dieseltaylor

Dredged from the net Pumas ,100 [+1] built and the majority fought in Normandy. The Sd Kfz 234/2 would see action in Normandy in three Panzer divisions. 2. Panzerdivision and Panzer Lehr Panzerdivision were both fully equipped with the “Puma” having a compliment of 26 vehicles. The 2. Panzerdivision’s along with the Panzer Lehr division’s “Pumas” can be represented with the Panzer Lehr Panzerspähkompanie Intelligence Briefing PDF. First SS Panzer “Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler” also had a number of Puma armoured cars but did not posses a full compliment of them http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=519 ******************************************* There were few PzKpfw III in Normandy. -3 Ausf L or M with 50 cm gun in HQ Co/Pz.Rgt.16 -3 in HQ Co/II/Pz.Rgt.16 -3 in HQ Co/Pz.Rgt.22 -1 in I/pz.Rgt.22 -1 in HQ Co/I/SS-Pz.Rgt.9 -1 in 2./Pz.Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abt.100 Also command,recovery and artillery observation versions were in use. ******************************************* Virtually all sites agree there were no PZIIs in Normandy

We have several unlikely events here. One is the accuracy of the 88mm which damm near hits , misses and hits high on what would appear to be 100% chance if you believe the figures on accuracy. Now it is possible that the gun could only see the turret over the railway embankment but one would have thought similar difficulty for the tank. However the hull MG did fire so presumably all is visible. The rates of fire are very similar which is laudable but having a body fall on top of the gunner would be a distraction. The loader moving to the TC position also might seem to be a problem as he is there in time to be killed 14 seconds ahead of the gunner firing the fatal shot. So his carcasse falls into the turret also. Not to wonder whether a turret hit might do something to the firing point given it damages the optics. The driver and co-driver during this do not feel any urge to reverse the tank from as gun that has them under fire. I am not saying it could not happen. I just think it extremely unlikely to a massive degree.

I understand that the tank crews are going to be calmed down from their current aggression when their tank s destroyed. However I have a new problem which is fairly major. Tank spots 88 in wood opens fire with hull MG[!] This is from my opponent: 37:51 My tank fires, and a split-second later your 88 takes out the TC. He is dead. Perhaps the red cross means he is "red" dead instead of "brown" dead, but in any case he disappears from the tank in a few seconds. 37:40 A round from the 88 misses the tank 37:26 Tank fires. By now there is a new TC in the hatch, but he is another crewman. [later proved to be loader/radio man] 37:25 Tank is hit "top turret, partial penetration," and the new TC is killed. 37:11 Tank fires. 88 killed. Damage to the tank is minimal: yellow for optics and treads. So it looks like both your 88 shots hit the standing TC and not the turret or hull of tank. I wonder what a "top turret, partial penetration" means for a round fired from dead front? The round grazed the turret roof at a very low angle and skipped off? Could it indicate hitting the flipped-open hatch panels? I can accept these results as physically realistic: both hits skimmed the top of the turret, killing the exposed TC but not squarely hitting the tank itself. However, two issues might remain: ........................... 2) Crew morale is a definite issue. In the span of 40 seconds, my tank had two commanders torn apart by an 88 but still managed to get off three accurate shots (all while hauling at least one of the TC bodies out of the way). The tank neither backed off ("That 88 has our range!") nor panicked ("The bloooood!").

I think averages are your enemy. In London I suspect it is well over 50%

Yep. But I suspect you are more Wiki savvy than most of us and hterefore more useful! Also you may be able to bring German input grom CMBN fansites. : ) I am in need of French speakers at the momnet to find the report Le Panther 1947 : (

I think[hope ] it is included in v 1.01

Thanks dude : ) but hoolaman started it.

http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Combat_Mission:_Battle_for_Normandy Please feel free to add the works here. Probably best posted here for critical comment, improved presentation before using the wiki but I am not fussy. Nor am I the wiki admin guy!

Hoolaman. Good idea. I will see what I can do later in the week with making this a goer. Wiki being ideal compared t the morass of digging through BF archives.

Ah JonS. If only you had posted straigh the first time around how many entries would have been saved not to mention the ire. : ) It is interesting to see the workarounds and very helpful. Thanks for sharing. I particularly liked the diary info. I know BF say anecdote is not proof but it is good enough for me. I have a IWM photo of a Churchill TC up showing with a plate welded behind the split cupola. So the split cupola is erect and the plate to the back giving him the best availabe cover from snipers. The comment about the Panthers cupola with excellent all-round vision away from the tank now seems so much more relevant.

Is it possible that some of your tanks at least were relying on the commander being able to see the SHermans whilst the tank gun is unable to see the Shermans. They fire at the cupola! and of course hit whilst moving. Tactically I think you did nothing wrong at all and Gunnergoz is actually suggesting gamey tactics against a dumb AI. I am all in favour of flanking but I assume you chose the best position available. Incidentally if you gave the map number then someone could replicate the battle.

