Vanir Ausf B

One does not simply ask BFC to comment on gameplay issues.

I like the music that plays at the end of the game when the mission results screen comes up. It's really quite catchy, which is a first for a CM game, IMO. So that's why I play. To hear the music at the end of the game.

Wow. You just discovered how to abandon then re-crew an AT gun. People have been asking for this ability for a year. Now if we can just figure out how to replicate it...

Right. I should have been more explicit in my previous post. From World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery Second Edition pg 33: On 10° lateral impact hits on the Tiger E driver plate (100mm at 10° assumed vertical) effective armor resistance is 103mm at 0°. Above suggestions for shatter gap failure suggest 76mm APCBC hits would fail when penetration ranged from 109mm to 126mm, producing failures from 50m through 900m. 76mm APCBC hits on the 100mm cast Panther mantlet at 10° would be resisted by 98mm equivalent of rolled armor, and shatter failure would be expected when penetration equaled 98mm x 1.22, or 120mm. 76mm would penetrate at ranges below 300m, whereas U.S. tests resulted in 200 yard penetration ranges. Since the above recommendations for shatter gap failure are based on average values, variations will occur and the methodology is less precise than other procedures in this booklet. I can tell you from testing that in the game US 76mm has little trouble with the Tiger front hull, and can penetrate the Panther mantlet at 500m roughly half the time (I need to do some tests to nail down the actual frequency). To be fair, tests in May 1944 at Shoeburyness, in England showed the 76mm M61 APCBC penetrating 100m RHA at 500m and 30° angle with no problem. The discrepancy could be due to uneven ammunition quality, which Rexford himself wrote about in this post made after his book was published. Apparently one of the three US manufacturers of 76mm APCBC used a manufacturing process that resulted in part of the shell being too soft. Not necessarily. Only that CM seems to consistently assume best quality ammunition. The same is true for 17 pdr APDS.

It is. The remaining question is whether a 1 in 652 chance of occurrence is accurate. I don't know, and I would be surprised if any historical data on that exists. But based on my results it seems the mantlet chin added to later Panthers was a waste of metal. Not really Rexford's book gives 75mm M72 solid shot AP (HE burster charge replaced with inert filler) penetration of 114mm vs RHA at 0m and 0° angle, so the results are reasonable given than I used Cromwells. US 75mm APCBC w/HE burster numbers vary. WO 291/741 says 101mm at 0m and 0°, while TM9-1907 says 90mm. Rexford chalks up the difference to ammo quality. US 76mm is hard to pin down because you get into issues of shatter gap, which has a huge impact on what it can an cannot penetrate. My testing indicates CMBN does not model shatter gap at all, so 76mm penetration in game is best case scenario (frankly, this seems to be the case with all US and UK AP ballistic performance in-game, although notably UK 95mm HEAT performance has been dramatically decreased from CMx1).

That's the kind of total life implosion I could be happy with. Actually, by that measure it seems my life has been imploding for years. Who knew?

If that were the case the Mac version would have been released just a couple of weeks ago.

I got one, although just one. Cromwell VII 75mm vs Panther A @ 107m partial hull down behind 1 meter berm. 652 hits on the turret 469 -- 72% -- on the "weapon mount" * 413 no damage * 52 partial penetrations * 4 full penetrations * 0 spalls (?) 123 -- 19% -- on the front turret * 55 no damage * 49 spalls * 19 partial penetrations * 0 full penetrations 60 hits -- 9% -- on the weapon Oddballs: * 1 ricochet forward top hull penetration * 1 forward top hull hit (no damage)

For search terms less than 4 characters long you will have to rely on Google. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=ap+site:battlefront.com&oq=ap+site:battlefront.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...7242.7871.6.8181.2.2.0.0.0.0.104.188.1j1.2.0...0.0.y8TLkx4pnjU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=75172bbf586f4a27&biw=1280&bih=719

I would use a flatter-shooting gun such as the US 76mm, but generating large sample sizes with it are much more time consuming because it penetrates the Panther mantlet frequently at 500 meters, which is also of dubious historical accuracy (US test firing against Panthers showed the 76mm could only penetrate the mantlet out to 200 yards, and Zaloga states that the Panther was "essentially invulnerable" frontally to US 76mm APCBC). EDITED to add: In the game US 76mm also penetrates the King Tiger Porsche front turret easily at 500m, so if you are playing a QB keep in mind that the KT's frontal armor in the game is essentially no better than a Panther.

