Andrew H.

This is worth looking into. The Garand's AP ammo had a steel penetrator and could penetrate about 10 mm of vertical armor at 100 yards. The MG gunshield on the StuG was a 10 mm armor plate (I'm not sure if it's the same gunshield on HTs, although they look similar). The gunshield is sloped, though, so at 200 meters the shooter is probably safe from penetration. Most of the time.

This is sort of tangential, but I wish there were an option to exclude PFs from the "Target" command. (Target light excludes PFs and grenades). WRT storming buildings, my current approach is to spend a full minute outside using area fire before moving in. This is especially true in CMFB, where there are *so many* automatic weapons.

IIRC, some general was delayed for a bit when he (correctly) answered that the capital of Illinois was Springfield, rather than (the apparently expected) Chicago.

It's not a magic bullet, but remember that troops can wade through shallow water. Mr. Agua...

I think that CM has things about right concerning the *accuracy* of fire at TC and the *frequency* of such fire. Everyone interested in WWII military history - and certainly all wargamers know of the significant advantages that being unbuttoned brings (and for wargamers of a certain age, the superiority of this doctrine was emphasized in the rules of almost every wargame dealing with armored combat produced in the last 40 years. I still remember reading about it in the ruleset to AH's Arab-Israeli Wars.). And I think CM shows the importance of the doctrine better than board games do simply because it has a realistic spotting mechanism, which is the actual advantage provided by being unbuttoned. (I know board games have spotting mechanisms; our microarmor rules did, too...but it wasn't really the same). But there are two important caveats with the doctrine. The first is that the "unbutton doctrine" is described in general terms, with no real specifics. Were they really *always* unbuttoned? (Certainly not) Were they unbuttoned at 800 meters? Unbuttoned at 400 meters? At 200? And did they unbutton when providing infantry support as well as when fighting tanks? Under what conditions? The second caveat is that the disadvantages of being unbuttoned are rarely discussed. It's obvious that it's riskier - but I don't know of any documents laying out when to button and when to unbutton. But we do know - despite the German unbutton doctrine [and as Steve mentioned in his post] - that their AFVs had sophisticated cupolas with numerous periscopes to provide 360 degree awareness. If they were *always* fighting unbuttoned, they wouldn't have seen a need for this. Also, for example, in October of 1943, an armored deflector was added to the front of the commander's cupola on the StuG: this is because the "barrel" of the cupola was only 30mm thick and AT rifles could penetrate it at certain ranges. If TCs weren't buttoned, this would not have been an issue - if an AT rifleman can hit the cupola barrel, he can hit the TC. (We also know that the US installed phones on the back of the tanks so that infantry could communicate with the tank crew in Normandy and in the Pacific, which would not have been an issue if the TC were unbuttoned. But I'm going to mostly discount this, since the behavior of TCs in the sniper-infested bocage (or the jungle) is not necessarily representative of most fighting). We also know that Soviet doctrine was to fight buttoned - and while the disadvantages of that doctrine are well-known in tank-vs-tank encounters, I think the advantages of it have been insufficiently emphasized. Even if they are outweighed by the disadvantages. So my tentative conclusion is that CM has the lethality *pretty much* right. The second question is whether TCs were really shot at as much as they are in game. This is harder to answer...but I think the answer is probably yes, for a couple of reasons. We do know that TCs in the allied forces suffered 10% casualties. We also know - as was discussed at some length in CMx1 days in the context of tanks providing cover for infantry - that in most cases infantry preferred *not* to be near tanks because they were magnets for fire on the battlefield. Finally, we know the range and accuracy of various weapons, and if you are an HMG crew and see a TC at a range of 200 meters, why *wouldn't* you take a shot? So, to reiterate, I think CM has these two factors about right, and I also think that the reason many people feel that TCs are suffering undue casualties is because 40 years of wargaming rules (and brief mentions of the advantages of being unbuttoned in the histories) have tended to obscure how dangerous being an unbuttoned TC could actually be at closer ranges. I specifically limited my discussion to frequency and lethality as they relate to TCs because there are a couple of other issues that I'm kind of agnostic about. The first issue is whether TCs duck down quickly enough when they are fired at...it does seem like they would usually duck down at the point when bullets start pinging off of their tank's hull. But not always, and I think that's the issue Steve brings up wrt the AI. *Sometimes* you are unbuttoned because it's hard to spot infantry and you're trying to ID targets. But it's not really a matter of life and death, and if there is any real risk, you'll just button up and area fire. *Other times*, you are unbuttoned because you are stalking enemy tanks that are capable of killing your tank, so you absolutely need to get the first shot off or you/your tank/your tank platoon will die. This is the part of tank warfare that 40 years of armor rules got right...and it's worth ignoring a couple of pistol shots plinking off the hull if it means you'll get the drop on the PzIV. But I don't think that there's a way for the AI to know how important it is for you to be unbuttoned at any particular time in the battle. I don't really buy the idea that TCs are underprotected due to the absence of microterrain, since I don't think that there is any microterrain on a tank - if you see a tank, you can find the commander - he'll be at the top. It is possible that some less experienced infantry, or rattled infantry, would be less likely to shoot at a tank than at other targets because they are afraid of drawing fire...but that may already be accounted for the algorithm anyway. I'm agnostic on the HT gunner issue; I really have no idea. I am curious about the HT-passengers-sitting-too-high issue. In general, I think HTs are modeled correctly and should avoid coming within 400 meters or so of unsuppressed infantry. A HT's armor provides a lot of benefits that aren't usually within CM's scale - an hour of 81mm harassing fire covering an intersection in the rear is dangerous to men on foot or in trucks, but not to men in HTs.

