Little_Black_Devil

Well - with my understanding of how CMC will work, limited to the Overview/Features advertised on the webpage, and a few tid-bits in this forum - I don't see multiple concurrent battles being an issue for two players who want to play out a game via TCP/IP. However - I'm making the assumption, that indeed - those "other" battles are AI controlled, and I also assume it is the mechanics from within CMC that will resolve them, without delving into CMBB at all - and I'm okay with that. AI battles that are not opted into, or controlled by players are in effect - "ambiance" that may have strategic or operational implications. That unto its self - is pretty cool I think. :cool: However, how exactly those "other" - AI - battles influence player battles is certainly a relevant question, as it might be directly related to this issue. I for one don't know the answer to that question because I don't fully understand how it all comes together yet. What I do know is - that I would much prefer to use TCP/IP when playing someone "live", regardless of whether we're in the CMC or CMBB aspect of the new hybrid game, because Hotseating and PBEM just aren't as practial for "live" play. As TCP/IP already exists in CMBB, I don't think its that much of a stretch to expect to see it in CMC - but maybe I'm missing something...? Being a lamen - it all seems so simple from my point of view. Cheers

The cumbersome process of extracting turns from emails is unecessary - if you are able to exchange the same information with TCP/IP. Call me lazy if you want. I'm also taking into consideration, that emails do not necessarily arrive within seconds after their transmission. I know my own service provider is, on the whole not too bad - but there are some out there that inadvertently apply a delay of a few minutes before the email is even available for download. (For reasons unknown to this lamen) Between that ~potential~ delay, and the process of grabbing the turn from your email - I see the process as unecessarily long and cumbersome, when all of the turn data can (or should be) able to be transmitted by TCP/IP. The only real wait time, that can't be circumvented is - as Sergei pointed out, is if you finish giving all of your orders first, and are waiting for your opponent to finish his. It has been my experience that this is not usually very long - but I confess to not having played tons of other players, so take it for what its worth. As I recall though - you can establish a timer to effectively "control" this as well if you find yourself playing one of those REAL deep thinkers. The important part, is that we should be able to both sit in game - continuously - and trade turns back and fourth live without having to alt-tab out and constantly tinker with other programs, hope that your email service isn't clogged etc. I know you can use PBEM to somewhat emulate playing "live" - but why settle for that collectively cumbersome process if both players are available at the same time to play the game - especially when TCP/IP already exists in CMBB? Cheers

The scenario where I see TCP/IP being the most desirous mode of multi-play is like this; A friend of mine and I want to play each other. The accepted idea is - that we are going to play on a relatively regular basis, and have no illusions about completing whole campaigns in one sitting. Instead, we'll play for a few hours continuously - and then shut it down to pick it up again another day and repeat the process until I've tought him a few lessons. We would MUCH rather play for a few hours straight, and pick it up again next Saturday as it were - than play piecemeal here and there with PBEM. We also tend to enjoy the comeraderie and banter that can go on in the middle of a continuous game. Anyone who used to play those ancient table top games from many moons ago, can probably appreciate that. To accomodate this end, we use a 3rd Party Voice Communication Program (Team Speak) concurrently with Combat Mission while we play. Its not practical for us to hotseat, as we live a few thousand kilometers apart. As for PBEM...well it is...in my opinion...."old technology". It seems like an awfully ineffiecient way of doing things. Its only real redeeming qualities are that; 1) It accomodates players who can't play each other at the exact same point in time and, 2) A new or other more flexible means of accomplishing the same thing are not practical here because of the costs associated in devloping them. So, the bottom line for me is; for my friend and I, when we play - we want play the game "live". We do not want all of the unecessary wait time inherently associated with trying to use PBEM to conduct a "live" game. Hotseating is not practical (for us), and PBEM falls short as an effective means of delivering what TCP/IP Can deliver - for a "live" game. As CMBB already has TCP/IP - it doesn't seem to me like such a stretch to include TCP/IP in CMC as well. In fact - I would on that basis, assume that CMC inherently DOES support TCP/IP - but obviously, I want to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. Or at least hear that we can expect it in a subsequent patch to CMC after its initial release. To me - TCP/IP is the only reasonable means of conducting a live game without having to re-invent the wheel. In any event - as cool as CMC is, without TCP/IP, or a means to reasonably play CMC/CMBB "live" I see little use for its multi-play aspect. Thus - what could have been a "great game" for me (enhanced by playing an human opponent) becomes a "good" game, where I'm effectively limited to just playing against the computer. Thats why I want TCP/IP - or to have its existence in CMC confirmed or denied. Cheers

Still no official word on whether TCP/IP is or is not going to see the light of day in CMC?

