Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: KT were made in a lot less numbers. Most of them were probably stationed in the repair shop <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The largest number of KTs in the "operational inventory" at any given time was 226 in Feb '45. I don't have a break down on how many were assigned to each front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: Hardcore gamers play this kinda stuff partly for historical "feel". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some hardcore gamers also like a little "what if?" from time to time. Different strokes... I wouldn't worry too much. I've yet to see a Super Pershing in a game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: The figures are incorrect concerning the Panther & Tiger off the top of my head, as Pz.Abt.51 & Pz.Abt.52 each had 96 Panthers as of 01.07.43. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These numbers look closer to me (courtesy of JasonC): Elephant - 45 Tiger I - 133 Panther - 200 Pz IV L43+48 - 859 Pz IV L24 - 54 Pz III 75L24 - 153 Pz III 50L60 - 542 Pz III 50L42 - 109 Pz II - 107 [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Hey, no problem Freak Patriotism has nothing to do with it for me, as I'm neither Russian or German. I think the most interesting matchups in CM2 will be between the T-34/76s and the Pz III and IV. You have a tank with superior gun, armor and speed vs. tanks with a 3 man turret and radio. If BTS gets it modeled right it should be a tactical challenge for either side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Who to believe .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Glantz... tero. Glantz... tero. That's a toughie. I'll have to think about this for a while when I get home

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: Fair or not, the T-34/85 and the Panther were certainly used the same way at the same period of time, designed to oppose each other in the medium tank role of each army. I see the point being made, but if you want to go down that road by the same token it could be said that it is not fair to compare the T-34, developed in '39-'40, with the PzIV, developed in '35-'36. Really then PzIV should be compared to the BT-5 or BT-7.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. BT-5 and 7 were certainly not medium tanks by any stretch of the word. You can't get around the fact that Panther was developed using some ideas gained directly from T-34. No T-34, no Panther. Or maybe a Panther with non-sloped armor. People forget that one of the rejected designs of the Panther was almost a clone of T-34 (Hitler would have none of that!) T-34/85 was a stopgap effort while the IS series was developed. It is still a T-34, not to be treated as a whole new design. Comparing Panther and T-34 is fair in as far as they were "medium" tanks and saw combat against each other. But M1A1s and T-72s can be compared using the same logic and it is just as pointless. Panther was the better tank. So what? Later designs are supposed to be better than earlier ones. End of discussion. [ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I'm watching it right now. So far, pretty good stuff.

This whole business of comparing the Panther to the T-34 is rather silly IMO for several reasons. The Panther was developed in direct response to the T-34. It can be argued that if there had been no T-34, there would have been no Panther. Or at least the Panther would have been a much different tank. The Panther is a later design than the T-34. The Germans were able to take concepts pioneered by the Russians with the T-34 (highly sloped armor, high speed) and improve upon them while adding their own innovations. Comparing the Panther and T-34 is like comparing a M-48 Patton with an Easy Eight Sherman because they were both used in the medium tank role post war. Which is better? Well DUH! I think it may be the later design Of course the Panther is pound for pound superior to the T-34. It's a latter design. The Germans would really have had to screw something up for it not to be better. I don't even understand why this is worth arguing over, it seems so obvious. If you want a fair comparison of "medium" tanks compare tanks developed at the same time, so T-34 would be compared to Pz III and IV. Over the course of the whole war T-34s met up with a whole lot more of those than they did of Panthers. The T-34 needs no one to apologize for it.

And I could quote several sources that give the max range at 1000m. But it's all in the thread I linked to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Vanir you want to provide a link to that discussion I missed it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> T34 Vulnerability Like I said, there was no real concensus reached as there seems to be wildly conflicting data from different sources. I guess I figure the Soviets knew what they were doing when they set up their SOPs. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: AFAIK, the Pz-4 and Pz-5 along with the Pz-6 all were able to penetrate T-34 at long range. T34 could easily destroy Pz-4 at long range but with bad tactics deployed the soviets did not have a chance. Pz-4 inconjunction with the heavies pentrated T-34 IICRC. I will check reference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tiger and Panther, of course, but not the Mk IV. There was a lengthy debate about this a while back, and there was no final resolution, but there is good reason to believe that the Mk IV could not penetrate the T-34 frontally past 1200m or so. It was Soviet SOP to engage Mk IVs at 1200-2000m. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JunoReactor: Not really.. There were so many tanks involved in so small a area that the tanks joined in what could be called a massive melee. I am, of course, talking about the tank vs tank engagement that happened after the opening German moves against the Soviet entrenchments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My second comment was in reference to the East front in general, not Kursk.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Regular battles at Kursk, IICRC saw hundreds of Soviet Tanks blown mainly because of suicide like strategy's. I have read accounts of the Soviet tank rush strategy where axis tanks (mostly Pz-4 and Tigers) would sit and pick off Soviet T-34's and long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kursk was not a typical East front battle. T-34s sat back and picked off Pz IVs, not the other way around. Tiger is a different story...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: OTOH, I don't think that the difference in optics quality has anything to do with firing accuracy. If you can see a target in crosshairs, it doesn't matter after that. Optics quality does play a role in the spotting abilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there is a lot of truth in this, however, I don't agree 100%. The ability to see shot fall clearly for bracketing cannot be forgotten. In some conditions, such as dusk/dawn with the target tank silhouetted against the sky for example, being able to see the tank would not guarantee being able to see shot fall. The ability of the sight to capture ambient light would be important if the first shot missed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reallife a tank position was much more important than optics. Ie, a tank sitting in defensive position would always see the other guy earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true, and I wish something would be done to the game to make motionless vehicles sitting in trees not so easy to spot as they are now.

