Denizen

I may have spoken too soon, The Parola Tank museum in Finland cliams to have a preserved example of the "KV-1m 1942" :eek: :eek: check out the museum site: http://www.pp.htv.fi/jveijala/tankit/tank8.html I believe this is the same tank pictured in Zaloga's New Vanguard KV-1 and -2 where the caption states: "in 1942 an up-armored cast turret was introduced with increased armor thickness. THis model is most easily distinguished by the added armor collar around the rear turret MG. The hull armor was also thickened leading to a change in rear shape, with a simple angled rear rather than the rounded rear used earlier. This KV-1 model 1942 is currently preserved at the Parola Tank Musuem in Finland" [ September 24, 2002, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

Hmmm... interesting, apparently I may be trusting Zaloga too much. KwazyDog, assuming you are correct, what were KV facories producing from late 1941 to mid 1942? I'll keep my mouth shut until I can find some more reliable information.

Am I the only person who wonders why this tank was omitted? :confused: The uparmored KV-1 m1942 was the most numerous of the KV series, I kid you not. [ September 24, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

For additional clarification, The KV-1 m1942 was the replacement of the KV-1e (which is included in CMBB) The m1942 replaced the KV-1e bolt on armor with even thicker cast/welded armor. [ September 24, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

Mike you are correct that the KV-1S was built to correct the mobility issues of the KV-1 m1942, however the productions runs of the two tanks overlapped, and the KV-1S was generally considered more of a failure than the m1942, so production of the KV-1S was halted in 1943 after a total of 1,232 were built. (which was less than the total of the m1942, though both tanks would see use until the war's end)

Ok... Since no one seems to care I will post some more information. According to TIm Bean's Russian Tanks of World War Two, as well as Zaloga's Red Armyy Handbook, 1,753 KV-1 tanks were built during 1942 in addition to the 780 KV-1S tanks built during that year. More example of the KV-1 m1942 were built than any other version of the KV-1, and yet CMBB models the more rare KV-1 m1941 of which 1,121 were built while leaving out the more common KV-1 m1942. As I stated previously, the m1942 was the best armored version, designed to survive hits from the German 75mm Kwk l/43 which was then makiong its first appearances.

wrong, the KV-1 m1942 had stronger turret armor than than than any version of the Is-2, and it is absent from the game. Check Zaloga's Red Army Handbook for details. [ September 24, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

Why was this tank left out of the game? It would use the same model as the existing KV-1 in the game, only revised data to represent the armor improvements would be necessary to include it in the game. Some 1,753 of them were built, seeing action until the end of the war, and playing an important role at kursk Armor data is as follows: turret front 120mm turret side 120mm turret rear 90mm glacis 110mm side upper hull 130mm side lower hull 90mm rear hull 75mm top/bottom 30mm See my other posts in this thread for more info [ September 24, 2002, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

I can understand the omission of the t35 and Lee/Grant, but why the T28? Its axuliary turrets have mgs only, and we all know that flexible mg mounts were in CMBO...

Hey folks, don't forget about the HVAP ammo for the T34/85. With 120mm penetration at 1000m HVAP could knock out the Panther from a front turret shot at 1000m, and lets not ignore the the fact that the T34 had better side turret, rear turret, hull side and hull rear armor than the panther ever did... :cool: [ September 15, 2002, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

