Vanir Ausf B

Being called an idiot by GJR144 is a badge of honor, one which I wear proudly. Welcome to the club

So this change is for US halftracks also? The patch change log only mentions German halftracks.

Those are the values given by the OP, but I don't know where he got them. In fact, after looking around I'm not entirely sure what they should be. WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery lists the lower nose armor as 51mm @ 55° for the Jpz IV and 51mm @ 57° for the Jpz IV/70 (V). This should be invulnerable to US and British 75mm APCBC at 300 meters. However, the Achtung Panzer website lists the lower nose armor as 50mm @ 45°, which is enough of a difference to make it very vulnerable at 300 meters (equivalent to 83.5mm @ 0° vs 115.3mm for 55° slope). The oddball values given in WWII Ballistics suggest they were measured rather than quoted from a spec sheet, but I cannot say for sure which is correct.

I wonder how much of the slowdown in scenario making is simply a result of BFC's accelerated development schedule. A lot of the scenarios put on the Repository for CMBN in the first year after release were made by the same people who made the official scenarios that shipped with the game. Now BFC is working on 2 new games at once (East Front and "Black Sea") while also making modules for CMBN and CMFI. Someone has to create the content for those products.

Wrong plate. The plate in question is on the lower front hull.

Good catch! I haven't tested this myself, but assuming your results are correct that would seem to indicate a mistake in the lower nose armor, which is actually 50mm at 55°*. That is equivalent to 126mm at 0°, well beyond what could be penetrated by M61a1 with the HE filler removed at 300 meters (about 96mm). * For all Jpz IV except the IV/70 (A), which is not in the game for some reason.

If you look at the third screenshot George MC posted on page 2 the shadows do indeed look very jaggy.

I'm going to make myself very unpopular here and say that I liked the movies more than the books. Axing Tom Bombadil improved things immensely all by itself. I did not like the first Hobbit movie as much as the 3 LOTR films. Too much dwarf slapstick in the beginning. Plus the source material is weaker, as previously noted.

This has been my own experience as well. I don't doubt that it happens. It obviously does. But I think it is less common than comments on the forum tend to imply.

I would love to see that as well, but...

I don't think this informs us in any way about CM timings and hit calculations.

Use the Target command. The LOS line should tell you.

It's not my work either, for the reasons stated.

Why not? Because designing the test isn't the problem. The time investment required is the problem. Assuming we are testing first shot accuracy you only get one date point per target per test run. And the difference in accuracy may not be large, per JasonC's post. So to establish a high confidence level in the results would likely require a large sample size; several hundred for each test. And you would need two tests: the control group with stationary tanks and the test group moving. We're talking days, not hours. But hey, if you think it's so easy to do let us know your results

Very well. We will meet in battle at the arrival of CM Ragnarok, er, I mean Bagration.

Yeah, I would love to know what effect, if any, target movement has on accuracy. If I ever have several days with nothing else to do I may make a test to find out. But my own anecdotal observations have led me to suspect that that it may not have any effect at all.

.................

Try reading your own link. Table 3-1. Primary formations. Line Formation Advantages Ability to: - Generate fire superiority to the front - Clear a large area - Disperse - Transition to bounding overwatch, base of fire, or assault Column/File Formation Disadvantages - Reduced ability to achieve fire superiority to the front - Clears a limited area and concentrates the unit - Transitions poorly to bounding overwatch, base of fire, and assault - Column's depth makes it a good target for close air attacks and a machine gun beaten zone Table 3-3. Comparison of squad formations. Squad line When Most Often Used - For maximum firepower to the front Fire Capabilities and Restrictions - Allows maximum immediate fire to the front Squad file When Most Often Used - Close terrain, dense vegetation, limited visibility conditions Fire Capabilities and Restrictions - Allows immediate fire to the flanks, masks most fire to the front and rear

I suspect that in Real Life™ the primary reason for not moving to contact in column has less to do with what type of target they present to the enemy and more to do with maximizing LOS/LOF of their own soldiers. In real life soldiers cannot see through or shoot through the guy in front of him. In Combat Mission they can. One change that might be made that would be much simpler than implementing formations would be not allowing bullets to penetrate through multiple soldiers, unless it was large caliber (12.7mm and up).

It would be an honor to challenge the Allfather to a great battle of the gods, but alas I do not own CMFI. The first east front game is supposed to be out early next year.

The last patch for CMFI, yes, but not CMBN.

BTW, out of curiosity I went ahead and tested this. Giving the targeted tanks paused movement orders has no effect on the accuracy of units shooting at them. The reason(s) for this is impossible to know without establishing some sort of control group.

Unless she asks you to. Then it's okay.

Very good news! Thanks.

That is an interesting question, but I have no idea. I have never tested what effect target movement has on accuracy under any circumstance. I'm curious about it, but I think that type of test would be very time consuming.