Its interesting to here such a view. I am not quite sure what your previous gaming experience is but I am a CM-1 player for a decade and perhaps my innate knowledge of WWII makes me see things differently. I expect surprises. Its also interesting as you are apparently working through the manual. I have printed it out and yes the page colouring is remarkably stupid. But learning for me is best done by playing with the toys so you get to see how far you can stretch the boundaries. If you are experimenting you are not "failing" you are learning during the many defeats you suffer. So for instance driving a Sherman as fast as I can down a road will let me practice my drive plotting - well thtas good unitl he gets blown up ... but then how well does he die?. I then drive a second Sherman down at a different speed - what changes. And then I might start again and re-do the Shermans. Then play with switching cover arcs and driving. I am not failing I am learning. Ditto mortars. Ditto moving speeds for infantry. Ditto concealment. But I am not "doing" by reading steps in a manual - that is boring AND you have to live up to their expectation. Free yourself to go wild. Then when you feel ready go with a scenario and play it through. BTW I have never played any scenario against the AI through. Of course I do play humans now I completed "my" basic training!.

Smoke . I suspect, is your friend. Lay it on him and I suspect he he will move. And I would go with the tank smoke first as a trial.

Am I correct in that all test firings are using a fixed gun. Anotherwords the tests do not simulate what the effect is of having these mounted in tanks. To me this is quite an important question. And going to combat records, and bearing in mind that the Tigers have 93-100% accuracy at these ranges So ignoring the armour - two Tigers kill 10 tanks in 15 minutes. That does not sound that impressive does it if you are 93-100% accurate at stationary targets and have the ability to track and lead targets. So is there a fudge factor between shooting range figures and RL. It is a shame there are no details on the terrain, cover, and number of shells fired. Russian hits on Tigers 20+ which say there are average 20 tanks means they are hitting once each in 15 minutes of firing. Tiger crews were probably the best trained tank crews with very high requirenments for gunners but they did have the advantage of a very much larger and heavier tank as a gun platform.

Zatoichi : )

I thought this interesting given the nature of the exceptional quality of the Panther gun and the test at 1700+ metres with the MkIV and the Sherman. The Panther was sighted to 3000metres. Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 160 French experience with the Panther were put to paper in the report "Le Panther 1947", published by the Ministre de la Guerre, Section Technique de L'Armee, Groupement Auto-Char,

I agree that might be the case but would inmates know where hits were occurring in the general noise?

Tank Men records a Sherman commander who seeing an AA smartly retreated his tank behind a cottage only for the shot to come through the cottage and hit the tank rear side armour. He thought it made it through 5 walls - so I assume he counted.

Especially given the need to check hedges for movement. Yep movable way points would be in my top ten also.

This is weird as in my limited playing I have had Stug III's take pnetrating hits from close range MG's. Is this a little excessive? I na ll my decades of reading accounts of armour battles I have never had tanks suffering MG penetrations.

The cover arc command is to focus your fire in a specific area. Page 27 So Jon your interpretation is helpfully not included. And in CM*1 the arc also concentrated your spotting into that arc area. Is that true with arc in CM*2?

Thanks for the link MK - and the work!

Thank you Lt Bull. Just for fun I ran your cratered test without moving the Shermans so it was equal fire. The Shermans won slightly to my surprise 4 to 3 but only one test ... The interesting point was at the end when a MkIV was ignoring to kill a bailed Sherman. After a couple of minutes I manually targeted the Shrman and in three consecutive shots at 1774 it hit the Sherman - but it used HE! Anway after five minutes the US crew were brave enough to go to the tank but were not able to mount it though I did find out it was immobilised. I therefore ordered the MkIV to fire again. This time it fire two of its 4 AP for penetrations and then switched to HE again. Whilst I applaud saving the AP for other armour I would think HE unlikely to get it to blow up.

It is dispiriting that Hunt is lost. What were BF thinking of? Togther with the lost of an armour only arc this seems positively weird. Perhaps some of the beta-rtesters can shed some light on what is meant to happen. Or was it that beta-testers were primarily CMSF players so this aspect never occurred?

Rocky- the Shermans armour pre-1944 apparently varied hugely in quality so any model that picks a designed thickness figure for the armour is going to be at odds with what really happened. Unless of course it is sophisticated enough to give a random factor when calculating for hits on pre-1944 Shermans. I therefore think combat records are therefore a more reliable guide as to what happened, A mathematical model can be very limited. Also search for items on crews bailing after the first hit. The enemy was then under no danger of retaliatory fire and could finish off the tank. By no means all crews would bail at first strike. If there was a chance to respond - but basically the tank that fired first would win the huge majority of the duels. Given that the figures [on one of the threads here] I have seen have not been broken down to the reasons why the tank to fire second did actually win one is left with the melancholy thought that these tanks were probably German! However being fired at by a kitty beyond your effective range would mean staying in the tank to fight would seem stupid. The US Army Board issued disgrams in January 1945 showing how effective US guns would be at ranges to the Tigers . Effectively no chance with any US gun against a Tiger II head-on. And you needed a 76mm to attack a Tiger I front but you could apparently penetrate at 1200-1600 metres. though why I should feel doubtful I don't know. Possibly its because it was reckoned you needed 13 shots to hit a tank at 1500 metres, and the Tiger was more likely to nail you at that range anyway. Close and dirty from behind or the side! Thats how I like to use Shermans against German tanks.