A.E.B

Hi all I have a Dell 2.58 with a 128mb Santa Cruz video card and my PC gets sluggish running CMBB. The easy solution is to shut down any program that is running (I often have email and IE running while doing PBEMs) at the same time. Then hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and shut down unnecessary programs in task manager. My virus checker, ad blocker, get right download manager, messenger, real player, and pest patrol programs easily consume 20% of RAM. Then CMBB is as smooth as silk. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I have a Dell 2.58 with a 128mb Santa Cruz video card and my PC gets sluggish running CMBB. The easy solution is to shut down any program that is running (I often have email and IE running while doing PBEMs) at the same time. Then hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and shut down unnecessary programs in task manager. My virus checker, ad blocker, get right download manager, messenger, real player, and pest patrol programs easily consume 20% of RAM. Then CMBB is as smooth as silk. Regards A.E.B

Hi all What was the spare part situation for the Russians and the Western Allies when it came to tanks? I have read in a number of sources that increased German production of whole AFVs in 1943 on lead to a lack of spare parts. This lack of spare parts resulted in canibalisation at field repair depots that in turn stopped battlefield recoveries being returned to service (I have a picture of a German tank repair depot captured by the Russians in late 1943. The depot contained almost 100 PzIII tanks, most with no road wheels). Was increased Russian tank production at the fatory level offset by a lack of spare parts at the operations level that kept the number of runners down? I have kept my eyes open for this info for years but have never seen anything definitive. Did the Western Allies produce adequate spares, or were their casualty rates sufficient to allow cannibalisation? I simply don't know? Regards A.E.B

Hi all I was fighting Beda Fomm as the allies (92/8 – Matilda’s rock!) and I happened to notice that one of the Australian independent Boys ATR sections was commanded by one Cpl Seanachai. Thanks Rune, but the Australian army has no place for a Minnesotan garden gnome, not even in the dark days of 1941. We have standards you know! Has anyone else spotted a forum member in a CMAK scenario? Merry Christmas A.E.B

For God's sake Seanachai edit your post and get rid of the profanity. It is a breach of forum rules REMEMBER? If you get banned who else will fill the role of someone the entire world can look down upon? Village idiots are so hard to find these days. Crickey! A.E.B

Do both MGs have the same ammo value? If so then that suggests that both MGs are using the same pool of ammunition. My understanding is that tank MG ammo is stored in belts or cloth drums, usually in a rack mounted on the hull side. Both MGs would use this ammo as needed. Regards A.E.B

Hi all An idea has occurred to me - what is the possible effect of corrosion on armour thickness? Basically, given the right conditions (liquid water and temperature - each 10 degrees Celsius doubles the rate), oxygen will react and convert iron into iron oxide. Normally, a crust of iron oxide (rust) prevents further corrosion unless vibration or abrasion removes the rust. Of course tanks are made of steel, but they are still subject to rust. Most tanks are given a coating of paint - although some Russian tanks were driven into combat without paint - but battlefield conditions would results in sufficient paint being removed to allow rust to occur. The same battlefield conditions would also tend to remove any rust that forms. What is means is that poorly maintained tanks (or tanks that were never painted) could easily lose a millimetre or more of steel thickness a week. And this steel would be lost at the surface, which is particularly detrimental to face-hardened armour. Armour where two plates are directly joined together will be vulnerable if water penetrates the joint and causes rusting as such an area cannot be repainted. Spaced armour if not well ventilated or drained would also provide excellent conditions for rust. Does anyone know how good German and Russian rust prevention was during WWII? So a badly maintained T34 going into battle months after it was manufactured could have armour that is considerably thinned by rust. Regards A.E.B [ November 20, 2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

I agree, specially since I owe Ace Pilot a copy as well. Preordering today. Thank god the price wasn't in Euros! Regards A.E.B

Damn, I thought this was a thread on police efforts to stop Michael Jackson! I plan on fighting on both fronts. Regards A.E.B [ November 19, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Michael With a couple of SU76i's none the less. I believe that German tankers killed by SU76i's are excluded from Valhalla! I am currently at work. I'll send the turn when I get home. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I believe JasonC is positing the mild suggestion that the STUG III F/G frontal armour may be a tad over-modelled in CMBB which results in slightly non-historical performance verse allied AP projectiles. Then why do my god-damned STUGs always die??? Oh, the incompetence, I forgot! Out of curiosity, does anyone have a picture of a STUG that has been KOed by a frontal penetration? I have checked my collection and (a) knocked out STUG pics are rare, and ( those pictures I do have of knocked out STUGs don't show frontal penetrations. Given the cramped conditions inside a STUG, it appears that just about any round that penetrates the front armour will hit something or someone vital. So are STUGs turretless Tiger Is in disguise? I can't find sufficient information on how they were destroyed to make a judgement. Regards A.E.B

