YankeeDog

Heck, just take a couple of private pilot lessons. A few minutes behind the control yoke of even a Cessna 150 will give you a much better appreciation of just how hard it is to perceive small details rushing by you on the ground as you attempt to control a single-engine piston plane at low altitude. And this in a slow trainer with nobody shooting at you, or trying to actually hit something with aircraft-mounted weaponry.

I'm not sure what "brabbling" is, but fine. You can take a half hour to look up Soviet tank production & loss stats and compare them to German claims, or not. I'm not paid to organize and provide this information to people like you here on this forum so there's only so far I will go in casual discussion; the people who pay me to do research are unfortunately interested in much drier, uninteresting topics. But I will give you a hint if you change your mind and actually feel like looking up the facts: You can find a fair amount of info on this topic if you just do a search for old posts of JasonC on these forums. Your time, not mine.

I'm not going to play this game with you again and do your work for you. I'm sure your Google-fu is adequate. There's tons of stuff on USAF and RAF WWII operating procedures available on the 'net. Soviet stuff is a little harder to find, but more discoverable nowadays than it used to be.

The inherent problem with all of the "verified kill" claims is that there are simply too many for the number of tanks lost. If you add up all of the Soviet tank "verified kills" by Rudel and his fellow Ju-87G pilots, all the similar claims by German tank & SP gun crews, AT Gun crews, infantry close assault, etc. you get a number far higher than the number of tanks the Soviets lost. This is true whether you look at the figures over the course of the entire war, or if you break it out and look at tank losses vs. kill claims over shorter time periods, and/or only specific fronts. And it continues to hold even if you assume a substantial number of "short term kills" -- i.e., tanks that were damaged by attack, and put out of action, but only temporarily. And this is without factoring in the fact that substantial number of tanks were lost to non-combat and non-direct action causes -- mines, lucky indirect fire artillery hits, breaking down and not being recovered for whatever reason, simply wearing out, etc. So verified kill counts must be inflated. And if you assume that the verified kills of Stuka aces like Rudel are less inflated, then you have to take away actual kills from the Panzer Aces and AT Gun crews. It's a zero sum game. Again, not necessarily singling out the Germans' numbers on this; everybody else is pretty much the same.

Pretty much everybody did some version of this, for both air-to-air and air-to-ground. Even with independent verification, analysis of gun camera footage, post attack BDA flights, etc. claims to kills numbers are still off by a multiple if you look at actual opposing side loss stats. Air-to-air by a ratio of somewhere around 2:1, and usually much higher for air-to-ground -- as high as 10:1 in some contexts. Air attack on armor usually has one of the worst claims to kills ratios. This is remarkably consistent across nationalities in WWII; pretty much everybody's air-to-ground claims were wildly inaccurate most of the time.

No argument there. I've certainly come to learn that adding almost any new game feature is 10x more complicated than what it seems to be at first glance. Hence my comments stating that I don't see this as a particularly high priority feature for addition. It might be nice, but there are plenty of other possible new features that would require as much or less coding & deubug time that I would consider higher on "the list".

Sure, but CM would model this just fine without any additional features; it would be extremely risky to send a dismounted HQ unit over to another tank that was actually engaging with the enemy; you'd be much wiser to order the "new ride" to pull back to a safe place before exchanging crews. Sure, but this is true of CMx2 C2 in general. If a halftrack carrying a weapons team in hits a mine and is destroyed, I can immediately send over another halftrack to pick them up (assuming I have one), even though IRL the weapons crew might be far away from other friendlies and have no easy way of signalling the issue. I don't see any particular "additional unrealism" in allowing a tank platoon HQ to execute a similar action. Fairly easy to account for within the game engine as it is now as well: Set a rule that an HQ crew must be in good order (let's say "Nervous" morale or better, supression meter not out of the yellow) to requisition a subordinate tank. Therefore, if the HQ crew is panicked, to wait for them to calm down before executing the switch, and HQ crews that had taken as serious beating and had poor morale wouldn't be able to hop rides at all. Actually, I'd be comfortable with just making it a blanket rule that dismounted vehicle crews in general must be in good order (good morale, minimal suppression) to re-mount vehicles. Again, I am certainly not screaming for this to be a high priority addition to the game engine, but when and if there is time and resources to add it, I do think it would be a realistic addition (so long as strictly limited to the HQs requisitioning the vehicles of subordinates).

Save your powder for a more important fight. IMHO, it's a silly test and not really worth arguing over. If I understand the test conditions correctly, the closest real-world parallel would be if 4 Stukas were able to somehow surprise a company of static T-34s lined up on the parade ground with minimal AA protection. You might be able to find an example of something like this happening in the early days of Barbarossa when Stukas attacked installations with almost total surprise, but otherwise it's a highly artificial test that tells you basically nothing about how tac air in CMRT compares to the real thing.

