Amedeo

Greg, to say the truth I'm almost sure it's a 'space saving' measure. Nonetheless I would have liked to know that indeed there will be THREE sets of uniforms for the soviets: the first is what we saw in the demo, the second, for late '41 and 1942, is with subdued collar tabs and no chevrons for the officers, then the last is the one with the M1943 uniform. Just kidding! Regards, Amedeo

I apologize in advance if this issue was already adressed here in the new forum, but it's not so easy to catch up with the enormous amount of messages produced by the CM community The soviets in the Kursk scenario have the old uniforms only to save space in the demo file... right? You're not going to tell me that I'll have to take Berlin without closed collars and shoulder straps... Regards, Amedeo P.S. I thought the demo would have kept me busy for a month... but I want this awesome game now!

This is simply a toy model of something than never existed. Apart from being no reference whatsoever of such a monstre in any book about soviet armour that I know of, it would also be impossible to have realized a tank like this. Just a single example: the KV-2 turret mounts two 152mm weapons while having the same apparent size of the original. Of course there would be no point in having two identical guns if you have no additional men to crew the extra weapon, but where would you put the extra two/three men needed? And this while allowing for all those guys to be kiked in the face by the men squeezed into the superposed 45mm turret... plainly impossible, other than useless. Regards, Amedeo

On a postwar Italian army manual I found the following (US) shells listed for use on the 57mm AT gun: HE T18B1 Canister T17 There's nothing on the DOI however. Regards, Amedeo

The modern military salute originated in the late XVIII early XIX century period, before (seven years war epoch) it was common to salute raising one's hat. I presume that the advent of various sort of headgears with chinstraps (e.G. the shako) that was bulky (or impossible) to doff quickly, let to the salute being only raising the hand to the hat. For the palm up/down salute orIgin, I presume that the victor/loser hypothesis is too far fetched. Not only because it's disproved by facts, but also because no soldier would like to recognize and remember to be a loser every time he makes this routine gesture. Regards, Amedeo [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Amedeo ]</p>

Did BTS release any information about how it intends to handle the different vehicle camo/uniform patterns BMPs? I presume that, generally speaking, there will be a breakdown like this: German vehicles: 1. pre-1943 Panzergrau 2. 1943-onwards camos 3. 1941-1945 winter whitewash German troops: 1. 1941-43 Feldgrau Bluse 2. ditto (winter) 3. 1944-45 simplified 'rat-grey' battledress 4. ditto (winter) Soviet vehicles: 1. 1941-45 dark green paint 2. 1941-45 winter whitewash Soviet troops: 1. pre-1943 M40 uniform 2. ditto (winter) 3. 1943-onwards M43 uniform 4. ditto (winter) The main problems lie in the exact breakdown for the various infantry 'specialties'. For the German ones CMBO is a rough guide (but I presume that we'll see also LW field divisions and different helmet BMPs for the various specialties). The Soviet ones shouldn't be too a problem. I wonder what will be the approach with the Axis minors, probably there will be a lot of simplification here but it would be a pity... imagine Italian Alpini or Bersaglieri wearing the same uniforms of the ordinary infantry Of course it would be a waste of time to wait for detailed BMPs for all those fancy stuff, but what I'm asking for is that BTS could hardcode different BMP codenumbers for all this stuff, leaving to the mod comunity the tast to differentiate them, just like they did for the winter camo in CMBO. bye Amedeo [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Amedeo ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I would say the Italians, and I would like to see their semovente 90 self propelled anti-tank gun. I would also like to see their M13/40. Those are probably the most renowned of the Italian weapons, and Rommel liked the semovente, saying it was the Italians only reliable anti-tank weapons. <hr></blockquote> I'm sorry but no such AFVs were used on the Eastern Front by the Italians, you'll have to content yourself with light tanks and perhaps a few Semoventi da 47 (guess their main gun calibre... ) Regards, Amedeo [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Amedeo ]</p>

