Glider

Yeah, I just checked, at 700-800m the game gives 'OK' kill chance to 17-pounder Fireflies with tungsten ammo against hull-down Hetzers, but when I tried all 5 hits the Fireflies managed to score bounced.

I played CMBO and CMBB but all I learned (at least from actual games as opposed to penetration tables) about Jagdpanthers was to avoid them until they present me with a flank shot Just checked CMAK, tungsten-armed Firefly has low - very low chance of killing a hull-down Jagdpanther head-on at 700m. It is interesting to note that the kill chances varies drastically as soon as you move the Firefly several degrees off 90-degree head-on angle and this (from my experience with the CM series) means that you need a really lucky hit to kill a JP.

It is easy to see in CMBB, the Jagdpanther 80mm 'curved' armour offers a dark blue level of protection, while the Stug 80mm 'curved' armour offers a light green level (easily penetrated by 85mm Russian guns). IIRC, somebody mentioned that the actual algorythm used to describe the 'curved' armour is rather more complex than it appears and includes size of mantlet, shot traps and actual more/less vulnerable areas for each 'curved' armour section for each tank type separately.

I seem to recall somebody saying that 'curved' armour differs greatly from tank to tank. For instance, despite both the Stug 80mm armour and the Jagdpanther 80mm armour being described as 'curved' the level of protection they offer is very different. If true, would that mean that your tests are valid only for Hetzers and no other 'curved' armour tank/tank destroyer?

I killed a JagdTiger in a PBEM CMBO game once... a flank bazooka shot... greatest surprise of my gaming career.

I think that trees as such are basically not too problematic. However, if there is wind and branches start moving then one can definitely notice the impact on resources. What I find strange is the heavy drain noticeable when I play on 'massive damage' maps. After all, craters aren't moving.

Good grief! Well, thanks anyway

How did you create a movie file? I am still stuck with screenshots

Interesting idea. I thought about deploying IS-3s without ammo on unpassable grounds but I don't know whether I should try that outat all since it seems that even the difference between the best and the worst German optics is there, but too small to measure accurately with small tests I had in mind.

Yes, rate of fire etc... that probably makes my tests too inaccurate to be relevant. Well, whatever, I porbably have time to waste... in my country they use to say 'idle priest starts baptizing billygoats'

I tried with 3 10:10 tests at 2,200m just now. I used King Tigers (good optics) and JagdPanthers (very long range) since that pits the worst German optics against the best. They fired at dug-in T-34s (reduced accuracy due to hull-down position) King Tigers: 1st test: 13 hits, 0 first shot hits 2nd test: 7 hits, 0 first shot hits 3rd test: 10 hits, 1 first shot hit Jagdpanthers: 1st test: 15 hits, 1 first shot hit 2nd test: 13 hits, 0 first shot hits 3rd test: 9 hits, 2 first shot hits (one should take into account the fact that there were a number of catastrophic kills during the 3rd tests, forcing an unusual number of Jagdpanthers to switch targets during the test) I would say that a difference is probably there, and that it could be a significant one in games with long-range engagements involving a considerable number of tanks.

OK, had to use PzIII lang against T-34s because you cannot dig in tanks of both sides. Results of 3 10:10 tests at 2,200m Hits: 11 (fired by Germans) : 5 (fired by Russians) 5 (G) : 4 ® 6 (G) : 3 ® On the average, the Russians managed to fire 6 shells per 60 sec., so I had to stop counting the hits German scored after the second no 37, more or less. Considering the fact that the Russians were using HE and that the PzIIIs were ‘cautios’ or ‘alerted’ all the time (and that must have been affecting their accuracy), I would say that these results at least indicate that the German ‘good’ optics is better at long ranges than the Russian one.

True, and I do not have time for comprehensive tests. I will try with a few rough evaluations – for instance even the preliminary test shows that at long ranges German ‘narrow’ optics is **way** better than the Russian one (14:2 result). Since it will be almost impossible to measure spotting I will try to determine significant accuracy differences. I will dig in 10 T-34s (so there will be no retreating) at 2,200m. The first test will be ‘good’ optics (German worst) against Russian optics. After that I will remove all the ammo from T-34s and run a few comparative tests to see whether there is significant (i.e. easily identifiable) accuracy difference between, say, ‘good’ and ‘very long range’. All tests will be run in ‘cool’ weather, mid-day, no wind. Going to set up the test 1.

That is exactly why I intend to conduct a number of live-fire tests. I have a very distinct feeling that the "to hit" percentage reported by the CMBB engine does not take into account all factors, particularly not the optics difference. I see it more as a rather raw guesetimate...

I understand that.... but I wanted to have a few numbers I can crunch I just started playing an inter-club tournament with 5,000 points pure-armour forces and I simply wanted to know whether it pays to invest in a veteran late Panther (weather is cold) and get accuracy bonuses. If the accuracy bonus is something like 12% instead of 10% - definitely not. But if veteran Panthers with dual-magnification start hitting much more often than, say, PzIVs - it is another matter altogether.

Yes, you are both right, I just selected the first two types that seemed similar enough in order to get a rough estimate. The weather was cool. I tried with Jagdpanthers in extreme cold and one of them scored first shot-first hit at 2,200m! I will try a more accurate test tonight. So, you recommend SU-76s against Marder IIIs with 76.2mm guns?

Hm, I just ran a preliminary test with 10 veteran Marder IIIs with Russian 76.2mm guns (trying to avoid ballistics issues) against 10 veteran T-34s at 2,200m. First round results: T-34s score 2 hits, Marder IIIs score 14 hits. It looks like this issue warrants further testing.

So, basically, you say that "narrow optics" are worse than the generic Russian optic system, because they do not improve accuracy, but they do restrict the field of vision?

Can you tell us what happened to the German units in northern Finland, web sources concerning this (at least those I was able to find) are scarce.

For some time I have been intrigued by various German optics models. For instance, does it pay to invest in a crack Panther with dual magnification optics in extremely cold conditions? How effective a “very long range” sighting system really is? I searched the archives but failed to find a topic discussing this problem in depth. I am prepared to run a series of tests if nobody has any tangible data concerning this issue. It would be good to discuss a reliable test model in advance, though. Any thoughts?

I am playing a big operation and I had at least 2 and probably 3 Russian inf guns recrewed in the next battle. They were damaged, i.e. the crews suffered casualties, but I kept them by the abandoned guns. Had a T-34 with a gun damage return, and that was really a surprise.

Isn't that 'death to all (things) unliving'?

True, I had the same problem (I forgot about that one ) I downloaded WinG32.dll from DLL World ( http://dll.yaroslavl.ru/ ) and placed it in the Windows\system32 folder.

[edited to offer a more detailed explanation] I had trouble with it too, but it worked OK after I edited the shortcut properties to: Windows 95 compatibility mode and 256 colours. I.e. you find FG.EXE in the game folder and in Properties screen you change Compatibility to 'Windows 95' and '256 colours'. [ May 30, 2004, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Glider ]

I downloaded it a few days ago at http://www.the-underdogs.org , 99Mb - Windows version. Am playing Fantasy General at the moment, great drawings of units