Rokossovski

Huh! It does have an EW option like CMBS but frankly I don't think anyone's thought to test that out yet with radio IEDs. I'll go run and give it a look. If it works as it ought in the final game it'll be partially because of you. 

Will CMSF 2 have the ability to disarm or jam IEDs (yeah I know I'm asking about a new feature, sorry  ) ?

Thanks Mike, I'm very happy to hear that it will be looked into. I'm also asking, and I know it would be a new feature. could/should engineers have the ability to mark/disarm them like they do mines?
 
Thanks again.

Thank you for the update and the honesty.  
You guys do what you need to do, I can only speak for myself but the issue was never about getting the patch ASAP it was more of an open and honest communication issue and you have addressed that here.  I personally very much appreciate that.  I hope you guys(Devs) don't just look at us as a bunch of entitled kids here yelling for more stuff.  It is easy for the testers in this community who know what's going on behind the scenes to keep a cool head and in some cases mock and point fingers at those of us who are not testers for seeking information they themselves generally have. 
I hope you and the rest of the team understand our frustration and from the sound of your post you do.  We love you guys(not in a gay way) and obviously love your product.  Hell this game series has been a major part of my entire gaming life, so it is important.
Keep up the good work and thank you again for the honest communication. That goes a LONG way!
 

These are pdf's with large, labeled pictures for every QB map, covering CMFB, CMFI, and CMRT. I always get frustrated trying to remember which QB map is which, and having to load up the scenario editor just to find one gets really, really old. So I created these.
I'll eventually put these on CMMODS. As soon as I finish the CMBN one, which is a significantly bigger task, and has had to take a back seat to a different project I'm now invested in. So I decided to just post these here, now.
Can someone please let me know if these links work for plain ol' public download / access? If not, I'll repost proper links in a new thread. Dropbox recently got rid of its "Public Folder" feature, and the new way to accomplish almost the same thing is not very intuitive....
Here ya go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jffokwaq2w017bj/CMFB - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l4xpbdhps0mgq6/CMRT - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rh9ya8wbe3tldr/CMFI - Alol QB Maps - lower quality.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9vhj33u708h0f9/CMFI - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
*NOTE:  the "lower quality" CMFI pdf is actually the same quality as CMFB's and CMRT's -- plenty good enough. The higher quality CMFI pdf was my first, though, and features lossless images... which is great, except that the file size is almost 300MB.
 

Hold your applause. Please turn your attention to today's date. Now, please turn your attention to all the new Steve threads. Now, please turn your attention to the dates of the quotes I posted above. Now, please re-return your attention to all the new Steve threads and note their dates (there will be a quiz later). Now, please turn your attention to what I am saying right now. Oops! Hold on a sec..Hey, you in the back, put your pants on and sit down, this is a family friendly forum (can't take Kettler anywhere. Oh wait, that was Bil Hardenberger...jeez he seems so refined when he's analyzing tactics). Ok. So, anyway, please re-return your attention to what I am saying right now. Ready? Yeah, THAT'S right!  I Mord, modder extraordinaire, King of the Portraits and all around badass, called that s***! NAAAAAILED IT! BULLSEYE! Hole in one!
 
It's good to be the king.
 
That is all.
 
Mord.
 
P.S. You may applaud now.
 

Thanks to everyone who contributed, and particularly to IanL for answering in depth, even if we disagree on several matters.

I vaguely recall a similar anecdote from (IIRC) Vienna in WWII, a bunch of Soviet troops decided to watch ISU-152s sorting out dug in defenders and took quite a few casualties from flying debris etc. in the process.
You can see what a 125mm does here (at 1:39):
That's actually the second time (it also fires at 1:23), but the dumbass filming it is looking straight down the muzzle this time! 

Mission accomplished on erasing JK's deficit, but at the moment it won't budge off "0" neutrality and into positive territory.  He's long been both active and unfailingly polite.  His posts are often helpful and interesting.  Moving his rep to a positive number seems like an appropriate tip of the hat.

Mission accomplished on erasing JK's deficit, but at the moment it won't budge off "0" neutrality and into positive territory.  He's long been both active and unfailingly polite.  His posts are often helpful and interesting.  Moving his rep to a positive number seems like an appropriate tip of the hat.

Thought many of you might appreciate seeing this. The "AMU" referenced is Army Marksmanship Unit.
http://worldwarwings.com/86-year-old-vet-sniper-gets-3-headshots-1000-yards/
If you don't care about the article, here's the video.
 
