Vanir Ausf B

Great thread on advanced tank armour (NERA) here (I suspect @IMHO is familiar with it):  http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/553-****ing-nera-everywhere/
Similar thread for ERA:  http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/574-explosive-reactive-armor/
The current proposed armour upgrades do actually cover the frontal aspect, these would (AFAIK) be applied in addition to the upgraded side armour (as seen in CM:BS) in high threat environments.  This in itself is an acknowledgement of the threat presented by modern ATGMs/RPGs (& Russia's improved long-rod penetrators):

PS - Wow!  The forum word filter sorted the title without breaking the link, I'm actually pretty impressed by that! 

Yup, the reaction/acquisition speed is AI fast, not "human" fast. (Which is just a harbinger of the real future of mech warfare (say, within 15/20 years)...) 
That incredibly quick 180 deg turret swing  is just depressing. I see that happen and I know I'm facing losses of 3:1., weather I win or no. A pyhrric win, at that ratio,  in real life 
So for me it's the acquisition part of the loop that breaks my immersion. 
Now and then I play UKR v US just to feel how the Iraqis did. 

 

And Israeli armour isn't? I would imagine they'd pay attention to ATGMs after their experience in 1973... What do you have to back this up? Why is their armour not capable of defeating ATGMs by virtue of not being British, American or German? (Obviously superior Kruppstahl notwithstanding! )
I agree with the sentiment on LWRs though, it definitely seems much too fast. Even with thermal optics there is a lot of stuff to look at in a 30 degree arc to survey before you can dial in that team of two or three guys hiding in a bush!

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Yet a LMG42 can shoot out of a shelter bunker firing from the shoulder. Seems like an inconsistency so I'll report it.

Yet a LMG42 can shoot out of a shelter bunker firing from the shoulder. Seems like an inconsistency so I'll report it.

Yet a LMG42 can shoot out of a shelter bunker firing from the shoulder. Seems like an inconsistency so I'll report it.

Penetration of rolled homogeneous armor at 0° at 750 meters, in millimeters:
US 75L40 (Sherman):
AP: 84 APCBC: 77 UK 57mm
AP: 100 APCBC: 96 APDS: 150 UK 76mm/17 Pdr
AP: 160 APCBC: 156 APDS: 244 German 75L70
APCBC: 158 APCR (rare): 216 German 88L71:
APCBC: 211 APCR (very rare): 269  

Oh how I wish to buy them all and hug them in my sleep~

Thanks both for digging out these references. One of the matters discussed in that thread is how match-up between the spotter and the firing unit affects response times. I did a bunch of tests with on-map organic 60 mm mortars and off-map 155 mm howitzers, with the following spotters:
Battalion HQ Mortar Section HQ (the lowliest HQ but in direct command of the 60mm mortars) FO, assigned to the Battalion FO, assigned to the 60mm mortar section (tested for mortars only). All were regular, no leadership or motivation modifiers, and the missions were point-target medium duration/medium intensity approximately to the same spot on the map, with perfect LOS.
I measured:
"Receiving" phase duration - until the fire mission request is confirmed by the firing unit "Preparing" phase duration - until the first spotting round falls on the map (not applicable for on-map mortars, where I've included this phase in "Spotting" "Spotting" phase duration - until "fire for effect" order is given "Delivery" phase duration - until the first for effect round hits the map (for on-map mortars, until the round is fired) Below are the averages of (only) 3 tests for each case. It appears that Mortar Section HQ can reach its own mortars by about 1 minute faster than Battalion HQ, but in the three tests I did, it needed more spotting rounds (4-5) than Battalion HQ (3 in all three cases), so the delivery time was 6-7 minutes. Declared delivery times were 6 minutes for Battalion HQ and 5 minutes for Mortar Section HQ. Matchup with respect to force structure matters for on-map mortars, but not much. The FOs had a short receiving phase and needed between 2-4 spotting rounds. I can't say if it matters where in the Battalion the FO is attached. Force structure matters but not much.

For the 155 mm Howitzers, there doesn't seem to be a big difference between Battalion HQ or low-level Mortar Section HQ in response times. Both have declared 13 minutes and achieved between 11:20 and 14:32. Battalion HQ needed 2, 7 and 4 spotting rounds, Mortar Section HQ needed 5, 5 and 3. The FO cut both communication time and spotting time by about a half, his performance matching the declared 8 minute delivery time. 2, 3 and 3 spotting rounds were needed.