Wow! I didn't know that was there either. I haven't really needed it for sunrise/sunset, but I've always had to do the math for reinforcements...i.e., if the scenario starts at 11:15 and the reinforcements are coming at 11:40 and 11:50, what will the timer show at the time the reinforcements are scheduled to arrive? Show your work...

I played this scenario earlier today - I like it quite a bit! I broke a scout team off of two engineer squads and sent them forward at "move" speed to find the mines. (Right next to each other, near where you sent your guys). Once they found some mines, I send the remainder of each squad forward to mark the mines, and then sent the scouts on up to blast two lines of wire with my demo charges. I then sent one scout forward to breach the wall of the hotel, but when I sent the other scout to join him in the hotel, he went through the front door rather than the breach...as did a couple of other guys. To make sure that they used the breach, I had to route them through the end of the breach as far away from the door as I could - otherwise, they seem to prefer to just use the door.

Excellent! My Osprey-Vanguard StuG III & IV has a surprising amount to say on the StuG's MG. Most of it contradictory. One AAR states that the MG is "very beneficial." Another states that it "has not proven effective". A third reports that "During attacks through enemy infantry positions, which are usually very strongly occupied with anti-tank rifles, the lack of a machine gun protected by armour makes itself very negatively felt. The armour shield for the machine gun mounted on the roof of the StuG does not protect against anti-tank rifle fire from the front or against infantry weapons fired from the side."

Yeah, the hit decal was about the size of the barrel opening on the JT. And I'm like "What the hell was *that*?" I really just think it's awesome that the game surprised me like that.

Raptorx7 found the answer - it was the M12 GMC with the 155 mm gun. Standard loadout includes 3 *AP* rounds. Who knew? Unfortunately, no video - I really just ran the QB to see the new equipment and watch things blow up. (The way that one does...). I wasn't expecting any actual opposition, and was surprised to discover that there was something other than a Jackson which can take on JT from the front (and it's kind of iffy with the Jackson).

I set up a January 1945 QB - ME, Tiny, Snow, Ardennes, Village. "Mix" type - I'm playing German and choose a Jagdtiger, a Sturmtiger, and a platoon of infantry. The AI picks its own troops. (As you can see, I'm both a stickler for historical realism and a person who likes a fair fight.) On about Turn 3, I'm moving my unbuttoned-and-still-virginal JT down a road when a mystery vehicle fires at it from a wooded knoll. First shot penetrates the JT from the front, killing the crew and destroying the JT. Range was approximately 500 meters. I never got a shot off or saw what killed it. Your assignment: what enemy vehicle was it that so easily dispatched my JT? Additional hint: based on the violence of the hit animation, it didn't look like the round struggled to penetrate the JT.

