danielh

I'm currently going through Hidden & Dangerous II the second time on hard. The best WWII FPS out there in my eyes. Graphics are the best by a great margin, and the love to detail makes it more a piece of Art then a game (Well when compared to crap like MOH or COD). It's the only WWII FPS to my knowing which incorporates some tactical aspects (ambushes, timed actions and the like..). Rarely doing some racing with DTM (Toca 2) or EA's F1 2002, and on and on some CMBB, though i'm now really tired by the hopeless AI and some flaws (Lack of operational level, no Campaign mode (which would be sooo easy to do, if only the Programmers could jump over their shadows... -> they have to know they are playing in a niche field but can really count on a very committed userbase(Modders, Scenario-editors and the like), which they leave out in the open for the most part), one only remembers the great Campaign Project for CMBO(which was to complicated to manage). I'm really looking forward and wait for the new CM-engine.

Manstein, Couldn't agree more !! AT-Guns were definetely the most feared weapon by tankers (Atleast german tankers, because very difficult to spot). However i don't think it's only accountable for "Borg spotting". For instance the difference of a hidden, unhidden Gun is much to big. For AT-guns there should be no difference and every AT-gun unmoved during the game should be considered camouflaged. When fired only a "?" should appear unless the gun is in open ground. Only tanks and HQ-units should be able to spot them, when more than 300 m away (An inf grunt will not consider it unless being shot at by HE, then of course they should start spotting). Once this "?" appears some tanks or HQ-units with LOS would receive a time slot each round where they can spot the Gun (simulating a tendency to start searching the Gun). However unless the gun fires in one of the LOS Tank or HQ-units timeslot it can only be spotted with very low probability(out of luck). In case the gun fires and one of the LOS Tank- or HQ-units is in the timeslot to spot the Gun, probability will rise for every subsequent timeslot of any LOS HQ-unit or tank. In this fashion the AT-Gun will be spotted sometime when it commences fire, or remain a "?" -> (should be shown as "?AT"). The timeslotlength should remain unchanged for HQ-units, but increase for in command tankunits being shot at over time -> 1 AT vs. 5 T-34 solely; after some time the whole platoon will receive longer and longer timeslots unless another threat emerges, then the threats will "compete" concurrently for spotting timeslots(simple LIFO list). From a programming standpoint this should not be all to difficult. Of course this comes down to some sort of "memory" for atleast some unittypes -> Tanks, HQ-units. Conclusion: In next game atleast some units need some sort of "memory". When i look at the memory footprint of CMBB, this should not be a problem. I would rather live with current graphics and really emphasize on this kind of topics (short term excitment vs. long term satisfaction). Greets Daniel

flamingknives, I didn't say the targets are big in absolut measure, as shown by the example of the car 100m away, 1.5m Height, projected at ruler distance (0.3m) = 0.45 cm -> which is small absolutely, but still quite big, for one can clearly make out the car and it's detail ok ? One has to imagine that the picture projected on the retina is also very small, even more the area of sharp sight.... What counts is the relative size things have to each other as we are accustomed in everydays live. And to the objects 1000m away on an unobstructed open plain, objects are certainly easily recognizable atleast if they are 3m tall. Of course light(hiding in shadow), partial cover by terrain or foliage (masking) makes target recognition certainly difficult at much shorter ranges (-> Normandy hedgerows for instance). Greets Daniel Greets Daniel

Hi Mr. Tittles (Good and interesting stuff from your side, thx !) Sadly, nothing is mentioned about the gun, however i also suppose the 75mm L/48. In Jentz's Panzertruppen there's a fieldreport about the Panther D's performance in the field, and there it is mentioned that it could be expected to hit enemy tanks out to 1500m with first round with high probability (Fire for effect immediately i suppose..) To Rexford, One should go outside and observe for instance cars on the street to really estimate what size targets seem. Example: A Car 1.5m in Height 100m away when projected 0.3m away: 1.5m x 0.3m/100m = 0.45 cm (seems extremely small, but it isn't for the human eye, rather big instead one can identify every detail...., or do you have trouble seeing a car 100m away ??? (I have no trouble to spot them out to 4km, and can certainly identify them up to 500m). Or if i take my 1/35 scale Panther and put it 20m away (effectively 700m), i have no problem to identify it in the open (Ok, here my stereoscopic sight also comes into play). Tank at 1000m with 5x Magnification (3m x 0.3/1000m x 5 = 0.45cm) is a big target ! Btw. 2.5cm (with the 12x Scissors) is like my 1/35 scale tank on the table, huge ! Greets Daniel