Again, there are clear and common historical precedents for a tank platoon commander that has lost his ride (for whatever reason) bumping a subordinate crew out of a tank in the middle of a battle to stay in the fight; there is no need to speculate or conjecture whether this would be "realistic" or not at the CM scale. I do understand why it's not in the game. It clearly would not be a trival thing to code, debug and beta test and I think there are other game features that are more important. But as long as such feature were appropriately limited to this type of HQ action, it would definitely be realistic.

Platoon commanders did sometimes requisition subordinates' tanks when their own was damaged or even just low on fuel or ammo. I've read way too many accounts of this being done for it have been an infrequent thing. It's something I would like to see *eventually* in CM -- Plt. HQ crew able to take over the tank of a subordinate crew if the Plt. HQ crew is in good order. But I don't view it as a particularly high priority, and this is the only kind of "crew swapping" I think would be appropriate at the CM scale.

Your impressions are incorrect. T-34/85's main gun with 1944 APBC easily penetrates pretty much any plate on a PzIV out to well over 1500m; it's only around 2000m that the 85mm starts having difficulty penetrating the thicker sections of the PzIV's frontal armor, and it penetrates the PzIV's thin 50mm turret front armor at basically any range the gunner is likely to be able to identify the target. Going the other way, the PzIV's 75mm KwK40 L/48 starts to have difficulty penetrating some sections of the frontal plates on a T-34/85 at ranges 1500m+. So strictly in terms of armor penetration, the T-34/85 wins the long range duel -- the T-34's gun can penetrate the PzIVs armor out to ranges longer than the PzIV can penetrate the T-34/85's armor. Muzzle velocity for the two guns are about the same, so ballistic trajectory is similar; if anything the T-34's 85mm trajectory is slightly flatter due to the heavier shell. Heavier shell is also less affected by crosswind, and provides better after armor effect on penetrations. The only advantage the PzIV would have at these ranges would from the supposed superior German optics. Opinions on just how superior German optics were compared to 1944 Soviet optics are all over the map. Regardless of where one stands on the optics issue, considering the PzIV's substantially inferior armor, I would not rely upon any optical advantage to carry the day. Overall, the PzIV is a 1936 design that was seriously outclassed by 1944. Upgunning it kept it useful, but it really couldn't go toe-to-toe with anything like a T-34/85.

Again, you have to check testing conditions -- note that the Kummersdorf tests used a target Panther that was facing at 30 degrees off the gun's line of fire, so the projectile had to deal with horizontal armor slope in addition to the vertical armor slope. This makes a big difference. You will find other tests that show front glacis penetrations by the BR-471 APBC on the Panther front Glacis out to 1000m or so *if* the engagement aspect is flat. With the German Kummersdorf tests, I've also never seen definitive info on what ammo they were using, and when the test ammo was captured (or, ideally, manufactured). This matters considerably because Soviet AP ammo improved in quality steadily throughout the war and even within a specific ammo type, shells manufactured later in the war were often higher quality than earlier stuff. So if the Germans were testing with 1943 vintage ammo, they'd probably get very different results than if they were using 1944 vintage ammo. If you do a broad canvas of what's out there, you will find some tests of the A-19/D-25 vs. the Panther that show relatively easy penetration of the Panther Glacis and Turret, at least on a flat aspect, out to at least 1000m. And you will find other tests that do not. So to me, the interesting question is *why* these tests results are so different. Ammo quality? Quality/condition of target? Differing test conditions like the aforementioned 30 degree side aspect of the Kummersdorf tests? All of the above and more, I suspect. Overall, though, I would say it's at best unproven that that BR-471 APBC should, excepting rare weak point hits, fail to penetrate the Panther front Glacis at 1000m. There is an arguable case that at least with normal horizontal engagement aspect, there should be some decent chance of penetration.

