dieseltaylor

Has anyone considered/tested the vital extra millimetre! on the UK half-tracks which made them a tad better armoured than the US standard M3? These were the International Harvester version. PS. Good testing YD. Only observation would be you did not mention number of tests made which would have made it more robust IMO. But I am being picky it is good of you to share details. Thanks.

Seems a shame to change a famous name like Kitty Hawk! As to moving I agree with you but I wonder if the AI is more nervous! A tactical fidget or a major withdrawal to show flanks is I believe traditional .... : ) Perhaps in CMX2 is different.

I believe the hunt command worked quite well for simulating moving and firing.! It is nice to know that it is on BF's list of things to sort. JK - I would not be surprised if the Russians did not used the gyro-stabilsation equipment as it was very time-consuming to maintain and AFAIR it had to be re-calibrated for the different types of ammo. Allied units are reported to have dispensed with it as more trouble than it was worth.

It would be interesting to know what calibre of heavy artillery would cause a JagdPanther to: a] move b] suffer damage BTW Sgt I was trying to work out where "The Land Where Flight Began" might be. I know that in Southeast Asis/China there were men who jumped from tall buildings and used stiffened umbrellas to glide to ground, and then there was Cayley, but possibly it is the Montgolfier brothers. The first powered flight was also in France.

I ordered a MkIV, as a test, to point its turret in covered arc broadside and off-board and the tank was facing an on-coming Sherman that was firing at it. This travelled from over nearly two kilometres to roughly 400 metres when it finally nailed the MkIV At no time did the turret turn to fire. I had assumed at some stage the driver or commander may have noticed/ mentioned they were under fire and decide to fight back. I was told that this ignore imminent threat was because the high crew quality meant it would always follow orders. I believe it was under version 1.01. So the answer might be don't get too "good" troops. I have not tested the behaviour under Version 1.10.

Is this, # 42, meant for this thread? Incidentally Ambrose is a bit of a naughty boy in terms of a historian and has been discussed on the CM threads before. As for the bocage tactics any search for Doubler on these forums will see him well-referenced

Several interesting points here. There is only one person able to spot the TAG/rifleman as the tank is travelling across the gun barrel and the turret is facing forwards. That tanks are noisy is indisputable but apparently the TC is able to respond to the rifle being fired at him at 100 metres. Now the time to bring the tank to a halt and rotate the turret and lay the barrel on target would be of interest. Generally speaking traversing a ATG which is pointing the right direction should be faster than a tank traversing across in front of it. Now exceptions like its a Hellcat on a road and its only in view for x seconds would change matters. A Churchill croos-country is lucky to do 8 mph, or 15mph on road when it is at full speed. Hilts you have the respective timings availableso how does it pan out? My gut feeling is that if the tank is being tracked when it halts it should mean the ATG can fire at a broadside tank at very short range. Which leads to the question why the TC did not order the tank to keep going fast to gain the cover Hilts mentions. Would you stop?

Curiously only yesterday I was reading "The Churchill" and it describes an action in Operation Bluecoat where 8 tanks fell very rapidly to 3 JagdPanthers, or possibly just two, but believing they had done all the armour in allowed themselves to come into the open and then assailed by ready loaded HE in the remaining tanks skedaddled but were shortly found in a near wood vacated due to track damage. During Bluecoat two AA Crusaders assisted the Cameronians in their attack on Sept Vents where there twin 20mm Oerlikons were used to good effect pulverising the opposition. The intelligence report had suggested that 654 was in the area with 30 of them.

Ouch! Anti-tank items are rarer than bullet firing arms so the trade-off seems wrong even moreso given the player has no choice.

And the answer was? Or the link? : )

I agree. It is not very clear.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/ Makes you wonder about how long GM crops are tested and perhaps the law of unintended consequences still holds good. As it happens this is actually a hybrid crop which means it was not genetically modified but was encouraged to become a cross. Similar effect though in providing a new strain. According to the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension service, Tifton 85 is a hybrid between an African Bermuda grass and Tifton 68, a different hybrid produced in Tifton, Texas.

I am of the opinion that the way to make sure there is enough bucks in the slush fund is to use all that information collected to run a respectable income portfolio. For the ultimate benefit of the taxpayers of course. I might be out of order and the NSA does not spy on corporations so please forget I said it. Yep definitely please forget it. I am deluded. No spook would possibly use information like that even if he were listening in on senior executives talking to friends right after a Board meeting.

I question the frequency of re-arming in battle. In all the anecdotes I have read the best I an recall is that the tanks left the battlefield to find a safe haven before re-fuelling and re-arming. However perhaps the answer is to have follow-up squadrons appear for the second-half.

The EU with 500 million is a bigger market than the US so to lump us in with Australia, Canada and New Zealand who scale out at 24, 35, and 4 million seems a trifle lacking in appreciation of potential market size. Perhaps sales in the EU would be a lot higher but for the very high cost we pay for the game. And of course for many EU citizens WW2 has a more than passing historical significance.

I am afraid us advanced folks are only on page 7. : )

Actually I am not sure if it is espionage or just plain inefficiency or trying to hide something unbelievable. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/06/IC-IG-Letter.pdf Essentially the NSA is unable to tell legislators how many US citizens it eavesdrops on. I think we can therefore take it a confirmation that probably all telephone calls aswell as e-mails are eavesdropped on and the spooks don't want that to be public knowledge in case citizens get up-set.

Does anyone have details for the 60mm? I assume LA and HA to be low and high angle.

Is the demo patched to V1.10?

Courtesy of Mr Salt. Plenty of detail and it should be noted bocage was in the highest category of terrain for neutralising shellfire. There does seem to be some confusion in figures but apparently the minimum measured period of a stonk was 15 minutes. Possibly anything less does not have the time to work on the recipients nerves and for him to consider how he feels about matters. : )

I feel that others might care for you to expand on this it terms of better and worse examples. I of course thought it was apposite. : )

watch these graphics and tanks - from a flight simulator! Some game called Arma ...mmmm : (. Looking at the video I was struck by the man sized hay bales ... what technology was that in 1940!

Call me old-fashioned but I think if someone is prepared to lie to get a job then they would be prepared to lie about other things. Dishonesty is contagious and one only has to look to Greece to see what happens when dishonesty is ingrained into a culture. On the practical side I wonder if my chances of a contract, or employment, would be increased if I mentioned to the person concerned I knew he had faked his CV. What would be my chances of success? Better or worse than some innocent but better qualified person?

SO it was aimed at the visible tank, and you can see they are in line, and therefore the modelling seems to be that the roof has no mass. In the first version we had a pictures of a Panther shell travelling through AFAIR four US halftracks almost end to end effectively and it was felt then that perhaps the chances of hitting something hard like and engine block /armor should have detonated or deflected it. This seems similar in that cumulative "slight" obstructions do not accumulate to anything.

Though it may work in that CMBN scenario in general the idea of ATG's opening fire at that sort of range is unlikely in Normandy WW2. The WO tests show that with the UK ATG's that hits let alone kills at that range would be very unlikely. German results might be marginally better with hits and kills but the chances of being spotted and nailed would be high given the chancy nature of a kill. In the Hinterland scenario you mention it would appear that the accuracy issue is handled. The 17pdr had a 20% chance of a first round hit at 1500yards on a static hull-up MkVI so that is not a great incentive to reveal your position. However subsequent shot would be 80% chance so a bit of a dilemma. German 75mm ATG's might have reservations about their chances of a kill at that sort of range - depending on the tank and the angle.