Depends on your style of play, but something that would work for me: VG Fusilier SMG squad x6 SMGs rule the CM battlefield. Sad, but true. 81mm FO 120mm FO One to smoke as Catnip said. The other to pound any enemy troop concentrations. Shreck team (veteran) x 2 Never leave home without them. Panzer Mk IV H x 2 Turreted German tanks are a rare sight. Most go for the Hetzer or JPz IV/70 (see above posts). The Pz IV is more vulnerable, but is much more versitile than the Hetzer and cheaper than the IV/70. I've had good luck with them, but you have to really know how to use armor. If you are not confident yet, take the Hetzer as it allows greater room for error. PSW 234/1 x 2 Flank protection for your tanks/tank hunters. 20mm is murder for Allied HTs and Greyhounds and is nice vs. infantry as well. Puma Can take out most Allied tanks at short range. And FAST. Total pts: 1250 Not particularly historical, but it is a versitile force. If you run up against Churchills or Jumbos you will have to be creative with your Shreck teams, but remember infantry and artillery win battles, not tanks.

Guys, look halfway down the page and you'll see Madmatt's post about these picks from yesterday. The energy shields and other stuff is explained there.

I've purchased exactly 1 AVRE in my whole time playing CM and I will never take one again. They are completely worthless IMO. No HE, coupled with low ROF, means they don't do all that much damage against non-armored targets and they can't hit a tank or bunker unless they are right next to it. A waste of space on the battlefield. From some of the things said in other threads it appears it may not be modeled correctly in the game. It's hard to imagine the real thing was the total piece of junk it is in the game. The Sturmtiger will be better because it will at least have a chance of doing something usefull.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley: Ari, This is the sort of off-topic diversion that got the previous thread closed down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the previous thread was locked simply because it got too long (close to the 300 post limit).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: But doesn't the tacAI decide when to shoot? So isn't it easy for the opponent to lure the ST to "waste" that valuable shot on some trivial target?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point. You might have to use an ambush command for it while moving so that it doesn't open up too soon. Of course CM2 won't have an ambush command but "covered arc" might work close enough to be used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Dog: Yep! Tremblett was my direct source and the inspiration for my Subdued Velvet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking of your Subdued Velvet, I went to your websight and couldn't find it. Was I not looking hard enough?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeski: I take a HQ unit with a command bonus put him a nice LOS spot. Take the FO with say 105mm. Now the FO can not see spot but the HQ can. I use the los tool for the HQ to see what he can see. Then I plot the FO from that. I get a nice tight pattern. It's not the wide (none los) pattern. This does not work? :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just tried this with 2 German 81mm FOs and it really doesn't work. The one that was spotting for itself began firing over a minuet sooner than the one with the HQ spotting and the pattern was much tighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Interesting idea, what I can say is that BTS have previously stated there are no plans for a modern version precisely because of the scale issues in modern warfare you mentioned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One minor correction. BTS has stated there will be no modern CM with the current graphics engine. They have voiced interest in doing a modern CM sometime after CM4, although there are no actual plans as of yet. Steve did say that if they did do a "modern" CM it would most likely be a hypothetical NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict ~1980. [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley: Lots of questions and the next one is - where are the answers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This thread is rather poorly named. Steve excused himself from the previous "answers" thread about halfway through so he could spend some time making CM2 instead of talking about it. Most of that thread was just people talking about what they wanted in CM2 and debating various WW2 stuff at random, which is what this new thread is a continuation of (obviously).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: The effects of the gyrostabilizer are there and apparent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't suggesting the gyro didn't work or makes no difference. I simply meant that you often see people talk about getting frequent hits while on the move in reference to vehicles that have no gyro (such as the Greyhound in the first post in this thread). [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Not meaning to flame anyone, but do we really need 2 Sturmtiger threads going at the same time?

I'm not convinced it's a problem with gyrostabalizer modeling per se. I think it may be a problem with all vehicles. For example, the Greyhound has no gyrostabalizer.