Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
Of course I did exactly this. Have four pieces of most vehicles types on a test map and let them have a race. The Panther is amoung the worst units in the games with regards to bogging.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm going to do a test to see for myself. To the best of my knowledge the chance of a tracked vehicle bogging is based entirely upon its ground pressure rating. The Panther's is a very average 12.5. Therefore, if it is one of the most likely units in the game to bog, then the game works differently whan what I thought. I'll see what the tests say.
-
IIRC it was 11% of the pilots got 90% of the kills.
[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is going beyond ridiculous.
Look at the visual representation of the US M36B1 Jackson so we can start bitching about how callous and careless BTS is towards the American forces. And how about how US Hq units cannot call in arty, which is at odds with actual US practice. And don't even get me started on the absence of the M16.
And then we could go on to the Germans...
It seems to me some here have a preconcieved notion of anti-Commonwealth bias on the part of BTS and are trying very hard to find facts that fit their point of view, and trying very hard to ignore facts that disprove it.
[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
I also noted that Panther and Jagdpanther tend to bog a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would guess that some testing would show that the Panther and Jagdpanther actually don't bog more often than most other tanks. CM gives them average ground pressure, about the same as the Pz IV which doesn't bog much.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
This is the case, but depends on how experienced they are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure, but I think experience only matters for the hide command. In all the time I've been playing CM I do not recall ever seeing a squad targeting an ambush marker open fire unless the ambush is sprung or the squad is fired upon (includes being hit by arty, ect.)
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
I think the point I was making, Simon was that as soon as you move your men they start shooting at all and sundry, rather than maintaining their fire discipline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not if you know how to do it. You move them while they are targeting an ambush point. Yes, you can do this, and they will continue to target that ambush point even if it becomes outside LOS. They will only fire if fired upon first, at which point the gig is up anyway.
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
LOL! I wish I could have said it as well
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:
As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just the opposite. US troops in WW2 were specifically trained not to fire at anything they could not see. US commanders often commented on their troop's tendency to hold fire, even to a fault, rather than blazing away at everything in sight as some here seem to believe for reasons that escape me.
On the subject of ambushes in CM: As Simon and Argie point out this whole tangent seems to be based upon a misconception. Ambushes in CM are not at all difficult to set up and execute at the platoon level, and even the company level if terrain and circumstance permit. Battalion level is not feasable, but that's no biggie. It's not a perfect system and is a bit clumsy at times, but it works well in most situations most of the time once you learn the nuances of the Hide and Ambush commands.
The new "covered arc" command should make things smoother in CM2.
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:
Not implied by the original quote......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Although it may understandably not be apparent to people who haven't been around here for long, any time someone refers to the ETO on this board they can be assumed to be refering to the June '44 - May '45 time period unless they specify otherwise, as that is the only period covered by CMBO.
[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer:
The crown is, in any case, self-wrought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I could have sworn I found an Unholy Crown of Shame and Feces while playing Diablo the other day. I think the Butcher dropped it.
-
True, true.
Oh BTW Void, to answer your question; yes, you may wear the crown.
-
I think that sets a new standard for verbal self flagullation
-
Sorta. I have a screen shot of the endgame stat thing for every PBEM I've played (and finished). I haven't bothered to add up any stats though.
-
A Challenger tank recorded a kill at over 5 km during the gulf war. That must be close to a record or something.
Long range gunnery in CM is currently not modeled real well. There are no optics and the hit % maxes out after about 5 shots. Defenders do not get any first shot bonus unless they are shooting at something next to a TRP. I think the accuracy of small lightweight shells may be a bit too high compared to larger shells (not sure on this). This rarely matters in actual gameplay because engagement ranges in CM are almost always in the short-medium range. At those ranges I think CM works quite well. We'll see how CM2 handles the long range stuff.
