TSword

I use the P4 mainly as a firesupport tank, and as was already mentioned as a TD, in essence they have to be treaded about the same as Shermans. In real the P4 was somewhat superior overall to the vanilla M4 (75 mm short), because of it's better gun, but inferior to the later M4's with 76 mm. I had several matches vs. the AI lately where i had to use Stuarts most of the time (I use a QB-Campaign generation ruleset). Very often i encountered P4's. Front on beyond 400 - 500 m the Stuart has no guarantee to penetrate the P4 especially when the P4 has not yet engaged the Stuart (His turret will have an angle to the Stuart) even a slight angle will bounce off most rounds. One has to use 2 Stuarts to kill a P4 for sure and use their speed (they are ridiculously fast..) to close and flank simultaneously. In this way i get one P4 for one Stuart usually (a fair business points wise, and depending on the tac-situation a very good one from time to time..). So in using P4 use them in pairs one always in overwatch of the other to take out flanking racing Stuarts or M8 (although those are best dealed with a cheap SPW 250/9 or 20 mm Flakgun). Or even better a Panther (Panther is also cheese for Stuart from the flank) in the front and 2 P4 for flank protection. Greets Daniel

Great Pictures, especially the grass is great ! And therefore i come right to my question (maybe answered a thousand times already, sorry): When you're crawling in the grass as inf will you be covered from being seen by enemy if at about the same Height (Of course the observer being upright or halfupright)... Greets Daniel

Yes couldn't agree more, one of the darker spots in CMBO ! The whole Bocage thing was that the cutter allowed the allieds an easy way to CUT the bocage so they could savely overcome it AND to produce firelanes for the followers (So one can give the other firesupport for instance, or the following footsloggers, which otherwise would have to take their bayonets to come through). A tank could go through bocage if it was necessary at a significant higher risk of loosing a track or overtaxing the gearbox and exposing his underbelly to enemy fire, but it could be done. So BTS decision in CMBO can only be explained by lack of time to do it properly. (Who would be foolish enough to play a bocage battle in human vs. human without severe penalties for the allieds ???) In russia it was quite common russian practice to hide tanks in forests or even attack through them (It used a lot of fuel and time and ruined tanks, but it may pay off in a surprise attack on the enemy..), many trees where relatively thin birchs. Greets Daniel

Tankriders were very common in both the russian and german army. (Good quality german Tankdivs or PzGren.-Divs had one armored (APC) Battalion at most, but in most cases only the Recon-Bat had some APCs..) Tankriders have relatively good frontal protection (In CMBO it's like you're riding on a flat plattform presented to the enemy, because protective quality of turret is not modelled..unfortunately..), but if they run into an ambush, the senctence "We usually dismount when fire starts" means a slaughter of course.... If you surprise your enemy your mounted troops may even stay on the tank and add to the volume of fire to stun and panic the enemy rather then dismount and give the enemy time to reconfigure and start effective counterfire... If you ride your infantry to a heavy defended village over some kilometers of open ground (with almost no cover) you want to stay on the tanks long enough to take advantage of their speed in the hope the inevitable artillery barrage will fall long or the defender being unable to react in time, but ready to dismount when coming into normal/likely fire range (around 300 - 200 m). To go nearer you will likely get crossfire. Atleast you have to dismount when the tanks stop to engage targets...(otherwise mortars will do it for you..) Interesting thing to be modelled in CMBB (Don't think protective value of tank turret will). Greets Daniel [ August 06, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Hofbauer, Interesting, but i thought (Derived from the knowing that CMBO calculates hitangle) that the turrets facing also goes already in the equation. And my observations up to now has not revealed something strange in that respect. If it's the case that turretorientation is not taken into account, it would be a MAJOR ISSUE If it's the cast that it goes into the calculation as i'm quite sure off, the problem remains a simple one, you have to adjust hit probability by a single new variable... Btw. The impact of a Std. Distribution model is much larger then was mentioned in that thread. If i think of the IS-II, which had it's weak spot on the HUGE turret (the Hull being almost impervious, atleast later variants), or the T-34/85 with a similar huge Turret which again was THE weak frontal spot (The Hatch on the front plate was also but much smaller). In reality also has to take into account the effects of being Hulldowns with a huge turret vs. a small one.... So size does of course matter !!! (This time atleast...) Another aspect is the underrated importance of the principal form of a tank, or aspect ration of Height to Width. Question: Which plate is easier to be hit by a cannon with a 95 % hit chance on 1000 m on a 2 x 2 m target, when the plate is 10 m high and 2 m wide or the plate being 2 m high and 10 wide ?? Result: The High plate is a much easier target, because range estimation becomes much easier (errors in range estimation have a much lower impact). So of course a Sherman is as easy to hit as a KT or Panther and even Tiger front on, because the M4 has a smaller width but same Height, but still wide enough that shot distribution doesn't become a factor (Up to 1000 m). To the armor-quality thing, i read in some CMBB thread here, that they will not use an evenly distributed quality model, but instead more to the real thing of one tank being good, the other being bad --> Much, much better. So i'm quite optimistic looking forward to the CMBB release (Thanks to excellent posts recently made in this forum from first hand experience..). However the Distribution thingy would be hard to swallow..... Greets Daniel

