Vanir Ausf B

Over the past few weeks I've been extensively testing the firepower of different American, British and German rifles, SMGs and LMGs in CMBN 4.0. I originally wanted to make a complete series of tests before 'publishing' the results, but I understand that there is an update in the making that will, as a minimum, adjust the rate of fire of some weapons, so for my work to have any impact, I should show them now rather than later. I am posting in general CM discussion. Although the tests were CMBN-specific, I believe that the same patterns in weapons effectiveness will be found in other titles as well.
Method
13 lanes, target troops in foxholes (4-man U.S. medium mortar ammo bearer teams, regular, fanatic, no ammo). Walls are used to separate the lanes over the last 40 meters only, to prevent ricochets from affecting the results. In each lane, one firing team (regular, normal motivation, no leadership modifier) engages the target troop unit using a target arc order. The firing team is so set up that there is only one man in the team with the tested weapon, and he is the only one firing. Ample ammo is provided from supply trucks so the firing unit does not run out of ammunition during the test. There always is a leader in the team with binoculars to aid with spotting at long distances. 13 firing teams with the same weapon are tested in parallel at distances from 40 to 600 meters. The test runs for 10 minutes or until all target troops are eliminated, whichever comes earlier. The total time in action for the 13 teams (between 0 and 7800 seconds) and the total casualties (between 0 and 52) is evaluated. Each test is repeated 26 times, therefore each weapon is tested 338 times at each distance.
An example of the test file is found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d5b7qoex6cmigm0/Weapons effects BAR (Gunner) 400m.bts?dl=0
In total, there are 106 files like that one, each run 26 times for up to 10 minutes. About 10,250,000 rounds were fired by the firing teams and 72,530 casualties taken by the target troops.
Distance to target is the average distance of the 13 firing teams to the target action spot (as the firing team's action spot is 8 m wide, this needs to be adjusted for)
Firepower is here defined as the average number of casualties suffered per unit time by the target troops. Minor wounds do not count. The unit is bpm, "bodies per minute".
Rate of fire is taken from ammo consumption during the test, averaged from 26 instances. The unit is rpm, rounds per minute.
Accuracy is the number of casualties per round fired. It may not fully correspond to the number of hits per round fired as one casualty may receive multiple hits, especially with automatic fire. The unit is bpr, "bodies per round", multiplied by 1000 to make the numbers easier to interpret.
Tested weapons
MP40 (Leader), Sten Mk II (Leader), Sten Mk IV (Leader, Soldier), M1A1 Thompson (Leader) - distances 40-192 m MP44 (Leader), MP44 (Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Karabiner 98K, Gewehr 43, Lee Enfield No 4, M1 Garand (all Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Lee Enfield w/scope (Marksman) - distances 40-600 m MG42 LMG, Bren, B.A.R. (all Gunner) - distances 40-600 m [I am going to break up this post here, results come next]

You need to make yourself familiar with windows command prompt. How you start it you can read here:
https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-open-command-prompt-2618089
In Win 10 basically right-click on start and choose command (admin).
Step 1: Copy the scenario you want to convert into a folder of your choice. For simplicity sake let´s use C:\test. Also copy the mutator.exe there.
Step 2: Now start windows command prompt
Step 3: Within the command prompt navigate to C:\test
Step 4: convert your scenario to CMBS. Lets say it was called ABC.btt and originally created for CMRT.
Step 5: Type the following in the command prompt: "mutator.exe - t CMBS ABC.btt"
then press ENTER and your CMRT scen will be converted to a file named ABC_CMBS.btt
Step 6: Copy the converted file to your CMBS scen folder
Enjoy!
 
 
 
 
 
 

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

A bit more chart below. Not an exhaustive (har har) test, but still helpful.
With a combination of using Target to measure approximate distances, and rough numbers like in the chart, I can fairly well synchronize unit movement, and have an idea of when to expect fatigue, etc.

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

Issuing a Hull Down command is a two-step process. The first step is plotting the movement. Using the Hull Down Command you plot a movement path usually a short distance past where you want to be hull down because you have to be able to trace direct line of sight from the end of the movement line to wherever you want to be hull down to. That lets you do the second step which is clicking on the waypoint at the end of the movement line and Targeting (or Target Briefly, doesn't matter) the spot you want to be hull down to, same as if you were plotting area fire but in this context the tank won't shoot, it's just how you tell the game where you want to be hull down relative to. The tank will then stop moving when it is hull down to that spot or it reaches the end of the movement line, whichever comes first, but if you do it correctly it should almost always stop prior to the end. But if you don't Target from the endpoint the tank will treat the Hull Down movement command like a normal movement order and drive the full distance every time. 
 

