c3k

^^^ To the OP, as pointed out, there exists a possibility that the weapons are damaged, unrecoverable, or simply not chosen. I could post a number of reasons why this would be so, but it would be a waste of time. Try a test: kill a squad with a sniper, then try to pick up weapons. Next, restart, but kill the squad with mortars or other HE, then try to pick up weapons. (Use a vehicle crew, out of small arms ammo, as a picker-upper.) Repeat the test 10 times (at least) for each type of dead squad. Let us know if there is a correlation between type of death and weapon availability. Next, try different terrain. Kill a squad with a sniper in open ground. Then kill a squad with a sniper in marsh. Did the same # of weapons, on average, get recovered? Etc. This is complex. A one-off, "hey, I coudn't get the cool stuff" instance is nearly meaningless. But, yeah, I feel your pain. Ken

Nitouche, Je ne parle pas francais. (Yeah, and I'm sure that my rudimentary attempt at saying "I do not speak French" should make that clear.) I do not understand what you're trying to show. Of course grenades should be able to be thrown over a wall. The first three pictures you posted show that capability. The final picture is the one that I think has highlighted what may be a problem. Is that what you're trying to show? Summary: a wall blocks grenades if there is a break in the wall. Thanks, Ken

Hmm, funny how my heuristic porn block jumped onto this... It would depend on the crew, the tank, and the shell. Some guys say they saw the armor glow red. Others blacked out, came to with smoke and a mess, so they bailed...only to find the tank was good and there was no penetration. Regardless, if your tank is getting hit, you're not in a good spot. It'd be the rare crew who would stay and fight, in or out of the tank, if they were getting pounded in a set location.

Noted, and reported.

Thanks for finding and verifying... Um, any savegames? Ken

Ditto: your screenshots are very well chosen. C'mon, more!!!

Runners from higher hq? Pigeons? Signal flares? Lights? Hand gestures? Does it HAVE to be a radio?

This is noted. Thanks.

Bah! You are weak. Your lack of fortitude will result in defeat. A battle is a test of WILL, not a test of tactics. A TRUE commander would order the PzIII crew to DISMOUNT and advance upon the enemy Sherman armed with only their sidearms and crowbars. With furious energy and implacable resolve, the 5 crewmembers, eschewing the protection of the Krupp steel armored PzIII and exposing themselves to the dangers of the battlefield, clambering upon the Sherman, prising open the hatches, gunning down the Ami crewmembers, would, indeed, cast an ominous foreshadow of defeat over the American forces. Seeing this, they would beg for mercy. You have cast this aside.

The crossbrace over the doors would be the main reason the doors would be avoided when exiting. Not too bad for entry, but getting 8 or so men out in a hurry?

pawter, I'd like to look at this. PM me in my profile and we'll exchange emails. I'll need your opponents turn and his password, as well, if possible. Thanks, Ken

If any of you who have said this happens REPEATEDLY has a savegame, this would be the time to speak up. PM me for my email... Thanks, Ken

John Kettler, Suspension "rock", see my bold, below: Regards.

Hard drives fail. Viruses attack. Ruin is spread. Regular backups: you need to bite the bullet and do them. Then, you need to test them. (I was happily thinking all my backups were good. Hey, I had a green check mark. Then, my drive failed. Cool. I have my backups on another drive. Ooops. No I didn't. I had garbage on the backup disk. I rebuilt the machine and used a new backup software. After I made my initial backup, I physically removed my main drive. I inserted a new, blank, hard-drive. Then I tried my backup. Yep, it worked. Cool. Now I had 3 drives: the one I use, the backup with up to date copies, and the blank one I used as a test, which now sits on the shelf with a clean install from the day I built my machine, ready to go...) If you don't test, it doesn't work.