Uhhh, i cannot believe what i heard in this thread ! One single additional variable enters the equation ! Take your normal distribution for a standard Tank, and then fill in a look up table with the deviations for each Major plate (and if memory is scarce take the front plates only 4 in our case with turreted tanks). Now once you were gone through the decision which section is "hit" -> Lower-, Upper-, Turret- Front call a probability to hit function which has your actual deviation value, if it's bigger than the default -> Same as in CMBO, else linear growing prob of miss (0.5 size turret has 0.5 chance to be hit then a 1.0 size turret). Where is the problem ??? Greets Daniel

Wreck, Great idea ! Will try it out If BTS would provide an API-set one could even generate a tool feeding CMxx directly. Greets Daniel

tero, You're arguing concerning the term "auftauchen" is most probably wrong. It just means that they came into sight. If i have an apointment with somebody for instance, i can refer to his appearance with the term "auftauchen", if i use "streetlanguange". Greets Daniel

tero, You're arguing concerning the term "auftauchen" is most probably wrong. It just means that they came into sight. If i have an apointment with somebody for instance, i can refer to his appearance with the term "auftauchen", if i use "streetlanguange". Greets Daniel

All Glantz's books on the Eastern Front are excellent. They usually cover some specific operations. I also recommend (Especially for Scenario Designers) Nipe's Last Victory in the East (Operation Star, Gallop and Manstein's counterattack at the beginning of 1943) gives one very detailed insight into the actual battles, even down to company level, mostly from a german perspective although russian moves are covered as far to understand the ongoing battles. Interesting because it shows both sides on the attack and defence. (Be warned, you need a good map to follow the actions. I had to read through a second time with a detailed map to really comprehend what was going on and where..) Greets Daniel

BeWary, My impression of your described behaviour of AI tanks has to do, beside other factors, that they are trying to get LOS or avoid LOS on already identified targets (AI knows very well the sweet LOS spots). I'm also more than convinced that a lot of "bad" AI behaviour in the attack role could be atleast partially be overcome by more options for the Scenario Designer (Avenues of Attack, triggers and the like..). This would be available for a predictable price, while investing in improved "AI" is a very risky and expensive business with only minor results.(As long as AI is not able of Learning (Improving in doing the same over and over again) -> Possible today but very expensive, not to mention higher forms of intelligence/learning taking (multiple) contexts into account -> No way in current AI-science). CM-Example: Sometimes Hills are good to possess, other times not, the context or surrounding defines wether it's a worth objective or not -> No AI capable to do today. So BTS will no option be left, then to improve control for Scenario Designers. Greets Daniel Greets Daniel

JasonC, superb article on tank production in germany !!!! Redwolf, i was describing what happens in CMBO not in the real world, i think we both mean the same essentially. Greets Daniel [ July 19, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Right Ozzy, Nightfighting was often used by both sides. I'm currently reading through the Gallop-, Star- Operations and Manstein's Counteroffensive early 1943 and there nightfighting was quite common. Or what time would you prefer for an infantry-attack over an open featureless steppe which streches endless before your eyes without any cover ? Greets Daniel

Kwazy Dog, We don't need details, just an "Yes, the acuraccy has greatly been reduced, in the way that such gamey things don't pay off anymore.."