Why, yes, actually I do: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyresearch A period U.S. Intelligence translation of the WWII USSR Ballistics tables for the A-19 gun, now declassified for your enjoyment. In relevant part, you will note that on full charge, direct lay at a target the same altitude as the muzzle, The 122mm A-19 firing BR-471 AP Tracer has a time of flight to 1000m of 1.3 seconds, with a trajectory apogee of 2.1 meters above the muzzle. So, on a perfectly aimed 1000m shot, the shell leaves the barrel on a slight climb, reaches a maximum altitude of 2.1m above the muzzle somewhere between 500-600m from the gun, and then drops back down to muzzle height just at 1000m. I'll leave it for you go find the equivalent data for the 75mm KwK42 L/70. What you're going to find is that the overall trajectory is flatter, but the actual difference in apogee above the gun barrel between the two trajectories is fairly small; only a fraction of a typical WWII tank's ~3m height. So I'd say it's pretty safe to conclude that trajectory "flatness" is not particularly strong factor in the relative combat accuracy of the A-19 122mm vs. the KwK42 75mm at =>1000m range. I would expect the KwK42's flatter trajectory to offer some advantage in first round hit %, but only a small one. Assuming arguendo that the KwK 42 achieved dramatically better first round hit % under combat conditions at 1000m, there must be strong factors beyond just "flatter trajectory." Push the range out to 1500m or more, and I would expect the KwK42's better ballistics to become a more significant factor. And remember: The Panther is a bigger target than an IS-2. Both taller and wider, and this will cancel out some of any accuracy advantage the Panther might have in a head-to-head matchup. Another note: Comparing gun accuracy, hit % and penetration figures from different nationalities is problematic unless you have corrected for test conditions and tabulation methods. The Soviets and Germans tested and tabulated things like gun accuracy and projectile penetration very differently, so you have to check the underlying conditions before you can compare Soviet test data to German test data. Similarly, tactical and doctrinal philosophies were also very different, so you have to be careful when comparing figures like maximum recommended engagement range, etc. Regards, YD

In training, Soviet tankers practiced firing the main gun while actually moving, I have read several memoirs which confirm this. How much they did so in real combat I don't know... On anything other than a straight, graded road seems to like something that would only be effective as a scare tactic, if anything.

The difference in projectile drop of an 800 m/s vs. a 1000 m/s projectile at 1000m is fairly minor. Certainly not nonexistent, but minor. And also bear in mind that assuming both projectiles have equivalent aerodynamic efficiency, a larger, heavier projectile loses velocity more slowly over distance -- since mass goes up relative to volume (cube rule), but air resistance goes up relative to cross-sectional area (square rule), if the aerodynamic efficiency remains the same, as the caliber of projectiles increases, their mass increases faster then air resistance does and they "carry" better over distance. All things considered, I would expect a slight advantage in actual combat accuracy with the 88mm/L71 over the 122mm A-19 at 1000m. But I would expect this difference to be difficult to perceive over statistical noise, and other factors, such as relative target size, to be more dominant. Target size is particularly important to consider in the IS-2 or T-34 vs. Panther matchup -- the Panther's gun might have a slightly flatter trajectory, but the Panther's frontal cross-section is a fair bit larger than either the T-34's or IS-2's. So the Russian tanks have a bigger target to shoot at in a head-to-head fight and this is going to cancel out some of the accuracy advantage of the German gun. Now, push the range out to 2000m, and the flatter trajectory of the 88mm should become a stronger factor. What you will find in CMRT is that the higher ROF of the German 75 & 88m vs. the Russian 122mm is more important at typical combat ranges than any modest advantage in accuracy.

From my reading actual first-person accounts by Soviet Tank/Assault Gun commanders, regardless of what the official instruction was, it seems the most common stance was for the tc to stay mostly in the hull, but with the tc's hatch open so he could peek out occasionally to get a view of surroundings. IMHO, this is probably fairly well represented by CM's "unbuttoned" state. We don't literally see the tc popping up and down like a gopher, but that's probably what he would often be doing. Also worth noting that Soviet armor continued to make heavy use of hand signals & signal flags as a supplement to radio comms through the end of the war -- radios were not always reliable and could be listened in on by the enemy. Hard to imagine how they could do this if they didn't stay at least partially unbuttoned.

37mm. It's basically a 40mm Bofors design which the Soviets re-chambered for their 37mm round.

This is a special situation that may need to be looked at. Not sure if the game engine is able to make this kind of distinction, but you have a point. In general, the chance to target your opponent's infantry while they're mounted on a tank is a PRIME opportunity, and you want your infantry to take the shot; infantry sitting on the back of a tank is highly exposed and even long range small arms fire has a very good chance of causing casualties. There may be specific situations where you don't want your infantry to shoot at tank rider, but this is what cover arcs are for. I don't think it would be a good idea to make the default behavior to not shoot, even at long range.

I think this is a good point. I don't know if nationality-based SOPs like this are possible, but assuming they are, I think you can make the argument that the Brits, Americans and probably even Germans should be much more likely to jump off a tank at the first incoming bullet. Assuming this kind of differentiation is possible, one tricky aspect to consider is that jumping off a vehicle moving at anything faster than a walking speed, and especially a moving tracked vehicle, is very dangerous. In CMRT, tanks with passengers are limited to a slower top speed to reflect the fact that they need to be careful not to move too fast and bounce the passengers off when they hit a bump, but they still move at a fair clip, probably too fast to easily dismount. So there is a question of what to do when the passengers want to get off, but the tank is moving too fast to safely do so... do they risk breaking an ankle on the dismount, or brave the bullets and try to stay on the tank? Hard to say what the behavior should be here.