It is a little known fact that the Pzr III was in some ways much more difficult to destroy than than the tank which ultimatley replaced it, the Panther. Many tank enthusiasts have erroneously underestimated the potential of the Pzr III in its final form, as certain modifications made to the tank late in its life were extraordinarily farsighted. The Spaced armor on the front hull and turret was indeed better at resisting the 122mm soviet APBC than the sloped armor of the panther's front. Soviet gun tests during and after the war would show that while the 122mm APBC could penetrate and travel all the way through the Panther from the front, it would barely harm the Pzr III. In fact numerous soviet militarily officials were suprised at the discontinuation of the Pzr III series in facvor of the Panther, since combat records indicated that the later variants of the Pzr III were still very much a threat to all exsisting soviet tanks by virtue of the spaced armor as well as the schurzen protection enveloping the hull and turret. Where availible, tungsten ammunition providied the 50mm gun of the Pzr III with all of the anti-armor performance of the Panther in a smaller, cheaper, and more efficient package. So please, before you question CMBB's modeling of the Pzr III, understand that the tank was certainly not cannon-fodder; in terms of overall performance and efficiency, it, and not the Panther, was perhaps the superlative AFV of the Axis forces, as realized by the Russians who fought them. Remember that modern day Leopard 2 uses the same protection principles pioneered by the Pzr III, while the technology of the more famous nazi AFVs fell from grace long ago [ September 04, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

I won't pretend to be an expert, but I can't help but wonder if the new optics system is really more realistic than the old one. From what I have come to understand reading various books on armor, the quality of soviet optics was poor enough to make a hit against a target at 1200m or more very unlikely. However after repeatedly using the KVs in the citedal mission against the pz III and IV, I was suprised to see that the KV tankers were achieving about 25% accuracy against staionary targets at 500m, while at that range the panzers had about 80% accuracy. This disparity might be understandable if the skill levels of the crew differed significantly, but the KVs as well as most of the panzers were regulars. So grognards, is this really the realistic accuracy of soviet optics? This demo has made me wonder how the real soviet tankers ever made a kill :confused:

As for the HE perfomance of the T34, remember that the russians used more powerful (and more unstable) explosive in their shells, meaing that the HE performance of the russian 76.2mm is much greater than the german 75mm.

Has anyone else noticed how much this scenario favors the germans? Try playing as the russians and you be lucky to get anything better than total defeat

Luckily for you it was a KV-1S, the weakling of the KV family!

Here is what Zaloga says about the mg in the new vanguard book on the IS-2: [describing a picture of an IS-2 model 1944]"The IS-2 adopted a hull configuration which remained standard until the 1960's. The previous KV heavy tank series had two crewman in the front of the hull, a driver and a machine gunner/radio operator. The second crewman was dropped to save space and permit a better armored bow. The radio was moved to the commanders staion in the turret and the hull machine gun was made fixed and operated by the driver. Although a fixed machine gun might not seem very accurate, tankers who used it insist that they could easily hit a target the size of a fuel drum with a single burst." :eek: [ August 31, 2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

open up your combat mission folder and delete the file called "Combat Mission Bynd Over Prefs" this will delete your current gama settings (and a few other setting including resolution) and restore the defaults

thanks! :cool:

Heh, good question. It was a hotseat game against a human, but honestly I don't think playing the AI would have made it much easier. The AI crew controls the tank either way

where can I find it? :confused:

Thanks for the feedback guys

On small hills lightly wooded map, my force of 4 cromwell VIs and 2 Challengers managed to destroy 3 king tigers and one jagdpanzer IV without taking any losses! I am so proud of myself! I had the challengers fire at the tirgers from 800m through some trees to distract their attention, while the cromwells used their incredible speed to do a flank attack at 200m. The short 75 on the lead cromwell killed two king tigers! Oh how I love combat mission and how it rewards good tactics! :cool:

In the right situation, the PIAT teams can be the most potent tank killers out there. When using PIATs always make sure they are attached to a commander with the combat and stealth bonuses in order to make them the most effective. I had one experience where a Piat in the woods next to a commander took out a Panther at 180 meters and a Pzr IV at 90 meters in one turn! :eek:

Here's a quote from http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html (a translated document from the russian archives that offers insight on what the Americans testing a lended T-34 thought of its armor): "A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)"

Does anyone know exactly how CM deals with trees? Does it matter where the tree sprites are, or does the "woods" area provide an equal amount of cover? I am asking because I remember reading in the CM manual that what you see is not exactly the way the programming says it is, but I also read somewhere that a blank spot (treeless area) in woods doesn't provide full cover. Could someone please clarify this?