-
Posts
9,706 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Everything posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
I just tested this in a wheat field using US forward observer teams. I used Slow on teams that had at least one guy kneeling and Move on teams that were all prone. In both cases it appears that the ending stance is random with the odds more heavily weighted towards prone, so it's a risky technique if you need them to be prone. But it could be useful in that it at least gives some chance to get prone men off the ground. I would be in favor of a default prone/kneeling/standing/none toggle.
-
Under most circumstances you cannot target an area or enemy unit the friendly unit has no LOS to. A covered arc would not have changed the soldier's prone position. Of course, I'm assuming the PIAT guy had no LOS to the Jpz. If he actually did have LOS then it is disturbing that he couldn't spot it.
-
This is terrific news all around. I have a few questions on #5 specifically. A) Is this in effect at all ranges, i.e. this could affect a tank on top of a hill firing on another tank 1000 meters away as well as assaulting infantry right next to the tank? This affects targets both higher and lower in elevation? C) Are the elevation points at which these delays kick in different for each vehicle model based on it's real world elevation limits or is it the same for all vehicles?
-
Excellent article on Canadian Shermans
Vanir Ausf B replied to John Kettler's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
That 10 meter turn radius listed for the Panther is incorrect. In Germany's Panther Tank pg 127 Thomas L Jentz lists a far more believable minimum turn radius of 4.7 meters. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
You should believe that it had no explosive filler, which has been my point from the beginning. The penetration of the 17 prd round is not in question. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
John, did you even read my last post? Nothing you just posted disagrees with what I said. Your argument appears to be semantic. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Yes, I typed shot when I should have typed shell. Thank you for the lesson in semantics, and the extraneous ballistics. The salient point I was making is that it has no explosive filler, which does not seem to be contradicted by anything you posted. -
AXIS - CMBN-Market Garden - BETA AAR
Vanir Ausf B replied to Bil Hardenberger's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
A feint on the right followed by a big looping left hook. Looks like Operation Desert Storm to me. Fitting, given that Ken's armor has performed like the Republican Guard. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Tanks do not necessarily have the same survivability after being penetrated. A good example is earlier model Shermans vs. later models with wet ammo stowage. I don't know if Fireflys had wet stowage or not. But I think the main reason are the different properties of the rounds fired by the tanks. The Tiger fires APHE rounds with explosive filler that detonates after penetration while the Firefly uses solid shot AP. Also, larger diameter rounds tend to do more damage than smaller diameter rounds and the Tiger's main cannon is 88mm compared to 76mm for the 17 lber. -
Cmbn: Can Anyone Help Me?
Vanir Ausf B replied to hawkl33's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
In the CMx1 games the player who set up the game could cheat a bit by playing his opponent's first turn for him before sending the file. In a QB this allowed him to see the randomly generated map before picking his forces while his opponent had to pick blind. -
AT Gun Placement
Vanir Ausf B replied to Col Deadmarsh's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
The crawl around the foxhole bug also happens to machine gun crews. -
AT Gun Placement
Vanir Ausf B replied to Col Deadmarsh's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
You can't put them in houses. AFAIK the gun crews gain protection from foxholes and trenches but the gun itself does not. -
AXIS - CMBN-Market Garden - BETA AAR
Vanir Ausf B replied to Bil Hardenberger's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Ken eats pain for breakfast. Or at least his men do. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
I have never seen the hit text say "ricochet" on a hit there, although shells bouncing off high into the air are common. You are right that ricochets should not be rare, at least not with solid shot AP ammo. -
Fix the game pls ...
Vanir Ausf B replied to Marc Anton's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
If by known you mean known by BFC, I don't know. I think it likely, but I don't assume anything until I see it in the patch notes or BFC at least says something about it. -
Building Types: Modular vs. Non Modular
Vanir Ausf B replied to Col Deadmarsh's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
............. -
Fix the game pls ...
Vanir Ausf B replied to Marc Anton's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
What happens is that the members of the MG team not manning the machine gun will have LOS, but the MG itself does not. This is usually not a difference of inches but of meters since the problem is caused by the MG setting up on the back side of the action spot rather than up at the bocage like everyone else in the team. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
The "superstructure front hull" is the driver plate. "Upper front hull" is the nearly horizontal plate below it. The latter does seem to get hit a lot considering the size of its cross section but I have always chalked that up to being an artifact of the center-of-mass aiming model. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
I did more tests on shatter gap a few months ago. There was a lengthy thread on it in the CMFI forum. You can see my test results here, but the sample sizes are about the same as what I did earlier in this thread so take the results for what their worth, which may not be much but I'm done with it. I am assuming the reduction in armor resistance is about 10% because that is how much it was reduced on late-model Panther tanks in the CMx1 games where it was explicitly stated in the unit stats (I don't think late model Tiger Is were given flawed armor in CMx1). -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
You have to test both the mid and late models separately so you're looking at 2000 hits. I've done that many and more before. If you added up all the testing I did for my Tiger mantlet thread it would be in the 4-5 thousand range. But it takes entire days to do that and I just don't have the time now. I am also not feeling tremendously motivated given that I have not seen much evidence that suggests there is anything wrong with how flawed armor is modeled in the game. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Then someone else can do it if they wish. I don't have that much time to spend on it. -
How is "armor manufacturing flaws" modelled?
Vanir Ausf B replied to Skwabie's topic in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Then why are you worrying about armor manufacturing flaws? :confused: