Vanir Ausf B

IIRC it can, but only if the movement happens after the round is in the air.

This had a lot to do with the composition of Soviet explosives. For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this? Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition. -- Dmitriy Loza

Game over, man, GAME OVER!

It's a tough call because the TacAI doesn't know if the Abrams has APS or not. If it does have APS then autocannon is the better choice. In general the TacAI seems to usually assume that vehicles that can have APS do have it.

The changelog item is a vaguely worded reference to a bug that caused hull down status to not be properly taken into account when determining vehicle center of mass. In other words, hull down vehicles were sometimes getting hit at their true center of mass instead of their visible center of mass.

This. And it hasn't changed.

I think Armata's armor protection levels are unknown. But if you are ok with WAGs mine is that Armata could be penetrated anywhere except the front hull.

I only understood about a third of that wall but it sounds like you have reinforcements arriving in a QB? I totally understand that. It reminds me of one of the first PBEMs I ever played, back in the CMBO days. It was a QB and I was just rolling over this poor guy's force like it wasn't even there. I had like twice as much infantry as he did because he had purchased a small army of halftracks. I couldn't understand why he had handicapped himself by wasting points on units that were just target practice for my panzers. So I asked him and his response was "because they are mech infantry and the halftracks are part of their TO&E." I felt bad because I had thought it was kosher to assume the infantry was dropped off outside the map.

Yeah, it was a ban on Stugs with 30mm applique armor on top of the base 50mm. Because of a quirk in how CMBB modeled applique armor it made Stugs stupidly resistant to Soviet 76mm AP. For pre-85mm time periods those Stugs were like Jagdpanthers but with a Stug QB price. Which is a good example of why I don't view most restrictions on unit types as an effort to steer force compositions into narrow confines*. Most of them are really trying to do the exact opposite by restricting overly popular or "no-brainer" units. The Russians in Black Sea have two mobile AA units: the Strela and Tunguska. The Tunguska does everything the Strela does in the AA realm plus has a very powerful and versatile ground attack in addition. But it only costs 20pts more than a Strela. In an anything goes game there is no reason to ever buy a Strela. *Some people do like rules such as restricting tank platoons to being of all the same type of tank. These are mainly realism-based rules, because some people are irked by the sight of a platoon featuring a Panther, a Tiger, a Hetzer and a Wespe

-- Panther: Germany's Quest for Combat Dominance, Michael and Gladys Green, pgs 154-155.

Pg 35: Starting in April 1943, Schuerzen (protective skirts made from soft steel) were mounted to prevent penetration of the 40mm thick lower hull side by rounds fired at close range from Russian anti-tank rifles. The Schuerzen were tested and proven to be effective against direct hits from 75mm high-explosive shells as well as anti-tank rifles. The invention of Schuerzen saved the Panther I. If the Panther I hadn't been able to cope with anti-tank rifles production would have been converted to the Panther II. The Schuerzen were not intended to defeat and were not initially tested against hollow charge rounds.

Popular myth. They were designed to protect against Soviet AT rifles (PTRD, ect). Any protection they give against other weapon types is serendipitous.

Whoops. When I wrote that the Khrizantema-S was under priced I actually meant the Tunguska. Fixed now.

I had this happen last week in a Black Sea PBEM, which is a newer version of the engine than Normandy so it is definitely still a problem. There is not much you can do but hope he runs towards enemy troops and gets killed as soon as possible. I suppose you could plot some area fire near him using tanks and hope he catches some shrapnel.

Pre-planned bombardment: Attacker only (and of course you can target the defender's setup zone as there would be little point in it otherwise and the defender's setup zone in an att/def is usually most of the map). TRPs: typically defender only Armor: can spend up to 33% of your points on armor, which is usually defined as vehicles only available under the Armored tab in the QB editor. In the WW2 titles there are often additional limits placed on certain German tanks. King Tigers and Jagdpanthers are frequently banned outright. A lot of players will also place limits on the size of artillery allowed, 160mm being a good cutoff (that allows for the smallest-sized Nebelwerfer in WW2 games). In Black Sea specifically the APS ban has been mentioned although I only ban Russian APS if the opposition is Ukraine. I would suggest limiting the number of Tunguska and TRP allowed (2 and 5 respectively) because they are presently underpriced. I would also suggest only allowing anti-tank mines when purchased as "Mixed" for the same reason.

A large chunk of the US Army in CMBS is driving around with an APS that can defeat top attack weapons

Unbuttoned vehicles can accrue suppression.

I don't think non-penetrating hits cause suppression to AFV crew anymore and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate. And if that's a bad thing you can probably blame me for it to some extent. A while back (like a year ago or so) I noticed that in the WW2 games British AP that bounced off tanks did not cause any suppression while US, German and Soviet AP did. It became apparent that it was the HE burster charge that was the source of the suppression (the UK used AP shot instead of AP shell). This was rather silly since the burster charge was far too small to be of any concern to the crew when detonating outside the crew compartment. In fact, another tester brought up the fact that the production of suppression was tied more precisely to the distance from the tank at which the burster charge detonated (a shell that bounced far away before blowing up would produce no suppression at all). I brought up this discrepancy to BFC and the suppression effect was removed. Good? Bad? Ugly? Debatable I'm sure, but it's not a bug.

DM-53/L55 muzzle velocity is estimated at 1750m/s.

To buy Steve a $5000 suit and gold Rolex? Sure, I'll pitch in.

I checked the readme file and the rocket arty prices were changed in 3.10.

They are much more expensive in the current version (3.12 IIRC).

Look out for the first turn rocket stonk on your setup zone

Since when did stoney silence become a phrase?

The Strela-10 does have more missiles (12 vs 8), better off-road performance and speed. But I agree that the Tunguska's ground attack ability makes it a no-brainer at it's current price. I will suggest an increase.