Not true as a rule for Soviets. Soviet tank riders were specifically forbidden to dismount unless ordered to do so. Yes, there are very few places to hide from bullets on the back of a tank, but there are also very few places to hide from the NKVD. :eek: Now, it may be that in some tactical contexts the Platoon or Squad leaders would issue the order to dismount at the first sign of incoming. But in other situations the tank riders were expected to hold tight and stay on the tank through the danger zone, not dismounting until the designated drop-off point. Note that in some situations it actually would be safer to stay on the tank -- dropping off of the ride in the middle of an open field swept by mortar and MG fire would be a very bad thing. If the incoming fire isn't too extreme, it may well be better to stay on board until the tank reaches the designated drop-off point, where presumably there is some cover. This is the essential challenge of modeling dismount behavior for tank riders in the game; it's very context dependent. Right now, the game's default "auto dismount" behavior weights toward a Soviet tankodesantniki assault-type situation, as this is probably going to be the most common use of tank riders in the game. As a player you need to be aware of this and use tank riders appropriately. If there is a risk of incoming fire and you *don't* want them to stay on if they get shot at, then generally speaking you shouldn't put them up there in the first place. Baneman's HUNT trick is a good workaround if you want the tank to stop and the riders to jump off at the first incoming fire. One note: a tank crew will only stop their vehicle while executing a HUNT order if THEY perceive incoming fire, not when the RIDERS perceive incoming fire. And buttoned tanks don't always perceive light incoming small arms fire; they will often keep right on HUNTing if just a few rifle shots hit the armor. So if you want be sure the tank will stop and the riders will get off at the first rifle shot, you must issue both the tank and the riders hunt orders, AND the TC must be unbuttoned so he will immediately recognize the incoming fire.

Exactamundo.

It's very dependent on context. If the patch you need to clear/transit is relatively small and stealth is not an issue, with Panzergrenadiers Area Fire is your friend; you have lots of MG42s and usually good ammo supply back in the halftracks, so use it -- hose down a section with by plotting Target Briefly orders as far away as you can, then move a few action squares forward. Men never go where bullets have not gone first. Repeat until you've cleared/transited the area. If this is not practical then you've got to decide how much time you can afford to burn on the move. The slower you go and the more listening stops you use, the more likely it is that first contact will go in your favor. Once you do make contact, make heavy use of Area Fire. Remember that the effect of MG fire especially often extends several action spots beyond the the target point, so use this feature to suppress known or likely enemy positions before you're actually in full contact with them. On any recent "?" Contact locations, one team lays down suppressive fire while the another moves in for the kill. Also, just because you're in the woods, don't forget to look for defiles and other terrain advantages. On well-made maps, even very flat terrain has small elevation variations that can create partial defilades and the like. Keep a lookout for these and use them to your advantage. Fundamentally, you've got three commodities: Time, Ammo, and Pixeltruppen. You'll need to spend at least some of all three to clear any patch of dense terrain, but to a degree you can choose tactics that will allow you to spend more of one, and less of the others, depending on which you have a surfeit of.

@purpleheart23: FYI, I am investigating the ford behavior in your screenshot. I'm not completely sure it's a bug; it may just be a pathing quirk where the unit is on the very edge of the ford action spot where the water is a little deeper. But I'll dig around to make sure nothing his happening here that shouldn't be. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

I have already answered this question and am quite confident my response is correct; please see my prior post.

Yeah, in general you spot mines the hard way, but it is definitely possible to spot them without setting them off. You basically need to camp a unit within an action spot of the minefield and be patient. It requires some luck and is more likely with engineers and/or highly experienced units, but it can be done. I've done so on several occasions, including while testing CMRT scenarios. And I can also confirm Martyr's observation that QUICK or FAST across marked mine action spots is not 100% safe. Maybe safer than the same moves across an unmarked mine square, but not 100% safe. Also worth mentioning that big HE can set off mines in an action spot and reduce the likelihood of infantry taking casualties as they cross. You can never tell 100% for sure, but in general the areas in and around big craters are more likely to be safe. And AFVs can actually be used to clear paths through AP minefields. This does cause incremental track damage, but on occasion I have used tanks to set off AP mines and so create a path for my infantry. Again, you never know for sure when a minefield is 100% safe, but IME, if you have a tank with 100% tracks, you can run it 2x across an AP minefield and it will set off most of the mines. The tracks will be damaged, but if you're lucky the tank will not be completely immobilized.