Vanir Ausf B

Yeah, that wouldn't do anything. Map sizes are already capped and the geometry of a map has at least as much effect on performance as size. A a 3km x 3km map of open fields can perform better than a 1km x 1km urban map.

Sure you don't

It's a Probe QB, so there is a total possible1000 victory points divided evenly between terrain objectives and enemy units destroyed.

You have a source for that number?

For most turreted tanks or TDs view height 2 is a good approximation for what the gunner can see but the Hellcat is a tweener. View height 1 is definitely too low but view height 2 is a little high.

Wow. Next turn looks to be a fateful one. Hope the Jagd doesn't throw a track in those snowy woods. Was this from view height 1 or 2?

Curiosity got the best of me, so I busted out my copy of Panzer Truppen 2. Jentz's info is inconsistent as to if the battalion HQ element was 2 or 3 tanks and also as to if there was a panzer recon platoon in the headquarters company. But for what it's worth, he lists all panzer divisions participating in the Ardennes offensive as having 4-company panzer battalions authorized except for 9 PzDiv and 116 PzDiv each of which has one Panther battalion of 4 companies and one 3-company mixed battalion (2 Pz IV, 1 assault gun). The divisions also vary with regards to panzer platoon size as follows: Panzer Divisions with 4 panzers per platoon (14 kompanie): 2, 3, 11, 116, 2SS, 9SS. These divisions had 2 panzer battalions in their panzer regiment. Panzer Divisions with 5 panzers per platoon (17 kompanie): 21, Panzer Lehr, 1SS, 10SS, 12SS. However, these divisions had only 1 panzer battalion instead of 2 (although 1SS did also have SS Pz Abt 501 (Tiger IIs) attached).

No, and I've never looked for one.

That's how it is in the game except there are 4 panzer companies plus another 5-tank platoon in the support company.

During the game's development this was looked at and to my own surprise nobody has it. So yes, against Russian and US forces tube smoke is mostly useless. However, late model BMPs and BTRs have multi-spectral smoke and they launch their smoke grenades forward a considerable distance. Off the top of my head it's something like 80 meters for BMPs and 125m for BTRs so if the wind is favorable they can be very useful.

Do you have "high priority process" checked in the options? Mouse lag is something I never get in CM, even when the frame rate is low.

This is interesting. Some info I was not aware of. -- Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organizational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation Volume I (Volume 1), by Nigel Askey

Although it is rare for them to fail they do not intercept 100% of the time.

Christ on a crutch, there is more to it than some quotes. That General Board report ASL Vet just waved his hand at is based on "analysis of the following material: 1. Interviews with 344 enlisted men and 98 officers, of which 75 percent were company grade. Combat experience of personnel interviewed ranged from 2 day to 30 months. They represented 12 of the 15 armored divisions and 10 of the the 40 separate tank battalions which fought in the European theater. Seven of the officers and twelve of the enlisted men fought with the 1st Armored Division in the Mediterranean Theater. 2. Interviews with three German panzer lieutenants. 3. Documents listed in bibliographies at the end of each chapter." That doesn't mean it's the word of god but to just dismiss it out of hand is asinine. Two questions for you: 1) Who are you accusing of "NAZI superweapon worship"? Me? The quoted American soldiers? The Army General Board? That's the second time you've dropped a Nazi sympathizer inference in reply to one of my posts. I am done taking the high road with you. Pavlov will have his way with you from now on. 2) Who is saying this is something that should be represented in the game? Oh, that would be no one This is probably too hard to quantify accurately and getting it wrong would be worse than leaving it as is. I have considered asking for some modeling of muzzle brake effects. Those things are not for decoration: "Fast, accurate firing requires that the tank commander's and gunner's observation be unobscured by muzzle blast. Observation of every round is necessary to make proper range and deflection changes for the succeeding round. Even with 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers, at shorter range, the round often strikes before the blast has cleared sufficiently to permit observation. Obscuration of vision by muzzle blast makes 76mm and 90mm "one shot" weapons. The muzzle brake and forward venting primer reduced obscuration of vision. However, the muzzle brake increases the weight of the gun and necessitates adding undesirable counter-weights to the breech. A number of tank commanders reported that with the muzzle brake the blast seemed to concentrate in their vicinity, knocking off their helmets and making it difficult for infantry to stay on the rear deck of the tank. It was agreed, though, that the muzzle brake greatly improved the gunner's observation." However, this is from the same report you already declared null and void because it was inconvenient for your narrative Now, as for smokeless powder, although it has been stated several times, you don't seem to comprehend that the term is relative. Technically, all common propellants aside from black powder are "smokeless". That means that every industrialized nation has been using smokeless powder of some type almost exclusively since WW1 at the latest. But there are a great many different types and varieties of smokeless powder which have very different compositions and properties. Powders vary by chemical composition, grain size and shape, burn rate, stability, hygroscopicity, ect. In addition to that, the powder used in a gun is only part of the equation that determines how much smoke or flash it produces. The same powder used in different guns will produce different results. In other words, when you say nations other than Germany used smokeless powder you are correct but that doesn't say much. Flashlessness in powder is dependent not only upon the composition of the powder, but upon relationship between quantity of powder required as a charge, length of bore of the weapon, weight of projectile, and other details. While it might appear possible to obtain flashlessness in any weapon by merely increasing the amount of flash-reducing agent in the powder composition, such a procedure may be impracticable either because of increased smoke produced or reduction in potential of the powder. When nitro-cellulose powder is treated to reduce smoke and flash the powder potential is reduced. A powder charge for a given ammunition to be used in a specific weapon is adjusted to produce the required velocity within the pressure limits prescribed for the weapon in which the ammunition is fired. The burning rate of the powder must be controlled (this is accomplished through design and manufacture), in order to get the full results of the powder potential. A slow burning powder produces more propelling power than an instantaneous quick burning powder. -- Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 47, June 1, 1944. We know for a fact that some US and British tank cannon could produce very large amounts of smoke and flash. For example, a test at Fort Knox by the Armored Force and Tank Destroyer Board (yes, another board for you to wave your hand at) had this to say about the British 17 pdr: "APCBC Ammunition: The excessive smoke and flash produced by this round makes sensing of the strike by either the tank commander or the gunner virtually impossible at ranges of 1,000 yards or less." Now since you have declared the chemical composition to be the Only Evidence That Matters (probably because you thought no one would know what it was) there was more than one variety used by the US for tank cannon in WW2 but all the ones I have seen are essentially M1 propellant which is 86% nitrocellulose, 10% dinitrotoluene, 3% dibutylphthalate, 1% diphenylamine. I am not sure how many types of powder the Germans may have used but Pzgr. Patr. 39 KwK 40 (75mm APCBC) used Digl. R.P. G1 which was composed of nitrocellulose, diethylene glycol dinitrate, centralite and potassium sulphate (don't have the proportions).