That may be it. I ran the saved game for a while until the Panther re-spotted the TD on the right, but still could not fire even when I Targeted manually. The TD never fired on the Panther either. Then I ran a pioneer squad up and blew a hole in the bocage directly in front of the Panther, which immediately opened up on the TD.

I realize I am late to the party but I wanted to add some real life experience to the discussion on the effectiveness of indirect fire upon dug in Infantry.
In 1986 we completely dug an infantry platoon defensive position plus company weapons det. This totalled 12 x 2 man fire trenches, Platoon HQ bunker, a mortar pit and 1 x AT trench and a M249 MG trench. We also dug all the communication trenches as well. The individual fire trenches had proper overhead protection consisting of corrugated metal (you could stick your bayonet through it) covered by 2 layers of sandbags. The HQ bunker consisted of 6inch. diameter logs covered by corrugated steel and 2 layers of sand bags.
In each trench we put 2 x target balloons. In the HQ bunker we put 3 x target balloons. The mortar pit had 2 x balloons as did the MG and AT trench for a total simulation of 33 humans.
4x 155mm Howitzers (7km distance) and 4 x 81mm Mortars (3km distance) continuously fired both impact and airburst rounds. for exactly 3 min.
Upon inspection of aftermath we found the 2 balloons of the Mortar pit gone from a direct hit. 2 other balloons were gone presumably from shrapnel. The HQ bunker took a direct hit. 29 persons survived. Although bleeding ears and an overall stunning would most certainly have occurred.
Suppression is the main purpose for both artillery/mortars and machine guns. I have heard many gamers complain that their MGs and artillery/mortars are useless because they are not very accurate...good..they are not supposed to be.

.... The Postwar Years

The screenshots in the original C2 and Information Sharing topic were destroyed by Photobucket. As a result a REDUX C2 and Information Sharing topic was created with new screenshots. Some mods that will show up most often in the screenshots are, user interface (UI) and floating icons:  
Floating Icons – Cat Tactical Icons CMFI
User Interface – Juju’s TweakedUI CMFI V5
Some interesting topics have been started about how information moves through the C2 chain both vertically (up & down the chain of command) and horizontally (directly from one team to another team).  As a result I did some experimenting with C2 & information sharing.  Below are the results with screenshots from the experiment.  If anyone can offer a correction or additional information please do. 
Additional useful information and supplemental C2 rules:   
4.0 Engine Manual page 66 Command & Control.
@Bil Hardenberger Command Friction 2.0 -  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125172-command-friction-20/
@Peregrine Command Layers - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110861-command-layer-in-ai-battles/
 
 
The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command).
Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters. If either unit is on Hide then the distance is reduced to approximately 16 meters.
Close Visual C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters. This is also the maximum distance a higher HQ can fill in for a lower HQ. Example: Company or battalion HQ fills in for a platoon HQ and provides C2 to the platoon's fire teams. 
Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight.  (In the experiment I had units in distant visual C2 at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.)
Radio C2: Entire map.  In the WWII titles, CMSF & CMA - C2 via backpack radio is lost during foot movement. C2 is maintained during foot movement in CMBS.
The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams).
Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots)
Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions?
Yes
Can information be shared between two different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ?
Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) 
Horizontally: Yes
The experiment was conducted on skill level Iron in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4.  I used two different US battalions on a custom made map for the experiment.  The 4th US Tank Battalion on the west (left) side of the map and the 1st US Infantry Battalion on the east (right) side.  A high ridgeline divided the two battalions.  HQ units are blocked from C2 Voice, Close Visual and Distant Visual with other HQ units. At the beginning of the experiment no units of the 4thBattalion were in C2 with units of the 1st Battalion.  An immobilized German Tiger and a destroyed Tiger were used as the OpFor unit to be spotted and reported.  
The Area of Operations (A/O) for the experiment. Note the highlighted scout team with no C2.   
 

There's really no reason to get into a groggy discussion about weapons here, because user1000 answered his own question in his first post:
If a scenario gives the Germans high motivation and the US low motivation, of course the Americans will cower and the Germans fire back. It's just how the scenario was made.

Mord.

Mord.

Mord.

Shows what you know...
 

 
 
Mord.

That would be nice, but I have yet to see a book with the title I Was a Halftrack Gunner and I'm not holding my breath.

