in the second wave. If done on a fairly broad front 4-10 km the enemy must have his artillery largely intact to have a chance to keep the first wave from entering the line. It's also bad the AI is not capable to execute a walking barrage in front of the first wave. Some planning tools for the designer would help much here (The AI tends to uload all Arty onto one spot, either near a flag or something spotted in the first turn). Sanok, Disagree, the AI when attacking, always tries to keep tanks level with the advancing infantry, if the infantry stalls the tanks most of the time wait forever. One can easily determine the frontmost line the infantry has reached within about 100m range even if nothing is spotted. I'm conviced that it is only possible to recreate the vast possible types of attacks only by giving the Scenario-Designer some additional tools to guide the AI to some extent. True for your last remark about the placement of guns and MGs, they are almost always placed very well. Greets Daniel

Rexford, Great work !!! Thanks alot !! Btw. I recently rechecked the Pantherfibel, and i'm still firmly convinced, that on the hitladder PzGr-shot only climbs half a "Strich" for every 100m range added out to around 1200m, recheck page 20 and 22 ! Text from page 22: "Bei "Panzer" ändert es sich wieder. Die Schüsse fliegen flach und nieder, und einen halben Strich nur klettern sie höher bei je 100 Metern..." My free translation: "On using "Panzergranate" however it changes again. The shots now fly flat and low and only half a "Strich" do they climb at every 100 meters increase in range setting" The text on page 22 continues the rule for "Nabelvisier" on page 21 which refers to explosive grenades. The upper picture on page 22 shows the hitladder for explosive, the bigger one below the one for PzGr. Keep up the splendid work ! Greets Daniel

As Panzerman already wrote, quite good in defence. But really weak on the attack, tanks bunching up generating endless traffic jams is one example. It is almost impossible to create a massed tankattack as was so common on the russian side. Infantry also has the fatal habit of bunching up in ridicolous amounts. Only by creating "unnatural" exactly designed scenarios is it possible to reduce this a bit (every new "row" of tiles has to have several good cover tiles which have the same distance to the good cover tile of the previous row). A kind of scripting in addition to the actual system would be very, very helpful for the scenario designer, as would be a "Debug" mode where the designer could play the scenario in "god" mode seeing every unit, while the engine would play with the given FOW setting (Extreme fog of war normally) -> checking AI behaviour. Now reducing FOW settings changes the behaviour of the units. Greets Daniel

Hi Postfux, I've tested 1.03, my test was only vs. enemy Platoon HQ-units. Your test indicates normal inf-squad, or am i wrong ? To the praxis. I always check for stealth bonuses for my foremost advancing troops. Versus AI in defense i can close to within 300-400m depending on terrain shape in generally open terrain. However Tanks spot much, much better. I usually use veteran Sharpshooters for ahaed Recon, they can regularly close to within 300m even in open ground. I always have some HQ-units in good spotting positions. Greets Daniel

Postfux, The spotting test is of very limited value in actual battle. I ran stealth test vs. regular enemy HQ (platoon). Out to 800 m every single unit was instantly spotted when moved (Move to Contact command used), no difference was found regarding troop experience to that range. Only the Sharpshooter unit(Vet) can close to around 300 m in open. No difference betw. Open and Steppe (July). But what is really disturbing is the fact that all the units remain visible after movement even in steppe for all subsequent turns, although they do no further movement. Next CM needs really improvement in this area. Test was done in perfect flat terrain. All HQ-units without any stealth bonuses, maybe this might have some influence, but cetainly not within to inf combat range (< 300 m). Greets Daniel

