Perchpole

Agreed. Along with the gaping "black hole" that is indirect fire weapons. Perchpole

Wretch is right. A Grille should be mounted on a 38(t) chasis. This mod is mounted on a PzII chasis - which certainly gives it the appearance of a Wespe.

First of all, please let me make it quite clear that this is not a moan! I have a genuine interest in the answer to this question - so I hope you will give it a fair response. I've noticed there are one or two inaccuracies in a number of the in game AFV models. I'm talking about instances in which a particular vehicle design is represented by a competely different model. The German Panzer I is a good example of this. In CMBB the tank is represented by a Panzer II model. The same is true of the StuG SiG III - which is represented in the game by a bog-Standard StuG III. As I say, this isn't a gripe. I'm really not interested in the putting every nut and bolt of every AFV under the microscope. Having said that, BTS obviously have some great designers at their disposal. They've already given CMBB a number of new and authentic vehicles. Indeed, it's for this very reason that I'm curious to learn why some vehicles weren't provided with their own models. I'm just curious!

I recommend Total Model.com. They have a huge on-line WWII gallery called the Motor Vehicle Resource Center. The Main site can be hound at: http://www.totalmodel.com the vehicle gallery is here: The MVRC Gallery Hope this helps!

Karch, with respect, I have not been rude - I am merely expressing my point. If you object to my tone then perhaps you should consider being a little less blase about matters and instead allow people to voice their opinions. I have a genuine concern. The game that I purchased today has been "doctored". I'm annoyed because I only found out about this after I'd purchased the software. I don't care how many times it has been written about in these forums - the fact remains that I feel somewhat cheated. Incidentally, and for your information, I purchased CMBO over the Internet direct from BTS and it was delivered to my door in England.

Yup - On the shelf in England - but minus any SS units! Does anyone know how to correct this?

...not if you buy CMBB off the shelf in England. I think this is a total and utter kop-out on the part of BTS. I almost feel cheated. What's going on? :confused:

I'm sorry, Tiger. I'm not here to win arguments. Certainly, I have no desire to win this argument - particularly when you insist on putting words in my mouth solely to justify your own point of view. I have never said that a vehicle should be excluded from the game because it is too powerful. All I have attempted to do is hi-light the fact that the CM representation of several real world AFVs may make them too powerful in the game. At this moment in time, I do not believe the current CM engine is refined enough to represent these vehicles accurately. You - and some others - are far too concerned about the "on paper" stats of the AFV; how much armour, how fast, etc. This is exactly what the CM game engine looks at too. I'm just trying to make you realize that with some vehicles & weapons, these physical dynamics alone could lead to an unbalanced or inaccurate game model. Although we may know the subtle differences between certain real-world vehicles - the CM game engine does not. These subtleties are neither apparent nor necessarily important when dealing with typical MBTs. For a select number of special vehicles, however, such differences could give rise to many an unexpected result. Ultimately, these special vehicles require a degree of special treatment.</P> That is the entire basis of my argument - and I stand by it. As I said when I first entered this thread, I simply urge caution.</P> Now I urge we put this one to bed!</P> ------------------ Perch [This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-16-2001).]

This one is going around in circles! I'll do my best to paraphrase my earlier comments:</P> Tiger: This thread originally began with someone asking about the Brummbar. Then, a few entries further down, someone else introduced the Sturmtiger. This is when I became interested. I simply do not see the need for such specialized weapons in the CM game. I attempted to show how the introduction of such vehicles - without some kind of regulation - could ruin an otherwise excellent game engine. I mentioned Sudden Strike purely as an example. This game - though of completely different design - features a Sturmtiger. In the game, this particular Sturmtiger is seen to rule the battlefield - simply because it has been implemented without restraints. It operates just like any other vehicle in the game, moving and firing anywhere and at any thing. My point was that if you were to introduce the same vehicle into CM, how would you control its use? How, for example, would you stop it from taking pot-shots at any target - something the real vehicle simply wouldn't and couldn't do. I went on to say that this and several other AFVs must be kept "in character" otherwise CM would be in danger of becoming some sort of "Boom-Fest" - just like Sudden Strike - where who ever has the biggest gun wins. I don't want to see that happen.</P> As for the Brummbar; I am perfectly aware of the physical differences of both it and the Sturmtiger. That has nothing to do with the argument. I was simply making the point that the Brummbar was developed to fulfill a specific role. It and the Sturmtiger were designed to take part in street battles. Both vehicles were expected to engage targets at very close quarters and, for this reason, were very heavily armored. Not surprisingly, each vehicle was notoriously difficult to knock-out.</P> OK, now take this Brummbar and drop it into the CM world. The CM game engine tends to model AFVs quite literally. Because of this the Brummbar now becomes an extremely potent weapon. It has armour comparable to that of a Tiger tank and is armed with a gun capable of firing 150mm shells. As a consequence - and purely in terms of the game - this vehicle would be too powerful. People would be tempted to use it out of character and, as a result, that fragile realistic thread which runs through the heart of CM would be needlessly compromised. Again, I don't want that to happen. My entire argument simply urged caution. Until such weapons could be governed by a stricter game engine, they should be left out.</P> Finally, Martin: First, the classification Panzerartillerie denotes self-propelled equipment which gave fire support in the field but was not used in an anti-tank role. Secondly, the SiG 33 tag refers to the weapon carried on the particular vehicle. This was the Schwere Infanterie Geschutz or Heavy Infantry Gun. This weapon - at one stage or another - seemed to be fitted to almost every available chassis in the German army. This included the SiG 33 auf PzKpfw I, II, and III - as well as the version fitted to the Czech 38t chassis. As you rightly point out, the names given to variations of this particular AFV can seem confusing. The difference between the Bison and the Grille is largely to do with the position of the gun. Earlier versions of the Bison saw the gun mounted at the front, whereas later adaptations of the Grille saw the gun moved to the rear.</P> ------------------ Perch [This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-15-2001).]