Well - I for one 'am not really interested in three or more players with respect to TCP/IP - but I would like the option to use TCP/IP when playing against one other human player.

Thats what I'm afraid of Sergei - but I was just hoping for some official confirmation. If TCP/IP is not to be offered in the initial release, then I wonder if there is any possibility of it making its way into a subsequent patch? This isn't a show stopper for me, but it sure does complicate the way I normally prefer to enjoy multi-player. Cheers

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but from everything that I can find it appears that Hotseat and PBEM are the ONLY multi-player modes for CMC. Is this correct? - Will there be no support for TCP/IP? Thanks

Having the luxury of shopping from JJF locally - I've had the chance to see their entire collection first hand (as opposed to being limited to just the text and screenshots from their website). This allowed me a much greater appreciation of everything they do carry, though admitedly my personal taste is more of a technical nature so I have a tendancy of looking past the books which might contain some sort of a political bias. I will agree, that their books are - an the whole, woefully overpriced. I guess since they cater to a niche market the only way to stay in business is to charge what they do for books, but that doesn't change the fact that high prices prevent me from doing more business with them then I already do. Anyhow, to their credit, they do carry a more extensive collection of both imported books and scale model kits (Tiger Hobbies: co-located with JJF Books). If you can read German or Russian, then they have that much more to offer you. If you're limited to just appreciating all the pretty pictures in those [imported] books (like me) then perhaps this is actually a strike against them. I guess it also depends on what you want the book(s) for (scale modeling reference - or to read for example). In any event, most of these same books (imported or not) are not otherwise readily accessible to me, and are even more costly to obtain elsewhere because of shipping/customs costs etc. Despite the steep prices (and depending on what you're looking for) - I do have to say, that carousing their collection in person, can be a difficult test of one's will power. Just ask my Wife. The next time I visit their store though, I will have to take a broader look at everything they carry to see if there really is some sort of "pro-nazi" emphasis. If there is - from what I've seen, I missed it. Anyhow - sorry I couldn't contribute to the actual conversation at hand here, I'll shut up now. :/

Well, I agree that ROF is abstracted - and that generally speaking I think its fairly accurate in what it seeks to represent (not necessarily imitate with 100% accuracy) However, I would also add - that aiming a rifle, and aiming a gun (a field gun or a gun mounted in a tank) at a moving target - are two completely different things. You may be able to carry over your ability to correctly "lead" a target from firing a rifle to firing a gun - but the process of moving the barrel into position so it shoots where you want it to, is made considerably harder by the means with which guns and tank operated gun traversed and elevated their guns. Even assuming you had a gun with free elevation - the traverse is your achillies heel (to some degree). Having fired a few guns at simulated mobile tank targets in my time - and concurrently having been able to consistently hit mobile targets with my rifle, I for one - never found hitting moving targets a skill easy to transpose from my rifle to my gun. My ability to judge "lead" wasn't so much a question, as my ability to swing the gun to where I wanted/needed it. Of course - I'm willing to accept that I was never the best shot either.