Combined Arms, Using CMBO in determing relative tankquality may be a bit misleading. To the M26: First loss ocurred in the Night of 26.-27. February 1945 by Nr. 38 of F-Company of the 33rd Armored Regiment. The tank with the name "Fireball" received 3 hits from a Tiger I of Heavy Tankcompany "Hummel" (an alarm unit using tanks of training units). The first shot penetrated the turretmantle and killed Loader and Gunner, the second hit the cannon, the third again hit the mantlet ricocheted of and sheared off the Comanders cupola. At 1. March 1945 Tank Nr. 25 received 2 hits by a Nashorn knocking it out, damage was so that the tank was used for spare parts afterwards. The 90mm in the M26 could penetrate the Panther's turretmantle to quite a range, but usually not the glacis above 500m (as could the Panther's Kwk and even the Tiger I). What was really interesting with the M26 (and the outstanding Chaffee) was the really ingenious recuperator gun mount, which saved a lot of space (placed circular around the gun). Source: "Military Modelling Journal Nr. 6/2002" Greets Daniel

Hello Mr. Tittles and Rexford, I've a question, which you could maybe answer. I recently read in the Spielberger / Doyle /Jentz Book "Begleitwagen Panzerkampfwagen IV" (Pz IV) There on page 227 a so called "Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV" -> (Tankobservationvehicle IV) is mentioned. Being an ordinary Pz IV J with additional radios but and this is the important one, with the same Cupola as being used in late StuG IIIs. In the text accompanying the picture drawing on page 226 it is mentioned, that using the StuG-Cupola it was possible to use the SF 14 Z (Scissors Periscope) also in buttoned position (looking through the armored glasses of the Cupola). What do you say to that ? How much would the "brightness" and picture quality in general be affected by the thick armorglass ? Obviously the SF could not be used with ordinary PzIV's while being buttoned. Were they used for Forward Artillery Observation or what ? Greets Daniel

Tons of Books & Videos: http://www.wwiibooks.com/ Greets Daniel

If i had to go to war as a tanker say in 43 and could choose any model of any nation during 39-45, i would choose Tiger I. Live expectancy would be quite good and a lot of (Hero)-action would be guaranteed (always at the hot spots). However i had to fear that nasty habit of Adolf letting me fight as footslogger once my beloved Tiger would have gone, as a last stand "Deathspell already given" Detachment, which unfortunately will occur rather sooner than later...... Well, one cannot live forever. Hero's tank of choice. Epitome of WWII Tank. Fight lavishly, die lavishly.. T-34: Overall the best Tank in WWII, but not so glorious for the crew (Tankcommander of 5 GTA in an interview after the war: Out of "Our Band of Brothers" of 6 which started out in 1943, i'm the only one left....), good for Patriots, ZEN-loving men. Concentrate on the essentials, don't be distracted by all the superflous things in the world. IS-2(together with ISUs and JSUs 152mm): One shot wonder only effective in large pulks versus numerical inferior enemytanks, else dead. Tank of choice for the Butcher minded in a rage, rough and mean to all. M4(75 & maybe? 76): Shows it's bright sides primarily for nearby spectators when being hit, atleast in firt 2 and half years up to the finale. Don't like to be the victim of ignorant higher Echelon... Neat Doctrine: In case you see a german tank retreat and call the TDs ASAP and wait for enemy inf stroling in front of the gun to kill. Of course if things go hot, your Captain (being ass-kicked down the line) will order your Platoon to outflank that pesky Panther 1500 yds ahead on the ridge (which unknown to you is flanked by some buddies) by means of an ingenious outflanking manouver (after Artillery failed to dislodge them), Great Job ! Ideal tank for the underdog nameless hero Churchill: Slowly moving pillbox (Mk. VIII) otherwise exercise shooting target for the Pak-gunners. If there would be a remote control we could made friends. Ideal tank for WWI-era Lovers. Cromwell: Where are we supposed to go, and where are we ??? Where doesn't matter, but do it fast !!! Ideal, for men loving the unexpected sides of warfare. 17pdr M4: Well, that's a tank one can fight with atleast ! Panther: The Bauhaus tank, beautiful sleek professional killing machine. Brittle on the sides, likes to become enlightend when hit from the side. The one Schumacher would choose, if he would be a tanker i suppose. My second rate. StuGs: For the sacrifice minded with really strong nerves. Last hope of the poor Infantry, thousands count on you(This should ring a bell right ?) !! Missions usually have a desperate tendency to be last stands against all odds. As was said: "The live of the Sturmartillery is short but eventful !" Kingtiger/Jagdtiger: You will be in the hotspots, but unfortunately, either there's no fuel, the finaldrive broke on the muddy trail, or you have been outflankend or encircled. A great tank for a great fresh mighty army, but unfortunately not in late 1944 on the german side, too late Kamerad ! Where's the Reconplatoon, the heavy bridging Battailon, the Flanksupport, the heavy-Tows, and where's the next Fueldepot and Repairshop ? Greets Daniel [ August 16, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: danielh ]