Regards,
John Kettler
 

axxe,
The explanation is simple and straightforward. You're trying to shoot inside of of Rmin, which is 60 meters, not 55. The game doesn't model any of that manually holding the mortar tube higher than the designed elevation limit stuff you'll read about in some hairy battle accounts.
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german-infantry-weapons/german-8-cm-heavy-mortar.html
Regards,
John Kettler

Oliver_88,
The first case is unambiguous. The attempted shot is 5 meters shy of the 60 meter Rmin, so is impossible. In the second case, and only two total were provided, it also is inside Rmin, but this time short only 3 meters. Am of the opinion, based on what axxe has shown, is the only issues here are an incorrect label for the second shot (target not beyond Rmax) and incorrect data on the mortar icon. Clearly, since neither shot worked inside the real world Rmin, the game engine has the weapon range parameters correct, but there was a typo in the graphics for the weapon. Believe these two items should be fixed ASAP.
Regards,
John Kettler

If you're losing arguments on the CM Forums for want of authoritative citations, this CD, WW2 Explosive Ordnance Manuals USA German Japan Italy Military Ammunition CD, which I got from the excellent (100% positive rating; left five star review) eBay Seller larry5250 for a whole $9.99 with free shipping, will be your salvation and source of glorious grog madness. It's got the OP1000 series Naval Ordnance books (in crisp, clean PDFs) for the US, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy, as well as lovely bonuses. If you could find these in physical form, it would be a seriously expensive acquisition process. Speak from experience here after trying to replace my facsimile (from Paladin Press) of the GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE Bombs, Rockets and Fuzes volume after it was either stolen by the cop I lent it to or somehow lost/thrown out by his wife during his ugly divorce decades ago.  Recall the price was $200 or so as of last year. 
From an information (never mind scarce information) per dollar standpoint, this is a killer deal. Would further point out navy.mil some years ago took the US one down from its site post 9/11 and hasn't replaced it since that I know of. With major company after major company imposing its, ahem, values on us, I believe it would be wise to get this now, in case a policy decision at eBay suddenly prohibits such wonders from being sold.
Regards,
John Kettler

Bud,
Same name but a different model M3: riveted instead of cast hull.
Regards,
John Kettler

Andy,
While I was amazed to see that tank show up, I much prefer to see this film.
 
DerKommissar,
A beautifully restored tank, but where is it located, please? If ex-APG, then I guarantee you it's been rendered permanently nonfunctional.
Regards,
John Kettler

Have a plot twist to the story, and it involves the CMBN side of things for the CW. Just got off the horn with brother George, who informed me the British, for reasons he didn't understand, did not do the upgrade kits that put the wide mantlet and the all-important telescopic sight on what had been narrow mantlet Shermans with their associated optical deficits. He thought this was pretty shocking, considering it was the British who raised a ruckus about optics in the first place. He further noted they didn't fit the protective plates to the near vertical driver and bow gunner bulges in the glacis and didn't always have sponson armor added, either. Said the overall situation was the norm in Normandy, and that they were still campaigning narrow mantlet Shermans at Arnhem! Seems to me this is something which ought to be looked into because of its potentially substantial impact on combat performance and also addressed by scenario builders. He sent a photo to my phone of a British welded hull Sherman in Normandy in June 1944, and that tank is very much the OEM first model with the narrow mantlet. Not sure what the situation was for the Canadians and the Poles.
Regards,
John Kettler

Regarding the tank name, here's a naming scenario I hadn't thought of but find intriguing. The time period fits nicely, too.

http://www.cowgirl.net/portfolios/lulu-bell-parr/
Regards,
John Kettler

Brother George had asked me  to  provide proof they  were  present after I mentioned  a clip  I saw. They were!
Axis WWII Discussion Group: Marder III Ausf M Used In Battle Of The Bulge ?         Axis WWII Discussion Group: Marder III Ausf M Used In Battle Of The Bul...
 
  Fair Use   Re: Marder III Ausf M Used In Battle Of The Bulge ?
January 18 2006, 1:25 AM    Joey, 

The following information is extracted from Ron Klages.
Marder III (75)
DECEMBER 1944: 
PJAbt. 3 [3. PGD] with 7 units 
PJAbt. 246 [246. VGD] with 8 units 
PJAbt. 1553 [553. VGD] with 2 units 

Note that some of the Marder III could have been the H
model. 

Units from the above listing that participated in the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge);
246th Volksgrenadier (VGD) (was 6th Army Reserve) 
3rd Panzergrenadier Division

I hope this is of some use.

