c3k

If you don't send SOMETHING up the Field of Death you're a total pussy! While AOA 1 defenders are looking to defend their zone, the AOA 2 defenders will be doing the same. No one will be looking in the middle! The lucky bastards chosen for the glorious Field of Death attack will be able to flank BOTH defenders.
 
Do it.
 
You know the defender has assumed you'll never go up the middle. Therefore, you must. Think of your men.
 
A jeep, a flamethrower, and one PPsh. It'll be the key to the whole battle.

If you don't send SOMETHING up the Field of Death you're a total pussy! While AOA 1 defenders are looking to defend their zone, the AOA 2 defenders will be doing the same. No one will be looking in the middle! The lucky bastards chosen for the glorious Field of Death attack will be able to flank BOTH defenders.
 
Do it.
 
You know the defender has assumed you'll never go up the middle. Therefore, you must. Think of your men.
 
A jeep, a flamethrower, and one PPsh. It'll be the key to the whole battle.

I like the "Passenger" (and other status) indicator being added. The ammo status in red is nice. Toss in the right-facing weapons and faces, and you'll have a better UI...IMO.
 
Regardless, a healthy discussion about the UI is a pretty good thing.

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness.
 
DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery.
 
Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".  

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

Your men will continue to die. But don't despair: this is what they WANT to do. Really. It's an honor for them to do so. I give my men all the opportunity for honor that they'd ever dreamed of having.
 
Lots of tips floating around the forum. Read 'em, and welcome aboard...
 
Ken

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think.
 
At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.)
 
An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. 
 
I've attached two quickly found internet tables.
 

 
and 
 

 
The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness.
 
But wait.
 
What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.)
Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. 
 
We're splitting hairs. Really.
 
If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.)
 
I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness.
 
DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery.
 
Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".  

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness.
 
DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery.
 
Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".  

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness.
 
DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery.
 
Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".  

Above, page 4, Shift8 wrote that a penetration is when a projectile passes through the armor. That's not really how it works. Usually, if there is visible light through the armor, then it counts as a penetration. Some of the criteria changes based on country and time. US in WWII, you had to see light.
 
Any light. Even a pinhole. Light = penetration. Kinda makes sense.
 
If a 76mm shell "penetrated", that doesn't mean there was a 76mm hole in the armor and a spent 76mm round sizzling on the ground. Usually spalling liners were used to collect the many fragments which either spalled off the armor, or were the result of the armor being displaced, or were the fragments of the shell which passed through the armor. They'd be weighed and categorized and the data thereby gained would be added into the report.
 
So, "penetration" may not mean much energy was left. If the shell overmatched the armor by a narrow margin, and it was solid shot, then (other than the poor bastard right behind the path), the tank and crew had fairly good odds of surviving unscathed.
 
Ken

Sorry, I only half-read your post.
 

 
(C'mon! THAT was funny!)
 
Ken

To reconstitute in setup phase: keep the teams adjacent, delete any move orders, and de-select any team. Then they will recombine in just a few seconds.
 
In any non-setup phase, you'll have to do the same as above, but they will not recombine until after you hit the "go" button. That's why it's best to play in the setup phase: you get free recombines without having to hit "go".

To reconstitute in setup phase: keep the teams adjacent, delete any move orders, and de-select any team. Then they will recombine in just a few seconds.
 
In any non-setup phase, you'll have to do the same as above, but they will not recombine until after you hit the "go" button. That's why it's best to play in the setup phase: you get free recombines without having to hit "go".

Yes, I, too, will turtle when I think my losses will...
 
Sorry. I couldn't keep typing that without laughing and losing my focus. Turtle because of losses? Gadzooks! Your men WANT to die for you! They only showed up for this battle so they could prove their mettle! Don't deny them the opportunity.
 
Make some scouts. Hell, designate an entire platoon as a scout platoon. Make 'em expendable. (Don't tell them that. Tell them you've picked them, not because you don't give a toss if any survive, but because you've been impressed by their skills and fortitude. Tell 'em no one else could do what you're about to ask of them.)
 
Anyway, start small, with HUNT. Move a scout team or two up and about. Have one stop in overwatch while the other continues. Keep moving some scouts forward. Keep the ones that survived stationary. If the enemy saw them, the hard spot will go to "?" status after they've been still. On the flip side, the stationary ones will begin to spot more/better.
 
Pick the guys with binos.
 