Alech, You're right and i'm wrong, Grossdeutschland of course also had a 13th. Hvy Coy consisting of 15 Tigers at 13.5. At 5.7.43 the TigerCoy was in combat with Panzerbrig. 10 (Panther Ds) Btw: Voronezh-Front (Adv. of 4th PzArmy & Det. Kempf) (Vatutin) lost the following figures: (Primary Source pg. 339, Report No 01398 dated 24.7.43 of Chief of Staff of the Voronezh Front, Lt.Gen. Ivanov; Chief of Operations Dep., and Maj.Gen. Teteshkin): In the timeframe 4.-16.7. Cas. Men: 90'249 KIA Men: 18'097 (Interesting KIA, WIA, MIA are in line with the ratio to expect betw. KIA : WIA & MIA of roughly 1 : 4-5 whereas later official numbers often have near 1:1 ratios betw. Killed and so called "medical" as in Krivosheev for example which is odd, maybe reararea consolidated figures with high rate of death of wounded, and lightly wounded already back at fron ???) Tanks lost: (irrevocably lost) 1233 (!!) -> comparable to german "Total loss" Tanks damgd: 655 16.7. - 22.7 (Mentioned as Counterattack, although Rumiantsev didn't start before August, maybe local Counterattacks..??): Cas. Men: 10683 Tanks lost: 395 German losses (unfortunately timespan not known), but (Source: Zetterling): 4th Pz. Army Cas. Men: 13'461 Det. Kempf: 15'641 Tank losses: (pg. 275-276) around 130 Total losses and around 630 damaged In Rumjantsev (Belgorod-Kharkov Axis starting August) Russians lost further: Cas. Men: 250'000 pg.276 accord. to Krivosheev whose figures for this time are even higher and KIA : WIA & MIA are around the expected 1:4 relation (112'000 KIA and 315'000 Medical(all causes) = ca. 420'000 Cas.) and 1864 Tanks The Orel-Operation(starting 12.7.) in german 9th Army area cost the Russians: 430'000 Cas and 2500 Tanks lost So in 4th PzArmy Area Russians lost roughly 3000 tanks as total loss betw. 5.7. - end of August and around half a million casualties. One strikes the big discrepancy of "only" 90'000 cas while in Defence (5. - 16.7.) to the 400'000 in Rumjantsev while on the Attack. The Russians could afford to lose a million men in roughly two months on a frontlength of roughly 500 km !!!!!! (Surpassing twofold the accumulated US losses in the whole june 44 - May 45 timespan !!) Really tough men !! Sources: Glantz "The Battle of Kursk", there are some (at times BIG) contradictions about casualty figures especially on the Russian side. However the Voronezh report is a very close to source and fresh (no glossing, blurring probable). Greets Daniel

Hi Rexford ! I'm glad i'm not so dumb as i may sometimes seem.... The game in question is a "massive" Multiplayer Online-Game. I've left long time ago because of to many gamesystem related fundamental problems. Nevertheless one can sometimes extract interesting insights on some tactical/technical questions of warfare. In this special case in tank/AT-Gun vs. tank combat. Btw: Many thanks, for your tireless research on ballistics, armor, ballistics and procedures to deploy tankguns !!!! Greets Daniel