Appreciate the clarification Luke, trust your feelings 😉
Sarge, the death star effect is my name for the unfortunate combo of game mechanics that allows direct fire weapons even of light caliber to rapidly spot, zero and shoot 'fortified' defenders all dead in their holes and even bunkers at range, again and again, consistently, even when they are hidden or cowering.
RL firepower (at least in pre-PGM days) simply doesn't have that kind of prompt total lethality against dug-in defenders or else WWI would have taken a very different course. The 4.0 "run away! run away!" bailout bug compounds the problem.
 

Studienka and DRd5PD are good PBEM scenarios as well, assuming you have a reliable partner who doesn't mind the time commitment required of big battles. The DRd5PD map is a masterpiece.

CMRT has some, in my eyes, classic battles to offer:
- Studienka
- Carius at Malinava
- Der Ring der 5. Panzer-Division
- CMRT Fester Platz Polozk
The first three are Panzer-heavy affairs on great maps with lots of room for manoeuvering. Fester Platz Polozk is a great defence scenario against the AI, it really works quite well.
Also, as already mentioned, Kampfgruppe von Schroif is a great campaign to be played, featuring German Panzer / Panzergrenadier forces in a counterattack.
So, together with the change of the theatre and the Soviets as a completely new army, my vote would go to CMRT, definitely.

It could be done as part of the Fantasy Vehicle Pack Steve alluded to in the other thread. You don't really need a new game family. With all the models, artwork and TO&E already done it could be patched into RT and/or FB. Then it just comes down to how ambitious BFC wants to be with it and the corresponding price point. If there is no new content aside from the "fantasy" units then it's essentially a vehicle pack. Or they could go balls to the wall with new scenarios, QB maps and campaigns and price it as a module. 

It could be done as part of the Fantasy Vehicle Pack Steve alluded to in the other thread. You don't really need a new game family. With all the models, artwork and TO&E already done it could be patched into RT and/or FB. Then it just comes down to how ambitious BFC wants to be with it and the corresponding price point. If there is no new content aside from the "fantasy" units then it's essentially a vehicle pack. Or they could go balls to the wall with new scenarios, QB maps and campaigns and price it as a module. 

I never liked WW2 era in gaming. Mostly due to its overuse for decades and how games, namely of a strategy genre, represented it.
Vehicles were little more than variations of same stats and shared the same function, be it a light tank or a heavy tank, they just dealt a different amount of damage, chipping off those health bars or armor digits. Most were just destined to be discarded as you raced for the best tier to rule the battlefield. Yes even Men of War was quite guilty of this. Same very much goes for Steel Panthers, Close Combat and CMx1 games - because of all the abstractions, even grounded in reality, but still abstractions, that these games had. Sure enough Graviteam Tactics made WW2 just 'acceptable' to me, mostly due to its awesome representation of tank combat, but I always felt like something was amiss.
That's why I like a modern era a lot more. Even in simpler games like Wargame series or Call to Arms due to era's sheer difference in weapon design and technological imbalance every side always felt like it had its own style. I was always playing Steel Panthers MBT and hardly ever touching WW2 versions. Even mediocre Close Combat Modern Tactics was interesting to me. And CMSF and CMBS just set the quality bar absolutely high.
But then I got CMBN. And for the first time in my life I felt excited about WW2 era in games. Due to a sheer realism and precise representation of everything - every single vehicle, or even every firearm soldiers carry feels unique. No "better tiers", even light tanks can have their moments of glory versus bigger and meaner brethren when lucky or used cunningly. All the weird looking armored cars, these boxes on wheels can contribute a lot to battles. If it takes part in a mission - it can and will be used and it will matter. And due to all the variety of OOBs that a full CMBN bundle currently offers - it delivers what Graviteam Tactics does not: countless ways to have the same battle in - and an amazing infantry gameplay to boot, making tank battles actually feel superior in Battle for Normandy compared.
Furthermore CMBN is, because of how many WW2 games are there and what they are, an example of why realism matters, why just having an abstract "frontal armor" receive less damage before an invisible health bar runs out, or just shrug off hits from calibers below some predefined penetration threshold - will never make an important difference that makes a game truly memorable. Exactly that difference between 75mm tank cannons of USA, Germany and UK.
Damn it, I'll have to buy all WW2 CM titles now, right?