Well, just my two cents - but I think Stalin preferred a second front to relieve some of the preassure off of his own troops. The presence of Canadian troops on the Eastern Front would have been more of a headache to both the Canadians and the Soviets, then any true benefit they could seriously be considered to offer. Also keep in mind - that for the Soviets, this was the "Great Patriotic War" - which includes all sorts of overt and inferred ideological messages. Foreign troops fighting for the "motherland" doesn't go hand in hand with this message [to the Soviet people]. In the grand scheme of things, the numbers which Canada could have offered the Soviet Union were, by comparrison on existing Soviet units, and Soviet units then being trained and brought into service - a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, the difference in equipment would have certainly led to some logistical challenges, but not as many as most would assume I would guess. I make this assumption simply because the Soviets already had many different types of Western Allied tanks, weapons, equipment and munitions through lend lease, however it makes little sense to send them western weapons, equipment and supplies if they are simply going to end up "lending" it back to the Canadians. In my own opinion, I don't think the prospect of sending Canadian troops to the Soviet Union was ever seriously considered, however - it wouldn't surprise me if plans for a raid or invasion of Denmark were seriously considered. As a side note; For those that assume all of our troops would have been/are more acclimatized to cold weather, I suggest you read a bit more about the Canadian climate, and see where our largest populations are (and always have been) centered. I think you'll find that by and large - that numerically Canadians are far less some sort of "Siberian Equivilent" and more like our neighbors down in New York or Chicago. Not all of our boys by far are used to the hardships of places like "Portage & Main" in Winnipeg Manitoba.

The 20mm KwK30 L/55 could fire single shots or on automatic. In-game, it would appear to always fire in bursts.

Well, hopefully in the engine re-write and next sequel, we'll see Flak18/36/37's capable of firing from ontop their cruciforms/limbers. This was used as an expedient alternative to conventionally deploying the gun - which was indeed time consuming - but in my own opinion, not so time consuming that it is outside the scope of the game. Using the gun on its limbers allowed it to be brought into action within moments. I believe this method of firing the "88" was first really pioneered, and made "commonplace" in North Africa, though its use did spread to other theatres afterwards. On a side note, with a little work, the gun could also be towed either backwards or forwards - only requiring the repositioning of the towing bar. In any event, these points have been raised before, and I believe at that time - the official response was that it was not possible or practical (in the time frame alloted) to model this. Again - hopefully, these are things we will see in the next CM series and time will be made to add them.

When I get a chance, I'll post some pics I have which show these hinges/brackets in use - so I can be clear about which respective part(s) I'm talking about. They are kinda hard to clearly identify and explain.

GoofyStance, I think the little "hinged projections" folded out on the gunshield you are talking about supported the (12 round?) 37mm ammo cans - so that the crew could pak ammunition on the gun its self, and manhandle it for great distances (which they did - because lets face it, not every gun had its own horse, let alone truck or half-track as a dedicated prime mover). In fact, the Pak36 had its own harness, or "traces" specifically designed for the crew to use, in order for them to manhandle the gun over great distances, but I digress. In any event - they could have packed even more ammunition over the trails with the rest of the gun stores and their personal kit - but this would have all been improvised. The "hinged projections" were purpose designed. I believe they were limited to four (12 round?) cans of ammo as carried on the gunshield - but again, they could have found additional means to carry more ammuninition if they had to. Alternatively, there were "other" more conventional hinges on the gunshield, which allowed it to be folded down which reduced the gun's silouette by about half - obviously at the cost of protection to the crew. These hinges, however - did not "protrude" from the gunshield the same way the ones used for holding up the ammo cans did thoough. Hope that helped.

What he said.

I would imagine that the portions of the front turret (which are 30mm at 15°) only make up a small portion of the entire surface area of the front of the turret. As the mantlet covers most of the front of the turret, these 30mm portions seem to be more on the peripheree, and don't actually "protect" a great deal of anything (frontally). In fact, as these portions of the turret are closer to the edges, I would bet they are actualy in effect "thicker", because of the plates comprising the sides of the turrets are positioned directly behind them - thus, small portions might "only" be 30mm, while the remainder are considerably thicker - as they consist of the lengthwise thickness of the side armour (which while widthwise are only 30mm thick - lengthwise probably measure closer to a metre or two (not that a penetrating projectile would travel down the length of this armour). In any event - I don't imagine the 30mm portions are of any real significance. As the mantlet is 37mm, and it comprises most of the surface area of the front of the turret, this would seem to be the important figure. The covers, which I thought were thicker would also seem to present additional vulnerabilities. The 37mm mantlet, has already been covered above. All that said - I'm still wondering with respect to CMAK, why "30mm" is the number chosen to represent the thickness of the PzIIIH's frontal turret armour, when clearly this isn't accurate. An error perhaps - or again - does this "30mm" figure. somehow include or otherwise abstract the mantlet as well?