I have the impression that the current post penetration damage in CMBO is mainly based on the round calibre. I think that the main factors in a better model should be the actual resudual kinetik energy the round has after penetration and the presence and weight of an HE filler in the projectile. BTW the Germans had both APHE and AP ammo for the 20mm, does someone know what they used in the late war years? Regards, Amedeo

Krivosheev (Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th century) gives the following figures for ATR production during the GPW: 1941 17,000 1942 249,000 1943 164,500 1944 37,700 1945 800 (actual timeframe 22.06.41 - 10.05.45) BTW it's worth noting that for some strange translation error the entry in the aforementioned table is given as 'AT rocket launchers' instead of 'AT rifles'. Regards, Amedeo

Don't know if this issue was already addressed but... does CMBO model the presence of an HE burster in AP rounds when calculating the post penetration damage? Moreover were the 20mm rounds we're talking about actually APHE-I rounds? Regards, Amedeo

Just my two cents worth post about the 'genesis' of the ATR threat. I found a couple more quotations from German AARs that could be interesting. 1. The ATR threat before Barbarossa was little. Considering the most important German foes in the 1939-41 timeframe one sees that France had no ATRs while the British ones were 'rare' and considered of uncertain effectiveness "the British ATR can possibly penetrate only the PzKpfw-I and II at close ranges (little experience)", excerpt from a 3. Panzerbrigade report, June 1940. 2. At the start of Barbarossa the RKKA practically had no ATRs, those weapons started to be used in sizeable quantities only by the end of the year (1941). 3. It's obvious that the ATR gives its better performances in closed terrain at at very short ranges, in a report from the 24, Panzerdivision, dated October 1942, it's clearly stated that the "most dangerous enemy weapons [are] a. ATRs, usually appear only at close range and are difficult to spot and fight b. Snipers". Thus I presume that the _perception_ of the ATR threat reached the peak in the close quarters fightings at Stalingrad. Regards, Amedeo

Regarding the APG report quoted in the RMZ website (and Jeff's comments on that) I want to point out that I didn't post it to suggest that the Soviets were producing some sort of wonder optics during WW2 (this would rather fit in some of the nice Ueber-something legends that haunts this forum ). My point is that it seems that the american testers were impressed about something regarding the T-34 optics, and I'd like to know what it was. Maybe it was the rugged construction or even simply the aiming reticle! We all know that, reasonably, German optics were excellent, but to find out what the aforementioned report was referring to I think we should consider American optics. If someone has a clue about some obvious deficiency of early US tank gun sights maybe we could solve the . Regards, Amedeo

Just a quick note (after all I'm indirectly responsable for the starting of this thread ): you all know of the evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds during WW2. http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html You will notice that the Americans were positively impressed from the Soviet tank optics (whathever this means). For what concernes the 'long' range of the 45mm gun, I would like to point out that the main reason, for the Soviets, to choose a 45mm weapon instead of a 37mm one was the ability to fire effective HE shells (after all the T-26 was an infantry support tank). So those ranges are not so amazing if referred to direct fire against soft massed targets. Regards, Amedeo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KnockOnWood: I did this a while ago, just change the 00000435.wav file [...]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But aren't there two or more alternative BAR sounds in CMBO? Am I wrong? bye Amedeo

Did anyone thought about substituting some of the BAR sound files with sound from Garand rifles, just like those that are present in SPWaW? When I play as the US I really miss those sounds... well substituting the sound of the BAR with that of the M1 will surely lead to minor inconsistencies sometimes, but nothing serious. Regards, Amedeo P.S. If such a mod doesn't exist, might someone tell me what are the BAR sounds file #, I'll try myself... maybe