Casualty figures (KIA, MIA, WIA): (Cite QVIST on pub19.ezboard.com) ..All in all, it simply is not a tenable position, on the basis of Soviet and German records and studies, to claim anything close to casualty parity on the Eastern Front. Soviet casualties were consistently significantly higher than German. The following ratios are based on Krivosheevs numbers and on German casualty figures as found in primary records (combat losses only): 1941: 5.38:1 1942: 6.82:1 1943: 4.91:1 1944: 3.53:1 (Non Germ. formations acc. for about 10% add. axis losses). JasonC however is true in emphasizing on the fact that those numbers do not necessarily reflect pure battle casualties (diseases, higher mortality because of worser medical treatment etc.), but they are showing cleary a tendency no doubt (especially 1944), which MUST be reflected in CMBB. Already 2:1 is enourmous when one thinks for a human vs. human game (The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!! Greets Daniel

Combined Arms, It's true what you say, but penetration of a given plate (eg. Lower frontal plate of a Hetzer for instance) is a kind of a OFF or ON-thing -> As soon you are within killing distance (for instance 750 m) the plate is penetrated always, whereas never outside that range (For instance 780 m in above case). Of course this range alters with angle of attack. But still according to penetration definition there should be much more failed penetrations at that range (750 m). The only deviation from this are curved plates where there's much more chance for a shot not to penetrate (As JasonC mentioned correctly for the Panther mantlet). Greets Daniel

Some of the seemingly boosted TD performance of the vanilly M4 may stem from the strange fact that penetrations in CMBO are far to common at the border of theoretical penetration ranges. What do i mean with that ? Take a 76 mm M10 vs. a Panther without ammo. The 76 mm will always penetrate a given plate as soon it is within theoretical(CMBO) lethal range. For instance as soon you bring your M10 within 800 m of a Panther it will penetrate the lower front plate always when hit. In reality deviations in the whole system led to the phenomenon that some round penetrate others not, even in laboratory testing (Thus the procedure to define penetration range as function of probability to penetrate). Of course this effect applies to all sides and generates no real benefit for one side, but instead boosts the penetration ability of all tanks and AT-guns somewhat and lifts the weak US guns into penetration ranges (700 m instead of 500 for instance) they never had, while it extends the killrange for most germ guns from for instance 1500 to 1700 m which nobody cares about (Hit prob becomes the deciding factor then). However the 76 mm guns (with normal ammo) on the M4 and TD's is way to effective vs. Panther frontal armor. Tests with the 88mm KwK43 (The best AT gun in WWII) showed that Panther frontal armor couldn't be defeated consistently above 700-800 m (The russian 12.5 cm could defeat it at longer ranges because of primary scaling effects). This gun is much much more powerful than the 76 mm US gun which in CMBO has no problem at 700 m to penetrate the Panther front. Cleverly managed by BTS to equalize somewhat the armor abilities.... Greets Daniel

The most important items of Lendlease for the russian army were the trucks, which were always in high demand and desperately needed to adequately supply armies moving fast. In the soviet (Jan/Feb 1943) Gallop-offensive (First to reach the sea of Azow, then redirected toward the Dnjiepr-crossings at vaporzsche and dnjiepropetowsk) the lack of motored vehicles was one of the reasons the offensive failed. If those tenthousands of US-motored vehicles wouldn't have been sent, the soviet advance would have been a much slower and costly one. Although one can have never enough tanks, the soviets produced enough by themselves. To the turretspeed dingy: The differences betw. Panther, KT and Allied tanks was negligible, since you seldom had to turn more than 60 degrees and there the difference is a couple of seconds. Seconds on which no normal thinking human would bet his life on a regular basis.....not knowing if that sole Panther has a comrade waiting for your flanking manouver.... Tiger had slow turret but the 75 mm Sherm was no threat to it above 500 m from either side. And 75mm M4's made up 75 % up to Oct. 1944. Almost no HVAP rounds for 76mm M4 (around 8000 !!!!!!!! rounds produced up to Oct. 1944). Greets Daniel

I did a search and didn't find something on this topics. Will there be a "Hold Fire" Command for (inf)-units in CMBB ? (Unit will not start a firefight under no circumstence). If not, i wonder how one can conduct reconaissance. Now in CMBO one can only use Snipers, Schrecks, FO's, HQ-units (By way of Ambush marker) and (gamey) crews or units without ammo. Most often inf-units immediately start shooting vs. other enemy inf units which is suicide most of the time when being on a recon patrol or observation position. Will SPW-crews still not be able to fight out of their vehicle ? (An SPW-crew consisted of 10 men and a driver). So when shot at by enemy inf they cannot throw handgrenades, fire the second MG and their SMG's and carbines from the comparably good protection, but must instead have to demount into the fire being slaughtered ? Don't tell me they were only used as carriers. If things were fluent the APC was a formidable weapon because it could bring quite a volume of fire to bear while being mobile (In fact still much better while running). (I've read many accounts were bridges, villages and the like were captured by hordes of APC's firing out every peephole -> Battles after the Breakout in the Normandy, and Russia). In a night attack for instance you are a fool to leave the APC, when not being threatend by ATG's and the like...soon being lost in the turmoil.. How is the APC handled when being shot at ? If an APC is perforated by an AT-rifle for instance will it immediately being abandoned or knocked out, rather then being only knocked out when engine and transmission was hit, or the whole crew being cas. (This could be approximated quite good by angle of vehicle to shooter and number of hits). Will rocketlaunchers now fire their salvos in the correct manner ? Launcher fires all it's rockets in about 8 seconds, and then needs some minutes to fire another barrage ? (Even more if one take into account that about after every barrage the launchers had to rellocate a hundred meters or so because they were so easily spottable by counterbatteryfire due to the fumetrails of their rockets). How will one conduct fast reconaissance in force, when there are no such essential units as motorcycles in the game ? Using a 1000 point reconvehicle armada ?? Will there be a command to force inf-units having antitank weapons, to use them controlled by the player ? Now they use them only when not being shot at, which is wrong. In reality if a tank threat appears the squad in fact splits up into an antitank section (1-2 men), while the others try to give them firesupport as good they can (if not panicked before of course). How to do in CMBB other then with a command ? (I can still vividly visualize having arrayed around 2 platoons around a sherman which then in fact shot their panzerfausts against each other instead against the tank... Will AT crews and the like (mortars, MGs) be able to reman abandoned guns ? In reality it was a common feat of russian gun crews to abandon their guns under heavy fire, only to reman them anew shortly after to fire into the rear of the passing enemy. Can we regroup units while in battle in CMBB ? In real depleted squads where often formed into new ones right on the spot. For instance a platoon has 50 % cas and lost it's Leutenant it should be possible to fill up other depleted units. A natural measure of economy in combat. Will there be the possibility to camouflage fortified positions and vehicles in CMBB ? An almost must feature to fight historical battles in russia. Can ramming, squahing occur in CMBB ? Ramming was a last ditch weapon in tank vs. tank fighting, and AT-guns, Inf units were squashed by tanks quite regularly. Greets Daniel

Good idea, In general much much more choices should be possible for the scenario designer and for the Player. More diverse Objective types like lines or areas to reach/defend zones of advance More control over AI-controlled troops (assigning areas/lines of advance/retreat, interdiction, rearguard defence, stubborn defence, defence and counterattack, recon and many more. Nowadays the creator of scenarios is severly hindered by the rigid possibilities he has in timing, movement, and type of AI-actions. Especially difficult with larger scenarios with a lot of troops where normally some plans came into execution. This would facilitate much more interesting playerexperience. Not to dump the existing possibilities but instead an addition

Yes, would make the live of Scenario Developpers much much easier.