Redwolf Of course the actual surface area available changes with every small permeation in facing and inclination. I am leaving the determination of just what the 75/L43 vs. 76.2/L42 could penetrate at what ranges as I don't have access to the required data. But it is not only a matter of whether one tank could penetrate the other at range, but the raw chance of striking an area that could be penetrated. My area figures merely show (ignoring the chance of a hit) the relative target areas of a T34B vs. a Pz IV F2 in a straight head-to-head shoot out. Basically, the soft areas of each tank (i.e. the areas that can realistically be penetrated) are the important factors - not the areas that cannot be penetrated. If a Pz IV F2 is capable of penetrating the T34B weak spots at a range of say 1,000 meters, then any shell that hit front on has roughly a 15% chance of striking such a weak spot. In return the T34B is capable of penetrating the Pz IV F2's turret front or weak spots at the same range, then that T34B has a 25% chance of striking such an area. Even in the worst case, the turrets of both tanks must be face-on if they are firing at each other, regardless of hull down or hull orientation. Then the odds are 6% for the T34B to 22.5% for the Pz IV F2 of hitting the area of the turret face that can be penetrated. Given the above, you then have to consider relative gun accuracy (# hits as a percentage of shots fired) and the ROF to see whether it was worth the average Pz IV F2 taking on a T34B at range. Example: ROF x % hits likely x % chance of hitting a weak spot. Reality of course is far more complex! Regards A.E.B [ November 18, 2003, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Hi all The never ending debate on penetration! I don't have anything to add except for some pictures, target area statistics and one piece of heresay. A friend of mine used to command a ADF Leopard 1 (currently he commands a desk). He once showed me a ADF booklet that listed a number of enemy AFVs, their gun/performance stats and the "survivability" of the Leopard 1 verse each of those AFVs (who kills who at what range). His comment was that you could easy adjust those figures by 25% +/- on the battlefield, and that he didn't intend to consult the book during battle! By my quick calculation, these are the relative target areas of a T34/B front on. Turret 14.5% Upper Glacis 42.5% Lower Glacis 17.5% Track/Suspension 25.5% The weakpoints make up Driver's hatch 3% Mantle/Flat turret front 6% or 41% of the turret front. Hull MG mount 2.5% Turret ring shot trap 3.5% Or 15% of the total target area. The above assumes a front-on profile (zero degree) with no hulldown. By my quick calculation, these are the relative target areas of a Pz IV F2 front on. Turret 22.5% Upper Glacis 36.5% Lower Glacis 22.5% Track/Suspension 18.5% The Mantle is 5.5% of the total, or 25% of the turret front. The Upper glacis is split between the flat crew plate and the slopped lower plate. Upper front glacis 14.6% of target area. Lower front glacis 21.9% of target area. The weakpoints make up Driver's port 2% Mantle 5.5 % (this may not be a weak spot!) Hull MG mount 1.5% Turret ring shot trap 1.5% Or 10.5% of the total target area (5% without the mantle). Again the above assumes a front-on profile (zero degree) with no hulldown. So what does this tell us? That the T34 turret is a far smaller target as a percentage than that of a Pz IV F2. Non-hulldown, a T34B would be hit in the turret 14.5% of the time vs. 22.5% for the Pz IV. If Lower-Hulldown (no track or Lower Glacis) then the T34B is 25.5% like to be hit in the turret vs. 38% for the Pz IV. The weakspots on a T34B make up 15% of a non-hull down T34B and 26.5% if Lower-hulldown. The Pz IV F2 by comparison 22.5% likely to be hit in the turret face (its weak spot) with 5.5% being the mantel. Lower-Hulldown the Pz IV F2 is 38% likely to be hit in the turret face with 9.5% hitting the mantel. These shot percentages only work for rounds aimed at and varying around the center of mass - if aiming is possible then hit distributions will change. I couldn't be bothered to do the above stats for the STUG III F/G. Has anyone ever seen the German Flakpanzer T34 ® before? I think that only one was built? T34 in German service Regards A.E.B [ November 17, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Hi all The deadline has passed. Sorry, but no new challengers will be accepted. I will be emailing out turn one individually soon. Regards A.E.B

Just a few hours to go before the challenge beings. I have assembled a small but bloodthirst team of wetboys representing many nations. I will shortly be emailing out the first turn out individually to the various mechanics taking part. Sign up now. Death or a free copy of CMAK awaits. Regards A.E.B

Hi guys 21 hours left to sign up. At the moment the small but slowly growing band of cold-blooded killers includes posters with member numbers ranging from the 10s to the 10,000s. So join and the odds are good (unless you're called Seanachai - dozens of emails all saying KILL Seanachai ). Well, an Australian can dream. Form a cabal. Pick your teams targets. Be the first to betray and kill your friends and allies. Come on, you know you wanna! Regards A.E.B [ November 08, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Seanachai While I realise that, compared to other posters who have joined the challenge, being a small ceramic gnome armed only with a pointy red hat may put you at a disadvantage in the virtual assassination stakes, you are missing out on a "once-in-a-life-time" opportunity. You can force an Australian to buy you CMAK. Regards A.E.B