I found some interesting info in Schneider's "Panzertaktik" In Tankerschool (end 1943) the crews had to fulfill the following: 1st Exercise: Using HE on a target at unknown range but less than 1200 meters. Own tank stationary target stationary (size of AT-Gun) Criterion to pass: 1 Hit out of 4 rounds 2nd Exercise: HE on a target at range greater 1200m, six HE rounds authorized (target the same as in 1) Criterion to pass: 1 Hit 3rd Exercise: AT round on a (stationary, frontal) tank target at greater than 1200m. 4 rounds authorized Criterion to pass: 1 Hit 4th Exercise: AT round on a moving (ca. 20km/h) tank target across the field of vision at 800 - 1200m. 3 (!!!) rounds authorized Time: 30 sec. Firing time, target moves 150 m Criterion to pass: 1 Hit Notice: No Examination on tanktarget stationary below 1200 m !! (Because a first round hit is almost certain) The book also in detail describes the firing procedures. It notes that for armored targets at ranges less than 1200m no aquisition firing is made (bracketing and the like), but instead immediate fire for effect is done. It starts with a 200m addition to the estimated range. If the first round is over the target (Gunner observes tracer of the AP-round), then 200m are substracted. If the first round is short the aim-point is corrected, if the next is also short then the error is much greater and the target is at a range greater than 1200m, therefore bracketing has to be used (Aquisition firing). During exercise, firing is normally directed by the commander, however out in the battle the Gunner will engage targets of it's own. As soon as a target is identified by the gunner, he immediately calls out "Panzer", takes aim, warns (Achtung!) the crew and fires.... This is done by the Gunner until the Commander overrides (He can actually order the Gunner after the calling out "Panzer" and "Achtung!"(before actual fire). So the firing procedures were straight forward and flexible. Further as a rule always an AP-round was loaded in the gun on entering the battle, and the range set at 800m or 1000m. Greets Daniel

Alech, Tigers were not used together with Panthers in the Kurskbattle to my knowledge. Only ArmyDetKempf had a Tigerbattalion, whereas the three SS-PzDivs (LAH, Reich, Tot) each had a 13th Tigercpy (12 Tigers ea). Panthers were also in 4th Army area but as a Brigade in the area near Grossdeutschland Division IIRC. But it's correct they used the Tiger at the point in their attackwedge. However the 2nd SSPzKorps in no way stalled in Kursk, after battle of Prokhorovka (last (3rd) russian defenceline) the 4th Army had achieved tanksuperiority in the sector of 2nd SSPzKorps, Manstein still had a tankcorps in reserve (The russians had used up allmost all in the nearer area even those of Steppe Front), he and Hausser opted for the continuation of the offensive and comittment of the reservecorps. The attack was called off by Hitler (if anything useful could have wrenched from the Kurskoperation, now would have been the time..), and Tot & Reich were sent to help 6th Army at the Miusfront (Russian Diversiontattack to provoke the described reaction by Hitler). LAH was earmarked to be sent to Italy (As the situation didn't develop to a severe crisis only parts were actually sent). GD was sent to 9th Army to check the Russian attack toward Orel. In Augsut (after filling up their ranks to some extent) the Russians launched the massive Rumjantsev Operation (in 4th Army area around Belgorod -> Kharkov). Here Reich, Tot & Grossdeutschland, were commited to check the russian spearheads in the area of Aleksandrevka (North of Kharkov), and badly mauled the russian armor once again, pushing the line back to the Merla river, enabling an orderly retreat (more or less) to the Pantherline at the Dnjepr. Sources: Glantz's Battle of Kursk and Nipe's "Decision in the Ukraine Summer 1943 2nd SS & 3rd Tankcorps" Greets Daniel

Mr. Tittles, In open terrain i would set 1000m as default range. In case a tank pops up near, say at around 500m which in the scope at 2.5 Mag will look as 250m (quite BIG), i would know out of experience to aim slightly (ca. 1m relative) under the tracks and hit him with high probability. It's up to the experience of the gunner. (A target near will have a very broadrange of rangesolutions which will still hit the target) But again this of course is only true for tanks in plain open. (I know from experience in WWII-Online how difficult target aquisition can be when an enemy tank hides somewhere 1000-1500 m away in Hulldown and covered by foliage, i operated a 8.8 and my driver called out a tank at 3 o clock, i could not find him for quite a while..., and never really knew i hit until he despawned) To the Scissors telescope: It had a 14x magnification (3° FOW) and was standard issue for TCs in StuG-Abteilungen. When used for stereoscopic measurement (both objectives 0.9m from each other) the following accuracy was possible: Range theor. Error pract. Error (x3) 1000m 4m 12m 2000m 16m 48m 3000m 36m 108m 4000m 63m 189m However stereoscopic rangefinders only work for users with stereoscopic sight, because the creation of a 3D-Image with a sense of depth is created by the brain solely, and some training is highly advisable. Source: pg151 of Spielbergers book of the Panther Greets Daniel

