Rattus

Excellent - thanks Hunter!

Two questions really: In CMBB, only the Germans have prime movers large enough to be able to move heavy flak etc between campaign battles. How will this be dealt with? Add a Stalinets tractor? Given the size of some of the maps and the short range of some of the "artillery", will the off-board artillery represented by the spotters be considered to move so they are always in range? - so they may end up on map and be vulnerable to enemy attack? if so how will they be represented? "I gots ta know!"

A big thankyou to the team at BTS/CMBB. Sure it is not (quite) perfect but it is miles ahead of the rest, very pretty and great fun. That's a lot of value for money! Another happy customer!

Thanks rexford - I have a few queries! 1) Does your 10-15% estimate for the necessary increase in penetration required to convert German test date to the 50% standard make allowance for the increased velocity required for average quality German ammunition? 2) Does the increased velocity required for equivalent penetration referred to above, raise the velocity to withing critical shatter velocity thresholds? 3) Was the quality of the standard German rounds such that shatter or significant chewing of the nose became an issue which is not reflected when using test quality ammunition? Why do you think the APCBC ammunition was generally superior - I mean did the Germans have a superior theoretical model, was the R&D better resourced or was it simply the quality(standards) to which the ammuniton was produced? Thanks Rattus

I have been looking at the blast factors for US "artillery" and there seems to be a few anomalies. The following table shows the Arty Type, Blast, Shell Weight (lbs), Burster Weight (lbs) and % Burster. My apologies for the formatting - I can't get the columns to line up in the preview. Type, Blast, Shell Wt, Burst. wt, % 14" USN, 2348, 1275, 105, 8.25 240mm, 648, 360, 54.05, 15 8" Gun, 456, 240, 20.9, 8.7 8" How, 388, 200, 36.98, 18.5 155mm, 198, 95, 15.13, 15.9 8" USN, ???, 260, 21.32, 8.2 Bomb, ???, 500, 250, 50-59 The 14" is representative of say the USS Texas. I have assumed that the 8" Gun in CM is not a naval piece but the difference would be insignificant if it were. From the above table it appears that the 8" Gun is significantly overrated in terms of its blast - compared to the 8" How or the 155mm. Morover, the lethality of the 500lb A/C bomb is vastly underated from the tests I have done. Certainly neither the crater size (very scientific!) nor its apparent effectiveness are comensurate with something carrying that much explosive. My life is ruined! Thoughts anyone? (Nice ones only!)

This was the second operation I played and I think I managed a draw or minor victory - (it was a long time ago) - so it is possible. It was also the first version so it has changed a little bit. I still did not make it to the airfield but went like hell for it! Losses were high but if I had used my artillery assets a bit more carefully I think I could have done better. I was also short of infantry early on because many of my paratroops did not make it back to the DZ on time...! Force preservation and a mechanized reserve were very important. It is definitly one of the most enjoyable operations I have played and I will be trying again now to see how the 1.01 version goes. Michael

I did some tests on this a while ago - Until the Engineers "see" the minefield they will not clear them. They must have demo charges available - so when you run out of charges you can't clear any more. I think (from memory!) 3 charges were needed to clear 1 field. It might depend on the skill, level, terrain, mode and weather (sorry not enough replications to give consistent results)as to when/if the Engineers find them. Unfortunately, often the only way the Engineers find the mines is when they walk on to them! I'll see if I can find the old threads... Of course this was with v1.02 (or something ancient) Oh - sometimes you have to wait a bit before they will clear them.

The uberpanzer Hotchkiss 39 is a very uncommon tank (almost extinct ) - should it be much more expensive because of this?

Air support seems to be handled like reinforcements - X% chance per turn (not cumulative) of turning up. If the % is high enough odds are it should show up - eventually - but never any guarrantees. No idea what that percentage is though!

I would pick on board mortars (even 2"/50mm/60mm) but most tks/stugs will have smoke. The problem is that the actual number of smoke rounds for all these weapons appears to be random so sometimes you will end up with very few or none - a real pain . The only way to guarantee smoke is to use OBA to fire smoke. The most cost effective for this would be 81mm Mortar/75mm Arty OBA. Michael

Perhaps with no PTO the marines would never have been expanded beyond a brigade or division? Also if they had operated predominantly as land forces their TO&E might have developed very differently. Maybe CM6.

Years of scientific research later.... If you are running through the mines you may well get lots of casualties in stacked minefields. I used the sneak command to approach the mined areas and unless the minefields were exactly on top of one another, the squad would suffer 1 casualty (usually!) and only discover the nearest minefield - even if the minefields were only off centre by a 1/8"! Since my Regular engineers only ever discovered AP mines by treading on them, clearing multiple minefields was slow work. Each minefield requires 1 demo charge to clear so if there are closely overlapping fields you will need several squads. Sod's law has it that sometimes when you lose a man entering the minefield he is carrying one of the Demo charges & nobody else picks it up! This can leave you stranded in a minefield. AT mines on roads (Daisy Chains - even if not bought as such(?)) are much more simple to deal with as they are easily spotted & can be cleared w/o use of Demo charges. Combined AT&AP mines are also possible. Note that even with NO fog of war, the engineers don't seem to be able to spot the mines unless they walk on them. Even after they do detect the mines, they can sometimes take a long time before they throw the Demo charge to clear it. I just noticed that squads do not seem to notice (non-daisy chain) AT mines - and since they can't set them off they can't find them 'till a vehicle has alreay detected one in the traditional manner (BOOM!) (Now I know what kubelwagons are for!). Maybe elite engineers are beter at seeing them... [This message has been edited by Rattus (edited 09-10-2000).]

