Vanir Ausf B

That's an option too. The downside is that until they spot the tank they will be walking around, which is more likely to get them spotted in return.

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.

That's frustrating. I've never found a way make men laying in vegetation that blocks LOS move up one elevation level to kneeling. If you want a kneeling man to go prone you just give a hide order but there is no way to do the opposite without moving him.

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?

I don't think there was anything wrong with the force he picked, outside of only bringing one Firefly.

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.

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.

John, did you even read my last post? Nothing you just posted disagrees with what I said. Your argument appears to be semantic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The crawl around the foxhole bug also happens to machine gun crews.

You can't put them in houses. AFAIK the gun crews gain protection from foxholes and trenches but the gun itself does not.

Ken eats pain for breakfast. Or at least his men do.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Then someone else can do it if they wish. I don't have that much time to spend on it.

Then why are you worrying about armor manufacturing flaws? :confused: