redhead

It seems like the latest patch (downloaded the new one) doesn't fix the issue. I have an IS-2 at the bottom of the hill hull down to the pak on the top of the hill. I only gave the pak HE, so it wouldn't kill the tank. The tank can kill the pak, but never by directly hitting it. The PAK hits the tank with every shot. Only when DF hits the crest of the hill (which is a few meters from the gun), does the gun get knocked out. I've never seen a shot go long past the gun, but I've only run about 30 shots or so. What is the expected behavior here? Should the tank be able to hit the gun, or is by design with correctly modelled ballistics? I don't remember the other thread (unhittable gun bug) reaching a firm conclusion. And if anyone wants it, I have a screen shot of a line of craters made by the IS-2 and the kill shot exploding on the crest a few meters from the gun (running 1.3 latest patch). I can't post the pic since I'm not running a webserver. [ April 08, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: redhead ]

I ran one more test. I stuck a couple of light building on top of a hill, and put the tanks hull (bow MG blocked) down lower on the hill, but still with LOS to the light buildings. With 1.02, I ran it 6 turns and the tanks were just digging holes in front of the houses. With 1.03, the building was hit in the first couple shots, and destroyed in 10-15 seconds.

I'm no expert, I was just trying to lend a hand in the test effort by reporting my results. I just tried out the test scenario from the "Un-hittable Gun" Game bug thread posted by Industrializer. http://mitglied.lycos.de/berger50/TEST%20gun.cme With 1.02, all the stugs get wiped out without ever hitting the gun. With 1.03, the gun is supressed in the first couple of shots, and consistently destroyed in about 15-20 seconds.

I did a quick test and it looks better to me. Minor spoilers. . . . . I modified jaegermeister to just have the 2 german pak guns and ran 4 IS-2's over the ridge directly into their crossfire since the gun behind the bump in the terrain is very hard to hit/suppress. With 1.02, I lost all 4 tanks. With 1.03, 1 tank got knocked out, but the others quickly supressed and then knocked out both guns. Did the 1.03 test twice. So the gun behind a bump problem seems much better. On a side note: I created my test scenario with 1.03, and 1.02 didn't recognize it. Scenarios created with 1.02 were picked up by 1.03. Just mentioning it in case this isn't expected.

Discounting the potential AT gun bug, are there any other instances where an enemy tank could hit your tank, but you couldn't hit them back? I don't mean cases where long range, optics, etc. matter. I am specifically asking about terrain elevation. Even if one side is hull down, the other side could still hit him, just the chances are less, right? Are there cases where one side is truly invulnerable? I had a couple of SU-152s going up against a tiger. I was at really close range (100m), and the tiger was on a little hill, above my SUs. From ground level, I could see most of the tiger from the position of my SUs. However, I didn't have LOS to the tiger by the LOS tool. From the tiger at ground level, it could similarly see most of my SUs. At this point, since I wasn't sure, I reversed out and tried a different approach, since based on my eyeball approximation of the tiger's LOS, he could hit me. So I was wondering if I could assume that if "I can't see him means he can't see me". thanks

I just finished Glantz's Battle of Kursk, and the lengthly Kursk thread from a few months back, and there seem to be a few contradictions/surprises. I had previously read Panzer Battles, which had claimed that the lack of a mobile defense had hastened Germany's downfall. Glantz contends that a mobile defense wouldn't have had nearly as great an impact. "What von Manstein did not know then or after the war, however, was that strong Soviet strategic reserves in the Stalingrad region would have thwarted the breakout effort." ( Battle of Kursk (BoK) p. 263). So even if Hitler had allowed the attempt, it wouldn't have mattered. Also, "Mobile defense seemed prudent and wise to postwar military analysts, but the generals of 1943 knew that it could not produce victory in a war that most thought could still be won." (BoK, p. 263) He claims that the German pessimism about the later date for Citadel didn't exist at the time of the operation, but only arose in hindsight. German forces easily smashed Soviet tactical and operational defenses in 41 and 42. So "even the most pessimistic German general presumed German forces could easily penetrate Soviet tactical and operational defenses." (BoK, p.262) He claims that the main German concern was to make sure that they didn't over extend once they broke through which had been their problem in the past. (Or perhaps their problem in the past was that they couldn't over extend far enough?) This, of course, doesn't seem to gel with other quotes I remember reading about the German trepidation prior to Citadel. He concludes that even launching Citadel when originally planned wouldn't have helped, since then the Germans were just as weak as the Soviets. He even goes so far as to say maybe they should have waited longer to get the kinks out of the new tanks. Finally, although this was mentioned on the other Kursk thread, he also concludes that the Soviets really did have a large strategic plan to absorb the German offensive, and then respond in kind. So, since I have multiple conflicting sources (Panzer Battles, BoK, previous threads), I was wondering if there are any other good sources to turn to here to clarify this. Or what the more informed members of this board thought. thanks

Not Ellensburg, but pretty close. I'm in Seattle. Didn't go to CWU, either, sorry.

Being very new to the game, I am always looking for information to improve my tactics. I stumbled across these while searching today. I did a quick search of the forum history, and didn't see these, so pardon me if this is old news. The titles look very promising. (And you can't beat the price: free.) I just found these and haven't had a chance to read any fully. But glancing through the TOCs and briefly scanning a few, they seem likely to be helpful to newbies like me at least. If anyone else has other useful references, please point me to them. Thanks. Calavary troop: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arfm/bl17-97.htm TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY COMPANY TEAM: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/711frntf.htm LIGHT ARMOR OPERATIONS: http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi%2Dbin/atdl.dll/fm/17%2D18/f1718.htm SCOUT PLATOON: http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi%2Dbin/atdl.dll/fm/17%2D98/toc.htm TACTICS: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-90/toc.htm Combined-Arms Breaching Operations: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-34.2/toc.htm TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES FOR COMBINED ARMS HEAVY FORCES: ARMORED BRIGADE, BATTALION TASK FORCE, AND COMPANY TEAM: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/71-123/toc.htm THE INFANTRY RIFLE COMPANY: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-10/toc.htm INFANTRY RIFLE PLATOON AND SQUAD: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/toc.htm MECHANIZED INFANTRY PLATOON AND SQUAD (BRADLEY): http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-21.71/toc.htm Smoke Operations: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-50/toc.htm TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF ANTIARMOR PLATOONS, COMPANIES, AND BATTALIONS: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-91/f791.htm TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF MORTARS: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-90/toc.htm THE TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY BATTALION TASK FORCE: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/71-2/toc.htm COMBINED ARMS OPERATIONS IN URBAN TERRAIN http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-06.11/toc.htm

What's TOE? I think i've also seen it as ToE. thanks

My 128 meg 4600 didn't make any difference. p4 2.26@~2.5, and the first turn calculated for approx 30-45 minutes. Troop placement and the 60 sec turn weren't bad. I started turn 2 just to see if was any quicker. It seemed a little faster, but I didn't want to wait another 30 minutes to get a real comparison. Are any of the other operations this hard on the hardware, or is Volga the worst?