c3k

^^^ Again, repeating the same source does not make it more reliable. Recce vehicles, halftracks, PzIVs, are more likely than a King Tiger. A Panther is possible, but strong arguments could be made for not leading with one. German source corroboration would be nice. "Battle in the Mist", vol. 1-3, give great detail. The German forces were halftracks and PzIVs, with Pieper as part of that column and present.

Peiper/trois ponts/57mm: I would like to se a German source state what type of vehicle led the column and how/if it was destroyed. Otherwise, Cole's reference is not supported. Traveling, atm, so cannot check.

LOL... Some thoughts. The panzerschreck was not horribly inaccurate. Hitting the broadside of a barn, or a stationary tank, at 100m should not be considered difficult. I would think it would get harder, as we all "feel" that it should, out to 200m. However, I have no idea what the "proper" hit percentage at 200m should be, nor how rapidly accuracy should degrade from 100m to 200m. Are different targets harder to hit, in-game, than others? Is a Panhard the same as a Jeep the same as a Panther the same as an IS-2? Does the game use the same targeting/accuracy algorithm for all rocket-propelled projectiles? At 50% effective range, does the bazooka's accuracy equal the 'schreck equal the 'faust? Is there a reason why it should be different? (Meaning, if 'faust has max effective range of 100m, is its 50m accuracy the same as the 'schreck's 100m (max effective 200m)?) Are all iron-sight weapons treated the same with regard to range estimation errors? Is there a credit for higher muzzle velocity (less drop, and therefore less sensitivity to range errors)? Is there a credit for a ranging stadia on the weapon? Is there a credit for a dedicated anti-tank soldier to be using the weapon? I would contend that the first issue would be to come up with some sort of baseline, real-world, accuracy at 100m, 150m, and 200m. Ken "gasoline on the fire"

Absolutely. If we changed the game so that the first time a soldier is wounded, your motherboard melts, many players would modify their assault tactics. (Think about it: a melted motherboard could cause $50 to $2,500 in damages, depending on what's in your box and how far the damage extends. If you take any wounded soldier and ask him, "I can turn back time and have you NOT get wounded, but it'll cost you a random amount from $50 to $2,500", I'd think EVERYONE would say "HELL, YES!") Next, tell the player that they need to deposit the ownership of their house and car into an escrow account. If any soldier in CM dies, that escrow gets transferred to...me. Now, imagine how slowly the game would play out. And the rage-quit when the motherboard suddenly melts due to short artillery round. I would never play such a game. Even ignoring real-world consequences, having pixeltruppen fear for their lives would make for a very long and unsatisfying game, realistic though it may be. Ken

A user sent me a pm requesting to know what mods I use. I've included a screenshot of them, below. For CMBN, I use a VERY limited suite of mods. For CMRT, it's much more heavily modded (my Z file is 3.55 GB). As a beta tester, mods can get in the way. If the game crashes, the first question is, "was it stock or modded?" If it was modded, then the crash is not valid. It may've been due to the mod. (Unlikely, but possible.) The only valid way to test the game as it is "out of the box", is to use it "out of the box". There are others who have gone much more deeply into the modding rabbit hole... Ken

Well, there seems to be a new machinegun about to supplant the MG3...the HK121, known as the MG5. MG5 seems to be a lot more "standard"; no more recoiling barrel and dual lugs. The HK manual states the HK121/MG5 has 3 ROFs: 640, 720, and 800. It uses a standard rotating bolt/gas operation system. I "assume" the ROF is controlled by changing the gas port. I'm not sure what the status of the MG5 program really is...e.g., has it entered production and is it replacing the MG3? Shrug... It represents a solid move towards the ROF used by everyone else.

Tell me again what the MG3 ROF is? And why it has three different bolt weights?

Just stumbled on this...much as your recce team stumbled on that Panther! I like it: when a commander is confident enough to send a jeep to take out the enemy's spearhead, victory cannot be far behind.