So - then, the PzIIIH Mantlet, would have indeed been 37mm thick (curved), with the surrounding edges of the front of the turret - still remaining at 30mm thick, as it was only later models of the PzIII and retro-fits, which up-armoured the PzIII's mantlet (and armament to say nothing of any other minor changes/upgrades). Correct? That said - with respect to CMAK, which only denotes 30mm as the PzIIIH's front turret armour, how is this information abstracted or otherwise reflected in-game? Since upper half of the mantlet is 37mm sloped at 40° providing us with an equivilent thickness of 60mm at 0°, the bottom half, is substantially less protected by the same 37mm mantlet, which is in some places (closer to the absolute middle) nearly 0° and in others closer to approximately 20° (inverted). This obviously means the lower half of the mantlet is not as well protected. Does the in-game number of "30mm" account for all of this somehow? Or - should the armour be improved to 37mm and the game engine left to calculate such *exceptions* such as the lower and upper halves of the mantlet? Perhaps these are accounted from in a simpler formula accounting for just "curve"? I simply don't know enough about how the game calculates all of this, or how much fidelity it has in order to account for such differences. But it would seem to me - in light of this dicsussion, that CMAK's listed thickness of "30mm" for the PzIIIH's front turret armour MIGHT not necessarily be correct (unless it is indeed including and thereby abstracting BOTH angled portions of the mantlet and averaging them). 'am I missing something here? :confused:

I'am left wondering if there are any recent studies, which include measurements of German tanks in particular. I suspect that most of the numbers we currently refer to in most *conventional* or regularly referred too sources, are all - at some point - from the same recorded measurements taken...god knows when. Perhaps its time for a *new* book, akin to Chamblerlain, Doyle and Jentz's "Encyclopedia", with measurements re-taken. Heck, why stop with just German tanks.... Hmmmmmm

Thanks Rexford. I guess I should elaborate, that from the outset, I assumed the turret was as well armoured as the hull, with the exception that the mantlet would be rounded/curved, and that the way this has been conveyed in a myriad of sources was just never "detailed" enough - so as to explain the actual layout of the turret front (armour) and mantlet. I assumed this, because it just seemed logical to up-armour the turret frontally, as with the hull, so as to be reistent to enemy fire from the front entirely. Leaving the turret so suceptable just didn't make much sense to me. My fault for making an assumption. I also meant, earlier - with reference to overlapping of armour, that I was wondering if the Mantlet (37mm curved - or partially curved) overlapped any part of, the front turret armour (30mm) which alone would have provided 67mm of armour (albeit probably spaced). Sorry if I confused this with overlapping the hull. I didn't expect that the curved portion of the mantlet (37mm at 40°) would equate in resistance as if it were 60mm of Face Hardened Armour). This obviously explains much. I should have done some math before I started blabbing I guess. To sum up - and make sure I undertand this correctly, you're saying that a portion of the PzIIIH mantlet, was 37mm thick and curved at 40° which gave it the equivilent protection of 60mm of Face Hardened Armour (accredited to the tests in Cairo you cited), though the non-sloped portion of the mantlet was only "just" 37mm thick(at 0°?) - which is why, this small (unsloped) area of the mantlet WAS penetrable by the 2 Pounder? From here; It appears that, the upper portion of the mantlet, is the part which is sloped at 40°. The lower portion appears to be sloped at roughly a 20° (inverse) angle, with the centre of the mantlet almost at 0°. From that, it would seem that from the centre down - that the mantlet armour would subsequently be less reistent. Aside from the Mantlet, what little portion of the exposed turret armout there is - would only be 30mm thick at 15°. Is all that on-track or have I botched it somewhere?