Tom Nelson  
Also this,  but  site is showing as  suspect. There may be more, but  I  can't  see the rest of  the blurb.
German Army, Battle of the Bulge, 15 December 1944 - US Army ...
usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/944GLAA.pdf   Battle of the Bulge. 15 December 1944. OB West: Feldmarschal G. von Runstedt. Army Group B Feldmarschal W. Model. Army Reserves: 79th Volks Grenadier ...... Führer Grenadier Brigade Artillery Battalion (3 btrys). Führer Grenadier Brigade Panzerjäger Company. (10 Marder III). 2nd SS Panzer Division (Das Reich)35.
Regards,
John Kettler

Brother Ed is happily making craters on a 3-D printer, and I unearthed this to help him. Turns out this is a blast from my past, in the form of a runway cratering study I used when doing a report on US rapid runway repair capability in my early days at Hughes. This is, in part, quite the tutorial on crater configuration from aerial bombs and addresses dimensions  for a range of bomb sizes against both a range of runway types and against bare soil. It's called BOMB CRATER DAMAGE TO RUNWAYS and was authored by Peter Westine of the Southwest Research Institute. 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/907456.pdf

P.S.

I give up! This post won't delete. Tried doing that after realizing I put it in the wrong place. Should be in CM GDF, not CMFB. Mods, please move it. Thanks! 
Regards,
John Kettler

Andy,
Hate to break it to you, but sometimes, the real thing is wrong, too! If you don't believe me, check some of the various measured armor plate thicknesses on the T-34 vs what the design plans specified. And that's a pretty tame example. There are others far worse. Unfortunately, that's the best I can do for now. 
Dfwtd,
I love the LRDG trucks as well, but they aren't AFVs. They are simply standard trucks which have been specifically reconfigured for desert operations. Great pics, though.
DerKommissar,
Renwal made a model of the M56, which I always thought was a butt ugly AFV, especially after I saw the Russian equivalent and simultaneously felt my guts knot and my heart leap. Love the ASU-85. 
At the time I encountered it via the Renwal model, I thought the Ontos was the weirdest AFV ever. Later in life, I came to appreciate the tiny little tank killer for the marvel it was when it came to street fighting. Whip around the corner, blast the snot out of the problem area and reverse out of sight to reload.
Regards,
John Kettler
 

For whatever reason the BMP-1 look appeals to me a lot.  But not as huge a fan of the way the BMP-2 and BMP-3 look.  

As for proper AFVs I like a lot of Soviet tanks in general.  I like the green color scheme they have a lot of the time and the way they look with and without reactive armor and other equipment on the tank.  T-55 and T-62 look the best of the major Soviet MBTs imo.

This seemed wildly out of place to me, as in belongs on the GDF, not the CM GDF, but it's grown on me, despite the jarring "IFV only orientation," but that is the curse of the timed Edit lockout. Have been its victim on many an occasion! Frankly, though, I'm thrilled by loads of AFV photos I've never seen before and find this to be reminiscent of the ID the AFV feature on AFV News and something similar on AFV-G2.
Was going to zing Michael Emrys for being a Hurricane tankbuster cannon grog, but he must yield prode of place to Andy's astonishing LWS groggery. Having seen exactly one picture of the thing until now, I was blown away in. general, but when he got into LWS suspension types... 
Bulletpoint's "A Disquisition on the AFVness of the "Stummel" Halftrack Variant" was roughly akin to a Gibbs head chuck in its impact on me, for it was inconveivable that an armored vehicle which fights (shooting from it with a full-blown cannon would seem to qualify) would somehow not be an AFV! Ceretainly, there are some interesting cases on the margin, such as the unarmored SdKfz 7 which was fitted with an armored cab with materials salvaged, I believe, from a T-34 wreck and had a shield for a Flakvierling made from the carcass of a 251. And I'm certainly not willing to count an RSO with PAK 40 on it as an AFV, since it's not the structure of the vehicle which is armored. It's an FV, but no AFV.
Returning to the Stummel, while the cannon firing HE worked to considerable range, The Stummel is for i direct fire support, not direct fire engagements,  though I suppose given the right conditions you could. In CMBN, I've used a M8 HMC  as a tank in spitting range fights and lived to tell the tale, but I had favorable ground and used it to the uttermost to first suppress and then destroy some guns operating as ATGs. I've  read the Stummel's HEAT round was effectively useless beyond 400 meters because it was so light and looping in its trajectory it couldn't be fired accurately beyond that distance. Am not sure whether PzGr 39 was carried on these fire support AFVs by D-Day, if not earlier, and expect the load would've been HE and smoke.

Regards,
John Kettler

I'm not sure it's an AFV as such, at least it's not a tank. But I've come to like the Stummel a lot:

Unfortunately, they rarely get to shine in CM, because as soon as even just light tanks appear on the battlefield, it's curtains for these little devils.