A bit disapointed for the textual content, but the pictures are great. Jentz's Panzer Truppen 1 & 2 are much more elightening, the same for the superb Wolfgang Schneider Tiger-series. In general findings from real live expierences can only be translated into CM with a lot of caution. One has to exactly know the limitations of CM not to use otherwise correct tactics in real live which however would be wrong in CM. Some of the important restrictions: 1. Almost every attacker tries to flank an enemy, something only possible under special conditions (fog, low light) in CM. Tip: You can artificially "enlarge" battles where real manouvering can take place for bigger tank formations (meaning Platoon-Company) create scenarios with Fog on and otherwise very open terrain (denying Inf the small range bonuses), interesting tankbattles are guaranteed... 2. Defensive tactics however almost work as in real life: Always let the enemy move up to your position, and take him under fire from concealed position. (The last part being somewhat of a problem in CM, because concealment is not properly simulated in CM), your tank can be in perfect hulldown in some scatered tree and still be hit betw. 2-3 shot almost always, whereas in real this would be more like 5-6 shots atleast. Only engage enemy armor when they are in the Infantry perimeter (300 m) and start to button up, because of infweapon fire, success is guaranteed. 3. Sadly, bunching up brings success in CM almost always in defensive battles (overwhelming firerate at selective targets), that's because camouflage and hulldowns don't have the importance as in real life in CM (Hit probabilities are much to high trough foliage and on moving or hulldown targets). 4. Tanks in CM are much, much to slow when not on roads. In real when you moved during an engagment, creeping around meant being a firing excercise target for the enemy -> death. The correct behaviour was: Drive at topmost possible speed for the terrain to the next firehalt, fire, and again move at topmost speed to your next firehalt. Expecting anything useful in CM from this is out of question because even in dry flat terrain speeds esp. for fast tanks like T-34, Panthers and the like are far to low, and hit probabilities much to high even when fast moving perpendicular to the shooting gun on an asphalt covered road and at ridiculous ranges (A M4-Sherman taking out a fast moving Stug in softly rolling terrain with the first to third shot at 2000 m is just ridicolous). 5. Battles fought from the deep (for instance a tankreserve trying to spoil an enemy breakthrough in the most used method of flank attack) are hardly possible in CM, because scale is just to small. A Tankbattle needs atleast 5 x 5 km space when being fought in "open" terrain. However one can circumvent this again by artificial tactical enlargment of a given scenario by use of fog to some extent, giving up superior weapon performance at long range of course, however another inacuracy pays off here in this respect. With Fog on tanks have stupidly low hit probabilites even at 200m actually expressing a result otherwise valid only at much longer ranges. 6. CM centers around "stupid" frontal annihilation engagments normally avoided, unless one uses very big maps, but then again the relatively low movement speeds and short timeframes hinder extraordinarily. The average battle didn't last under half a day including movement to contact other then a classical storming out of the trench straight ahead as in WWI. Moreover a battle seldom was undertaken with smaller than Battalion sized forces, because small unit engagments are normally to be avoided because of their average high casulaty rates and therefore uneconomic. Greets Daniel

As to the observation tools for the TCs in Panthers and Tigers: Spielbergers and Jentz's photographs indicate strongly that both tanktypes from the beginning were outfitted with holding mechanism for the "Scherenfernrohr" (12 x Magnification). Later Panther models (during A-series) also show a holder for the "Seestab", a device to observe effectively from full defilade positions. Wether every Tank was effectively outfitted with the Scherenfernrohr and Seestab i don't know..., maybe someone can throw some light on this. Greets Daniel

I really can only wonder about all the fuzz about range estimation in shooting armor piercing at medium range. In case of the Panther and Tiger: 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 As soon a target is partially covered by brush and only partially in hulldown and moving, that's the situation were experience of the gunner comes really into play... In this two respects CMBB is very bad in calculating hit probability. In case 1 CMBB hit probabilities are much to low, in case 2 they are way to high. In fact hit probs are much to much leveled out. An enemy tank at 1000m in Hulldown and heavily camouflaged will be quite a hard target to hit, and only the most experienced gunners will hit within 3 shots.. When shooting high explosive, exact range estimation becomes much much more important especially vs. Infantry targets, here already small range estimation errors will produce huge impact deviations (That's the reason why a low velo gun is much better suited for direct firing explosives -> short L/24 7.5cm Kwk). In case the small target for instance a 4.5cm Russ. Pak is partially covered by foliage and the like, it becomes an art to hit the gun effectively with first 3 shots. Best scenario for a high velo gun here will be a target in a forward slope position. Here range errors won't give such errors. That's the reason why forward slope positions are to be avoided if possible.... (Range errors effect diminished, every hit can be seen relative to target much easier to correct) Greets Daniel

JasonC, come down I've put "kill" in apostrophe meaning claim of course.. To the exagerated claims, as i stated they may be exagerated by 50% meaning 3000 vs. 6000 claimed for the 8 month in 44, which is still more then enough... (The russians producing more than 12'000 tanks in the same period). On the other hand one can very good count the abandoned enemy tanks after a failed enemy attack, although a rarer ocurrence in 44 of course than in 1942 for instance. Flamingknives: I also thought about weight of shot, hardness and the like, i only hope rexford can explain in detail. Thx anyway !

