Zitadelle

Typo, my bad....

Ok, Fionn may just be pulling our legs, but did everyone get his ever so subtle hint about one of the tanks included in CMBB. Predecessor of the T-10; that could possibly be the immediate predecessor which would be the (drumroll please): Joseph Stalin JS-3! :eek: Of course, the JS-2 was a predecessor as well, but perhaps.... [ July 17, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

[The trash lurks over from the Combat Mission forum.] Hey, I made it into a BFC game!! Yes, in their infinite wisdom, Madmatt et al. have named a campaign after me. If I cannot get my tanks into CMBB, at least everyone will have to play my campaign over and over again here. I would like to thank....

I would also add Glantz's book: _The Battle of Kursk_. And, _Stumbling Collossus_ (D. Glantz, again...) presents a strong overview of the capabilities of the Soviet armed forces the impact of Stalin's purges and at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Alan Clark's book is definitely a first book on the conflict for some of the veterans. Recently, it probably has been replaced by Glantz's book _When Titans Clashed_; albeit that is a heavier book compared with Alan Clark's lighter read. The Osprey books (Kursk and Bagration- both by S. Zaloga) make for good bathroom reading: interesting, small, but overall light reading. For an overview of the Soviet Army organization, check out the Red Army Handbook: 1939-1945 by Steven Zaloga. The book outlines how organizational structures of army units changed throughout the conflict to reflect Soviet experiences, need, and times of shortages.

In the case of the T-72 series, my understanding is that primarily had to due with the internal ammunition storage and lack of an adequate fire supression system. The T-72 uses a two-part round- both fed by the autoloader from a floor turntable. The design of the turntable exposed the two part rounds- a problem especially with the casing/propellent. When an AT round hit the T-72, it was quite common for at least one of the stored casings to be damaged. Once that occurred all that had to be applied was a little flame and the casing would 'cook-off' followed by the other rounds going. Of course 40 odd rounds going off in an enclosed space (i.e., the fighting compartment) would definitely cause a brew-up.

And, now that we seem to have opened a thread within a thread (whatever ever happened to the discussion about rail guns???).... Well, I think there's two different issues here: "Human Wave"-type attacks, which are sometimes tactically sound, and sometimes not, and bad generalship, which is by definition not tactically sound. The early war Soviet used a lot of Human Wave attacks. They also had a lot of really poor quality officer who ordered their troops to do really stupid things. I suspect most of us will try to use the "Human Wave" command when and where appropriate, and will avoid bad generalship if at all possible. Cheers, YD</font>

Did a little bit of research; primarily on-line since I am in the office. While the Panther VD fans were flush with the rear deck, the Panther VA and VG both had a raised cooling fan housing. Excellent work to all!!! If this is the sort of detail that we are going to see with 300+ models and the software engine, I won't need another PC game ever again. Also, I know that the Turan view was not ready, but take a look at the building behind the tank. That build looks incredible- straight out of a photo. Counting the days....

I cannot speak for the availability of the weapons in CMBB since I am neither a beta-tester nor has there been a mid-Atlantic sneak peak. However, the United States did supply the USSR over 8,000 bazookas through lend-lease. Unfortunately, there is little information to the Soviet deployment of these weapons. The British also provided some PIATs and Boys ATRs.

The later 88s actually had a problem with smoke. The Pak 43/41 aka "the Barndoor" fired a larger shell than the previous models. The gun (not very popular with its crews due to its large size and the difficulty that they had moving the monster through mud and snow on the Eastern Front) had the nasty habit of throwing up all sorts of debris in front of the muzzle (dirt, mud, smoke, dust, etc...) that obscured the crews' view of the battlefield and drawing attention to the gun's position. German manuals recommended that crews try to keep their rate of fire down (to 10 rounds or so) in order to minimize the problem. All models of the dreaded 88 were not that easy to hide basically due to their size. The earlier models, of course, stood rather tall with their column mounting. The Pak 43/41 was the best of the group since it was fully designed as an anti-tank gun, and built low on a four-wheeled carriage. Their primary advantage arose from their ability to "reach out and touch someone" at a significant range. One thought that contributed to the ability to hide the '88 was the allied mis-conception of calling every German anti-tank gun an '88' (much like every tank was called a 'Tiger' or 'Panther'). Throughout the Western European campaigns, the allies frequently thought that they were encountering 88s- particularly based upon the kill rate of the guns. Especially during the Bocage battles (including Operation Cobra) most AT guns encountered by the allies were the Pak40- which was a very good AT gun itself. In fact, the close proxmity of the battlefield and the terrain characteristics of the region favored a smaller AT gun.

German logistics were not the model of half-tracks and trucks that Americans tend to imagine. The initial successful blitzkreig operations were supported by the majority of infantry marching on-foot and a surprising number of horses. One of the deficienies with Operation Barbarossa was supporting the supply lines. Germans invaded the USSR using a large number of captured British and French trucks. These trucks proved unreliable and quickly broke down. The Germans also relied upon 400,000 horses for their invasion. In subsequent years, the Germans were able to use rail to move supplies to strategic points. Still, moving supplies forward was still a process relying upon whatever means were available. The Germans were able to utilize captured regions for supply- particularly the Ukrainian region of the USSR for foodstocks. There are more facts and ancedotes and I'm sure the hyper-grogs can provide you more specific information.

To clarify, Scipio was referring to TalonSoft's Western Front; not CMBO. If you read his statement found on the previous page: Fortunately, I don't think we have to worry.

First, thanks for everyone's replies on the subject. Second, a bump to the top to see if anyone else would like to add their input. (Although, I know everyone is really more interested in the Rune Sneak Preview message. I couldn't attend, but thanks Rune for hosting the event; and, thanks to all programmers and beta testers. I'll be waiting....) I have noted the difference in point scoring for regular vs. elite troops, and after a few QB set-ups realize that the HQ units tend to be given a few more bonuses. However, excluding the combat bonuses, I still don't see the gain in firepower that Redwolf et al. have discussed. The unit information still shows the same firepower between a regular and elite unit. Is the firepower bonus solely based upon the link to the combat-bonus HQ unit? Thanks.

To paraphrase King Henry V: "Do I not bleed if you prick me?" Here is the situation. A few CMBOer and I are beginning discussions on a ruleset for PBEM quick battles (set-up, scoring, etc....). One of the latest threads between us has been regarding a player purchasing all crack/elite units and the impact that this could have on play balance. Now, I know that making such a purchase is insanely expensive (German elite infantry battalion, about 2400 points) and extremely unrealistic. However, what is the value in the terms of combat play for crack and elite units? Leaving out command response time, what is the difference between an elite unit and a regular, green, or veteran unit? Are they deadlier (not through firepower, but maybe something else)? Are they more immune to firepower (I would hope not, but maybe they can read terrain better)? Any experiences would help- especially from the CMBO veterans and grogs. Thanks. [ July 03, 2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

You forgot the part about going up the hill....

"Need a flare man?" Alright! A fellow individual with the ability to quote _Apocalypse Now!_ Now comes the next question of the quiz: can you quote- in its entirety- the famous naplam quote. And, extra points if you can quote a line from Kurtz's letter home (or the background discussion on the boat). "Don't get off the boat, man. ***damn Right; not unless you are going all the way."

I am going to get flak for this one, but I finally want to have my say. My honest vote is this (no sarcasm): I do not want to see anything. I do not want to see: Bones Screenshots AARs Functionality of CMBB Questions regarding functionality of CMBB Questioning functionality of CMBB when the questioner has not even seen the beta version Theories on when it will be released Theories on pre-ordering Demands on the guys (I want this, I want that...) Requests for updates Questioning their use of facts when the sources are not currently known A formalized Project Plan Or anything else, until BFC is ready to make their announcement. Listen, we all want the product. To be honest, it was the fact that I heard that CMBB was coming out (back in June, 2001) that made me investigate CMBO. One of the best decisions for a computer-game purchase that I have made. But, all of our wishing, demanding, complaining, questioning, and theorizing is not going to help the process any. Let us all take a deep, deep breath. Let us wait this out. Go fishing, read a book, take a hike, drink a fine bottle of wine, talk to someone on a topic other than CMBO or CMBB. Or, just sit in a dark, dank room and play CMBO until your fingers are raw. The guys are doing an excellent job. Based upon their last product and the bones that have been released I fully trust their work. And, I will be feverishly trying to order it when the news comes out. In the meantime, let's all do two things: 1)Stand up and congratulate them on their hard work. Which, hey, excellent work guys! I am really impressed with what you have done and am looking forward to your final product (don't bother responding...) 2)Leave them alone to complete the work that they have set out to do. Finally, if for anything else place this in the realm of your own job, school projects, or hobbies. You are approaching a deadline on a major deliverable. Furthermore, your paycheck (or other reward) is fully dependent upon the release of that item. Would you want a group of screaming hooligans bothering you all the time when you are just trying to keep your boss/teacher/what-have-you pleased and the money coming in? Let the guys finish their job and then get some rest. OK, let the 20mm and 37mm flak begin.