I've found some data, here: http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_penetration_adv.php I have NO idea about its validity. That website gives 2 pdr (40mm) as having 2 ammo types, the solid AP is lighter, at 1.08kg, and the AP HE is heavier at 1.18kg. (That seems backwards to me, but I do not have other data available, so I will use it as it exists.) The first penetration range on the table is 100m. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say the first 100m of flight takes place in a vacuum. Against RHA at 30 degrees, the lighter shell penetrates 66mm. The heavier goes through 64mm. (There may be some design issues with shell hardness/shape. Shrug, I'm taking it as it is presented.) Both have MV's of 808 m/s. KE = 1/2mv^2 1/2*1.08*808*808 = 352,546.56 kg m^2/s^2 or, roughly 350kJ. (I used the lighter round to purposely understate the ability of the armor to absorb KE. If we use the 1.18kg round, the KE is 385kJ, very close to, if not the same as, the number JasonC quoted. If 66mm of armor aborbs 385kJ, then that gives a rule of thumb of 5 or 6 kJ per mm. Yeah, that's nothing I'd quote. The real armor effects are far more complex.) So, 350kJ can penetrate 66mm of RHA at 30 degrees. (Given the LARGE assumptions I've pointed out, above.) Going extremely far out on a limb, we can state that the PzIII's 30mm of armor would take 1/2 of the KE from the penetrator. (Angles, assuming RHA, etc. all tossed out of the way for ease of this back-of-the-envelope calculation.) That puts about 175kJ into the fighting compartment... That makes the 80kJ burster look even better. Round numbers, that HE filler adds an additional 50% of behind armor effects to the penetration. Oh, that is at muzzle velocity. The benefit of the filler only gets better as the velocity, hence KE, drops off with range. That same table gives 1,000m penetration as 35mm. At that point, the round barely gets through the PzIII's 30mm of armor. The KE is approaching 0. The 80kJ of the burster charge is 100% of the behind armor effects. I disagree that HE filler is worthless for igniting ammunition. All the above is quite rough, but the numbers point out the trend and are within an order of magnitude, at least, of the effects. Ken (One last cocktail nampkin comment: that 80,000kJ added by the burster is the same amount of energy as a 500 pound engine block moving at 60mph. I would not shrug off a hit by a engine block at that speed. It is a significant amount of energy for a human to be exposed to. It may not blow the turret off a tank, but it has a good chance in a closet-sized space, of hitting ammo or hurting a human.)

I agree that the propellent in the ammo is the primary means of destroying a vehicle. (And I like your final sentence...that needs to be up on a wall in various armor schools somewhere.) If the ammo cooks off (talking strictly WWII tanks!), the men inside will die. However, another method of taking out the tanks exist, and that is wounding the crew. The loss of KE due to penetration is significant, unless the armor is overmatched by orders of magnitude. Examples: 88L70 vs. Stuart; US Abrams vs. well, a lot. In other matchups, say a 75L48 vs. Sherman frontal armor, the loss of energy is significant. In that case, the burster charge makes a difference. That burster charge creates large chunks of hot metal traveling at significant velocities inside the tank. Yes, the PENETRATION also produced chunks of hot metal traveling at significant velocities. More chunks of hot metal flying around the inside is better at achieving the goal of killing the crew or cooking off ammo. More is better. If the KE which is delivered to the target tank is changed to heat the armor, that is worthless for killing the tank. Any energy which deforms the armor is worthless. A dented tank can still fight. Any energy which is used to transfer momentum to the target tank is worthless. What matters, as you've alluded to, is the energy dumped inside the fighting compartment. Then, once that energy is delivered INSIDE the tank, what it does in there is critical. My question still stands: how much energy is used in penetrating the armor? (Rexford would know. RIP.) Thanks, Ken

I think that something along this line should eventually make it in. The Soviets used shelters for crews (and sometimes guns, as well), to protect their pakfronts from German artillery. I could see a dugout with the crew emerging to man the gun, as PART of the gun emplacement. Ken

Re: the KE of the 2 lber as stated by JasonC. If the KE is on the order of 400,000J, and the burster charge has an energy of roughly 100,000J, we are MISSING a comparison. What is the POST-PENETRATION KE of the projectile? The amor, before failure, ABSORBS some KE. (Note the many reports of dents and glowing armor from non-penetrating hits. It takes energy to deform and heat the metal.) So, if the KE which is transferred into the fighting compartment is LESS than the KE which is delivered to outer surface of the armor, the relative power of the burster charge becomes more important. How much is the KE reduced by penetration?

It's kind of interesting in comparing the steps Erwin listed for the game with the real-life tactics used to overcome enemy defenses. I think it shows how well the game simulates the real event. To get a more open battle would take a larger map. Put a couple of companies on the attack on a 2km by 2km map against a company (+) holding key terrain and it should play very differently. Even more so if the defender has to hold one or more of several objectives.

Unfair until the engine upgrade to CMBN. But, recognizing that, CMFI. There are many reasons, some gameplay polish, some opene spaces, some just the force rations in '43. For example, I enjoy the challenge of a Stuart attacking my infantry. No 'fausts or 'schrecks make it a VERY good tank against infantry. In CMBN, it has to keep a distance.

"briefly appearing" and "10 rounds fired" is interesting. At a minimum, I'd expect that to be 10 seconds of target in view. I really think it'd be more like 20-30 seconds. Shrug. "Spec Ops" types infers elite status. Compare that to the training of non-infantry types.

Ack! I was kidding when I said we needed more action. What are you doing to these men??? (Of course, if it works, I'll say that I helped prompt this bold and tactically decisive action. ) Ken

Awesome!!! Thanks for doing this. My words would be totally inadequate to the effort you've put into this. Regards, Ken

Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, bunkers can be a pain.

Mord, I'm not sure about the PSW233. The second one has been reported.