Yes, please!

Yes, please!

Matrix has a huge success on their hands with TOAW IV right now, and you’ll notice they have hardly any Pacific scenarios. The market just doesn’t seem to be there, and I say that as someone who appeciates the CBI theatre. 
 
As an aside, I like to take Regiment-Battalion scale scenarios and recreate some of the more interesting battles in CM or Steel Panthers WW2/MBT. I hope I’m not the only one!
 

The thing to remember about AT guns in-game is that they are always pushed at the same speed in every situation and condition. So yes, it's slower than in reality in some conditions but faster in others. You can push a 76mm gun up a muddy hill with half the crew hors de combat.

So, Is there anything else we can help you with :-)

Not an opinion piece, but the conclusions are built on some big assumptions (for example, what is the scientific basis for their definition of suppression) and very artificial test conditions.  How often is an LMG likely to be attempting immediate suppression on a single spotted individual.  Much more likely for the LMG to be tasked with immediately suppressing an area with an unknown number of targets, and for that it is pretty well-suited, especially if we are talking about 4x rifles vs. 3x rifles + belt-fed LMG.

(Admin note! - an offhanded comment about a fix coming in 2018 generated quite an off-topic discussion in the 2018 thread.  I moved it here as its own new thread)
Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.
The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

Rate of fire
Not that much to see here, bolt-action rifles have the lowest rate of fire (including the scoped Lee-Enfield), semi-auto rifles have a higher one. You can see the difference between the Bren and B.A.R. as a result of magazine capacity (30 vs 20 rounds). MG42 has about 2-6 times higher RoF than everything else.

Accuracy
I want to highlight again that we are talking about kills per round, not about hits per round.
The green line on the top is the scoped Lee-Enfield. It's accuracy is super-high but does not increase that much with decreasing distance, so there is little advantage in getting close. Bolt-action rifles are more accurate than semi-auto rifles, although this cannot be confirmed at long distances (sample size issue, I believe). Bren and B.A.R. achieve more kills per round than over 240 m. The SMGs are at the bottom but as you can see, their accuracy is flat or even rises with distance above 120 m!

Excel file link (individual data is on hidden sheets if you need to see them): https://www.dropbox.com/s/qeltpvi732w91bt/CMBN weapons effects.xlsx?dl=0

First of all, some more notes:
there is no discernible difference in MP44 and Sten effectiveness whether it is fired by a Leader or a Soldier. I am showing Leader data only. similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that Sten Mk II and Mk IV are any different. I am showing Sten Mk II data only. MP44, Bren and B.A.R. switch from full auto to semi-auto fire above 150 meters, so there is a step change in the results between 120 and 160 meters where I ran the tests the statistics may still not be good enough for weapons achieving few kills at long distances, so the results for rifles at the edge of their range are indicative rather than accurate. Firepower
First note: the vertical axis is in log scale, otherwise the drop in firepower with distance would drown out all detail. I'll post the excel file so you can make any graphs you want.
Bolt-action rifles are at the bottom, Lee-Enfield appears to be superior to Kar 98K. Semi-auto rifles are better, both M1 Garand and Gewehr 43 are on the same level together with the MP44 (when fired in semi-auto mode). All SMGs are better than all rifles over their entire range up to 200 m. MP40 and Sten have very similar performance, Thompson is the most powerful SMG. MP44 is less powerful than SMGs but is in the same league with them until the 150 m mark. Bren and B.A.R. are generally in the league with SMGs as well but, of course, keep going beyond 200 m. The B.A.R. is inferior to the Bren, apparently due to its smaller magazine, and therefore lower average rate of fire. MG42 beats everything by a wide margin except the sniper rifle. The scoped rifle benefits much less from closing the range than the other weapons.

The only problem from my perspective is that SMGs keep their high performance out to 200 m. Their firepower does not fall much with distance in the outer part of their range, and as we will see, their accuracy (on "bodies per round" basis) is constant or even rises between 120 and 200 m.

[more to come]