Vanir Ausf B

It is the former. Unless one of those mods is Vin's Animated Text you really don't have to worry about removing them at all. As a beta tester I get new "patches" nearly every week and I never remove my mods.

Same source: "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945", by S. J. Zaloga and L. S. Ness, 1998 (Alan Sutton, Thrupp) gives on page 179 a table of the ranges in metres at which Soviet tanks and assault guns were knocked out by 75mm and 88mm guns in 1943-44, as follows: Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun 100-200_______10.0%_________4.0% 200-400_______26.1%________14.0% 400-600_______33.5%________18.0% 600-800_______14.5%________31.2% 800-1000_______7.0%________13.5% 1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5% 1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6% 1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0% 1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7% 1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5% However, note the time period. Tanks and self propelled guns with weaponry capable of 2000+ meter shots with any sort of reliability comprised a very small portion of the total vehicles in battle until about mid-1944 when the Panther began to be seen in larger numbers (and were still a minority till the end of the war) so that is why the discrepancy with the NW Europe numbers.

Unbuttoned TC does lose his sensors when unbuttoned, so here is a possibly incomplete list of vehicles that spot better while buttoned all the time (but only to the front of the vehicle). M1A2 Abrams T-90AM BM Oplot M2A3 Bradley M3A3 Bradley M7A3 B-FIST Khrizantema Tunguska I don't know for certain, but I think it very unlikely that vehicle crews have night vision goggles, so nearly all vehicles should stay buttoned in low light conditions.

From the same source: For NW Europe, K is about 950 yards. 90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards; 80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards; 50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.

I've seen the numbers for Goodwood but can't find them at the moment. Here are some numbers from NW Europe courtesy of John D. Salt:

German panzer iv crews were trained to open fire at 1200 meters as that is the maximum range at which their mili-radian sights allowed them to "fire for effect" without use of bracketing. Tigers, Panthers and vehicles with similar main cannon firepower did open up at ranges well beyond that when opportunity permitted. -- Commander of the III Panzer Korps General der Panzertruppe Hermann Breith, 21 July 1943

Yes, absolutely.

http://bit.ly/cm-helper

It's been suggested a hundred times and will likely be suggested a hundred more, about half of which will be from me.

It.makes.them.10%.more.fun.

Two at a time are fired at vehicles with APS.

BTW, what scenario or QB map were you trying to play?

The file that you really need to back up is your hotkeys.txt

They're not duds, that's simply the way CM displays random misses for ATGMs, excepting for targets in cover such as trees. It would be nice if there was more variety.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/106892-tank-off-road-performance-tests-and-possible-wackiness/?p=1484073

The actual cost of a formation will change every time you purchase it because some of its attributes are randomly chosen upon purchasing, e.g. the experience, motivation and leadership ratings, vehicle models weapon carried by squads, ect. The price you see before you purchase is based on everyone being average, so US formations in Black Sea will usually cost more upon purchase since their ratings are weighted to be above average.

They deny everything!

The OP acknowledged the ERA bug. The question is if the base armor package under the ERA is correct. The ERA bug is what makes this testable. An AT-7 test should give us an answer. Anyone with the release version of the game could do it, BTW

It actually doesn't, but I sometimes pretend that it does to help rationalize when it happens to me

Soviet Hero, please test the T-90 against AT-7 and let us know the results. The numbers AKD dug up suggest HEAT resistance of 540mm for the T-90 upper hull. The AT-5a penetrates 600mm so I don't see a problem there.

I was able to reproduce the crash and have sent the file to BFC.

Speed doesn't affect bogging chance or track damage.

Almost anything can penetrate once in a blue moon. We need multiple examples so that we know it's not a one-off. Also, try something other than the AT-4c. If there is a problem it is not necessarily that the T-90 armor is too weak. It could be that the AT-4c has its penetration set too high. I know from my own testing of the ERA bug that the AT-4c will go through the Bradley front hull like it was butter ever with functioning ERA while the AT-7 Saxhorn usually fails.

I can't test anything against the T-90 without ERA because I don't have a version 1.0 installation on my computer anymore. But I did have a US AT-4 (penetration 420mm) fail to penetrate a T-90A upper hull in a PBEM a few weeks ago. I don't know if the ERA bug was present at that time or not.

It's supposed to be, but I haven't tested that aspect of IR performance since it was implemented late in development. If it works in the game the way it was proposed then thermal optics are less affected by adverse weather than day/night sights or naked eyeballs, but the difference varies by weather type. Thermals should provide much better spotting in light fog, light rain or mist, mildly better performance in heavy fog or heavy rain, and about the same performance in dense fog, downpour, a raging blizzard or something similarly extreme. But only BFC knows exactly how it works in-game.