Mr. Tittles

Thats some interesting thinking there. The whole analogy to rifle rounds is usually where people go astray. They throw up figures about so many rounds needed to cause a casualty. But rifle rounds are often fired not at targets but suspected targets. Its not really analagous. Tank fire should not be confused with rifle fire. TOW missle fire, also, should not be confused with tank fire. On a range, the targets are not masked by smoke, explosions, etc. The very different nature that the missle needs, tracking while in flight, is so different and subject to human reaction/target effects/etc, that it is best left as a Jasonism at best. [ February 10, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Rexford claims 25% range estimation innaccuracy at all ranges. I would think it would be a function of range, further being worse estimation. But at shorter ranges, the 25% becomes unimportant as the drop of the round will be much less. But the smaller the target, the more critical the range estimation. So a hull down tank is very hard to estimate. Its also less forgiving of 'misses' that would typically hit a tank. A 2 meter by 2.5 meter target is forgiving, since hitting is what is important. A 1 meter by 2 meter target is not. Typical scatter from all causes being clear misses sometimes. 88mm crews probably could use Flak stereo devices to get range readings that were accurate enough to dial in their weapons at longer ranges. But I would claim that motion is the greatest variable to accuracy. I doubt any tank would stand still if a round flew past with a crack.

I recently thumbed through a StuG war diary book (700Km in a StuG?). One of the interesting battle descriptions includes an attack by T34s across the StuGs front. I think the range was 800-1000 meters (going from memory). The crew KOs all but one T34, which is reversing rapidly. The author comments that stopping for the T34 would mean certain death (in other words, the StuG wouldnt miss). His only chance was moving. The StuG had the range and it would have meant death to stop. I think this demonstrates the accuracy of these high velocity weapons against non-moving targets. At long range, a moving erratic target on undulating terrain is a hard shot. A hull down target is a hard shot because of its small height and difficulty in determing its range.

I believe abandonment/self-destruction was the number one German reason for loss of armor. Whether this was because of lack of fuel, breakdown without hope of recovery, battle damage, etc. is not exactly known. Certainly the air force was a direct/indirect contributor to the losses. But as far as directly knocking out panzers they would be a minority cause.

no its a meeting engagement. I see probs with the points I got for prisoners. Its low compared to casualties. Also the TC is not counted as a casualty. Are points awarded for destroyed tanks/SPs? Whats the formula? If you add casualty, prisoner, flags; hows it work?

Spoiler Knifefight at cecina Following AAR OK 12 77 CAS 45 9 AFV-KO 3 1 Flags 300 (US) cas 248 846 POW 95 (US) Score 17-83 I basically creamed the Germans. I lost one sherman while KOing 2 tigers and the stug. I captured 9 guys and get 95 points (3 were Tiger crew). He gets 248 points for 9 casualties? My 9 caualties were 2 separate bazookamen,4 infantrymen 3 tankers (from KOd sherman) and a TC from another sherman (which adds to 10?). Both my HQ were intact without casualties. The germans lost 3/4 of their guys, all their armor and did not get the flag.

Spoiler Knifefight at cecina Following AAR OK 12 77 CAS 45 9 KO 3 1 Flags 300 (US) cas 248 846 POW 95 (US) Score 17-83 I basically creamed the Germans. I lost one sherman while KOing 2 tigers and the stug. I captured 9 guys and get 95 points (3 were Tiger crew). He gets 248 points for 9 casualties? My 9 were 2 separate bazookamen,4 infantrymen 3 tankers and a TC (which adds to 10?). Both my HQ were intact without casualties.

Design specs are usually +/-%. So a 60mm plate specced at 60mm +3%/-0% would on average, be greater than the base spec of 60mm. On a higher production item, like a Panther bow plate, the spec might be looser. Say, 80mm +3%/-3%. The average panther bow plate would be 80mm or close to it.

Whats wrong with the picture is that the StuGs have become the manuver element and the Panzer IV the overwatch.

Heres how to use Panzer IV: 1. Buy a StuG for each Panzer IV 2. Advance the StuGs while the Panzer IVs overwatch/hide or are in reverse slopes ready to shoot n scoot. 3. The StuGs will shrug off all hits and then the Panzer IVs can pop up and smoke all the shooters. So whats wrong with this picture?

JasonC has clearly objected to the UberStuG in other threads. Its interesting that he accepts the PanzerIV-tincan modeling. The StuG may be getting overmodeling from the curved armor on its upperstructure. the PanzerIV clearly gets undermodeling from the simplistic hit distribution the game uses. I agree that a real tanker would avoid getting hit at all costs. There is just so much minor damage that can occur even if there is sufficient armor to give a degree of protection. Even Tigers could not stand repeated hits as damage to sub-systems, tracks and even the armor itself (cracks, etc) can occur. Realistically, Panzer IVH/J could face certain threats and react accordingly. An example is StuG units. They would try to engage the enemy between 600-1200 meters and avoid engaging any AT weapon under 600 meters. This doctrine is a snap shot in time. It may only be applicable to eastern front vs T34/76, 45mm, etc.