Mr. Tittles, True, KT needed much more armor steel, but as Speer clearly shows in his memoirs, limiting factor up to late 1944 were the necessary tool/machines and manpower to produce more tanks, so it's highly unlike that much more Panthers could have been produced than actual KTs. For instance, the main weakness of the Panther, the finaldrive could have been made better if there would have been the necessary tooling machinery (Planetary gear). Manhours needed to complete one Panther = 2000 Hours: Hullmachining: 55 Hours Turretmachining: 38 hrs. Suspension/Wheel mounting: 485 hrs. !!!! (Panther was the sole Tank ever being equipped with a double torsion bar suspension -> far superior to anything else) Turret mounting: 150 hrs. Final mounting: 85 hrs. Btw. Germany wouldn't have been able to continue the war beyond May/June 45 because it's lack of raw materials (Chrome) (In a Memroandum to Hitler in Feb. 44 Speer notes that Chrome would all be used up in 6 months -> August 44. Chrome had to be bought from Turkey, hence the sporadical weapon deliveries to Turkey). Without Chrome no Aircrafts, Tanks and Guns, Cars and U-Boats ! Needed raw materials for: Metric tons Pz IV Panther Tiger II Iron unalloyed 20.2 33.4 44.0 Iron alloyed 18.8 44.1 75.8 I don't think that much more manhours were needed to complete a KT (less complicated running gear) than for a Panther. Of course KT was the wrong tank for a nation in such a state as the Reich in 44, however it was planned only shortly after Tiger I in 1942 (First tanks should have been finished in fall 43). Preparing for a "Great Defence" in 43 would have been rated defaetistic by Hitler, who could only think in offensive terms and was keen to have the KT and Tiger I (The ill-fated opening of the Tiger I in the swamps at Armygroup North were ordered explecit by him, and very closely watched.) Sources: Albert Speer "Erinnerungen" Walter J.Spielberger "Panther and it's Variants" Greets Daniel

Rexford, Thx, for the hit prob. for the 75/L48 & L75/70 when using SF-Sight ! To the discrepancies of Schneider's "Panzertaktik" in Training- and Battle- Drills to the ones described in the Panther- and Tiger-fibel i don't know. To the examination excercises: I assume that atleast less than 3 rounds were needed for stationary targets below 1000m because the crew had to hit a moving tanktarget at 800-1200m within 30sec. and 3 shots. I also expect that a good crew would need less than 3 shots for the moving target, and even less for a stationary one (tank). Of course this is no "hard" evidence, but none the less logical. Greets Daniel [ August 09, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: danielh ]

Rexford, I wrote in first post: "A Tank 3m tall at 1000m will show as 3mils in the sight, correct "Nabelvisier" would be 1300m to hit him squarely in the middle. My "error-range" to still hit the tank with high probability is 800 - 1200m (In the first case a target 3m tall would show as nearly 4.5 mils, in the second at around 2 1/4 mils. One must have quite bad eyesight to make such an error when target is not in cover. First round hits will be the norm here" I don't see any error in my initial calculation of the "Nabelvisier" (aiming at the bottom then adding range to hit in the middle). From Pantherfibel: Their the formula is (pg 22 of Pantherfibel): Estimated range + Targetheight in Strich ( or mils) x 100 = Nabelvisier for Armor piercing rounds. For HE rounds: Estimated range + Targetheight/2 in Mils x 100 = Nabelvisier for Explosive shells. (pg. 21 Pantherfibel) So my 1000m + 300m for a 3m tall tank (AP) is correct. The Fibel also mentions that shot "climbs" only 1/2 Strich (or Mils) for every 100m range added on the ladder. The figures for 800 + 1200m were estimates and the first one really being an error on my side, the second is only 10% off (i was in a hurry...,sorry) In 1944 Tiger and Panther had 2.5 x and 5 x Magnification as you surely knows, so why do you calculate all in 2.5 Magnification ? (2.5 x was used to aquire target, 5 x was used to aim and determine range for "small" targets (= far away). What do you think ? Greets Daniel