dieseltaylor

Nice diagrammatic illustration. Interesting results.

"all flaws" I am not at all sure where you think that is a quote from. I certainly never used it so I think it a tad naughty to use it as though I had. That a computer game is flawed to some degree seems to be the expected norm. I don't get too excited about that. However the firing on the move and superb target acquisition seems a monumental error. It is a shock. I feel there is a certain defensiveness amongst the BF beta-testers and possibly they are in the invidious position of knowing there were unresolved issues identified pre-launch which were not fixed. What is aggravating is that we the punters know in some arcane way that some things are being attended to now, some will be later , and some much later. However as far as I know there is no quick list where I can see what has already been discovered or I have found a new bug. There appears to be no formal mechanism for sending something up either. Lets take an example: I have now written twice that driving tanks along the line of a wire fence does not knock it flat. This appears to be wrong. So what has happened beta-tester WC tells me my driver is drunk. I cannot recall if anything happened the first time I mentioned it. I have thought about problem handling, possibly as it was once a job of mine, and a preferable method for a valid complaint might be: An e-mail to for example me saying. It has not come up before. Can you please send the film/file. It is not a high prioity but thank you for raising it. And then posting it on a list where we can all see it has been raised. Whether it is a spreadsheet or a wiki it does not matter provided it is easy to reference. Its all very well to have hundreds testing the game but no-one wishes to find there time wasted reporting something mentioned a month ago. And given the general goodwill of the community if there was a complaint which needed testing I would have thought constructing a test and asking for volunteers to run it might provide some of us a chance to be helpful. Other than that we sit in the dark waiting for v 1.01 Of course most of us are aware that BF is a small organisation but I don't see that need stop them from thinking about how they deal with consumers who, in the vast majority, are for them and want the game to succeed.

hoolaman Is there a formal process to add bugs to a list? It would be very helpful if there were one - or am I missing it and it does exist already.

: ) Sounds more like a complaint of the inadequacy of the round!

So I can be overwhelmed can you let me know how bad Zaloga is. I would hate to be wating my time on his books if you think they are iffy.

JC - I am actually a little surprised that you did not point out the very practical reason why an ID would prefer a tank battalion to a TD battalion was that a Tank battlaion had significantly more tanks. BTW the M-10 did not have a power traverse so a 180 degree traverse took 80 seconds. I think the tank scores considerably better on that basis. Quite vital in more congested terrian. However the nub of your argument : " Similarly, the US ID would be fighting surrounded and without armor support of any kind if the Germans had won the armor vs armor war. Because they didn't, infantry support roles looked more important. But *that* they didn't, the TDs had everything to do with." Seems great claim to make and one that unfortunately the US Army did not seem to believe in. Zaloga quotes there exellent record compared to towed guns in the Ardennes. He also quotes that the M-10 was successful in 14 out of 16 engagements which is a good record though not the perfect one you suggest. What cannot be ascertained was whether 76mm armed tanks would have done aswell or better. I have to accept that the US army probably had a better feel for it than I have. My naive view is a tank has better overhead protection from weather, mortars, grenades, VT, aircraft; and can be used both offensively and defensively, and can stay in the line longer, and reduces logistical requirements.

Red herring calibre. It is the firing on the move and hits which are noted

I thing perhaps you are being a bit harsh on ketonur. He had high expectations given CM*! and those expectations were very rudely shattered by the invincible Shermans doing things that really should not happen. To argue that any purchaser is required to peruse all the forums before registering an opinion is perhaps us being a little unreasonable. If I want to complain about a Buick that does not work as it should I am not abused for not having read all the GM user forums before beefing about it.. Lets face it the game is flawed and whilst we may be resigned to it being fixed post-issue that is actually not a normal or desirable process.

: ) See you can get real fun out of this game.! \nice one sburke

Superb. Looks a gem.

Nice. I have doubts regarding the Tiger sound. I have seen the live one at Bovington twice and this did not seem the same sound - Sorry just my opinion.