There is a LOT of historical gunnery data for tank main guns. We can (and have) examine all sorts of engagements by all sorts of guns at all sorts of distances and other geometries. This gives a very solid baseline of what gunnery performance is acceptable and which is not. The debates center on extrapolated performance, not historical norms. (For the most part.) WRT modern ATGM systems, such as dual mode radar/laser riding, salvo firing batteries, with interlinked battle management systems cueing off one another's targets, well, it's all guesswork. That's part of the problem. Unknowns: - How actual battlefield performance will measure up to trials. (It's usually at least one order of magnitude worse...with historical weapon systems.) - How will countermeasures affect the ATGM search/detect/guidance systems? - How will clutter (foliage) affect the system? - How well will defensive countermeasures defeat the system's guidance? - How well will terminal defensive systems (APS, ERA, passive armor) work against the systems? - How well will tactics be modified to thwart the system? Those are just some topics off the top of my head. Yeah, it'd be nice to have real-world data on it...but we don't.

Backpack mini-guns... I saw one in a movie once. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=predator+minigun+scene&&view=detail&mid=A462BA2AA7304B1F4080A462BA2AA7304B1F4080&FORM=VRDGAR

The higher the unit's experience and motivation levels, the more they will obey restrictive orders.

Just as Brits called every German tank a "Tiger" (not misidentified, just a term meaning "German tank"), and many tanks were actually misidentified as a Tiger, it was common to blame any sort of aimed rifle fire as being caused by a "sniper". I would be leery of adding too many snipers into a battle if you're just relying on the memoir accounts of the guys on the receiving end...unless you just like to have them in there. And that's fine, too.

This debate is fascinating. Seriously. The US Army had a heavy weapon which could work as an LMG (Lewis Gun), but replaced it with the BAR. ("Replaced" is not the right term. I'm not sure if the Lewis Gun was ever considered to be distributed to every squad.) As mentioned, the M1919 weighed a little more and brought all the benefits of belt feed. Right now, the USMC has taken out all the M249s from squads and replaced them the the M27. (The M249s are still "there", and supposedly available to commanders to use if they see fit. I'm not sure what level of command has that authority or where and how the "extra" M249s are stored so they would be available to the squads. I doubt they're kept immediately at hand.) So, the belt-fed squad automatic weapon is being replaced by the fixed-barrel, 30-round magazine fed, "BAR Light" M27. The similarities are interesting. Classifying a weapon as "Light Machinegun" or "Squad Automatic Weapon" seems to mean that weapon will be treated very differently. Naming matters. The question remains, why should the name matter? How should a squad be equipped?

Oh, you've won the Internet for the day!!! The Lewis Gun: good enough for galaxy conquering Imperial Stormtroopers. (Of course, that all happened Long Ago. )

IAR: Kinda funny... The HK416 uses a piston system, similar to Adams Arms, POF, LWRCI and other AR builders. The benefit is the cooler/cleaner BCG and consequent ability for massive amounts of firing without overheating that part of the weapon. (The barrel is just as liable to overheat. Love cooking the oil out of the metal...on someone else's!) Yeah, I like the piston over the DI. Reading the reasoning for adoption was the funny part. One aimed shot is the equivalent of 4 M249 rounds. Really??? By that reasoning, they should disable the full auto capability and get "better" results. The weapon looks just like the other squad weapons, so the gunner can "hide" in the squad. And, it's lighter. Oh...it also reduces collateral damage. Yeah, that's what a good combat platform is designed for in this day and age. I'd love to hear some real AARs from units which have had experience with both M249 and the M27. It seems like a step back. Lewis not an automatic rifle: Yes, good reasoning, but why keep going with the BAR after the Garand was adopted? Just for the full auto capability in a light weapon. (By "light" I mean in comparison to the Lewis...which weighed about he same as the MG-34.) Ken

The Lewis gun seems to have been carried on by the Soviets in the DP-28 design. (I'm sure there were differences...no references handy.) Of course, it could just be that the only similarity is their use of the dish magazine.