Interesting, though - I would think that with respect to Jentz's figures regarding the 2 Pounder and 200m, that this was more of an illustration as to the performance of the gun and its AP projectile - not necessarily and approval or encouragement that 2 Pounders ought to seek out 200m engagement distances, but rather to inform the gunners that they will not be able to penetrate the PzIII's turret frontally unless they ARE within 200m. That said - and as you pointed out - 200m was not and average engagement distance in North Africa. That - might explain where the blanket statements come from regarding the 2 Pounder's ineffectiveness vs the PzIIIH (since most engagements I would imagine - would have taken place over larger distances).

Thanks for the input guys. With the exception of Grove, I'm looking at all of the same books and a few more. However, nothing I've come accross thus far is entirely conclusive. I can't find anything specific enough, that deals with how the turret front was layed out/constructed. I have reason to believe that part of the gun mount itself was 30mm in thickness, which was further protected by a 37mm rounded external mantlet - not to be confused with the type of mantlet added to later PzIIIs like the Ausf N for instance. However, I also have good reason to believe, that the gun mounting, was perhaps not amroured, and the only substantial armour in the front of the turret was the 35mm rounded mantlet. Aside from the general thickness of the PzIIIH turret front being mentioned like this in most sources I have (which identify 30mm as the turret front thickness), not all clearly stipulate whether or not this is the mantlet. I did notice though, in Rexford's book - that he identifies the mantlet on the PzIIIH as 35mm curved and the front turret on the PzIIIH as 30mm at 15° (both pieces being face hardened). The question is - do these overlap, or not? If they do, then that would seem to lend creedence to the 30+35/37 idea - for a much better armoured turret (frontally anyways). At this point though, I'm more apt to believe that the turret, or the mantlet, were seperate - and there was no overlapping - and the turret crew and gun were only ever protected by 30mm at 15° or 35/37mm curved respectively. This seems logical in light of the fact that it is not until the advent of the PzIIIL that the turret specifically is uparmoured to 57mm, and then again - with the addition of a bolted on 20mm plate (for a total of 77mm?). Using Chamberlain/Doyle and Jentz's "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" (Revised Edition) - there does appear to be a pattern, whereby the PzIII does not recieve an upgraded turret until the PzIIIL. But is this impression accurate? I'm now wondering if the PzIIIL's turret armour, is only mentioned - as a significant point of interest, as the *new* turret front was made of a single piece (as opposed to two levels or plates of armour which overlap (which might be the case with earlier PzIII's back to the PzIIIH and perhaps even the PzIIIG). In any event - for game purposes - unless this can be clarified/rectified/verified - I'm now thinking that whenever I engage with late PzIIIG's, the PzIIIH's and PzIIIJ's - that I will no longer adopt hull down positions, because I'm in effect putting myself at a disadvantage (ONLY presenting my weakest frontal armour to the enemy). If I present a full silouette - then the enemy has more target to see and more importantly - more target to hit. From that perspective, I increase the chances that an incoming round will strike my well protected front hull armour, which obviously keeps my tanks operational a bit longer. If I only ever present a 30mm turret to them (as was the case in my original scenario) - then I'm inadvertently putting myself at a disadvantage. Being hull down, I might be initially more difficult to hit, but when I do take hits they will likely be crippling. It still boggles my mind though, that so many books contain blanket statements regarding the "invulnerability" of the PzIIIH in particular - to the 2 Pounder and American 37mm. Where, or better yet - HOW could these statements be made, when clearly - the turret, which makes up roughly a third of the tank as a target - was possibly suceptable to both the 2 Pounder and American 37mm - if it is indeed only protected by roughly 30 or 35mm of armour? Just seems odd.... Putting myself in the shoes of an Allied tank or anti-tank gunner - I know I'd sure as hell be doing my damndest to score turret hits - range and visibility permitting. Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" makes mention of the German practice of setting Matilda II's ablaze by firing HE into/onto their rear decks. I find it odd, that he wouldn't concurently identify the practice by British/Commonwealth gunners to fire their 2 Pounders into the turret of the PzIII for an easy (or easier) kill (assuming they were indeed only protected by 30/35mm of armour). Instead, in a few places - he makes note of their ability to resist the 2 Pounder, but would seem to contradict himself with the chart on Page 46 which he uses to illustrate what the 2 Pounder could take on, and at what ranges (that the 2 Pounder could penetrate the PzIIIH's mantlet at 200 yards/183 metres). Bah, this just gets frustrating when you lack the proper information and can only speculate. [ March 14, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