Question to Rexford: As i understand your post, the russians were mainly using APBC rounds for the 76mm T-34 guns. (armor piercing ballistic cap) With this they were barely able to defeat 50+30 FH armor only from very near. What is the difference of this ammunition to US Ammo ? T-34/76 has muzzle velo of 690 m/s and is rated with 81 mm at 100m, whereas the M4A2 gun has 619 m/s but penetrates 90 mm (In theory having same ammo T-34 gun should be better around a factor of up to 1.2) . Didn't the russians use armour piercing capped with ballistic cap ? Is the US figure vs. face hardenend ammo ? But what really strikes me ist the fact that the 37mm gun of the Stuart is more powerful than the 76mm T-34 gun and on par with the one of the Sherman (penetrates 90 mm at mv of 880 m/s with AP shot) The russian 37mm Flak gun also has a mv of 880 m/s but penetrates only 68 mm with AP shot. (Factor 1.3 lower) Even more interesting is the fact that the russian 45mm/L66 penetrates 70 mm with AP shot at a mv of 820 m/s In theory the russian 37mm and 45mm should be better or even with the Stuart's gun, the 45mm being superior, why that ? Even more interesting is the fact that the Pak38 50mm with a mv of 835 m/s is on par with the Stuart's gun. Again in theory the 50 mm should be clearly superior to the 37mm of the Stuart by a factor of about 1.2 = 108 mm Any explanations for this ? Greets Daniel

JasonC, the "Kill"-figures are the ones of General Inspektor of Artillery. There were of course detailed killcounts made by the germans, because when you are not in retreat you can actually count the shot down tanks, there are such detailed statistics available which suggest german "kill"-figures being quite accurate. For me meaning not being exagerated more than 50%. As i mentioned further the german's own Total loss figures were something completely different and not really comparable to the Kill numbers, because only unrepairable losses went into it from all causes, whereas a T-34 may count as a kill when a hit disabled the cannon, and the crew dismounted. For instance the Dupuy-Institute made a study about casualty figures for use by the army for future use in Logistcs prediction necessary. There again in the Kursk 1943 operation, the germans had casualty exhchange rates vs. the russians ranging 3:1 to 6:1, so assuming the tanks having the same rates is not complete fantasy. Greets Daniel

Hinkar, JasonC is right regarding penetration performance of the 76mm Gun, it's a bit low in comparison. However, i certainly would not rush 3 StuGs vs. 10 T-34 (when controlled by a human Player), because StuGs are extremely vulnerable to flankshots. Your mainerror was to bunch them up in one small spot, without room to manouver. Use the speed of the T-34 (unfortunately tanks in CM are generally to slow when travelling off streets IMO) and deploy on a wide front. Use an overwatch and a manouver element (5 speeding ahead, while 5 overwatch, next turn reverse) in unknown situations. To the historical feat of StuGs: Destroyed russian tanks in 1944 by StuGs (Only the ones deployed by the Assault-Artillery branch), together with own losses and operational numbers (Total losses of all causes): Jan: 860 ,own total Losses: 61 ,Operational: 671 Feb: 429 ,""": 71 ,": 718 March: 578 ,""": 177 ,": 511 April: 542 ,""": 121 ,": 533 May: 147 ,""": 15 ,": 732 June: 245 ,""": 34 ,": 757 July: 1019 ,""": 138 ,": 909 Aug.: 847 ,""": 96 ,": 654 Total 3667 ,""": 713 Ratio: 5:1 Of course a russian tank was considered a "kill" although the tank may be easily repairable, whereas an own "Total loss" was exactly a such, not repairable whatever the cause (for instance damaged, and then forced to be demolished on a retreat for instance). I suppose the "real" exchange rate being nearer 3:1 (tanks vs. tank kills) when rated by same criteria. Available StuGs on the Eastern Front: 1942 June: No. of Abteilungen 18, with 210 Total of which, 166 operational July: """ 19 " 300 " 258 Aug: """ 19 " 352 " 277 Sep: """ 20 " 409 " 294 Oct: """ 19 " 415 " 295 Nov: """ 20 " 448 " 347 Dez: """ 27 " 442 " 315 In 1942 an Abteilung (about a Battalion) had around 30 StuGs (K.St.N 446a) Numbers in 1943 March: 20 Abt. with 443 Total (11 % short barreled, 1 % StuH, rest long barreled) April: 21, 581 (ca. 9% short) Mai: 22, 694 (ca. 8% short) June: 26, 821 (under 5 %) July: 29, 840 Aug: 30, 813 Sep: 31, 818 Oct: 34, 840 Nov: 37, 923 Dec: 39, 1006 1944 June: 32, 893 (Total) July: 32, 965 Aug: 31, 786 (579 op.) Sep: 28, 748 (518 op.) Oct: 27, 764 (611 op.) Nov: 29, 826 (n/a) Dec: 30, 859 (n/a) Jan45: 34, 996 (830 op.) Some additional numbers: By the end of 1943 StuGs had destroyed 13'000 enemy tanks, 20'000 had been reached in the spring 1944. There were StuG-Abteilungen (later called Brigades) which destroyed 1000 tanks in 15 month. There also was a very high number of Knights Cross recepients in the StuG-Brigades (150) and 14 received the Oak Leaves. The StuGs and their crews strengths/weaknesses were: Strengths: - Speed (In battle the machines were wrenched with no pardon (flooring the throttle), changing positions at maximum possible speed zig zagging, stopping only for fire on spotted targets) - Low Shilouette (same Height as a standing man without cupola) - Very good optics/observation devices (Generally referred as being superior to the tankbranch), every StuG was equipped with a Scherenfernrohr whith there exceptional FOV and magnification. - Specialized training by the artillery branch - Good frontal armor StuGs in CMBB are somewhat difficult to handle, because they are way to slow in turning, moreover a real StuG would NEVER fire the maingun on the move and waste ammo, however not to be prevented in CMBB. Moving targets are to easy to be hit even at ridiculous ranges. Furthermore StuGs are a bit to easy to hit, because CMBB takes area relatives and neglelcts the all important Height to asses hit probabilities (beside other aspects of course) Yesterday, a very much hated (Uber-)M4A2 Sherman Greenhorn zipped my StuG moving in CMBB-Fast-mode (well, creeping at 10 km/h) down hill (almost dry open ground) in a 30 m window with the first shot from 1000m (Replayed 3 times, 2 with same result, 1 shot ricocheted)....maybe i didn't remember the fact that every M4 was equipped with Laserranging and a Ballistics computer... Sources: Kurowski's "Assault Guns to the Front!" Spielbergers "Sturmgeschütze" Greets Daniel