Not only was there no demo, but without these forums to distract me I worked hard today!!?? I must be able to sue someone? Regards A.E.B

It was Mark Chapman. What I want to know is why did he spare Yoko! Anyway, join the challenge and you can go down in forum history as the guy who shot Dorosh. Regards A.E.B

MikeyD Who was Hinkley? Regards A.E.B

Any questions will be answered in the General Forum. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I have decided on a little challenge to relieve the “when in Monkeybutt’s name are they going to release CMAK” blues. I’m going to let you all do what you’ve all secretly wanted to do: KILL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BF.C FORUMS. That’s right, it a last man (or lady) standing on the heaped corpses of the losers takes the prize challenge. The prize? A copy a CMAK ordered and paid for by me via BF.C and sent to you. That’s right, I’m making Australia’s balance of payment figures even redder by sending my hard-earn Aussie dollars straight to BF.C so they’ll send CMAK straight to you. Interested? Ok, it my dime so it’s my rules. Please read the following. THE RULES JOINING THE CHALLENGE If you want to kill and be killed by your fellow BF.C forum members. Please send me an email to the address in my profile. In the email please list your forum name and number. Don’t worry, I have no interest in collecting emails or even communicating with most of you, so your emails will be deleted as soon as you are killed or the challenge is over. You have until 12pm Sunday my time to send me an email if you wish to join. I am in Sydney Australia, so my time is GMT+10. If you miss the deadline, you miss out. Also, I am limiting this competition to those posters who are registered at the time of this post. The last eligible member is BOO member # 13754. GENERAL RULES 1. Each round I will post the results of the previous round. I will also post a list of members of the challenge who are still alive. 2. I will also post a code word . Your KILL and DEFEND orders for each turn must have that code word, or I will consider you a NO ORDER (see below). 3. I will also set a deadline for emails for the current round. If I don’t receive an email, or if it misses the deadline, I will treat it as a NO ORDER . NO ORDER means that the following round’s orders are repeated regardless of the results of that round. A deadline will always be at least 24 hours from the post date. 4. Each turn you choose one of the surviving challenge members who will be the target of your assassination. Your KILL order will be that challenge member’s name. Example: KILL A.E.B 5. You also have DEFEND orders. A DEFEND order will negate an assassination attempt by that challenge member. Each round I will state the number of Defend orders you have available. Example: DEFEND (against) A.E.B, NAME, NAME, NAME 6. If you send me more than one KILL order or too many DEFEND orders, I will execute them in the order they appear on your email, but I will exclude any orders over the limit. 7. Round orders once sent cannot be revoked. 8. Once the deadline is passed I will execute all emails on a first received first executed basis. 9. When I execute your order, I will match your KILL order against the target challenge member’s DEFEND orders. If the target has a DEFEND order against you, your assassination attempt fails. If the target has no DEFEND order against you, then you successfully assassinate them and they are out of the challenge. 10. I will be recording the number of kills made by the surviving challenge members, but these will not be made public. The number of kills will determine who wins if we have two survivors or no survivors at the final round. 11. Therefore, if I receive an email before your email and the KILL order in the previous email assassinates your target, the first assassin is credited the kill and your KILL order is wasted as the target is already dead. 12. It is possible to assassinate and be assassinated in the same turn. All KILL and DEFEND orders are all executed each turn. 13. In the exceedingly remote possibility that two members survive to the final round and both have the same number of kills, both will get a copy of CMAK. 14. I will contact the ultimate winner(s) by email to arrange shipping details of their CMAK. THAT’S IT I expect that the first couple of rounds will take a while to execute. After that, the herd will have been thinned and the rounds will speed up considerably. Please note: I have never worked for Arthur Andersen so all turns will be conducted without fear or favour. This challenge has NOTHING TO DO with BATTLEFRONT, the MODERATORS, or anyone associated with them. If you have a problem it is with me. That said, this is not a democracy, so one I have posted the results of a round my decisions are final. Also, I am not responsible for technical problems or email failures, so if I don’t get your email for some reason I’m sorry but that is life. Regards A.E.B [ November 06, 2003, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Hi all BFC moderators. If you have issues with what follows please email me and I will immediately withdraw the challenge. Everyone else. What follows is my idea and my responsibility alone. Neither Battlefront.com, the moderators nor anyone or orgainisation associated with them is responsible for this challenge in any way. All care and responsibility belongs with me. After the following post all further Challenge business will be conducted on the General Forum. Thank you A.E.B

An US Army M48 firing at NVA PT76 tanks during a night battle at Ben Het (spelling). Regards A.E.B

Kiwis tend to marry out? Anyone but South Africa (A.E.Bs position on who should win the Rugby World Cup) A.E.B