c3k

Thank you both. Please let this fall to the bottom of forum, a piece of detritus, never to be heard from again.....

Using a German halftrack, SdKfz 251, I loaded an AT team and squad into it. Zoomed in to take a look and found the left-most squad member floating in air next to the halftrack. All others were inside the halftrack, as would be expected. No, it doesn't affect gameplay, but it is somewhat disconcerting to have levitating troops. Perhaps v1.02 could address this? Thanks, Ken

Well, at least I'm not the only one noticing this. I'd think a burning, abondoned (or damaged by AP rounds) vehicle WOULD count as a kill. BTS? BFC? BFD? Anyone? Anyone? Thanks, Ken

First, this is a great game! Thanks for the work you put into it. Onto the small discrepancy I noted in a scenario included on the disk. (My apologies if this has been noticed before. I missed any mention of it in possible patch corrections.) I had a German squad toss a molotov cocktail onto a T-34. No result. They threw another. The result was a "Top Penetration". Shortly thereafter (same turn, about 3 to 5 seconds?) the Bolshevik crew abandoned the tank. Nothing else could've achieved the kill. At the end of the game, from the results screen, I went back over the map, checking out who did what. Well, that squad did NOT receive credit for the kill. No one did. They should've!! Well, that's my bug report. Ken

Ah, ahem. *Bump* <cough, cough>

Okay, no griping here, just a (admittedly brilliant) idea. Both CMBO and CMBB ship with scenarios/battles. Fine. We can also make our own. Great. We can also add ones which others have made. Better. There are too many!!!! Go over to the Scenario Depot. It is overwhelming. Assume you've downloaded every scenario and copied it into your Scenario folder. How on earth are you going to use that mess? Every time you try to select a game you'll get bogged down. My solution is simple: within the scenario screen we should be able to implement a search. This should be done with a simple check-off menu. Select the sides (if you want), the date (or a range), day, night, weather, map-size, length, force types (all infantry, armor, anything, air-support for one or the other, etc), etc. Then you'll be left with a selection of scenarios from which you could choose more easily. As it is you've got to scroll through a huge list of dissimilar items trying to parse your selection using minimal information. (This is true even on the Scenario Depot site. It's too big.) I have shown the way. Now one of you people need to do the work. I'll critique it when you're done. Oh, and someone send me a CD with all the downloadable scenarios. I don't want to take the time to download each of them myself. Thank you. Ken

M1 _TURBINE_ engine can burn a bunch of different fuel. It's operated mainly on the equivalent of NATO JP-5 and now JP-8. Yep, jet fuel. Pretty similar to diesel and kerosene. I'm not a petrochemical engineer, but they're all about the same as diesel. With the switch to the cheaper, more widely available, less caloric content JP-8, the range of the M-1 has taken a big hit. Now, in an emergency, since it's a computer controlled turbine, you can burn almost anything in there, even gasoline. Ken

That was one of the best posts I've ever seen!! Thanks.

WOW!! Hats off for a fantastically organized site. Very impressive. Please sign me up. Either side. Low level command. (Must delay participating until I receive my copy of CMBB ) Thanks, Ken

To add a tidbit on Soviet optics: I read somewhere (I know, I know), that when a non-Soviet tanker looked through the WWII Soviet gunner's sight, he could clearly see bubbles in the lense. Is that bad enough optics? A grog could ident what book the above anecdote comes from. Sorry. Ken "non-attributable"

C'mon Rune, is that the BEST you could do? I thought you were a grog? Sheeesh. Okay, so case-shot (essentially identical to cannister for game purposes) WAS used? Shrapnel was not? How many total rounds produced and at what points during the war? Were they used universally, or only for assaults, etc? A grog would know........ Thanks, Ken

Yeah, I agree. As for working well in CMBB, I'll have to buy my copy to find out. Anything better? Well, yeah. The Germans used many prepared, semi-improvised and improvised close-in anti-tank weapons. Panzerfausts and ATMM come to mind. Grenade bundles. Teller mines. Satchel charges. Etc. (Two smoke grenades tied together with a short length of twine. Looped over the cannon provides an instant and sustained smokescreen for guy number 2 to place a charge and run.) In short, all sources I've ever seen (and I've read 80% of all books written on WWII ( remember that one?? )), show that the panzerwurfer was a failed design. Ken

Okay, okay, the concept is cool. No, I haven't played the demo yet. Yes, I can understand that in game-play terms the panzerwurfer can actually represent different types of close assault weapons. Okay, great. Brass tacks: the panzerwurfer was basically a hand-thrown anti-tank mine using a HEAT warhead. They were a bad idea. Here's what you do: get a water-balloon and tie a 3 foot streamer to it. Make sure it weighs a few kilo's. Alright, that's your ersatz panzerwurfer. Now, get some buddies together. They're gonna be the bad guys. Give 'em all BB guns. Tell them to try to shoot you. Now, hide in some bushes while your buddies hunt you. Use a passing car to simulate a tank. This is getting good! Okay, throught that panzerwurfer (underhand so the stabilizer will deploy properly) and hope for the car. OW!! OW!! Those BB's hurt! Crap. The water balloon landed 30' away. And I started 10 feet from the moving car. That's how to play panzerwurfer toss. It's a piece of merde. Ken