Thank you vanir, Although i know it's useless i like to clarify some points. 1. Of course a tank can throw smoke forever, not rounds, but from it's turret. I myself had a stupid silly fight with a SuGIII against 2 Churchills and 1 Challenger, on which the SuG was able to kill 2 of them (vs. AI of course) only because it could throw smoke forever. 2. It favors the allies normally weaker guns and armor, in that you would destroy that stationary target after 3 - 4 rounds, even with the small movements it may do. If you have a potent gun on the allied side you would do the same to your opponent of course, thus the fight would be shortend, now you can play the smoke, move, fire game forever until you're out of ammo. 3. I play Version 1.1, and had a PzIV been hit with the 3rd shot of a 60 mm mortar at 856 m, which resulted guess what, a gun damage. 4. In a PBEM within 2 rounds my tank was hit 4 times at the gun from 800 m by AT-guns maybe out of 15 shots they fired, the damage was always light, because they were light AT-guns of still unknown type. The PzIV, VI, VIB had heavy gun mantelings to minimize this kind of damage. In every game i play i have atleast 1 or 2 of them. 5. Nothing mythical about it ? At 350 m my SPW251's get chewed by the M2 front on, but on the other hand the 20mm 871 m/s gun of the 234/1 will penetrate a 7 mm plated M3A1 and do no damage at around 50% of times, but never other side around. The M2 used a normal AP round without caping, so it's penetration power was poor against highly angled face hardened armor, as used with the SPW 251. Yes the M2 is calculated like a rifle and the 20 mm like a cannon, but it could be easily changed. 6. So change the Bofors too, if it's deadly it should be !!!! 7. Tank to Tank communication is not simulated in the sim for either side, which leads to distortions in possible tactics and lower the fewer heavier german tanks abilities more relatively. 8. See point 7 9. See the following poster, this throws some light on the matter maybe.(And the always prevalent thinking..). Fact is the allieds strength raised continously, while the german strength decreased sharply already in June/July 44, because of lack of reserves (I'm not talking about the catastrophical losses in the Falaise gap). With this trend the allieds must have breaken out sooner or later (Which the german Command in France knew exactly). But the units morale and fighting capabilities were very good until the outbreak. CM makes one believe that the quality of their weaponry made the difference, which is wrong in most parts. The numbers and aerial superiority made the difference (10:1 for tanks for instance). And yes i will quit gaming CM, and can already imagine the quality of CM2 at the eastern front. Greets Daniel

