Vanir Ausf B

Of the incidents studied by BRL, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. On the relatively few occasions when the attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers... Tank-versus-tank engagements tended to be short, violent affairs with the losing side quickly withdrawing rather than face annihilation. Ambush from a concealed position was the ideal ingredient in winning a tank-versus-tank firefight. A similar British study reached much the same conclusion, finding that in 70 percent of the eighty-three actions studied, the side that engaged first won. -- Armored Thunderbolt, Steven Zaloga We can debate exact numbers all day, but with regards to the OP the bottom line is that in reality who shoots first wins and CM reflects that.

Generally speaking, infantry did not attempt to close assault tanks without special anti-tank weapons, unless the tank was immobilized. In part that was because infantry tend to be mortally terrified of tanks. It was considered an extraordinarily brave thing to do, but it can work similar to how it does in CM if the right tools are available. -- Tank Rider, Evgeni Bessonov

Question: what was the loader doing during this time, according to the readout on the left side of the screen? Was he cycling between aiming and firing over and over?

Jason, fair enough. There are many factors that can influence real world combat that are necessarily abstracted or not present in CM or any other game. For example, spotting is binary while in reality it's more granular. But the numbers that you are suggesting are vastly lower than any published data I have seen. Taking the total number of shots fired, dividing by tanks hit and then basing accuracy on that is a fun thought exercise (assuming you can find the numbers) but if I asked Charles to change the game based on that he would laugh, assuming a disembodied brain is capable of laughter. The numbers I posted are taken directly from WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, which is what CM uses for data AFAIK. I am not an expert in this area, but people that are very knowledgeable have looked at Bird and Livingston's numbers and found them to be pretty close.

It was changed for the CMBN vehicle pack to make room for the Remove Mines command (or whatever it's called). Even though there are no mine clearing units in CMRT yet they seem to like to keep the file the same across games.

I keep a backup file. If a patch overwrites my current bindings I don't copy the old file back since I assume BFC changed something that needs to stay changed. But I can at least open the old file and use it as a reference so I'm not redoing it from memory.

How on earth did that happen? Jeez. There is no commander. It's definite a bug.

I have wondered about that myself. Perhaps it is why AA and AT guns are sometimes able to absorb tremendous amounts of punishment before being knocked out. But AFAIK Charles didn't say, so someone from BFC would have to ask him.

You're going to have to upload a save game. I've never seen anything like what you describe and I play every day (although recently it's been CMBS rather than CMBN)

What type of terrain was the vehicle in, or more importantly, what type was he ordered to cross? I don't know for sure, but it seems to me there has been a change in that vehicles will not cross light forest terrain, and possible similar types, unless you put the movement point in action spot containing that terrain. If the movement points are in open terrain action spots that have the rough terrain between them the vehicle will try to drive around, even if this means traveling a much farther distance. If this isn't the issue then I have no idea. I have had no problem with vehicles turning.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Panther will usually only have to get lucky once, and the probability of that compounds with each shot taken, so even if the chance of any given shot hitting is low the chance of at least one hitting is much higher. At 1800 meters the first shot hit % against a roughly tank-size target moving laterally across the shooters LOF at 15 mph/24 kph is about 6%. Follow-up shots will each have about a 30% chance of hitting (the hit % never goes higher than this). So, the probability of getting hit at least once is: Shot at 1x: 6% Shot at 2x: 34.2% Shot at 3x: 53.9% Shot at 4x: 67.8% Against the same target moving directly towards the shooter we get (13% first shot, 59% on follow-ups): 1x: 13% 2x: 64.3% 3x: 85.4% 4x: 94% These numbers are actually for 17 Pdr ABCBC but the ballistics are similar enough to 75mm KwK 42 L/70.

It would be more accurate to say that the US Army operated in areas dominated by bocage, poorly suited to armored warfare. The Germans therefore made the common sense decision to concentrate their armor in the more open terrain to the east, which was where the British were for the most part.

Depends on how many shots the Panthers get. At that range and against a moving target the large majority of the first shots should miss. But accuracy increases rapidly with each shot taken so if they are getting 2 or 3 shots off there is a pretty good chance of a hit. As for penetration, a Panther will easily penetrate a T-34 at that range except on some parts of the T-34/85 front turret.

In 3.11? That's a bug that was supposed to have been fixed.

If you run into more out of memory problems, lowering graphics settings can help to some extent.

I wasn't advocating either/or, just stating a fact. But since you are asking, here are the thoughts of one guy who was actually there: "(Paul) Howe felt like he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention. They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition and carried a Vietnam era M-14, which shot a 7.62mm round without the penetrating qualities of the new green tip. It occurred to Howe as he saw those Sammies keep on running that Randy was the smartest soldier in the unit." -- BHD, pg 208

The complaints I have read regarding shortcomings of the 5.56mm in Afghanistan have been in relation to US forces firing upwards at a steep angle at an enemy force higher in elevation, such as from a valley to a mountain side. Such terrain is common in the eastern part of the country. I also recall Rangers complaining about how many hits it took to knock guys down during the Battle of Mogadishu, aka "Blackhawk Down". But in that fight the Somalies were hopped up on narcotics and so were literally feeling no pain.

Yes, firing while on the move is very accurate in Black Sea. But you still have to spot it before you can shoot it.

Descriptive text[/url ], but without the space at the end.

I have recently read three. In order of recommendation: Panzer Destroyer. The most action-y and the best written of the 3, IMO. Tank Rider. Not the greatest writing, but if you want to see the war from the perspective of a tank rider platoon leader, it will scratch that itch. Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks. This has the highest rating on Amazon (with all of 6 reviews) but I was frankly disappointed. The book has it's moments and insights, but the narrative is disjointed, with it sometimes not clear if the author is describing events he witnessed or that were told to him. He also tries to give extensive operational background, but I found it more confusing and uninteresting than informative, including one glaring historical inaccuracy. But if you want to know what the Soviets thought of the Sherman tank there isn't much else out there.

That can happen, yes.

Speaking of gridded terrain, one of my favorite mods is Niessuh's Outer Grid. The grid pattern only shows on distant LODs, so when you are zoomed out you have gridded terrain, but when you zoom in close the grid disappears so you don't spoil your immersion.

Will do

Sounds like you didn't download all of the .bin files. There should be 5 of them.

Looks like movie mode. Bil likes movie mode.