Jason, couldn't agree more. And i would add exactly the same was the reason (in other conjunction) for the german armour "superiority" tactically vs. the Soviet tanks up to almost the end. Greets Daniel

Can only agree Much more control for the scenario designer is necessary to create really interesting Singleplayer scenarios and even more so "Historic battles". This addit. control should come as a surplus, so it's free to the designer to use them or not (For Instance scripts). Greets Daniel

Robert, Thx, for your clarification, i thought myself it can only be deliberately made that way... I'm very keen to read the AAR's where attacker actually won. Greets Daniel

Skipper, The 9./SS-Panzerregiment 3 had it's own "Werkstattzug" -> repairshop platoon and it's own "Instandsetzungszug" -> maintenance platoon, and it's own "Bergezug" -> recovery platoon. Kursk was started by 9. with 15 Tiger I E the KstN-complement for a Tiger-company in 1943. In Kursk the Tigers were deployed in mixed formations as the Lead-element ("Glocke" -> Bell-tankformation). Total losses 7.7.1943 - 30.10.43: 5 Total losses 1943: 56 (35 % destroyed by crew, 55 % lost in action, 10 % others). Source: Tiger in Combat II (Wolfgang Schneider) Action rep: 8.7. Enemy tank counterattack repelled. ObStrm Schröder killed. Operational tanks: 5 9.7. Massive tank attack pushed back (24 th TB), Op-tanks: 1 10.7. 1 Kill, Op-tanks: 11 11.7. 11 Tigers in action, finish up a counterattack on Wasiljewka, subsequent assault toward bridge over Psel-river W Bogorodizkoje.. 12.7. After repelling a counterattack Pssel-river is passed and adv. to NE into area 2 km NW of Pole Shajew. Later to Beregowoje-Kartaschewka road. UntStrm Köhler KIA. 13.7. 4 Tigers in repair. Planned attack on Kartaschewka-Prochorowka road in cancelled. Counterattack and destruction of strong enemy forces. All 10 Tigers out of action 14.7. Operational tanks (?) stiffen defence vs. enemy counterattacks. 16.7. Op Zitadelle is suspended. Retreat to S-bank of Pssel-river and redeployment in a blocking position. Op-tanks: 9 17.7 Offensive attempts do not make progress due to strong shelling. 7 Tiger operational 18.7 Several attacks pushed back, Op-tanks: 7 19.7 Retrograde move into SW of Lutschki (N-edge of farm complex Michailowka) 20.7. Op-tanks: 5 March order to Barwenkowa, planned entrainment in Belgorod and Ssossnowka 21.7. Road march along the main Jakowlewo-Gluschinskij toward Belgorod 22.7 Entrainment in Charkov and start transport to Mius front. 28.7 Unloading and march into area of Ssesnoje 29.7 8 Tiger I received from LAH which goes to italy 30.7 Op-tanks: 10 Onslaught on hill 213.9, proves to be heavy fortified manned by a whole AT-brigade surrounded by minefields. The battle rages the whole day but hill line cannot be taken. 7 Tigers out of action. 31.7 Same order as 30.7, ObSchrFr Lampert's Tiger is knocked out and another cannot be recovered, both are blown up by own troops on 7. Aug 1943. Only 1 Tiger operational 1.8.43 Finally Hill 213.9 is taken. Further attack to the east. Op-tanks: 10 2.8.43 Pursuit of retreating enemy across Hill 191.3. Destruction of all opposing forces on the west bank of the Mius river and occupation of the former MLR. Op-tanks: 3 3.8.43 Majority of Panzerregiment 3 is assembled in the area Stepanowka-Perwomaisk as reserve. Compressed Feat of 13./SS-Panzerregiment 1 (LAH) = 15 Tanks during Kursk: 5-6.7.43: 50 T-34, 1 KV-1, 1 KV-2 + 43 AT guns knocked out. 3 Tigers knocked out of which 1 complete loss, 1 man wounded. 7.7. 1 Tiger knocks out 3 T-34 8.7. Several dug-in tanks destroyed. Staudegger of Tiger 1322 brings his disabled Tiger into rough and ready condition and knocks-out 22 enemy tanks -> the enemy flight the scene panic stricken. 11.7. Further attack on Prokhorovka, 28 AT & 6 Field guns destroyed, 24 T-34 in the afternoon 12.7. Fierce enemy tank attack from direction of Jamki, Prokhorovka, Petrovka on both sides of Kalinin are pushed back. II./SS-PzReg 1 + Tiger company knock out 163 enemy tanks, 1 Tiger is knocked out. 103 enemy tanks knocked out [roughly 2 and a half Tank brigades] (Not counting the 163 which were destroyed together with II./SS-PzReg. 1) with a company of Tigers (Whereas most of the time only a fraction was in action due to operational losses..). Greets Daniel