Vanir Ausf B

It was fixed forever ago. I examined the files PzKfw sent me and determined LOS was blocked by trees. He was apparently under the mistaken impression that the ability to target barely out of LOS terrain extended to vertical obstacles. It does not.

It doesn't? Killing or wounding a member of a unit will suppress them quicker than anything else and the 50 has better penetration.

Agreed.

What is TEL? What weapons has China sold NK in the past 10 years?

To forestall a flood of refuges pouring over the border. And also, nukes.

I USE HTs to properly suppress things and don't lose many men doing it. I wouldn't keep doing it if I did. I've tried dong the same with US HTs and that is suicide.

The gun shields work pretty damn well in my experience and I use German HTs at less than 100 meters and have them used against me the same way. Sometimes I wonder if I'm playing the same game as some people.

Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing. Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk

Deploying Japanese forces to Korea would go over about as well as deploying the IDF to retake Mosul Any conflict that seriously threatens the NK regime is likely to go nuclear.

...was a crazy idea. Even at the height of the Reagan buildup the US Army was far too small, and if sufficient numbers had magically appeared the force would have been nuked before it got off the beach, if not before.

You're doing this on the wrong game website. A war with China is not a crazy idea but it would involve very little ground combat. If you are serious about this look into Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations. War with Russia is also not a crazy idea but it would not happen in southeast Asia.

To provide inspiration and material for wargame developers. Thoughtful of them

Thanks. I was able to reproduce it in the campaign. But they work fine in QBs. My guess is that the fix may only apply to tanks purchased after the patch. I don't know if that can be changed but I'll let BFC know about it.

I laugh at your kamikazi crews as they charge my Panthers, "Urhaaah! Urhaaah! Urh-"*squish*

Yes, but such wars would look much different than what you are presenting, which sounds like a game of Risk. You posted an article about how a war with China might play out. Go back and read it.

I can't reproduce this. Do you have a save game file? The commander has to disappear down the hatch in order to man the remote weapon station.

BFC likes plausible near-future settings. This is Harry Turtledove territory. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see BFC bitting.

The smoke-ish looking one is in fact smoke launchers. The one with a grill is for slat armor. The arrows pointing left and right is for explosive reactive armor. The waves mean electo-optical jammer. The one that looks like an arc being struck by a beam is laser warning receiver and the one with four arrows pointing to each corner is for APS.

The AI in Combat Mission is overly attached to silver bullets, in my opinion. It's not really a bug because it's intentional, but I will log another complaint about it.

Yes indeed. The US Army did an analysis of armored engagements in the ETO 1944-45 and calculated the average number of participating tanks or TDs were 9 US and 4 German. In the CM1 QBs where each category of unit type had separate point limits the Germans were allotted far less for armor than the Allies. I liked that feature but there were some vocal haters.

Yeah that's a straw man Holland is attacking. The Reichsfrothers can also take solace in the fact that if you want to win at Combat Mission you're better off with the Germans

Checkmate

Zaloga writes about this in another book while comparing the Sherman to the Panther: The Sherman had a reputation as a fire trap allegedly due to the propensity of its gasoline to burn. This perception is mistaken from two aspects: the Panther and most German tanks also used gasoline for fuel, and the primary cause of catastrophic tank fires was not fuel but ammunition propellant. Most World War II tanks had large amounts of ammunition stored in the forward hull, and it was far more likely this would be hit during fighting than the rear fuel cells. Once ignited, ammunition propellant fires were impossible to stop, and if the fires spread to neighboring ammunition the results were generally disastrous. Both the Panther and the Sherman had fire-extinguishing systems to deal with gasoline fires, though their effectiveness varied much on the circumstances of the fires. The Sherman was no more suseptible to fire due to its fuel than the Panther, but it was more vulnerable to fire simply because it was more vulnerable to being penetrated in combat. The Panther had a poor reputation regarding fire safety amoung German tank crews due to the fire hazard of the hydraulic fluid used in the transmission, fuel leaks in the complicated fuel cell linkage, and fires caused by engine back blast, but its excellent armor reduced the likelihood that it would be penetrated in tank combat.

They probably did. I don't have statistics, but what makes tanks burn is the ammunition and there is nothing unusual about how the Sherman stored its ammunition compared to German, British or Soviet tanks.