The barrel does not extend across the full width of the mantlet so that should not be necessary.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it's more like Panzer Leader in 3D. But I catch your drift I really love the silhouetted tank counters in the unit UI. Really brings back that Panzer Leader/Blitz vibe. I refuse to use Juju's mod because I love the silhouettes too much :cool:

It does happen much easier. Also, scouting is more effective if the scouts have some overwatch to witness who kills them. You could try using the platoon HQ as part of the overwatch element on one side, the company HQ doing the same on the other side.

I was wondering about that. This game is amazing.

+1. Rhymes with zombie, so that's in its favor.

Not a bad excuse. I'll do it. I'm actually thinking of starting a new thread about that issue and also about hit distribution on the Tiger front turret. Shots from straight ahead are hitting the 100mm thick Tiger front turret armor without first passing through the mantlet. I think that should be impossible.

I have now recorded 1143 hits on the Panther D front turret without seeing a ricochet. Tests were conducted at 500m vs. Cromwell VII. 577 hits were behind a 2 meter berm (full hull down), 566 behind a 1 meter berm (partial hull down). I did see 3 partial and 1 complete penetration of the "weapon mount" aka the mantlet, which on paper should be about impossible vs the Cromwell's 75mm gun, which has made me wonder if these actually were ricochets that were assigned the wrong hit text. But in other tests I have seen properly labeled ricochets on the Tiger and Cromwell.

I have been doing some extensive ballistics testing and it is possible, albeit very rare, for a hit on the Tiger front turret to ricochet down onto the top hull. Oddly, the same does not seem to be true for the Panther D...

From the patch notes there was a bug that made building protection levels change based on the game's frame rate. As strange as that sounds it does seem to have made a difference.

The Nahverteidigungswaffe didn't work, or did you have the earlier Tiger without one?

Did they announce a date for the announcement? Maybe they did and I missed it. I've assumed all along that it would be the official announcement of the Market Garden module, so I'm not on the edge of my seat.

You should know by now...

Of course. But that is true of almost any consumer product.

What I do to avoid all the headaches is group all of my on-board assets together and designate 1 radio equipped vehicle to park in the middle of them. That frees me up to do whatever else I want with the HQs and not worry about it.

It is rather maddening. From the most important post in the history of this forum: Setup 5: (Platoon) HQ is able to call for indirect fire as long as in close visual C2 contact (up to 100M) to (on-board mortar) AND (Section) HQ is integrated in the C2 network by any means except distant visual contact (mortar is available for the whole C2 network). Setup 6: (Company) HQ is able to call for indirect fire as long as in close visual C2 contact (up to 100M) to MS-A AND (Section) HQ is integrated in the C2 network by any means except distant visual contact (mortar is available for the whole C2 network). Setup 7: When distant visual C2 contact (LOS, +100m) is established between (Section) HQ and on-board mortar (directly superior), neither (Section) HQ nor any higher HQ will be able to call for indirect fire from on-board mortar (see SR-3), except SR-1 or SR-2 are in effect. SR-1: Any HQ or FO unit is able to call in indirect fire from any onboard artillery unit inside a radius of 50m, regardless of LOS or C2 contact. SR-2: Any operational, radio equipped vehicle, whether it is dismounted or occupied, in a radius up to 20m to an onboard artillery unit will enable all HQ or FO units to call in indirect fire from that artillery unit, regardless of LOS or C2 contact. SR-3: No call for indirect fire will be processed by means of distant visual contact (LOS, +100m), even though it is a viable C2 link.