c3k

The mantlet (as I'm sure you know) of the Panther should be 100mm. The turret front was also 100mm. That puts those penetration figures pretty close, but not enough overmatching, especially with the curvature. (HE burster replaced with inert was a British decision, no? The US kept the HE charge in it, or that's what I always thought.) I would be very surprised if CMBN ignores shatter gap since CMBO had it. Your comment re: best case. Does that mean that you think 76mm is a bit too good? Ken

First, I must flog myself for my inability to spell "belligerent". There. Second, I do not know what CM uses for penetration vs. non-penetration. Any attempt to correlate CM hit text with real world physics could be subject to correction. Third, the WaPruef 6 penetration data was most definitely not pencil whipped. I have hints and clues scattered amongst various texts, but it seems that they procured armor, set it up, then moderated the powder charge to simulate the velocity for various ranges. I.e., 1/3 charge for 2,000m test, which was actually fired on a range which was 500m long. (That previous was a total fabrication, only meant to illustrate a test technique.) So, you are correct that they did not sit a Panther in a field and gradually move a gun in closer until it penetrated. (In point of fact, the shell had to penetrate 5 times at that range to count. (Smaller calibers needed more penetrations to count.)) What they did was take armor out of production and set it up. They did use enemy weapons when available. These tests were conducted in mid '44. They had plenty of 75mm M3 guns to test. So... armor plate on a stand, guns with reduced charge to simulate longer range, armor at an angle... no, it's not the same thing as shooting at a tank. But, if AAR's are anything to go by, their test methodology produced results which corresponded exceedingly well with battlefield results. Ken

Jentz, "Germany's Panther Tank", pp127-129, lists various penetration ranges. NOTE: These are German penetration tables. The criteria for "penetration" was different for all the belligerants. The British, for example, only required half the shell to be "inside" the tank. The Germans, if I remember correctly, required a through and through hole, with the penetrator inside the tank in a condition to burst. (Meaning an APHE shell was intact.) Regardless of the specifics of my memory, the German criteria for calling it a "penetration" were more rigorous than that of any other belligerant. These penetration data use the German penetration criteria AND assume that the Panther (being a target) is facing 30 degrees from the firer. This make the armor more resistant to penetration, obviously. Cromwell 75mm M3 cannot penetrate ANY part of the Panther front at any range. (0m for Turret, Mantlet, Glacis, and Nose.) This is the same for Shermans and Churchills equipped with the same gun. (Ditto for the 6 pdr APCBC.) The Sherman 76mm M1A1 penetrates... Turret...700m Mantlet...100m Glacis...0m Nose...0m So...want to run some 30 degree offset tests?

I would think that your penultimate oddball, "ricochet forward top hull penetration" is exactly what you were testing for. That could well be the dread (to the Panther) ricochet down from the mantlet through the hull top. Now it's time to dig through references to see if the turret front/mantlet is resisting as it should... Thanks, Ken

For me, it's the ability to watch from afar, much like PanzerBlitz/Panzer Leader, or, at my will, zoom in to ASL level - and closer - and watch the action. Replay allows me to see EVERY vignette from EVERY angle. Here's where it came to life for me: I was US, attacking Germans. One US team was firing on a German team, heavy forest. Eventually, the German team was down to one man, who soon surrendered. There he was, on his knees, hand up (hande hoche!) to the first US team. Meanwhile, the other US team was executing its flanking move. That team saw the German JUST as he was surrendering. As he knelt there, the second team shot him in the back. That was a kick in the gut. It highlighted relative spotting: team 2 did not know the status of the enemy. Team 1 did, and they'd stopped shooting. It also, for one of the first times, brought up a "moral" issue in a game, in visual splendor with 1:1 modelling. It's not the same when your enemy is limited to saying "zerg zerg". So, removed airborne perspective down to an in-the-weeds view and everything in between. What else does that?

Perhaps it is the ammo or a peculiarity of the range/relative elevation? I can make an excuse for why your test has failed to show a deflection off the mantlet down into the Panther. Here goes... The Cromwell VII's 75L40 gun is poor bomb tosser. In order to reach 500m range, the trajectory of the shell must arc in. It is a minor arc, all things considered, but then the ability to hit the lower 1/3 of the Panther mantlet requires some very specific trajectories. The relatively low muzzle velocity of the weapon you've chosen may have something to do with it. (Lower 1/3 of the mantlet explained: if it hits the upper 1/3, it deflects upwards, agreed? Toss those out. If it hits dead on, then the mantlet "absorbs" the impact. The "dead on" zone is more than just an imaginary line, it is an area... The blunter a shell nose, the larger the "dead on" zone. APCBC (APC), etc., all "dig in" to a greater extant than a pure ogive. These shells would see a larger "dead zone" than the cruder pure ogive. Hence, as shell manufacturing and technology advanced, the less likey the shell was to deflect downwards. Roughly approximating the "dead zone" of the mantlet to be 1/3 of the total area is grossly correct. This leaves 1/3 at the bottom.) Now, to test it some more, bring the Cromwells in closer. I'd start at 50m and work back in 50m intervals. If I were to test it, that is... 1143 iterations show a willingness... (Partial and complete penetrations: weak spots, poor castings, better shells with a slightly higher MV, etc. These could explain them. (Smack in the middle of the gunsight, for example.)) As stated, I can use that as an EXCUSE. I don't know the precise trajectory from 500m and how that would intersect the Panther mantlet. My suggestion, however, stands: bring it in closer or use a higher MV weapon. The flatter the trajectory the better the chance of the oft-sought mantlet ricochet. Ken

Quite obviously, this is EXACTLY what is being simulated when playing in WeGo and your men slide the last few meters into position.

Hmm, the issue is not the veracity, rather the vitriole. There it a huge difference between pointing out that the Kar98k and Garand share(d) the same .wav file and stating that it would be an improvement to split them out from one another, versus stating that the lack of separate sound files for the two weapons proves that CMx2 is utter rubbish, should never have been brought to market, was only done to put a cheap buck in BF.C's pocket, and that every other game does it better. In short, the individual in question has been madly grinding away at an axe. He has lost any credibility he may've once had. He no longer has an unbiased perspective. He is the anti-fanboi, the "hate-boi". He had done some good work for CMx1, but HATED the move to CMx2. This has colored every post he has made. (And for the record, much of what he posts as "fact" is "opinion". The fact that it is his opinion does not make it correct, or true.) It's a loss. His, not ours. Ken

In a PBEM, this couldn't have been made more clear. I had to cross an open field to get to a bocage line which bordered a town. I laid down a beautiful smoke screen on the bocage, then QUICKED my men across the fields. It was great. I was a friggin' genius. Until the smoke cleared just before my men reached the bocage. They were about 10-15m short as the lasp wisps faded away... My entire Canadian platoon was wiped out, almost to the man. You see, my opponent, seeing the smoke screen, rushed men to HIS side of the bocage. They were in position just in time. The smoke cleared and they had point blank targets right in front of them. It didn't take long, at least. My lesson: - Mix HE in with that Smoke if it's going to be used to screen an assault. - Time the Smoke better, such that it doesn't disappear BEFORE your men cross the exposed ground. Ken

Nice link. It also carries a connotation, at least for me, of massive artillery preparation. This is FAR more artillery than for other attacks. Set-piece attacks need a lot of logistics build up. Montgomery seemed to be the main practitioner for the Allies. Long delays during the buildup, massive ordnance, short advance, dig in, repeat.

^^^^ LMFAO!! Well played, sir.

Too bad the "usual suspects" flocked to a good review and spammed it. Shrug.

Hexes. Hexes make everything better...

Capt Mike, I certainly hope this won't sound like I'm on the "fanboi" wagon, but... Without knowing specifically what you were facing, it is hard to form an opinion as to the relevance of your complaint. Obviously, you think the game isn't realistic. That's what you stated. But, without seeing the forces and terrain, no one else can form their own opinion. I know you've been around these forums for awhile (quite a bit in CMSF?), so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but there may've been other factors at play. 1) Direct fire suppression: was your infantry support TARGETing, TARGET LIGHTing, and was it at a KNOWN enemy, or was it AREA FIRE? That alone points out 4 different levels of potential effectiveness. TARGET LIGHT as AREA FIRE is the least effective. 2) If a 60mm round detonates 50m off-target, does it matter? (Recognize that, as I believe has been confirmed by BF.C, HE has been somewhat "nerfed" to counter the enforced "stacking" of 1 team to an 8m action spot. This solution is great for realistic targeting of squads and platoons with artillery. It is less good when firing at an individual.) It sounds like you were targeting a 3 (?) man HQ team and a 2 man LMG team. It is HARD to nail 5 individuals with indirect fire. 3) Were the Germans dug in, behind defilade, sheltering behind bocage, etc? 4) The morale status of the Germans/US makes a HUGE difference in "toughness". If these were elite SS with +2 leadership (and possible fanatics, though the player never knows about that), then they would not run. Similarly, if the US were green, -2, then all their firepower would be less effective and losing 3 men from the German HE would take the wind right out of their sails. 5) Difficulty level: If you play on ELITE or IRON, you won't know if the Germans get light wounded (yellow). How do you know they're not laying there, bleeding from shrapnel due to the arty, and just holding on and firing back due to fanatacism? Equally, how do you know that there isn't a company just back of the treeline, lending moral support to those in front? Now, I'm not saying that ANY of the above are the case. Nor am I postulating that you're wrong. I _am_ trying to highlight how you could be glossing over some possible explanations for the behavior you related to us. In my experience with the game, not having been personally attacked by 82mm or 57mm fire, it gets MOST things right. Especially if you give allowance for outliers. In fact, it's the outliers which give the game the narrative, to me. I zoom in and am amazed at the one guy from the squad who survives all incoming and keeps fighting. (Audey Murphy?) That is more fun than a regimented mathematical approach with no exceptional outcomes. I've slogged through "University of Hard Knocks". That sucked. Burn up a company to get a squad over the bridge. Use that squad to help a company get a platoon up. Then that platoon+ helps get a company over. A battalion gets reduced to a company just to gain a lodgement. It's a grind. I've also ripped along through "Devil's Descent". A fun romp. Two TOTALLY different game experiences. If you have a savegame, have you tried the platoon assault again? Was the outcome the same? Try it 10 times, replicating your orders as best you can, and see how many times the Germans hold out. You may've gotten the one outlier the first time. Is that platoon assault the only reason you don't enjoy the game, or are there more reasons? Regards, Ken