Shall i be amused or fury ? QB-PBEM: 3000 pts, Meeting Engagmnt, Large hills, middle map (Around 2,5 km x 1,2 km). Combined Forces, free unitselect, veterans or Regulars. My opponent has received all major hills on his side so i have quite a difficult task. 1 st round: - A PzIV on right flank gets spotted by an enemy 60 mm mortar 950 m away on a hill. Result: The third shot damages the gun - A Kübel crosscrountry (dry overcast) gets bogged and immobilized after 10 m, crew is panicked 2nd round: - I've decided to make some recon with my now almost worthless PzIV, after 10 m he gets killed by the first shot from an AT-gun placed on a hills ridge from 856 m - A Panther in the middle section now has spotted the AT gun, needless to say that no of his round make any impressions on the AT-gun crew. In their return fire 2nd shot of AT-gun damages my gun lightly, out of 8 shots fired by the AT-gun 6 hit, whereas the first three in succession, at a distance of 800 m, from 6 shots fired by my Panther 1 hits 1 m beside with no impression at all on the crew. - A PSW 234/1 with a 20 mm gun (780 m/s) engages a M3 at 300 m penetrate it, but without effect 3rd round: A Hetzer and Panther continue to waste ammo on the light AT-gun on the Hills ridge, the AT-Gun with the first shot in 3rd round again hit the gun of the Panther (which is Hull-down against the AT-Gun), with light damage, Panther again scores 1 out of 6 shots on the AT-Gun without any effect (The AT-gun btw. is at the edge of a wooden tile). In light of such things one really begin to wonder. In a tank engagement over 800 - 1000 m a german tank will almost never score a first shot hit, and almost never 3 hits in succession on a stationary tank, one can be lucky when the ratio is 1 out of 4 Greets Daniel

Tris, Vanir Right CM is a tactical level game, but even there the core elements of manouver could be employed theoretically. I've read Rommels book "Infantry attacks" about his WWI-time. There one already can clearly see the concept of manouver. To achieve that kind of fighting in CM is almost impossible. And you will never come even close to it. (In WWI Rommel commanded between a platoon and up to 1-2 companies as a Leutnant), in the fights against the italians he displayed the essence of manouver and achieved an overwhelming victory with almost no losses to either side. The Panzerdivision concept then was only a natural expansion of what he was always doing. Read the book and you would know what i mean. Greets Daniel

Sure CM enforces you to use tactics rendered wrong by history. The french and also the british followed the rule: The tanks have to support the infantry (although the British also had specialized tank regiments, but didn't know how to use them effectively), they failed. (El-Alamein victory by the British was a classic old style by overwhelming forces and brute force) The germans for the first time put into practice armor leads, infantry follows consequently with their building of highly mobile Panzerdivisions which included artillery, infantry, antitank, tanks, reconnaissance and sophisticated (for that time) communications. The master of this was Rommel, which btw. always tried to fight with movement even back in WWI. Why did it work ? Surprise, Speed, Firepower, Concentration, Coordination, Courage and a sense for opportunities (operations without secured flanks always bring a high amount of risk...) CM teaches us the old style of WWI warfare, with slowly advancing forces, which somewhere clash on each other with heavy ari shelling and bloody close quarter fighting. Why does it not work in CM ? The answer is easy the maps and forces are much to small ! Both sides are more or even equaul in equipment with almost no room for manouver. In manouvering the battle is decided by the placement of forces mainly PRIOR or AFTER the contacting of the main elements of the enemy, respectively prevent the enemy to form a "main body" of resitance, and at best denying him to counter and fight at all (Or at stupidly high losses). Dirsupting his lines of supply or command, impose confusion, strike from surprising directions or positions with irresistible force. The reflection of a (succesful) manouver battle in CM would be, that of superior forces opposed by either a bad positioned or weak enemy (Catch him with pants down), but the essence of it can not be showed, that what happened before... Greets Daniel

Of course, the allieds are favoured in many subtle ways. 1. The superior german tankguns are countered by the ability of weaker tanks to throw smoke forever, thus lengthening mid-distance engagements for an easy flank-manouver, or outgun them to force the always fewer german tanks to waist their ammo and force them to come into the killingzone of the allied guns. Moreover in a stationary gunfight once you have the range you would normally hit with subsequent shots at also stationary targets nearby, not so in CM of course. 2. Allied inf-formations normally are equipped with many mortars. Still the mortars have such a silly stupid precision which makes every attempt to debate the germantanks superiority a in long range engagements a bad joke. Mortars regularly catch my tanks guns with their 3rd shot at distances beyond 1000 m (F**K). 3. The stupid gundamage mainly hinders the heavy german tanks, if they withstand direct hits, their guns get damaged (and all the MG's too of course...), even though the PzIV,PZ VI and Kingtiger have heavy gun mantelings to minimize gundamage...... (F**K). 4. The "mythical" power of the M2 machine gun, killing easily more infantry with 25 ammunition than a german MG42 (You can shoot a man only once, not so with the mythical M2) Moreover the ballistical properties of the M2's armor piercing round was poor against angled and face hardened armor, both very present with the SPW251 for instance. 5. The german relied heavily on the 20 mm cannon as a comparable to the M2, but since it has some explosive power it is handled like a arty gun and not as a rifle, and multiple shots are calculated as a single, so almost no threat for infantry. In real a Quad 20mm gun had devastating firepower against infantry. 6. Tank to tank communication is not simulated, a feature which the german put much emphasize on. The germans were generally known for their good and flexible communication -> Poland-, France- and Africa- tankraids wouldn't have been succesful otherwise. Although the allieds had learned from their errors in 1942/43 and had i think very good communications in 1944 in France, it undermines the more expensive and thus fewer german tanks potential. The game enforces you to use inappropriate tactics, and take the "war of attrtion" approach with heavy shelling and bloody close quarter fighting. Btw: Up to the outbreak at St.Lo the allieds had suffered about the same casualties as the axis. The allieds could "easily" replace those casualties whereas the axis could not. With disgust Daniel

