Vanir Ausf B

Also, something to keep in mind. In your Steel Beasts pics one reason the M60 is so easy to see is because it is skylined. I have no idea what factors Steel Beast's spotting model takes into account but CM does not factor skylining. It does not specifically factor shade from overhead cover nor background "clutter" from nearby trees/buildings/objects. Rather, it's spotting model assumes the possibility of those factors in a more generic way. So if your point is that T-72s in CMCW should routinely spot enemy tanks in "about 2 seconds" because that happened once in another game that uses a different spotting model I don't think there is any chance of CM being changed to match that.

I'm sure there is a language barrier at work here. It's also not entirely clear how you did your test since you posted the scenario file rather than the save game. But from your description it sounds like you tested which tank spotted which first, at which point the spotting tank destroys the spotted tank. You ask me why the T-72 "can't spot the target". But it can. You're test didn't show otherwise. Your test is really more of a comparison between how spotting works in Steel Beasts and how it works in CM. I can't speak to that as i am not familiar with Steel Beasts.

In my test all 10 T72s spotted all 10 targets in the times listed.

I would never claim there is no room for improvement in CMCW spotting or any other CM spotting but pitting thermal sights (M60 TTS) against normal daylight sights is apples to oranges. I just ran a M60A3 test vs T-72A and got the following spotting times at 2000 meters: M60 spotting T-72 (in seconds) 8 52 61 84 139 148 169 223 259 T-72 spotting M60 (in seconds) 9 30 32 46 115 146 230 252 390 443 This is far too small a sample size to draw any specific conclusions given the huge variability, but clearly the T-72A is actually capable of spotting stuff at 2000m and does not appear to be massively worse at it than US tanks with comparable tech level. Spotting M60A3 vs T72A 001.bts

US 3rd and 4th Armored divisions, August '44 to March '45. https://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

That must be a Panther G. The Russian 85mm cannon normally cannot penetrate the Panther glacis plate at any range. But the G series has "occasional manufacturing flaws" that allow hits that normally would not penetrate the upper front hull to randomly penetrate. I don't know the exact probability, I would guess around 10% or so.

Lower hull and turret, but not the glacis plate. You need an IS-2 for that.

Well of course the MG42 has lower lethality per round. It's extreme rate of fire makes a lower efficiency inevitable, in reality and the game.

I took a look at the QB PBEM records at TheBlitz and they do suggest a significant Russian advantage, at least for tiny and small QBs. But the medium and large QB records are fairly even. It makes sense that the most restrictive QB sizes would favor the cheaper forces.

RE: the armor UI. My guess is that the displayed values are a function of line of sight RHA thickness and don't take armor type into account. For example, the T-64 front upper hull is 80mm@68° RHA + 105 mm Textolite + 20 mm RHA vs. 108mm@66° RHA for the M60.

It's intentional, yes. And I would say for the most part US units are worth the premium.

You're right. That's weird. I don't know about the side, rear and top armor but the T-64 has much better armor protection than the M60 on the front turret and front upper hull.

Where are you getting that from? @Drifter Man did some tests a few years back that suggest the opposite.

Logging it doesn't mean it's a bug, it just means someone from BFC will see it and hopefully fix it if they decide it's a bug.

Logged as a bug.

This thread is a perfect example of why many RNG-heavy strategy games like Xcom and Battletech have hidden cheats to shield the player from the capricious RNG gods.

Reported. BTW, there is a specialist forward observers team under German Army ---> Armored Infantry.

Unless Charles very recently made a major change and only told one other person about it, it is not correct.

I did check and in CMBB the lend lease Valentines used British HE values, so that's different from Red Thunder assuming your observations are accurate. I don't know if Russian 57mm was compatible in reality. I would guess "no" since they have different weight so I may post that in BFC's bug tracker if my testing confirms your observation.

Russian 57mm HE shells had 1.1 pounds of TNT compared to .4 pounds in British 6 Pounder shells. I don't know if Russian lend lease Valentines used British ammo or Russian but it sounds like the game assumes the latter.

It's actually the 7th iteration of these threads over the past year. https://community.battlefront.com/search/?q=ODDITIES&quick=1&search_in=titles Chalk it up to the oddities and weirdness of Erwin.

And thanks to CM Professional militaries throughout the West will be thinking like CM players too! Wait.... whos side are you on, Steve?

https://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Destroyer-Memoirs-Army-Commander/dp/1844159515

I have been able to achieve LOS through a barn before. I submitted it as a bug years ago but Charles couldn't reproduce it when he opened the file.

I had a similar issue this morning. It disabled my Nvidia card driver, so I was running on the default windows video driver. It did the same to my Razor mouse driver. I uninstalled KB5005033 and everything works again.