Gents, Another thought, which also acts as a nice *bump* for this thread which I've started, is the intended use for the shrapnel rounds. It seems (cursory examination only) that all the shrapnel rounds seem to've been produced for anti-aircraft caliber weapons. This would be a standard shrapnel use. Given Soviet production abilities/methods, tactics, etc., I'd be surprised if the shrapnel rounds were used versus ground targets. There is a large difference between shrapnel rounds and cannister rounds. Does CMBB account for this? Again, can anyone show Soviet USE of either shrapnel or cannister? Thanks, Ken

So far we've gained some facts, but nothing to show or prove/assume the Soviets USED Cannister. Okay, the shrapnel round existed. Some bureaucrat even had a plan for a tank load out. But then, bureaucrats throughout history have always had plans. Did the troops ever see the round? If so, how many? Okay, let's say they had 'em (shrapnel rounds actually in the tanks' ammo racks). I'd imagine a shrapnel round, with a timer manually set by the loader, would basically suck. Yeah, that's right. I bet they'd mis-set it, so it would explode too late, at best resembling a normal high explosive round. Again, notwithstanding the great replies so far, did the Soviets actually have a cannister round? Let's also add in the question about the shrapnel round (shown to have existed): were they used? How many were issued, etc. C'mon grogs, stop hiding. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I have not downloaded the CMBB demo on my paltry 56k modem. Alas for me. But I am reading many accounts of CMBB giving the Soviets cannister ammunition. I am not an all-knowing grog, but I've never heard that the Soviets had/used cannister in any quantities. Can someone (more all-knowing and grog-like) elaborate on this subject? Sources, production, calibers, etc. The usual. Thanks. Ken

Gents, A quick question: since we're debating the merits of various MG's, does anyone have the actual cyclic rates of the following MG's? MG34 MG42 US .30 US .30 water cooled (M1917?) US .50 M2 (is that the WWII model?) Bren Vickers Soviet Maxim (1910) Soviet DP Soviet DPM Soviet DT (in infantry role) Soviet SG-43 Soviet DShK If a MG grog has the cyclic values, I think I can make a convincing point on why the MG-42 was so effective. Maybe. Ken "shooting in the dark"

...never occurred. I know this for a fact. You see, during Rune s preview weekend, since I couldn't be there, I fired up my IL-2 Sturmovik game. I am exhausted. I flew ALL OVER the East Front the entire weekend. I did not see a single battle. We need more investigations into these so-called CMBB sightings. Ken "standing on a grassy knoll"

Nice

Exactly!! I started this for a reason. It's not to see a zig-zagging tank while it moves. I'm okay with a zero radius turn for movement. But, I'd like to see a penalty for firing for those tanks which did not have this capability. So, show everyone pivoting to follow a target, but if the tank couldn't do it in real life, give it an accuracy penalty when it shoots. Ken

Gents, I'm aware that the Germans used highly developed transmissions to allow their tanks to rotate in place. One track going forward, the other in reverse. Did the Russians have this capability? Or did they have to brake a track and move the other, slewing the vehicle? This would be critical in an encounter with a slow-turreted or assault-gun chassis. The initial Soviet hull orientation would probably not change to facilitate rapid turret rotation were this true. I know CMBO uses a combination of turret and chassis rotation to help lay a gun on target faster, but is this appropriate to all combatants? Ken (edited....because I needed to.) [ June 30, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Guys, I've got the real scoop on the release date: Each week, it gets half-way closer to being done. Ken

On topic again, I've dusted off my copy of Jentz' "Panzertruppen, vol I", and found many references to tank tactics focussed on the platoon commander and company commander trying for the kill, with their entire command, against the enemy command tank. Then, fixing the rest of the enemy in position while a manuever element takes advantage of the confusion and attacks in the rear or on a flank. More accurate sighting systems and better command and control seem to count for a lot. The penalties involved in a one man or two man turret go far beyond a simple rate-of-fire issue. As for Rommels specific tactics, I gathered more that he would absorb a bit of the attack, then accurately judge when the U.K./Commonwealth troops' momentum was slowing, then unleash an armored attack. He'd absorb the attack using a combination of Pak fronts and minefields. That element of judgment was crucial. See his comments on El Alamein. He felt the timing for the counterattack had been missed. Ken

Wisbech, One post war study (sorry, since I've forgotten the reference in the dim passage of time, this can only be regarded with understandable scepticism) examined the level at which men in combat formed bonds. These were the "I'd charge a machine-gun nest with my buddy" level of bonds. In the U.S. Army (not seeing combat until '43 in ETO/NA) the unit with which men identified was their squad. In the German Army that level of identification/bonding was at the company level. Hence, if a U.S. company was under fire, as long as their immediate squad-mates did not need them to do something above and beyond the call, the U.S. GI would do as required, not more. (Yes, it's a generalization, backed by this study - which I cannot reference.) Their German counterpart squad, if part of their _company_ was under fire, would react much more vigorously. Culture played a role. A lot of accounts/biographies of German soldiers talk about group singing. That would be an aberration in a U.S. unit, major holidays excepted. Another study showed that for every 100 physical combat casualties the U.S. suffered, there were 103 deemed psychologically unfit for combat. In the German army for each 100 casualties there were only 5 deemed unfit for non-physical reasons. (Yes, I'm aware there could be many cynical reasons describing the vast difference.) Ken (no quotable titles or authors so take it or leave it as you will. My memory may have introduced errors.)

I've been watching the release date in the various computer gaming magazines. I've noticed a trend: it's always listed as being in the _next_ quarter. In January, I saw a release of Q2, '02. As of last month, it's listed as Q3 '02. I suspect as September rolls around it'll change to Q4. Ken "looking on the bright side"