I was playing a quick battle yesterday, and saw a 2 Pounder anti-tank gun at 800 some metres engage my PzIIIH which was hull down to him (frontally). The 2 Pounder was able to eventually take out my PzIIIH before my (Green) PzIIIH could finally land an HE round anywhere close to him. I know it was the 2 Pounder anti-tank gun, because I verified it after the battle by viewing his kills. I wish I would have paid closer attention to the listed armour stats for the PzIIIH, let alone the penetration details during the battle, but I got too wraped up in the Infantry battle, and clicked "go" carelessly before I should have. I figured the 2 Pounder didn't have a chance against my PzIIIH, so paid it little concern. That was a mistake. In any event - from what I've read, it seems to me that a 1941 era 2 Pounder (no advanced munitions or "little john" adapater) just firing sold shot AP should not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the PzIIIH. However - this is where it gets tricky. Again - I was hull down, so the 30mm+32mm plates on the front hull of the tank were of no use to me. I was now in for a rude surprise, as at the time - I didn't realize the game records the turret/mantlet thickness as just 30mm. What I can't confirm (from any of my own books - though I admit that I may have missed it) is what the actual thickness of the front of the PzIIIH's turret is - or does it varry? What information I do have, is somewhat conflicting, leading me to believe that the front turret armour on the PzIIIH could have been only 30mm thick or 37mm thick or 67mm thick.....I'm not sure what to think and 'am having trouble distinguishing between the mantlet measurements and the other small portions of the front of the turret proper that are exposed. Obviously Battlefront got their 30mm figure from somewhere. Page 46 on Thomas L. Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" denotes, that a 2 Pounder could penetrate the PzIIIH's mantlet at 200 yards (183metres). This leads me to believe, that indeed - the front of the PzIIIH's turret - and in particular its mantlet, were only ever 30 or 37mm thick (albeit rounded). Is this correct? It would make sense to me if the mantlet, and front of the PzIIIH's turret was as thick if not thicker than the hull armour - so that the tank could stand up to opposition that its facing directly - as its supposed to. After all - the hull/chasis exists only to get the gun, which is in the turret into battle. In this case - the gun was designed to kill other tanks. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to go to all the trouble of up-armouring the hull, but then leaving the turret (front) still vulnerable. Anyhow, Thanks in advance. [ March 13, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

This movie has been released? Just wondering if I can order it somewhere - even if I don't understand a word of the language? Thanks

Its a decent site - even if it does have an Eastern Canadian spin to it. I haven't read through it top to bottom, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is yet another history about D-Day that fails to mention who - out of the entire 21st Army Group - was the first to complete their D-Day objectives. [ March 02, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

If memory serves, only 23 Matilda II's ever made it to, and saw action in France. I believe most of them, were destroyed at the Battle of Arras in May 1940. Needless to say, as the Germans shoved the Brits off the continent and forced the French into capitulation - so they subsequently owned the battlefield shortly thereafter. Thus, it would seem to follow that at their leisure, they would have recovered and scrutinized every destroyed and abandoned Allied tank after the battle to glean as much intel as they could. On a side note, Its interesting to read Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" and Bierman's "The Battle of Alamein" and see how they applied this "knowledge" of the MatildaII. It appears that even by late 1941 the Matilda II was still a respected adversary, but its limitations and weaknesses were known. In particular, the Germans made note of the Matida II's tendancy to catch fire, when HE was fired into/onto its rear deck. While the 50mm L/42 may have been capeable of this task - the 75mm L/24 and 88mm L/56 would seem to have been better suited for it. Thus - a weakness of the Matilda II was exploited, which didn't actually require that the thick hide of the Matilda II actually be penetrated. From what little I know, I think its difficult to determine whether or not the Germans "discovered" this from the captured Matilda II's they had in France, or from their more recent experiences in North Africa. In any event - the Matilda II was a vaunted opponent to any German tank of 1940 vintage, but as guns, munitions and tactics improved, so too did the Germans ability to "handle" the Matilda II.