Jeff, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Franz Kurowski’s Panzer Aces II (pg 207) As there was no range-measuring device in the Tiger (nor in any German tanks) the distance to the target always had to be estimated. A shot could only be on target if the range was estimated precisely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What does he mean ? The Tiger had a system to determine range to a target -> See Tigerfibel. But of course with some guessing still in (Not a laser of course). After a long time i did some Panzer Elite battles again (With the Tiger I), and what did i found (I'm surely not a trained gunner...): To hit a target up to 2000 m stationary not moving was achievable with around 4 rounds. Once i've had the range targets at around the same range needed around 2-3 shots. At around 1000 - 800 m a non moving full visible target can be killed with around 2 - 3 the first time (And i'm really not trained to use the Zeiss system), subsequent targets with 1 round (it's really easy, the target is huge in your sight (Magnification). Hitting moving targets is much much harder, especially in Panzer Elite where you seldom have open plain ground. I only managed to get one at under 500 m maybe out of around 15 shots and he was moving only slowly. Now how near this is to reality is open to discussion, but i assume it quite near, since the enemy is always on the move and stops only for a short time to shoot. (The Panzerelite ground always resembles to me the ground i find in the mountains, but almost nowhere where it's flat.) Greets Daniel

But then Bataillon-level wouldn't be sufficient, since they sometimes lasted for minutes... In 1917 the french launched a bad planned and executed offensive which costed them 300'000 casualties in 3 weeks !!!! Regiment after Regiment stormed into well positioned MG-crossfire. Not very intersting if you aks me. However i've read the stories of Erwin Rommel in WWI, and those battles were exquisite ones (atleast the ones telled in the book). Unfortunately those subtleties necessary leading to such great examples of warfare cannot be build in a wargame today... Greets Daniel

PzKpwI, i Bump this up ! Anyone has actual data ? Greets Daniel

kipanderson, Agree, but we have to define a standing ground from which to go, and that are the "hard" facts. Beside that there is a contradiction in your reasoning. You claim kills were greatly exagerated, but on the other side you also say that a panzerschreck/bazooka man is easy to spot after firing (and killed i think..). Greets Daniel

Jeff, Of course i know by my own experience that it is a huge difference when a target is moving. So the 200 - 400 m for small arms seems very valid. (But one can suppose for typical tank calibres like 75 - 90 mm this value is up to 10-times higher, and mostly limited by the viewing/aiming system, and comparable fewer and more precious rounds, and time between shots). But, when i've mounted my gun on a precise mechanic, and i've to aim for a target stationary ahead of me not seeing me, results will be very near the ones at a shooting range. And that's what i mean, hit probability should be determined against a stationary target, the most favourable conditions. There atleast an elite crew should perform equal or near the shooting range. From this values then should be changed to moving targets (with deflection, without), probability falls with multiples of 1 i suppose..(3 new variables enter the system). Greets Daniel