Very interesting thread. About the 'you can't miss up to 1200m' and the Tigerfibel I'd like to point out (if it wasn't already done) that the Tigerfibel correctly says that the 88mm APBCB has a very flat trajectory that is less than 2m 'high'. The problem is that those 2m are to be counted from the height of the gun muzzle. So if the Tiger is firing on a perfectly flat area with its gun boresighted at 1200m, the round will reach at least an height of 4m above ground. On the other hand if the Tiger fires from a pit with the gun almost at ground level nothing taller than 2m will be missed... Regards, Amedeo

BTW could someone clarify the 'mistery' of the actual ARs production in prewar USSR? I've read in "Soviet Infantry Tactics in WW2" by Charles Sharp that more than 1 million SVT-40s were manufactured in 1941, and most of them were distributed to southern fronts' troops. I've read here about larger numbers, where's the truth? Regards, Amedeo

Can anyone point me to good internet resources (if any) about British Army tactical doctrine and regulations for the 1944-45 period? Thanks, Amedeo

The fact is that many CM games feature too small scale actions to let the PzKpfw-IV gain the upper hand in tank vs. tank combat. If you make a test scenario with open and flat fields and pit M4s vs. Pz-IVs at 1500m range or so the Panzers will readily destroy all the Shermans with minimum casualties. But this is a very idealized situation (especially in CM's scale). Amedeo

John, were did you find reference to the use of 122mm HEAT rounds in AFVs other than the SU-122? IIRC the RB site stated that the first HEAT rounds for 122mm armed heavy tanks were issued in 1967 (along with APDS rounds). Regards, Amedeo

Slightly OT... Speaking of old traditions... is it true that during the '70s in the NVA were introduced distinctions between 'Prussian' and 'Saxon' regiments? I read this somewhere but couldn't find any serious proof. Regards, Amedeo

I second the request for the low ROF fire. Moreover a command for keeping the primary armament from firing would also be nice, for example, giving the high reloading times and low ammo supply I would like my ISU-152 to not was ammo on opportunity targets but be ready to spray approaching infantry with its DShK heavy MG. And this will be crucial also for all the Sturmtiger fans, while the MG and the close defense 90mm mortar will have of course a fire at will order I presume that to have this AFV finally reload only to see it wasting the 380mm rocket on something fuzzy would be a mind shattering experience for any german player Amedeo

I was recently playing a historical scenario, pitting green Canadian troops against German paratroopers. Since I had no heavy support weapons at hand (and also owing to my horrible skills) the Fallschrimjaeger squads had not a very hard time in mowing down my men... anyway this is not the point. A mauled Paratrooper squad, reduced to a single man, was near one of my 2" mortars (w/no ammo left) and was targeted by one of my Platoon HQs. While ducking for cover the lone German Jaeger was killed by close combat (at least according to the sounds I heard) but the only unit targeting it (and in range for a close combat) was my mortar team. So my question is: is it possible for support weapon teams that are out of ammo (and do not carry small arms in CM terms) to cause casualties in close combat? Regards to all, Amedeo Disclaimer 1. I'm too lazy to set up a test scenario to find out Disclaimer 2. I don't think this issue is covered in the manual, however even if it is, I can assure you that I read it all (maybe just forgot the relevant points).

I would like to point out that what I'm proposing is not a 'die hard grog' idea but is what practically ALL the most famous games already did. A few examples? SPWaW, East Front, Allied General, ASL etc. etc. Amedeo

Again, the tests showing that the D-25 122mm gun on the IS-2 will fail above 700m or so against good quality Panther glacis refers to the pointed nose AP round, the flat nose APBC round WAS able to defeat the Panther's glacis at 1500+m. As for the main role of the T-34, the following passage is an excerpt from the People's Commissar for Defense order No. 325: "... Tank Corps must not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks if there's not a clear superiority over the enemy. In case of a meeting with large enemy tank formations, the Corps uses AT gun fire against the enemy tanks [...] The main mission of the Tank Corps is to destroy enemy infantry." So in this respect the T-34 was not very dissimilar to the Sherman. Amedeo