This comment is clearly incorrect. The single most important factor which does bind these two vehicles together is the purpose for which they were designed; namely, street fighting. It was never envisaged that either vehicle would be employed as an open country AFV - in the traditional sense. The Brummbar was developed after the battle for Stalingrad. During the bitter street fighting traditional tanks were proved inadequate. The German army also suffered massive losses whilst trying to capture heavily defended buildings. What was needed was a heavily armored vehicle capable of destroying such strong-points. Enter the Brummbar, followed - some time later - by the Sturmtiger.</P> To further emphasize this point, it is important to have an understanding of the vehicle designations that existed within the German army. This short list categorizes many of the most common designations: <BLOCKQUOTE> Sturmgeshutze - encompasses StuG III & IV variants Sturmhaubitze - StuH 42 Panzerjaeger - encompasses Marder and Nashorn variants Jagdpanzer - includes Jagdpanther, Elefant, Ferdinand, Jagdpanzer IV & Hetzer Panzerartillerie - includes Hummel, Grille, Bison & Wespe Flakpanzer - Mobelwagen, Ostwind, et al Sturmpanzer - Sturmtiger & Brummbar</P> </BLOCKQUOTE> Whilst this is by no means a full list, it clearly shows how the Brummbar and Sturmtiger were bracketed within the same vehicle category. Towards the end of the war the Brummbar was often deployed in other roles - mainly due to the fact that intense street fighting was in decline. It's original role, however, was essentially the same as the Sturmtiger's. Therefore, in terms of sheer design and intended purpose, the Sturmtiger and Brummbar did indeed have much in common.</P> ------------------ Perch

Technically, this is incorrect. The Brummbar was designed specifically to replace the SiG 33 (auf PzKpfw III). Whilst this vehicle was almost certainly deployed in a variety of roles, the so-called Sturmpanzer was used primarily for street fighting. In this context, the Brummbar probably has more in common with the Sturmtiger than it does with a true artillery piece, such as the Hummel.</P> ------------------ Perch

I would urge caution. In my opinion, the argument about the inclusion of such weapons is a largely subtle one. Let us not forget that vehicles, like the Brummbar and Sturmtiger, fulfilled very specific roles. Both weapons were used - more or less exclusively - for demolishing structures. It's often widely reported that a single shot from the latter could reduce an entire building to rubble.</P> In CM, however, the temptation may persist to go one step further. If the game were to include the Sturmtiger, for example, its presence would inevitably lead to miss-use and abuse - which in turn would lead to overkill. Anyone who has ever played the game Sudden Strike will be only too familiar with the Sturmtiger. In this game, the vehicle can be used in any role - from infantry support to tank destroyer!</P> Obviously CM and Sudden Strike are radically different in terms of approach and - above all - application. It is around this very word - application - that the entire debate revolves. The CM game engine must ensure that the application of certain weapons, such as the Sturmtiger, is kept in character and only in accordance with some very strict rules. Failure to do so and we will be left with a 65 ton mobile pillbox, pootling around the battlefield, taking pot-shots at anything that crosses it path! Such paintball-style antics should be left to Sudden Strike.</P> I have been playing CM for a little under two weeks and I believe it to be a truly marvelous game. Having said that, I would much rather BTS concentrate their efforts on delivering a much wider range of smaller - not bigger - vehicles. This would only serve to encourage far better and more tactical encounters. It's for this reason that I hope any future incarnations of the game will be very much along the lines of "Combat Mission 2: Before Overlord". </P> ------------------ Perch

Though, admittedly, not on the same scale, the Russian T-35 tank did possess 3 turrets. The main turret was armed with a short 76.2 mm howitzer, whilst the two smaller turrets (one at the front and one at the back) sported 37 mm guns. This lumbering beast had a crew of no less than 11 men. In all, only 60 or so T-35's were ever made and of these most saw action - and were destroyed - in 1941 fighting against the Finns. ------------------ Perch

IIRC, the Commisar term for "go get 'em, boys!" was called a PPSh. ------------------ Perch

RODINU = (literal to English) repatriation which - in this context -effectively means; for the fatherland. RODINA = (literal to English) motherland Typically, such direct translations can leave you squabbling over the details whilst ignoring the bigger picture. What's important here is the inference and spirit of the inscription. Rodinu simply means; for the HOMELAND! Incidentally [Terence], my grandmother was from Latvia, my father from Germany and I live in England. Though demographics were never my strong-point, I believe this to be conclusive proof that I am not an "American"! So takie huy to you too, buddy! ------------------ Perch