CM:A is a great game. It showcases the ability of the CM series to model tactical strengths and shortcomings. As MikeyD stated, the Soviet units fought the way they did because they had to. Ditto for the Muj. Both have very different fighting styles than the US Marines in CMSF. This can also be seen in CMBN/CW when comparing Commonwealth forces to US forces. The CM modelling/coding accurately replicates what every small unit leader was facing. That is the incredible strength of this game. If you haven't downloaded the free demos of the various other CM games, you should. Ken

I'm not sure about a new game, but I do know that most of my attacks have more in common with Pickett's Charge than with anything they teach at Leavenworth.

Even worse is a Battle of the Bulge documentary which uses footage from the execrable movie of the same name. "Roll out the barrels, and we'll have a good ol' time", or somesuch. Sigh.

Aaaaaaggggghhhhhh! Where's the NEXT installment??? Great job guys. Thanks for doing this. Ken

For the newbs... AP is solid shot. A bullet shaped hunk of metal. APHE is a bullet shaped hunk of metal...with an explosive in it. (Read Amizeur's post.) It is meant to significantly increase the "behind armor" effects of a penetration. And they worked very well. (Being a hollowed out "bullet", it is properly called "shell", rather than "shot" which refers to a solid mass.) The extra letters, such as APBC, means "Armor Piercing, Ballistic Capped". I suggest a deep internet search. Suffice it to say, there were many reasons to continually improve the design of the projectiles. HEAT is "High Explosive, Anti Tank". It penetrates armor solely due to the CHEMICAL power of a specially shaped explosive charge. Whereas the "AP" type of rounds, in all their iterations, depend on kinetic energy (velocity primarily), HEAT is totally different. APHE =/= HEAT The above is VERY basic. Do some searching... Ken

Vision blocks: they are better than nothing, but they don't compare to normal vision - at all.

Infantry will not use all their grenades in a single WeGo turn if given a TARGET order. That is on purpose. Imagine if a squad had, say, 10 grenades and threw 8 of them in one turn. They'd be useless in any future assault. They use about 1/3 of their supply against a given area target. The above is ROUGH and ONLY applies to area target. Be aware that grenades only get thrown into the adjacent action spot. Adjust your positioning and targeting orders accordingly. You can leverage this by using 2 teams to assault and support. Have team 1 grenade the building, then move into it, with a PAUSE. Team 2 moves to join team 1 and TARGETS the building. This takes careful planning. After team 1 has grenaded the building and they're still paused, team 2 arrives and starts grenading. Here's the crux of the timing: team 2 MUST stop TARGETing the building before team 1 enters, or team 1 may incur casualties. (Allow time for team 2's grenade fuses.) So... Team 1 TARGET, PAUSE 30, QUICK w/COVERED ARC into building Team 2 QUICK (to join Team 1's location, taking, say, 15 seconds) TARGET, PAUSE 15, QUICK away, with a FACE back to the building. No, it's not pretty, but it works. Sometimes. YMMV. Ken

I'm not sure, but I think that one of the bunkers has ammo resupply which includes 7.92K. I workaround would be to open the battle in the editor, drop a couple of these bunkers in the setup zone (appropriately nerfed), and use them to ammo-up your squads in the setup. A (slightly) better workaround would be for scenario designers to include such a bunker. But, yeah, it'd be better if 7.92K were available in the various vehicles. Ken

I've tried both techniques. Remember, if you're going to use it for indirect, it is more likely to hit intervening foliage. I find it's usually right over the heads of my own troops. So, for indirect, find an open spot with no obstacles for a GOOD distance out front. For direct, I _try_ to keep them far enough back so they've not targeted by enemy small arms or squad level mortars. I'm often not successful at either endeavor. Ken

Totally from memory, with all that entails, it seems that the German grenades caused a lot of minor - from a medical viewpoint - wounds. A lot of little pieces of metal. US caused fewer, but more significant, wounds. Now, having said that, what is worse, one big piece of metal in you or 5 little pieces? (Both took guys out of the fight. The German grenade seemed to be more survivable, although that could've been due to medical treatment differences.) All the above from pure memory. Don't quote me. Ken

Tank Hunter, The screenshots you posted certainly show a puzzling situation. I'd think, without any other interference, that the nearby team should see the tank. Also, after destroying the tank, there should be NO chance of the tank crew surprising that team. Savegame? Ken