Michael

This is an interesting topic indeed. In a combat situation, with known enemy spotted in the area, a smoke screen to the front would initiate immediate suppression fire from an infantry rifle company (or platoon). There is no "waiting" until you see the enemy. The smoke deployment would mean the enemy is attempting a flanking maneuver or an advance (or hopefully a withdrawal). The infantry organization's life would depend on an aggressive reaction. So, I firmly believe we should be able to area fire into a smoke screen. A smoke screen is not a "Secret hiding spot" or "Safe Space".... it's extremely noticeable and would cause life saving reaction fire.    

nothing to see here

CMRT Night vision mode for night scenarios
- This is modified Battlefront CM “War Movie” shader.
- It will replace the Alt-M (Opt-M) mode.
- Does not work with Alt-B (Opt-B) mode.
- Works with CMRT, CMBN, CMFI and CMBS (engine v3.0).
- Little or no performance hit.
- OS X and Windows.
- Experimental stuff.
Credits to @SLIM for night vision ideas and @Rambler for first making it for CMBS!
Download:  Zielgerat_1229_NIGHT_HUNTER_mode.zip


thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120902-released-zielgerät-1229-night-hunter-mode/
@Rambler Night vision mode thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120834-released-night-vision-mode/

Hi, a little thing I would like to see would be simulated smoke pots for Pioneer squads. I don't know if this could be done by making their existing smoke grenade give off more smoke and burn longer or what, but something emiting smoke for a few minutes at time could create enough concealment for them to actually achieve something.It seems that smoke grenades and smoke pots were a pretty essential part of their equipment, and I think it would lend to them being a bit more specialised than at the moment and also more capable of performing their historical tasks like wire/obstacle/bunker clearing.The use of smoke was deemed to be so much an integral part of their capability to carry out their role, that the german pioneer assault pack even has two pockets designed specifically to carry two smoke grenades. So even assuming every man in the squad does not have a full load out, the pop smoke capability of a pioneer squad is surely under modelled as it is now where they have the standard two smoke grenades that all [I think] inf. squads are allocated. I think if this could be implemented there is potential for pioneer units employed in the assault to closer resemble the valuable asset that they were in reality more so than they are in the game at the moment. cheers.

I hate Cromwells. Absolutely loathe them. Yeah theyre fast but not much faster than Shermans. The Churchill IMO is about as distinctly British as you can get. If you have GL try out the Mk I id buy it in normandy if I could. Love the hull mounted 75mm and the 2lber on the turret. Also CW Stuarts dont carry canister like US Stuarts do.
The Anzac forces and Canucks have some interesting inf carriers - such as the defrocked Priest thats like a large early APC with a MG mount. I dig those.
The Challengers those apparently were very rare seem to be pretty similar to Cromwells but I found them a cooler experience and a little better than the Cromwell. Seriously I cant go on enough about how lousy the Cromwells armor is, it makes a Sherman look tough, and the 75mm cannon is nothing to write home about for it, the sherman, or churchill for AT work. It does well enough for infantry. But I find the ideal CW all purpose tank force has at least 1 firefly with 1 churchill 6lber, 1 churchill 95mm, and a couple 75 mm churchills preferably the latest X model which has superb armor. If you can buy two fireflies or add a stuart or two to that.  The 95mm Churchills are excellent for infantry support and then you also get the specialist models - the AVRE which fires a ridiculously large shell and the crocodile which shoots a flamethrower at a pretty long range. The Churchills arent the quickest tanks in the game but they do move quick enough for game purposes and hardly ever bog. Historically they were famous for getting over almost any kind of terrain. They also come with about 9k rounds of Besa MG ammo so you can literally spray mg fire the entire battle just about without running out of ammo.
The CW infantry platoons work handily enough. Often i prefer them over Americans. If I know Im gonna have a tough armor battle i choose them. If i know itll be more infantry oriented with only a couple tanks at most I take Americans.
Interestingly the assault engineer CW units and recon teams are probably amongst the most flexible infantry units for the Allies in the game. They come in three man teams  One packs a 51mm mortar and rifle. One packs a Bren. The leader carries a Sten.
 

That puzzled me for ages: it's a radio. The uncommon one has one, the common one does not. It's a "quirk" of the way rarity is assigned. Sure, there weren't as many radio-Bren carriers in the establishment, but that's because the TO&E didn't assign them, not because they were in short supply relative to the levels the TO&E said they should be equipped, and if they were in short supply, the scout sections should have the option of having a non-radio bren carrier as a replacement for the radio-equipped one.

Unit experience appears to have only a very small effect on use of cover. I tested Light Forest + 2 trees with elite and conscript targets. The elite targets suffered 5% fewer casualties which is on the margin of statistical significance for the sample size.