Hey, if someone offered me the chance to purchase any of those three, I'd buy the Lewis. It was a pretty interesting design and certainly did the job. As far as Bren vs. BAR vs. Lewis, I think there are some very knowledgeable firearms folks who will see this thread and give some good information as to the whys and wherefores. Ken

The Lewis gun had a pretty cool phase-change cooling system. The lack of barrel change, the weight, and the cost/complexity of manufacture all probably conspired to ensure a newer weapon would be fielded.

Yeah, that's why they shifted to the Tiger II. From Wikipedia (sorry, I'll get my groggier references out later, if needed): Production of the Tiger I began in August 1942, initially at a rate of 25 per month and peaking in April 1944 at 104 per month. 1,355 had been built by August 1944, when production ceased. Deployed Tiger I's peaked at 671 on 1 July 1944.[28] It took about twice as long to build a Tiger I as another German tank of the period. When the improved Tiger II began production in January 1944, the Tiger I was soon phased out. The Tiger II design started in mid-43. (I'll pull my books if the date really matters to someone.) Once Tiger II was shown to work, Tiger I contracts ceased, with existing contracts prolonging production as late as it did. The only reason they produced the Tiger II was due to the fact that the Tiger I was considered obsolete. It was the furthest extension of the PzI/II/III/IV style of tank design. The Tiger II was an extension of the Panther design philosophy of sloped armor, amongst other characteristics. But, sure, the Tiger I was still effective right through the end of the war, especially on the West/Italian Fronts.

I'm not going to add to anything which has already been written about your questions. There's a lot of good advice there, already. Instead, I'll suggest you pick one of the smaller battles and play it repeatedly. Keep doing it until you have zero casualties and a total victory. Sure, by the 2nd or 3rd play-through you'll have sussed out the enemy dispositions, forces, and actions. So what? This is an exercise meant for you to learn how to handle your troops and to experiment with some of the advice you've been given. For example, I never use Assault. Instead, I split the squad and give separate orders to the teams. Another example: Timing is crucial in how you coordinate your force's movement. Yet, if you don't practice, you'll never get a feel for how long it takes to QUICK vs MOVE or FAST. Or, how long it'll take to get that demo team up next to the building and BLAST the wall down. The only way to do this is through experience. Better to gain the first lessons on a "training" battle than on a larger one which you've invested more effort into. Just my .02. Welcome aboard. Ken

Having been raised by the man, I'm pretty sure that wasn't it.

How many tank commanders would ignore their driver and risk stalling due to fuel starvation in the midst of combat? Unit commanders would ensure only vehicles with sufficient fuel would be available. Others would be left behind. (I only ever ran out once. Used to hover near empty despite my father's warnings. 16 and poor... Finally pushed it too far. Ran out 5 miles from home. Used a phone in a nearby house, back in the old days, and called home. Dad answered. He told me to have a nice walk home. Had to walk home, hop on my bike while holding an empty 5 gallon gas jug, pedal 7 miles to a gas station, then go 2 miles with a heavy, filled, jug while pedaling, to recover the vehicle. Never let it get near empty again... Still don't know why he didn't get out of his chair and just give me a ride in his car.... . )

Video comment about 3 Tigers... He specifies Tiger Is. They were obsolete by then anyway. Hence the Tiger II production. As mentioned, all heavy tank formations were arrayed against the commonwealth side of the lodgement.

I, too, have just finished v3 mission 2a. Ditto on that mortar bug. I just attacked anyway. Headed towards 3a with a seriously depleted kampfgruppe. George MC, you have created a masterpiece. The maps are outstanding, the briefings are atmospheric, the pacing and balancing of the battles are absolute pieces of art. This is the campaign to play if you only ever plan to play one campaign. This entire campaign package (the mods, briefings, overview, explanations, etc.,) should be used as an example of what can be achieved with this game. You've hit this one out of the park. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm... Savegame early and savegame often. The goddess of victory is not an accountant. Losses get written off? Seriously...smoke, smoke, and more smoke, followed by suppressive fire and unengaged overwatch. Moving units should be no more than 1 in 4 of the units engaged.