I would second this; I think probes are easily the most interesting QB type. Meeting engagements were rare historically and tend to lead to gamey QB play - like rushing to get to the objectives first so you can defend them. Attacks and assaults were fairly common historically, but often leave the defender with little to do after the battle has commenced. (Particularly in medium-sized and smaller battles). Probes were common historically, and because the point difference isn't as great as in attack/assault QBs, there are a lot of options for the defending player...including the ability to gain local superiority on one part of the map and to conduct a limited counterattack. IME, the AI is also works best when it is the defender in a probe QB.

It seems about the same as CMBS in my limited testing so far. But CMBS has always seemed to run a bit better than CMBN and CMFI for me - although this is maybe subjective.

Pretty fall colors on the trees (France/Oct. 1944)! American stragglers! Sturm squads! Heavy sturm squads! Gewehrgranat Teams! (Is that correct - shouldn't it be Gewehrgranate Teams?) Regardless, I'd never heard of rifle grenade teams at all before.

Thanks - it was kind of blurry on my screen.

I would advise you to buy soviet submachinegun squads instead of rifle squads; their ROF makes them extremely powerful. Especially at close range.

This was a great AAR. Although when I first watched, it, I thought that it was particularly bloody because of the individuals involved. However, having played Stalingrad in Stavelot December Morning three times, and having just watched Chris's stream, I think it's a function of the setting, with shorter ranges and more automatic weapons. Especially the MP 44's.

I find this kind of satisfying.

Interesting...but not quite:

I couldn't quite make it out on my screen - but at 2:59, does the unit have 12 PFs? And what is the thing diagonally below the PF - is it another type of PF or something else?

I think it is highly unrealistic for *good order* crewmen to be regularly fed through the open loader's slot like bullets in a magazine when they have been ordered to stay buttoned and they know infantry is nearby. It was not much of an issue in CMRT or BN or FI because it was easy enough to keep vehicles back. But it will be an issue in close terrain, whether in the bulge or the the Hürtgen forest, and it's going to lead to unrealistic results. The allies didn't defeat the StuG by shooting the crewmen as they sequentially popped up to operate the loader's MG.

I don't really see the issue - it just looks like the HT shot slightly faster in the duel with the first tank. It doesn't look like it took the second tank more than 5 seconds to get a round off off after spotting the HT in the second duel.

I think it's immobilized. I'm on my third playthough of this scenario, and it's interesting how the scene with the Tiger plays out. The first time, I got the drop on the Tiger with two tanks and eventually knocked him out. However, it took 15 hits before that happened; the Tiger was able to get off three (I think) shots and knocked out one of my 76s. The second time, I got cocky (or the commander wasn't dozing) - he spotted my tanks first (even though I knew he was there and was looking for him) and knocked out two, plus most of an infantry squad and a mortar team, before I could knock him out with the my third 76. (It's pretty difficult to make it through the rest of the scenario with only two tanks...). The third time, I was more cautious and more lucky and took out the Tiger with one shot.

This is true...and I wouldn't have any objection if the behavior *occasionally* happened, or if it happened more often when the crew was rattled or panicking. But I don't think it should be the case that the loader *routinely* sticks his head out when enemy infantry are nearby. And it's even less realistic for another crewman to immediately man the MG after the loader has been shot for doing the same thing, particularly in the face of a "button" order. (If they were ordered to do so, it *might be* realistic...but these guys have been ordered not to do so). And we never see similar behavior (AFAIK) by the commanders of buttoned tanks. Even when they are surrounded by infantry, they never pop their heads up to man the AAMG in an attempt to drive off the infantry.

Yeah, it does seem like the gunner should stay buttoned up when there is a button-up order. And that if he doesn't and does get killed, other crew shouldn't then man his gun and expose themselves, too.