[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
Well, the 95 "shots" a German HMG carries is equivalent to 2000 or 3000 bullets, as I understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
4000, actually.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
Just because a gun is bigger does not mean it is more accurate. What is your reasoning for this assumption?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think what he may be refering to is the fact that larger rounds bleed speed at a slower rate than larger rounds, giving them a flatter trajectory at long ranges.
This does seem to be modeled in CM somewhat. I lined up a JPz IV/70 2319m from a Stuart, a M10 and a Jackson. I let the 3 US tanks fire for a full round to max out their hit probabilities.
Stuart
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 884
Hit: 8%
Jackson<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 810
Hit: 10%
M10<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 793
Hit: 10%
So the Stuart has the lowest hit % even though it has the highest MV. Should there be even more of a difference? I don't know.
One thing that has alway bugged me a bit is how guns max out their hit % after firing 5-6 rounds at the same target. It seems to me that a Jackson that has fired 10 rounds at a stationary enemy tank at 2319m should have a higher than 10% chance to hit on the 11th shot.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hansfritz:
Is this biased by the American programmers,do they refuse to see the Sherman,like most allied tanks were ****.Over to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think the Sherman was ****, and that BTS didn't program them to be ****ty enough, please provide specific evidence that shows exactly what it is about the Sherman in CM that is not correct, and how it could be changed to make it as ****ty as the real thing.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:
Yeah, that is what they are telling the tankers and "for now". But when all the threat guys have top-attack ATGMs and smart IR-homing HEAT mortar rounds (which the Swedes will already sell to anybody with hard currency), the M-1 will go the way of the dinosaur.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um, maybe. But I'm always a bit skeptical of claims that such-and-such new weapon will make such-and-such obsolete. Truth is, these things go in cycles. A way to kill something is invented and then a way to counter it follows.
The demise of the MBT was predicted as early as 1973 following the Yom Kippur war. Back then it was the ATGM that spelled the doom of armor. That lasted for a decade or so until Chobham and ERA came along. You now see the Russians using anti-missle defence systems on their tanks.
People have been saying for 15 years or more that the proliferation of man-portable SAMs has made helicopters absolete, but I don't see anyone scraping their Apaches yet.
EDITED for defamatory statement regarding kippers
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
think again and answer for yourself - is your above statement really true for the Panther *outside* CM (aside from cost) ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ground speed: depends greatly on the version of Sherman you're talking about.
Turret speed: Debatable. IIRC Panther turret could be about as fast if the engine RPMs were high enough. I've also read that a Panther on a hillside could not swivel the turret uphill.
Anti-infantry firepower: Sherman has the edge, no doubt. It was primarilly an anti-infantry tank to begin with and that is where it really shined.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:
The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not coincidentally, this also describes the Mk V vs. the Sherman in CM.
Obviously, it out-guns every model of Sherman and has better armor than every model except perhaps the Jumbo (I'd have to look).
As far as manneuverability goes, it varies quite a lot depending on what version of the Sherman you are comparing it to. The early Shermans were markedly slower than the Panther, but latter ones with the more powerful engine were about the same or a little faster. Also, the early Shermans with the narrow tracks had poor ground pressure, while latter wide tracked versions were much better.
All of this is modeled quite nicely in CM.
As far as turning in place, it is true the Panther could do this and the Sherman could not. However, most other German tanks could not, and most British tanks could.
Generally speaking, Allied tanks were mechanically more reliable than German tanks, a factor that is not modeled in CM at all.
-
This happens in almost every PBEM I play. I did send a movie file showing a rather blatant example of it to Madmatt, but the guy I was playing against wouldn't send in his own file to help out (grrrr). I guess we'll see if it crops up in CM2.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:
Will the German models actually be the same dimensions as in CM1? I am wondering if we could transfer the many German hi-res mods in CM1 to CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My understanding is that this will not be possible. CM2 vehicle models will have more polys than in CM1, so the CM1 textures will not match up properly.
