Vanir Ausf B

The Khriz in-game seems to average around 40 seconds to reload both missiles, so it actually can already fire 4 in one minute, it just can't reload 4 in one minute.

I just tested 40 Khirz missile shots against T-90AMs at 2000 meters. 37 hit. If the flight path even touches upon tree canopies, bushes or any other type of foliage accuracy will be severely degraded. From what I can see of the OPs pics that may have happened. My own experience in PBEMs is that they are worth every penny, especially if you take advantage of their unique ability to target through multi-spectral smoke. Something could be done about reload time if an authoritative source can be cited.

216 in inventory on February 1st 1945, although there may well have only been 11 on the Western Front since the Wehrmacht was preparing for Operation Spring Awakening and moving most of their panzers into Hungary at this point.

After a little on-line research it appears the Army's decision to not adopt the Lewis was because of personal animosity between Colonel Lewis and the Army's Chief of Ordnance. The Navy and Marine Corp did use it. By the time the Bren came along 20 years later the BAR was too well established. Interestingly, the British did hold a direct competition between the BAR and the Lewis and recommend the BAR. The recommendation was never acted upon because of financial constraints.

Anti tank guns that could reliably penetrate the Tiger I were the minority in the Allied armies until 1945.

On the y axis. They apparently do not make the same adjustment with regards to the x axis, which is rarely of any consequence but does occasionally lead to problems targeting tanks with highly off center turrets e.g. IS-2.

Any differences in dispersion are likely random variation. Gunners in CM shift their point of aim slightly between shots but the shifts are random, not directed at any particular area.

The Mac versions of the CM2 games are 64-bit. Maximum map size is 16 square kilometers, IIRC you can make it 4x4 or 1x16 or whatever you want as long as it has 4 sides. I would not recommend attempting to play on a map that large unless it's a featureless desert.

Sounds like fun, but I would be leary of attempting a game of that scale unless both players are on Macs. CM is much better at memory management than it used to be, but the PC version is still a 32 bit executable. On my rather low end laptop I can get up to around 3 to 4 battalions total on a roughly 10 Sq km map with mostly rural terrain.

Let's say the EU invades the UK under the pretext of protecting the repressed Scots. Steve, under what conditions do you think Russia would NOT intervene?

My own opinion is that there is no scenario in which NATO would choose to engage directly with Russia in Ukraine. It's not legally obligated to do so and none of the major NATO powers have national interests at stake that would justify direct conflict with a nuclear armed near-peer adversary.

That's actually a very good summation

The return of Kursk or wherever in Russia only has negotiating value if Russia has reason to think they may not otherwise get it back. If Russia calls the bluff what does NATO do with Kursk? Keep it? What to do with the million or so Russians NATO is now legally responsible for? Shoot them? Grant them Ukrainian citizenship? I'm sure the Ukrainians would love that

Send me a PM with the password and a link to the file.

For pointy-nosed uncapped AP. Ballistic capped, blunt-nosed AP will penetrate the glacis out to at least 1500, and that is the ammo IS-2s are given in Red Thunder (in reality there was a lot of uncapped AP still in use during the Bagration time frame but the CM2 engine does not allow different AP types within the same vehicle model so the Soviets catch a break).

I predict some tension in the mess hall.

If pixeltruppen were more spread out they would presumably un-nerf HE so the net effect might be a wash.

According to the author that was because the publisher limited his page count, and would not let him change the title.

Yes, I did actually report it. No, I do not know why it was not fixed nor if there is any intention of fixing it in a future patch. Only a uniformed BFC employee could answer those questions.

No, the incoming fire does not have to be from the 12 o'clock position because the trees are thicker than paper and the men, while fairly close, are not occupying the exact same space, so simple geometry says the tree will provide cover across an arc roughly centered on the 12 o'clock position. Yes, the arc is of finite proportions but it's still better than laying out in the open.

I don't think it does, assuming the tree is between your men and whatever is shooting at them. In fact, I will purposely try to get my men to bunch up behind trees by giving them Face or Covered Arc commands in the direction of hostile contacts.

Yes, the bunching up in those pics is to maximize the tree cover. I don't have a problem with that. That does bring up another factor: map design. The editor gives the option of placing one, two or three trees in an action spot, but in practice most map designers only use single trees in order to minimize framerate issues. Unfortunately, this need to balance tree density with computer performance means less cover.

Higher causalities in CM are mostly because CM tends to under-model the ability of infantry to find cover when under fire and spotting infantry is too easy compared to reality. The first problem is being worked on, the second is hard to fix because the AI is presently incapable of area fire and will never be great at it. In my opinion infantry spacing in CM is not wildly unrealistic. It is true that there is no collision detection on the models so they can occasionally merge together, but I doubt this has a very significant impact on results. In reality, spacing is mostly a function of terrain and lines of sight as well as the need to maintain communication.

The color conventions change from game to game for some reason (in CMFB it's light green/dark green), but different colors actually denote ammo that is acquirable or not acquirable.

As noted earlier, from the perspective of the host nations this is all about the percieved security commitment that a physical US presence represents. The missiles themselves are worthless. They are incapable of intercepting ICBMs and are too far away from any launch point to be ideally positioned to intercept SRBMs. Even in controlled tests their success rate has been spotty.