Limited time to play CM? Shame on you! My current PBEM seems to be in the doldrums (Noba - where's my turn? ) so I'll try some of these out.

Could you stack AP and AT minefields together? - that would be useful.

I think the post David was refering to is a thread called "Churchill AVRE - ROF" which covers this - but I don't know how to post the link!

Great work Madmatt, Now I can complete upgrading! - from the moditudinally challenged

I have done a search but no joy... According to Hogg, proximity fuzes T97E6 and T97E9 were authorised for use with the 25pdr HE shell with "universal filling". Does anyone know if the British 25pdrs actually used VT ammunition in Europe? - or give some examples of this? Can anyone point me to a link or book where I can find this info? Thanks

Both Brit/Canadian 4.5" and US 4.5" have 40 rounds. Only difference is nominal response time - 3 minutes for Brit/Canadian versus only 2 minutes for US. You pay for the quicker response. British 4.5" was inititally developed for its range (superior to that of the 5.5") - but eventually it was felt the lighter shell was not worth it & so was largely droppped after the war. The US 4.5" was a development of an earlier 4.7" T3 design. It was decided in 1940 that with the US & British likely to be operating together commonality of ammunition would be useful so it was changed to 4.5" and fired the same British designed ammunition as that used by the British 4.5". The guns, although firing the same shell were otherwise different. Although largely used for training by the US, it saw frontline service in Italy/Europe in Medium Field Arty Bttns from the invasion of Italy to the end of the war.

Hmmm - last time I checked - especially from the quarter view (2 or 3), the tracks did move - not sure about the tyres though....

2 roubles worth... Infantry communication below battalion (which mostly the CM level)level is unlikely to be affected by lack of radios compared to eestern armies untill very late in the war. I understand that the Commonwealth forces did not get company sets 'till '44-45; voice runner & line were usual 'till then. I think the US were better equipped starting with comapny level sets then later moving to platoon level but I am not sure. The German allocation of radios was I think, similar similar to the Commonwealth (?) The issue of psychic radioless AFV should apply to radioless vehicles (how many jeeps & 2 1/2 ton trucks had radios & operators) - with special problems for the tactical use of tanks. Soviet tank radios were also allocated on basis of whether tanks were to be part of distant action group or not (DD) tanks. There are plaenty of pictures of Soviet tanks with whip antenaes which would not stand out - altough the old clothesline ones were fairly obvious. In platoons in which only the pltn commander's tank had radio the use of the flag was almost non-existant (similarly for the French - quite seriously, although on manouvers several flags would be flown, in 1940 the only commonly used flag was "I am in distress"). The other tanks in the platoon simply followed the actions of the command tank - often including targetting whatever the command tank was shooting at. The delay in moving to a new psition etc would be slight. Such tactical limitations might be better imposed not in terms of arbitrarily delaying order transmission but in restricting the order options for such vehicles and/or tweaking the AI to limit easy retargetting of threats not identiifed by commamand tanks, attemptign to keep within LOS of command tank etc. Of course the down side is that this is much more code. The Soviet Staff Studies published by both Brasseys and Frank Cass (the former editions are much better) are a warts and all contemporary ( and dare I say it - non-propagandist) study of Soviet experiences in the battles for Moscow and Stalingrad and well worth a read. They cover a wealth of the tactical and operational problems faced by the Soviets and their efforts to overcome them.

Ah ha! I thought the shadow of that Jabo looked funny... Didn't see any circles in the crops though - maybe 'cos it was winter!

Curious - same thing happened once with V1.03 to one of my FOO's. I thought they had been run over by a nearby friendly tankk. THey just vanished - no body nothing on the unit menu when I used +/- keys.... Never seen it since though - maybe the Klingons are happy now

The "77mm" was originally called the "High Velocity 75mm" & later renamed the "77mm". It was a cut down 17pdr of 49 claibres (viz 55 claibres for the 17pdr). It also used a shorter chamber firning the reduced charge. Penetration comparison was 109mm viz 120mm @ 30 degrees & 500 yards. [This message has been edited by Rattus (edited 08-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: This is true when the airgap between the plates is quite small say 1-8 projectile diameters , but when this distance reaches 20:1 or more and the striking velocity exceeds 800m/s the overall resistance goes up so by 900-1000m/s its 10 % , thats from actual test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Paul, can you clarify your post a little for me please, you are referring to the striking velocity against the first plate(?) and saying that at the mv of 800+ m/s with the plates space 20+ calibres apart the resistance of the second plate iceases with initial striking velocity until at c1000/ms the resistance is effectively 10(100?)%?

"you find the test of the KWK43 against the Tiger II frontal turret armour which it perforated completely (185mm). It exited the tank through the rear turret armour (80mm IIRC = > 265mm at nearly the vertical) (8^). Now this could be within 20% of 230mm vertical penetration value @ 100m but how would you stretch this to 170mm?" The thickness of multiple armour plates are not straightforwardly additive. I think a good rule of thumb works out to be 1/2 the thickness of additional plates - so in this example it would only be effectively 225mm - which is very close to 20% of 170mm. Furthermore, the inside of the rear armour plate wuld not be face hardened. Note the above rule of thumb dooes not work for laminated plates.