Spoiler Alert! Thanks for the public update regarding the scenario! I have just started the scenario via PBEM as the American side, and now I know what I will be facing. My opponent may not be too pleased with your intelligence leak. You may want to ensure that your comments on scenarios don't give away secrets.

Yes, the Soviets captured quite a few PzKW III tanks and StuG III SP Guns. Attempts were made at creating a new casemate and re-arming the vehicles with a Russian 76.2mm gun. The new AFW was called the SU-76i; the link can be found here: http://www.battlefield.ru/su76i.html I won't even bother with the second question....

The Missing Lynx web-site discussion forums has had several threads in the past correcting the mis-conception regarding the bedspring myth. In addition, Steve Zaloga stated in a recent publication that they were not bedsprings either (I will try to find the exact source tonight...). Finally, a quick look on the Russian Battlefield web-site: T-34/85

Ah, no. Recent evidence is that the Russians created screens for the sides of their T-34/85s. They did not mount bedsprings since they would have not been durable enough to handle combat- nor strong enough to offer any protection from a Panzerfaust round.

To quote S. Zaloga (Red Army Handbook 1939-1945, 1998): "The Soviets began development of similar weapons, [reference to the Panzerschrek and Panzerfaust] the RPG-1 and RPG-2, but none were ready during the war." He continues by stating that the United States provided the USSR 8,500 bazookas, although there is little information about how these were used in combat. S. Zaloga also states that about 1,000 PIATs and 3,200 Boys ATRs were provided from Britain. I wonder how many Bren tripods were provided through lend-lease. Any word on whether the Soviets will have the "Ampulomet" mortar in CMBB? Highly inaccurate, but it could be fun- especially in very dry conditions.

Joshik- Here's pulling a message out of the past sinceI can't find your e-mail address on your profile to send you comments directly. I tested out both versions of your Late Panther G, and overall they look very good on my battlefields. At first, I thought the track detail behind the side *.bmp would not work, but it gives the illusion of further track detail ontop of the CMBO standard track links. IMHO I also really like the lighter version- it is a strong weathered look and what I would expect on the battlefield during a rainy spring when Germany was at the end of its logistical capabilities. Paint was in short supply and probably mixed with water- not petrol (which was needed for the cat in other ways). The only change I would make is the front fender. The sprocket and track detail appears on the inner side of the fender and it does not look well. If need be, I can send you an image of what I mean, but I think it is rather obvious. Good work.

Percentages are a little deceiving for software development. Software can easily be 90% done, but the majority of the work will occur for that last 10%. Typically, the more complex code is developed at the last since the majority of the code can be quickly developed based upon older existing code. Metrics for defining the completion of code is a stumbling block for large corporations (IBM, Oracle, PeopleSoft, etc...); I am sure that a company of five has the same problem. The question rests- what do you base the percentage upon: time for completion or a measure of the code (lines, objects, gui, bitmaps, etc...). And, I won't even discuss testing methodologies.

That is a military organizational symbol- common during the early war on German units. Since I am in the office right now, I don't have access to my reference material for an exact description of the symbol. However, here is an initial stab: The box indicates the unit, and the upside-down 'L' symbol on the top of the box indicates the unit size (perhaps platoon or company). The two circles on the bottom of the box indicate the unit as being wheeled; if there would have been a single oval it would have been a tracked unit and a combination would have been a halftrack unit. The diagonal line in the box and the symbol to the left refers to the unit type- I think this would be reconnaisance. I can double-check the analysis tonight.

Ohhh, I'm amazed no one has done this yet.... Hi Mom!! Alright, lock it down and move it to the General Forum (after you execute that next CMBB system test case or change that line of code).