Vanir Ausf B

GAA! I totally boned the math. Equivalent armor resistance is actually 16.9mm, or 16.0 with 95% armor quality. World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery (second edition) by Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingston, pgs 20-21

T x F x (T/D)^G T= armor thickness T/D= thickness/diameter ratio (armor thickness/projectile diameter) A= angle of impact F=2.71828^(0.03723 x 1.06033^A) G= -3.3667 + 0.07411 x A

It's not just possible. It's almost a certainty when you factor in the exact properties of the impacting projectile. As mentioned earlier, the 76.2mm shell vastly overmatches a 20mm thick plate (thickness/diameter ratio = .2625). When struck by 76.2mm APBC, a 20mm plate angled at 70.5° from vertical resists equivalent to 26.9mm. Factor in 95% armor quality for the Pz IV H (per CMBB) and the armor resistance is 25.5mm. EDIT: Wrong value. See below.

Also keep in mind that in CMx1 the Pz IV ausf H and J were modeled as having armor quality of less than 100% and this is likely true in CMx2. Using Kieme's number, an armor quality rating of 95% would knock the effective thickness down to about 55-56mm.

For this time period the most likely 76mm ammo would be BR-350B which penetrates 55mm of RHA at 1500 meters, according to WW II Ballistics.

The angle of decent for Soviet 76mm at 1500 meters would be around 1.5 degrees, so that is not really a major factor. The problem with single events like this is that we don't know for sure if CMx2 models weak point penetrations. We do know that there is no weak point penetration hit text so the only way to find out if there is a problem is further testing.

It would help your argument tremendously if you could give some specific examples.

Fair points, Der Alte Fritz. I also agree that page one of this thread is over rated

Agreed. That the USSR stopped the Germans on their own is not in doubt. How far back they could have pushed the Germans on their own is an interesting question, but I think it highly unlikely the Red Army would have ever seen Berlin. The Soviets themselves seem to have recognized that fact. "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war" -- Joseph Stalin "Stalin frequently said that without lend-lease we could not have won the war, and I agree with him." -- Nikita Khrushchev

IIRC, that was in terms of monetary value (GDP), which begs the question to be asked: how much does it cost to produce a can of Spam vs. how much is a can of Spam actually worth to someone who doesn't have enough food?

It's Chicago. Having said that, it does make me wonder if the patriotic freedom loving Americans will disarm all the police forces in the country or only some? If it is the latter, which ones? If it is the former, it strikes me that this would require a coordinated effort to say the least. Assuming that all succeeds, what happens next? Who will enforce the laws? Armed vigilantes?

German setup. Note there are no units in buildings. Also, the Pak 40 ammo bearers are far away from their guns. Eng game map

Alright, I finally got this one done. I set it up as stipulated above. Large British probe, random weather (which turned out to be clear). One hour time limit. I did reduce the amount of purchase points for my side by 30% to increase the challenge. OOB British Army 1 reduced infantry battalion 3x inf co 1x support co minus the anti-tank platoon; mortar platoon reduced to 1 section (2x 81mm). 2x Cromwell (75mm) 2x Challenger 2x Daimler II German Army (picked by me) 1 reduced Grenadier battalion 2x inf co heavy weapons company (6x HMG, 3x 81mm mortar) 2x Pak 40 AT gun 3x Stug III The AI spent the first 3-4 turns blowing most of its mortar load on the woods fronting my setup zone. Other than delaying my advance for a few turns this accomplished nothing. I captured the Road & Rail East and North-East Road objectives at the 50 and 48 minute marks respectively. The AI did not defend the R&R East objective at all and the NE Road only lightly (see setup screenshot below). As I moved on towards the Road Bridge objective I hit a wall. The approach was on a reverse slope and the AI had set up the bulk of its forces defending it. The Stugs were very well situated on the edge of town where they could support the infantry and AT guns in the woods. Because of the reverse slope my infantry could rarely area target the German machine guns in the woods, and any armor I moved up got hit by the Stugs firing through holes in the tree cover. With casualties mounting and having lost half my armor I threw in the towel and called off the assault on the Road Bridge. The silver lining to the AI defending the Road Bridge with most of it's heavy weaponry was that the Rail Bridge objective was relatively lightly defended. And it wasn't on a reverse slope. Nevertheless I did not eliminate the last resistance until only a few minutes remained. I was delayed by one of my tanks getting obliterated by a panzerschreck from 200+ meters away and the AI effectively using what little mortar ammo it had remaining. Had the AI not wasted most of its mortar rounds earlier it may have delayed me long enough to keep the objective. At about the 20 minute mark the AI did a student body left maneuver where the infantry in the middle of the map along with the Stugs moved out of their initial positions and onto the Road Bridge objective. The AI was, of course, unaware that I had stopped even trying to capture the Road Bridge by that point (an AI trigger would have helped, I'm sure). The unfortunate (for the AI) result of this movement was the Stugs ending up with their ass-ends facing towards my forces, which allowed me to quickly knock out 2 of them and come within the width of an ironwood tree of bagging the third.

Prefer iron.

Despite sharing a label, I'm pretty sure the low bocage in CMRT is considered a different terrain type than the low bocage in CMBN. You may recall it was suggested internally that the name should be changed to reflect the difference but it didn't happen.

I have asked for this many times. I am cautiously optimistic it will happen whenever BFC decides to revisit QBs. 4.0?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Behind-Shield-Operation/dp/1909982199/ref=pd_sim_b_1 It won't be out until September, but I'm getting it.

I like the new shades of green. It looks less like the tile on my bathroom floor. My only concern is that it appears to make differentiating terrain types more difficult from a distance.

Have you looked at the prices of Soviet rockets? Large stones are more expensive. Heck, even US rockets are more expensive.

In your previous post you didn't say it was the mantlet, you said "front turret", so that's what I went off of. Unlike the Tiger I, the KT's mantlet only covers a relatively small portion of the front turret area.

Key Chart assumes target is in the center with the front at 0° Red: Areas where penetration is likely to occur Orange: Areas where penetration can occur but is unlikely Green: Areas where penetration will not occur Yellow: Areas where the projectile may shatter and fail to penetrate

The penetration of Soviet cannon is definitely higher in CMRT than CMBB. I don't know for sure, but I think all the CMx2 games use WW II Ballistics as a basis, which if true would mean the Soviet 122mm cannon penetrates 158mm of RHA at 1000 meters when using AP ammunition and 162mm when using APBC.

I don't know if it is working as intended or not, but if I had to guess I would say yes and that the manual is wrong. Target arcs work the same way.

What do you mean by "seems to be"? AFAIK it's 50m for everything, and I don't think it matters if the units have moved or not.

Is the gunner crawling around constantly? Moving the team away one action spot and then back should clear that up. If doing that results in it happening repeatedly then you may have found a reproducible example. If so PM me so that you can send me the save game file along with passwords (you may want to wait until the game is over).