-
There is no rule saying you must accept any cease fire proposal. If there was everyone would start asking for them as soon as it became apparent they weren't going to win. If you think you still have a good chance to win, and it seems likely a cease fire would result in a draw, you should politely decline. I have declined one or two myself.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:
"someone had better tell the US government"
Medium brigades. I think they know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The medium brigades are not a replacement for the armored brigades. They are a different beast altogether, filling a different role and intended to fight a different kind of conflict. The US Army is keeping the heavy brigades (most of them). The medium brigades are being created for logistical reasons.
[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
The Jagdpanther is a superweapon !
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Ok, this took way too long, but here it is. I took 7 German and 6 Allied tanks and drove them a distance of exactly 100m over snowy ground. Tests were allowed to continue until all vehicles had reached the end or had immobilized. The test was repeated 75 times.
Average ground pressure rating: 12.9 psi
Total number of bogs: 143
Total number of immobilizations: 44
Average number of bogs per vehicle: 11
Average number of immobilizations per vehicle: 3.38
Individual vehicle breakdown:
Jadgpanther
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 12.6
Bogs: 8
Immobilizations: 3
Hetzer<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 11.3
Bogs: 0 :eek:
Immobilizations: 0
King Tiger<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 14.1
Boggs: 25
Immobilizations: 6
Tiger<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 13.8
Bogs: 25
Immobilizations: 5
Pz IVH<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 12.6
Bogs: 3
Immobilizations: 0
Panther G (late)<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 12.5
Bogs: 10
Immobilizations: 5
StuG42<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 14.6
Bogs: 11
Immobilizations: 5
Churchill VIII<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 13.6
Bogs: 13
Immobilizations: 2
Sherman M4A3(76)W<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 15.1
Bogs: 24
Immobilizations: 8
Sherman M4A3<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 13.6
Bogs: 15
Immobilizations: 6
Stuart<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 11.3
Bogs: 3
Immobilizations: 1
Hellcat<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 12.5
Bogs: 4
Immobilizations: 2
Sherman Easy Eight<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Ground pressure: 11.0
Bogs: 2
Immobilizations: 1
Conclusions:
I think the sample size is too small to draw any definite conclusions from, but I don't feel like spending more time on this. If anyone wants the test I can email it to you.
I'm also not sure if immobilizations should be counted. I don't know if vehicle characteristics effect the chance of a bogged vehicle to unbog. For all I know the chance may be the same for all vehicles, so take those figures with a big grain of salt.
Having said all that, there are some obvious trends here. The high ground pressure (13.6 and up) vehicles all had above average numbers of bogs. The low ground pressure vehicles (11.3 and down) all had very few or none.
This leaves the middle vehicles, including the Panther, Jagdpanther, Pz IV and Hellcat. These numbers are interesting. All 4 of these vehicles have ground pressure ratings a little below average for this test group, so you would expect them to have fewer than average bogs, which is true for all 4 of them. What is interesting is that there is quite a difference between the Jadgpanther and Panther, and the Pz IV and Hellcat. It's possible this is evidence of some unknown factor, but I think it more likely a result of a too small sample size allowing in statistical anomolies. The reason I think this is that other than their ground pressure, the Pz IV and the Hellcat have little in common. The Hellcat is much faster than the Panther, the Pz IV a bit slower. Also, the lack of any bogs by the Hetzer is obviously an anomolie.
I would further say that I see no evidence that the Jagdpanther deserves its reputation as a bog-prone vehicle. It and the Panther seem fairly average.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
However, there must be more. In addition to the Panther issue, you will find that a StuG IIIG has more problems than the Panzer IV. The StuG doesn't really get immobile that often, but crossing mud it is much slower than the Pz IV (due to bog pauses and basic speed).
The Pz IV is up to par with the Hetzer and the non-bogging Panthers, while the StuG joins the Tiger 1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you perhaps refering to the Stug IV? The Stug III has a ground pressure of 14.7, one of the worst in the game.
[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]