This is the "slice the pie" approach, or, if you'd prefer, "the camel's nose under the tent", or, "I just want you to touch it once". Whichever you like.
 
Pry open the Lines of Slght and determine which zones are empty of the enemy. Move up more guns and men and dominate the empty space. If the enemy enters, he dies.
 
How will that help you here? Well, the setup zones seem to be minor depressions. Move several scouts up to the top and look around. He's got 88's? Smoke 'em. Once they're blinded, move up some HE tossers and area target the guns. Tanks? Well, you'll need freedom of maneuver, so you'll need to find the guns first.
 
Ken

I would say these would be good/possible features for the upcoming Bulge game.
Now the question is what does BFC think are "minor" improvements ?
As it has been stated by Steve the Bulge game will include such "minor" gameplay improvements.

"You don't know where you're going til you know where you been."
 

This !
Combined with:
Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA. Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet. This would finally improve CMx2 infantry and overall combat behavior which has been neglected since ages.
Will such improvements be in the Bulge game Steve ?
 
Really, i could not care less about new scenario packs, a few new models or texture ( and  i think there are many players who think like that).
What i care for are REAL gameplay improvements that enhance the way combat works in Cmx2 !

Good point akd - makes sense.
 
I made some more tests, so this is a revision of above mentioned observations.
Shermans do fire both HE or AP and tend to shoot either/or consecutively. Not sure if it is due to distance. HE seems pretty useless. Since penetrations are rare, crew casualties are low. And even though they get blasted repetedly they do not cower, which seems odd. Even if you park a Sherman some 20-30 m straight ahead of a bunker, they are no less accurate or get more penetrating shots. Indications rather to the opposite, they miss the bunker completely. When using Target, it fires both HE/AP/MG so it is possibly the better alternative after all. But not all of the time. AP shells can take out a bunker with one shot. Too bad we can't choose which ammo to use, as HE seems less effective. Hits tend to appear in clusters, which indicates that the gunners aren't especially good at adjusting their aim (see below) Clusters - one good aim, one way too low.

 
Clusters - all too low.

 
Single AP-shot takes out bunker.

Yours to LOSE!?!?! Are you crazy? That kind of defensive mindset starting at the top will allow a rot to creep in at the bottom! Your troops will get "bunker disease". Best for everyone if you push Bil off the back edge of the map! Attack! 

Several test results for redfor vehicle smokes 
 
1. BMP-2 and BMP-2K's black smoke is NOT IR blocking. 
I tested with AT-6 Shturm-S vs Abrams in hotseat mode. Shturm failed to see the Abrams in the open behind the black smoke, but Abrams clearly can see the Shturm through the black smoke. It seems Shturm use visible light spectrum, while Abrams can see in thermal, so that black smoke helped Abrams to kill redfor units lol. 
One good thing of black smoke is that, it generates smoke more longer than white ones. The smoke grenade for black smoke discharges the gas more than 1~1.5 min, can provide the screen around 1.5 min even in heavy wind. 
 
 
2. BMP-3M ERA have NO smoke at all. 
I didn't knew this, but BMP-3M ERA doesn't have any smoke launchers. Smoke button is deactivated from the beginning. I will not use this unit anymore from this moment. (Maybe against UA army?) 
 
 
3. BMP-3M Shtora and T-90A can launch smoke only twice. 
Actually, BMP-3M Shtora have more smoke launchers on the turret than other BMP-3 variants. It launches 6 smoke at once, so field more wider smoke. That is all. Total possible number of smoke discharge is 2, as same as other redfor vehicles. There are no 3+ smoke discharging redfor vehicles in this game. Is this true for real world Rus vehicles?  
 
 
4. Shturm-S automatically changes the position after launch. 
This was surprising, I didn't expect the Shturm-S can shoot & scoot automatically. However, I think it would be anyway useless against Abrams or Bradley's optics. In addition, this kind of unwanted movement would expose its position, or easily give up good hull down position, and I don't know how to stop automated shoot and scoot. So, I think I won't use this unit. 
 
 
 

Forget it. Judging by what i have read from you in other threads, i think that your intent is most likely to look up the hardware i bought and then tell me that i either bought it for a bad price or that it' s not good or whatever. And even if you wouldnt find anything, you would probably just make something up. I wont support you trying to piss me off.
 
And even if the next thing you tell me is that i misjudge you, that' s your problem, i neither trust you nor do i like you, bad luck.