-- TANK GUNNERY, The General Board, United States Forces, European Theater, November 1945

From United States vs. German Equipment: Henry W. Johnson, Captain, Company F, 66th Armored Regiment: "The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernible to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance." Everette L. Harris, Corporal, Gunner, 2nd Armored Division: "Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank has, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76-mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges."

I suspect the level of dirt on the windshield may not be modeled The CITV is x2.6 at 3.4° narrow field of view and x7.7 at 10.4° wide field of view. The gunners primary sight is 3x wide FOV and 10x narrow although I don't have the exact FOV numbers handy.

CM probably sets the Panther G lower hull armor at 50mm since that was the official thickness even though the actual thickness varied.

If you are frustrated just think how the US First Army felt in the Hürtgen Forest As with most things CM-related forest fighting is not exactly correct in all the details but I think it's general accurate. Truth be told, if anything it's probably easier in the game since the C2 problems don't have as severe penalties as they do in reality. Well, yeah. Most of the time you can work around it. The method you mentioned is a good one. But sometimes you can't and it can be frustrating. I have given this some thought over the years and my opinion is that the power of armor may be somewhat exaggerated in CM but not to an extent that blows realism out of the water. "One thing has become very clear to me: we can win the war here only with massed Panzers and with nothing else. Therefore the cry: Give us Panzers and more Panzers! The Panzer-Waffe is the weapon that will decide the war, nothing more and nothing less! I have now seen the truth of this statement with my own eyes." -- 4, November 1943. Hauptmann Markowsky, III. Panzer Regiment 24, 24th Panzer Division.

I guess the implication is that the Abrams should spot much quicker because of thermal sights but I question that premise. The Mk 1 eyeball has a huge field of view advantage and the guy with the binocs can switch to them instantly as needed. On a sunny day I don't accept that there would be a dramatic difference. Now change the weather to light haze or the time of day to after sundown and you should see a larger difference.

I am very sure that's what they are in CM Normandy and CM Red Thunder. The "late" Heer panzer battalion in CM Final Blitzkrieg will have 76 tanks (each company has 3 platoons instead of 4). I don't know about the historical accuracy.

We are on the front lines, in the trenches, ect. And we have the PTSD to prove it Just to back up what AKD said, the spotting tests I submit to BFC typically have a minimum of 300 iterations each although you could probably get by with 200 most of the time. Yes, it sucks. I just looked at a data set of 100 M1 Abrams spotting T-72s at 2000 meters that another beta tester did for Black Sea. The quickest spot time was 1 second, the longest was 667 seconds.

Baneman's armor is all in the same general area around the L-shaped woods, albeit not right next to each other. Yes, Bil started off with thirteen tanks to Baneman's four so 3 to1 is about par. Baneman's comments suggest the Jagd had overwatch duty but Bil found a hole in the LOS. This brings up some questions. Where exactly is the Jagd? Baneman moved it a few turns back but has not shown it's position in any screenshot since. More importantly, does Bil know where the Jagd is? Baneman's comment regarding Bil's tanks being out of the Jagd's LOS by "a few feet" suggests he thinks Bil knows where it is but Bil said he lost track of it when it moved.

It doesn't really work and might be a minor bug. Churchill AVREs are unique (maybe?) in that their crews are divided into 2 sections in the game engine: an engineer team that mans the loader, radio operator and "engineer" positions and the dedicated tank crew with the commander, driver and gunner . You can order the commander, gunner and driver into another dismounted tank and they will enter it but the tank will still say "dismounted" and you can't issue orders to it.

Yes, probably a sock puppet. Be even if he is not, his attempt to redefine the term "mod" in a way that would encompass BFC's entire product line has been repeatedly demolished. I have just added him to my ignore list, where his name is directly above Wiggam's