To Steve, Thank you for your reply ! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also suggest that you go out to a rifle range sometime. I have a Mauser98k that has sites adjustable to 2000m. I am an excellent shot and can hit a target at 100m just fine from a standing position, aiming each shot, and taking my time. And of course I am not being shot at. But add a few variables into the mix and I a wonder if I would hit the paper even one out of five times, not to mention a decent score on the target. So if your position is that at short ranges a gun couldn't miss, I think I would have to see some sort of evidence other than your opinion. Having read plenty of first hand and second hand accounts of gunnery in combat, my perception is that misses were common even at very close ranges. I also don't understand your point about probabilities for single instances. Could you explain exactly why it is that if a tank needs roughly 3 shots to acheive a hit at x meters that we can't model this properly? A chance of a hit is a chance of a hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the army we used the "Sturmgewehr", we calibrated the weapon on a 300 m range. Target was around 1.2 m x 1.2 m with rings, the innerst was 20 cm the outest 100 cm. In average after adjusting the weapon all shots were within 40 cm. If we now consider that the shot (7.9 mm) is around 10 times smaller than a 75 mm round, it weighs 100 times less but it's frontal area is only 10 times smaller. So in fact the 75 mm has a much better trajectory and being almost as accurat. We also know that the max eff. range for a 7.9 mm round is around 1000 m. The calibration onset is quite similar to guninstallation with an exact mechanic. From above weight to frontal area, one can assume that for a 75 mm max range would be around 10 km. From Guns vx. Armor: "Firing tests show the expected percentage of projectiles that will hit a 2.5m × 2m target by a gunner during practice firing on a gun range. It is obtained by doubling the dispersion pattern obtained from the dispersion test data. The British, Germans and Italians all considered this to be a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops in practice firings and, if they remained calm, in combat when the range to the target is known. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after watching tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown on subsequent shots." Again for the 8.8/L56 the theoretical values (Dispersion actually measured): 100 % of shots on target up to 1000 m (2 x 2.5 m), at 1500 m still 98 % Practically: 100 % up to 500 m and 93 % up to 1000 m. (Achievable by an average crew as expected by British and german...) Now we know that range guessing for the 8.8/L56 in the Tiger I, was not of great importance for a 2m high target up to around 1000 m, because of the trajectory (Gunner will hit wether he guessed 500 m or 1000 m). The same for the M4 to a range of around 500 m (Short 75 mm) -> As also can be read from the "Eisenhower report" The battlereport of the division "Grossdeutschland" says that first round hits were normally achieved at ranges between 600 - 1000 m. (I suppose normally means favourable conditions as open ground, clear daylight). The same unit also critizise the HEAT round as unreliable at ranges above around 400 m. So it's by no means a "propaganda" report, but quit sure a honest one. Furthermore exactly the same is also emphasized by the "Eisenhower report". The US-tankers say that beyond 600 - 1000 m they couldn't use their guns effectively because of the inferior range measuring (even with the 76 mm, which still is viewed as inferior to the german ones). And beside that it may still be possible that morale was low in that units and they had not much faith in their equipment (This however seem unprobable, since on the other hand the unarmed vehicles are generally seen as far superior..). I don't think they were low on morale, but instead honest and acurrat about their opinions. (As is clearly shown with the US-aircraft, crews were usually very confident in their equipment and praised it(although when shortcomings were there) as long as they feeled that it was a match or superior against the enemy.. (The P-38 and P-47 were never be seen as inferior, were in regarding the hard data, they were in fact in certain important areas..) To the Stuart, in what condition was this 60 year old equipment (barrel and so fort), was the crew trained ? And a car has much lower Height than 2.5 m (About the Height of the M4) ? To the probability-model, you're right of course the probability-model is well suited to model hit probability , BUT not for the modelling of the behaviour of the crew: Target acquiring/spotting, aiming, manouver. (That elite crew unbuttoned not seeing the tank coming around a Houses corner directly in front, the tactical situation is not evaluated correctly). And it's also not very well suited to simulate damage (That 8.8 cm APCBC with HE filler penetrating the M4's turret with no effect..). Away from this all important things are not modelled at all: - The M5 Stuart and Hetzer vor instance have miserable view when buttoned, the panther excellent in comparison. - Variable turret traverse for the Panther - Some weapons were more accurat than others (For instance the 76 mm APCR round was very inacurate, and had the shatter gap between 200 - 1200 m against the harder german armor..) - US APCR (non sheated) rounds are not modelled correctly in general their fall off in penetration power with angle of armor falls much more than for a sheated- or APCBC round. - Face hardened armor is not simulated, although of no benefit against ABCBC rounds, but against AP (M2) and APCR to some extent. - Frontal turret armor of the Panther is 2 times 100 mm Cast armor, although not comparable to a 200 m single piece armor it was surely more than 100 mm. (The same for the M4's maybe..) - Blast effect of Panzerschreck against softtargets not there. - 20 mm cannons have only a small blast, and only blast is modelled against soft targets. The M2 has no blast and is much more potent against infantry (why) ? The "Flakvierling" was a devastating weapon against infantry, they were regularly use in russia to defend airfields against infantry with devastating effects. - Nebelwerfer salvos were fired all at once within seconds (However reloading the big ones took it's time..), and since they weren't very acurat i suppose they could also be fired much faster than normal artillery (?) IMHO the acuraccy hit capability for all guns should be risen a bit to correct for "probability"-model errors as mentioned above, and the superiority of german long barrelled guns beyond 1000 m should be reflected. Today an overwatch-position at 1500 m brings me no benefit at all which is clearly wrong. Furthermore, why is a tank hidden behind wood or similar so easy spottable once he opened fire to all enemy units with a direct viewline to it ?? Excerpt from Tank-doctrine by Col. E.D.Swinton, 1916: "....Bomb MG-positions and other small guns of the enemy with your 6 pounders first. You won't see them, because they are well hidden. You have to guess where they are: Go for noise, smoke and dust. Holes in walls, haystacks, woodstacks...." I could bring you tons of photographs of little Switzerland with such terrain..., wide open ground surrounded by woods, scattered trees, and a kind of bocage. Greets Daniel