I don't doubt that what is described is straightforward. The time is for testing to see what the cause is. If it is bouncing off action points or whatever it certainly needs investigation. I have asked for the .btt

MikeyD - I tried a Honey driving down a length of wire fence twice and it never damaged the fence other than the initial right angle hit. How come?

Hmmm. Does this apply to vehicles also? Not easy to test I know unless you use the gridded terrain or a marker on the road to give a time in seconds to measure.

Thanks for that Narses. Page 77 "Infanantry division commanders after the war unanimously agreed that they would prefer to have the support of a tank battlaion instead of a tank destroyer battalion." Says it all really. Given the advent of VT it would seem lunatic to have continued with open-top designs regardless of anything else.

Useful stuff to know YD.

Bug? No, its a feature. : ) I wonder if it was CMSF possible?

You are right about the guns with, for some reason, the M1 being designed bigger!. The reason why the British gun was better, apart from being smaller, was the ammunition. "Anti-Armor Defense Data Study (A2D2), Volume 3. US Anti-Tank Defense At Dom Butgenbach, Belgium (December 1944)" SAIC Sep, 1990. Crew members of 57mm AT units organic to the 1st Infantry Division apparently indicated that the standard combat load for 57mm was about 30% HE and 70% APC. There are a couple descriptions of 57mm ATG's employing HE against German Infantry as well as to dispatch tank crews who are exiting from KO'd Panzer\Assault Guns. Of additional interest is that the same study indicates 57mm guns were provided with 7 to 10 rounds each of "souped-up" APDS from the British sometime during the Normandy Campaign. quote:The nature of the terrain, and the fog which blanketed the area, compelled Lt. Col. Daniel to place his anti-tank assets well forward, in order to have sufficient visibility to support the foxhole lines. He set up three 57mm anti-tank guns covering the road running east to Bullingen, and supported them with three M-10 self-propelled tank destroyers mounting 3-inch guns. He sent three more AT guns to bolster the main line of resistance, or MLR, in the E and F Co areas. Each of the 57mm guns had, as part of its ammunition supply, seven to ten rounds of British discarding sabot (DS) ammunition, which the British had given to the regiment before D-Day.' These rounds used a disposable sleeve, or sabot, around the penetrator for the British 2-pounder gun. The result was a lighter projectile with increased velocity, about 4200 ft/sec vice 2900 ft/sec for the normal 57mm round. With this velocity, a DS round could penetrate approximately six inches (154mm) of armor at a 30° slope. This made the obsolescent 57mm gun more effective, particularly against the heavy Panther tank and Jagdpanther tank destroyer.I am assuming -- as I have been unable to find any evidence so far of the US manufacture of 57mm HE - that the HE came from British sources. The voluminous US Ordnance Catalogues (dated 1944) make no reference to 57mm ammunition types beyond AP & APC rounds. I have found at least one reference indicating 57mm and 6-pdr ammunition was apparently interchangeable." http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000030.html Incidentally there is some doubt regarding penetration against slope but they were small. easily hidden, and at the very short ranges in the bocage lethal if thye were defending. Penetration at range was not bad either And just for interest and quite astounding to me: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78330

Georgie - if you only give them tungsten rounds they fire tungsten

Suspicious bugger am I costard ? : )

Good stuff Narses. Seems good planning that the UK armour had the German armour to play with. If only because the 6lber, if worse came to worse, was an excellent ATG. : )

There are two separate things here. The fact I could probably run out before the game end is a definite : ) The other one one is that without a minute by minute log there are no real conclusions to be drawn. The extra men could have died in turn 11 and I may have scavenged - or possibly not. The extra men may have dies in turn 30. In the other scenario my MP40 at 61 metres at eight? troopers issuing from a door and running laterally to me I failed to down one of them - until one came running back by himself. Very disappointing for a veteran officer who had already hosed them down last time they decided to come out that door. I could be wrong but 32 rounds in a theoretical 4 seconds at a group of men 60 metres away I miss then pick of a single man who runs back! Possibly its those dang walls giving added protection.!

Bump And I will add the link to Wikia

Actually not but this is pretty interesting stuff.

Once you get beyond the single finger typing Vanir .... It might be down to two!