Vanir Ausf B

It is the latter, and from the objective and setup zone placement this map is clearly intended to be for meeting engagements. I'll PM MarkEzra in case he isn't already aware of it so that he can get a fix into the first patch, but in the meantime you can fix it yourself by loading the map into the editor, changing the Battle Type to meeting engagement (it is presently set to Allied Attack) then saving.

SA = sex appeal

It's British wartime terminology.

That, plus the Soviets didn't start using APBC ammo in large quantities until mid-1944.. When CMx2 moves into the Kursk time period people who never played CMBB are going to be dismayed at how much worse Soviet armor performs compared to CMRT (except for Kaus, who will be in seventh heaven )

While I think there is a case to be made for adjusting the APBC slope modifier curve upwards earlier, you can't just throw out T/D at some arbitrarily chosen point (or one chosen to most greatly benefit the Pz IV, as the case may be). Whatever adjustment you propose, the APBC slope modifiers need to remain significantly lower than for APCBC against sloped, highly overmatched RHA because... Slope modifiers @ 70° angle @T/D .21 (76.2mm projectile vs 20mm) APBC: .84 APCBC: 3.19 @T/D .5 (76.2mm vs 38.1mm) APBC: 2.69 APCBC: 3.99 @T/D .75 (76.2mm vs 57.2mm) APBC: 5.62 APCBC: 4.6 @T/D 1.0 APBC: 9.48 APCBC: 5.8 As you can see, the APBC advantage disappears between T/D .5 and .75. In order to maintain that circumstantial advantage T/D must be factored in to some degree.

On the other hand, the formula does not begin producing results below the armor's base thickness until the T/D drops below .29 (at 70°).

Unfortunately they don't specifically say. However, in a table of 122mm APBC slope multipliers at various angles and ranges the lowest T/D ratio listed is .44. The game has to use something. Speculating that something may be off is the easiest part. Proposing alternatives is harder.

Amizaur was using 55-60 as an example. The actual formula I used was for angles over 60° See my corrective note in my last post.

IIRC the ammo will remain available as long as the MG team stays within ammo sharing range of where the bodies lay. In fact, if the team doesn't have to move it's better not to buddy aid since that will often result in only part of the ammo being recovered, which is an odd discrepancy.

I get slightly different values than you for a x (T/D)^b (pg 118) 76mm APBC vs 25mm 10° 25.5mm 15° 25.7mm 20° 25.9mm 25° 26.2mm 30° 26.5mm 35° 26.8mm 40° 27.2mm 45° 27.4mm 50° 27.6mm 55° 28.2mm 60° 26.5mm 65° 26.2mm 70° 31.5mm 75° 44.2mm 80° 81.3mm I agree that the 60-65 degree results look suspicious. There is a cautionary note on page 21 that may explain the problem: Also: So the 16.7mm value I calculated earlier (vs. 20mm thick plate) would actually have been 20mm, or 19.5mm at 95% armor quality. Although given that we are dealing with APBC at a very low T/D ratio we may need to take that with a grain of salt.

I am always in favor of improvements to game systems, but as mentioned earlier it goes beyond situational awareness. Ground conditions and obstructing terrain are key. Also, in reality not all tanks could pivot on one track. Shermans could not. Wheeled vehicles obviously could not.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97507

Not really. The CMBN basic game is $35 and the CMSF basic game is $15.

As for the effectiveness of 81mm mortar fire on tanks, I can't find any direct reference to armor penetration, but indirect evidence does suggest they would not likely have been effective against even Pz IVs although it's not clear if this is due to lack of armor penetration or difficulty in hitting the tank in the first place. The closest thing I could find was penetration figures for US bombs air dropped from 5000 feet. 100 lb GP AN-M30 54 lb (24 kg) of explosive filler 250 lb GP AN-M57 123 lb (56 kg) of explosive filler 500 lb GP AN-M64 262 lb (119 kg) of explosive filler 1000 lb GP AN-M65 530 lb (240 kg) of explosive filler 2000 lb GP AN-M66 1061 lb (481 kg) of explosive filler 1 inch = 25.4mm For reference, the US 81mm mortar shell, HE, M43A1 weighed 7.05 pounds and had 1.22 lbs of HE filler. Panzer III top armor: turret: 10mm hull: 18mm Panzer IV top armor: turret: 10mm hull: 10-15mm Panther top armor: turret: 16mm hull: 16mm ausf A and D, 40mm front hull 16mm rear hull ausf G (are probably both 40mm in-game) T-34 top armor: 20mm turret and hull Tiger I top armor: 25mm turret and hull Tiger II top armor: 40mm turret and hull -- Artillery in the Desert, Military Intelligence Service, Special Series No. 6, November 1942 Link 25lbr HE shell explosive filler = 1.75 pounds.

Note that I said "based on" firing tables. I am almost certain that the in-game results are somewhat larger than what you see above, or are at least not consistently that good. I have not tested this recently to be sure, but I do know that the last time mortar dispersion was tweeked this article on errors was used as a reference, and Charles specifically stated that human error is factored in.

Varies by tank and crew, but for the Panther it was about 20 to 30 seconds. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ Another factor not yet mentioned is that in reality terrain would often restrict turning in ways it does not in the game. For example, narrow streets or in forests. Your argument seems to be more supportive of slowing down turret rotation* than speeding up hull rotation. * BTW, turret rotation speeds in-game are actual, not artificially sped up.

Then the question becomes: what do you think they would be in real life and why do you think that? The in-game mortar dispersion is based on actual firing tables.

I have not tested this, but mortar accuracy seems to vary significantly with range, and to a lesser extent wind. If you direct fire an 81mm mortar at a target 200 meters away you may get 20m x 20m "accuracy" (it's technically dispersion, but whatever). Try the same from 1500 meters away in heavy wind and you'll see a large difference.

The apparent lesson here is don't play authrie battles

Yes. And the muzzle velocity of the US 75mm M3 is 619m/s. I watched the first half. You can't measure angle using that video but it does not appear to large at all to my eyes.

Page 1: Note that this is an estimate. I used the number for US 75mm APCBC since I had that number handy and it is ballistically similar enough to Soviet 76mm that the difference will not be off by more than a few tenths of a degree. If anything the 76mm may have a slightly flatter trajectory as it has a higher muzzle velocity.

Sure it would. But only the OP would know.

As previously mentioned, it does not negate "alot" of the angle of impact. And that small amount has been factored in.

Note that the thickness and angle of that plate is not consistent for all Pz IV models. On the ausf G it is 25mm thick @ 73°, which translates to equivalent resistance of 33.8mm (T/D = .3281 and 71.5° angle vs. 76.2mm APBC). So you can see how much the overmatching projectile affects the resistance where a 5mm increase in armor thickness doubles the effective resistance. But it will still penetrate

Alternatively: Slope Effect at Angle = a x (T/D)^b For APBC @ 70°: a = 9.477, b=1.8152 9.477 x (.2625)^1.8152 = .836 .836 x 20mm = 16.7mm (WW II Ballistics pg 118)