Vanir Ausf B

I love the change. It acts as a buddy aid reminder, and tells me what weapon the casualty had without me having to get the camera down in the grass.

Only the International Harvester manufactured halftracks (M5 series) had RHA. The M3s were FHA. I don't know about quality, but against small caliber projectiles like bullets FHA would be more effective on a per-bullet basis, although it would be less resilient to repeated strikes.

I have read that while individual SmK rounds were issued to infantry during the first few years of the war, by 1944 it was only used by machine guns. In any event, CMx2 appears to follow this convention since German infantry squads in the game do not have AP ammo. Adding to the confusion, I have run across references to a SmE (Patronen Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern) round that was apparently introduced to save lead. It had an iron core and was "semi" armor piercing. I have no idea how common it was.

I don't think that is necessarily true, particularly with a machine gun that can spit out 15-20 rounds per second. But yes, given the same ammo type, a single round from a MG42 would be no more likely to penetrate than a single shot from a K98. However, IIRC, by this stage of the war SmK rounds were almost exclusively used in machine guns, with the possible exception of scoped K98s for sniping.

I'm wondering where the claim comes from that the MG42 in the game isn't any better than other machine guns. Until I see some test results, count me skeptical. It is true that the upper front hull armor on the Panther G seems to be oddly brittle. Then again, the same armor on all models of the T-34 was not uniformly as thin/bad as it is the the game either, but Volksgrenadier seems to not have a problem with that.

I wouldn't mind seeing 88s able to fire while limbered. But if they were, I suspect the same people lobbying for them to be allowed would be soon complaining about how quickly they died when used that way. The notion that Stuka effectiveness is under-modeled is absurd, as already mentioned. The MG42 is already the best MMG in the game. Whether or not it is enough better is debatable, but it is interesting that US soldiers who were on the receiving end of it were not as impressed with its lethality as some people in this thread.

The thing of it is, in some formations (I think mainly Panzergrenadiers) the German HMGs and halftracks do carry AP ammo (I presume this is steel core SmK). But since the ball ammo already seems to have AP-like penetration it's never been clear to me what the distinction is.

If it were up to me, I would probably not allow rifle fire to penetrate but would allow machine gun fire. But it's not up to me.

I've yet to finish my testing, but I have so far had 2 penetrations out of 66 HE hits on the Panther A, one on the lower front hull and the other on the front turret. Neither of those plates has any ports or other apparent weak spots. The rule of thumb for HE is that it will penetrate about 1/2 of the shell diameter in equivalent thickness of RHA at 0°.

I don't really know, but my impression is that BFC has been influenced by anecdotal evidence that the M3 halftrack's armor was more vulnerable to bullets than it's specs would suggest. There is the famous quote from a US soldier who, when asked by Omar Bradley if German machine gun fire went through the halftracks, replied "No sir, it does not. As a matter offact bullets generally only come in one side and rattle around a bit." Perhaps more tellingly, Michael Wittmann reportedly knocked out 12 M3 halftracks at Villers Bocage using only the Tiger's MG34s.

Hits that knock out the hull machine gun will use the hit location text "weapon" rather than "upper front hull", same as when the main cannon is hit. I presume the same is true for the coaxial MG, although I have never noticed the coax getting hit. If hit decals are showing on the hull MG ball but it's not being knocked out that is probably a bug, although whether it's a bug with the hit damage or with the decals is anyone's guess.

I'm not sure about BFC's stance on the Aufklarung battalions. One potential issue is that the Soviets don't really have an equivalent formation. German armored cars are much more heavily armed than the Soviet BA-64, which could be a problem in Mech Infantry only QBs. On the other hand, the Soviets have PTRDs... But I don't see any reason why, at the very least, the mech Aufklarung battalion could not be included without the armored car platoon. Also, in CMBN a dismounted version of the Panzer Aufklarung 43 battalion is available in the infantry tab but is missing from CMRT. I will add these suggestions to the list.

IIRC, the Assault command was intended primarily for real time play. It was always assumed that WEGOers could micro the split squads better.

? Target lines do not follow terrain. They are always straight.

I assume the OP is referring to the QB purchase area rather than the scenario editor. The Nashhorn is presently not available in QBs. There are at least a half dozen vehicles missing from the QB purchase menus (I have a full list somewhere). It's a known issue and will presumably be fixed in the first patch.

Yes, unless you would have LOS from any of the stances the soldiers are presently in, which would result in a blue line. One point of clarification regarding vehicle LOS. It is traced from the gunner, but is also checked for the hull machine gunner on tanks that have them, so you can get a grey target line for hull down tanks.

All of them, I believe. That is why you can get a grey target line, meaning some soldiers have LOS and some don't. Unless it is a machine gun or mortar team, then its just the gunner that matters.

For tanks and other AFVs, the target tool traces LOS from the gunner's perspective, which on most tanks will be at the same height as the main cannon. For infantry, just keep in mind that when using the target tool to check LOS from a waypoint, the LOS is checked using whatever stance the unit is presently using, e.g. prone, standing, ect. In the case of heavy weapons teams, LOS is traced specifically from the gunner's perspective, as with AFVs.

Lack of flexibility and operational mobility were likely the primary factors in their obsolescence. But even on those occasions when they had the opportunity to be used, they were found to be less efficient killers than their motorized cousins. -- Armored Thunderbolt, Steven Zaloga

The US Army found its towed tank destroyer battalions to be, overall, less effective than the self-propelled TD battalions, and by 1945 was replacing the former with the latter as quickly as they could.

The information was horizontal, i.e. from an infantry unit to a tank not in the same C2 chain. Specifically I tested an MG42 HMG team with a Panzer IV. In fact, I think I have tested this on two occasions and the first time was with US infantry and Shermans. I probably still have those tests.

It was tweaked a bit in some way for CMRT, but there is basically no way to completely fix it without making dust subject to spotting checks.

They are, due to a quirk in how the game engine works. The dust cloud kicked up by AT guns firing obscures them, but enemy units can't see the dust cloud unless they spot the AT gun.

I've never been able to find Erickson's paper on the internet, unfortunately.

How easy is too easy? In my opinion, no, they are not spotted too easily.