Notice how a small a target the panzer IV turret frontal area is in this angled shot. The earlier vehicle does not have any turret shurzen spaced armor and the rather small turret (overall) and vulnerable turret frontal area (50mm) is evident. I think the dollars to donuts guy is starting to make sense. This wont be addressed. [ February 05, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I did some quick testing regarding a German HMG, LMG and HQ stopping a 2 platoon assault. My opinion is that something has been tweaked from CMBB. the attacking platoons were US green.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I read that the German Elephant 88mmL71 had a problem where one of the ammo bins was adjacent to a hot area. The ammo would have a greater MV effecting the long range shot to shot accuracy. Come to think of it, if you fired off quite a few rounds, and then had a loaded round sit in the hot breech for awhile (lets say you were waiting for a tank to come back up from a gully), the round would get hot! you would not be so zeroed in. Modern day weapons take many variables like barrel droop, etc into account. There was no way the WWII tanks could. Modern fin stabilized rounds give up some accuracy from not being spun stabilized, but gain so much more from computers/sensors.

I think people are confused. Patch equals work for BTS for nothing. Product equals work for money. I would pay for CMBB++. To develop CMAK from CMBB had to be harder than to retro CMBB with CMAK tech. lets say they took on another coder for 3 months to do it. Would it not be worth a contract with him/her to sell another 5000-10000 CMBB++ for 30+ a pop?

Nothing personal Mikey. But you do not know what you are talking/guessing about. And Fulda Gap? No thanks. Cast armor is not modeled as that much less than other armor. To follow your 'reasoning', its 50mm cast = 20mm rolled. Not quite. The 30mm shield is also not cast. Doesnt wash. Shearing of welded on copulas? M60A1 had a commanders turret, not a copula? I have never seen a picture of one of these german copulas sheared off. If penetrated, then fine, but not sheared off. The Panzer IV turret front is a collection of the following: 1. 50mm nearly vertical 2. 50mm nearly vertical with tracks 3. 50mm cast+30mm shield 4. 100mm copula This is a range of protection. To model it with 1. makes the tank very weak. [ February 04, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

If someone has CMBO/CMBB, can they check the following: 1. were stugs modeled with curved armor? 2. was curved armor a CMBB introduction? Its obvious that the designers are modeling this StuGIII largely flat/multi-angled/varying thickness area (superstructure) with the curved armor abstraction. This allows all areas to be represented. Since this is already in the game, and would not need programming changes, I think it deserves some attention. Would having the Panzer IV turret front at 50mm curved (80 to 45 deg) be objectionable?

Why does it have to be a big delay anyway? Can there not be more than one programmer hired to apply CMAK to CMBB? I would pay 30.00 USD (as long as Panzer IV turret is fixed).

Flamer I not only have info, but any book on the Panzer IV also has info. The turret had a cast mantlet that was 50mm that was further protected by 30mm shield. It also had 100mm on its copula. These are different numbers than the 50mm 'rectangle' that the game models the turret as. The Panzer IV is also seen with tracks over the 50mm areas. I doubt this will get any attention from the game makers. So it isnt worth telling anyone that isnt listening anything. The CM series is an infantry game to me.

They would need to fix the Panzer IV turret problem first. I just cant stand playing with the tin panzer. I also do not like the soviet tanks not being penalized for their poor gun depression. A cheap fix would be to not give them equal hull down benefits. But the fact that they can blast down into gullys at infantry is so gamey.

I notice the Stug III has 80 curved armor on its upper hull. This is a collection of armored surfaces that also vary . I put a link in the patches thread to this thread. It really remains to be seen if there is any notice of this for any further CMAK patch or CMBB final patch. [ February 03, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

In reality, a HD tank is much harder to approximate range. This makes first round hits much more difficult. I think the Silhoette number should be modified by several factors. Lets take the Panzer IV. Its a '95'. If its HD, then this should be reduced, to reflect the covered lower parts, but how much should be dependant on several factors: 1. Crew experience. Conscript and Green experiencing the least benefit, Regular on up ramping the reduction to a maximum. This reflects the fact that it is not a refined science but rather a typical battle drill that any crew that has survived a typical training program/few battles should know. 2. Leadership. Tanks in HQ control would get a bonus from Stealth/etc. from leaders. this reflects the fact that they are sharing info through the radio net. 3. Vehicle gun depression. The better the gun depression angle, and the lower the gun is to the ground itself, results in better HD positions. An ideal HD position may just show the gun-up to an enemy. The complete hull and lower part of the turret itself may be hidden. [ February 03, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The center of mass on a Panzer IV turret is where the increased armor is! Both the shielded mantlet and cupola are in teh center.

The center of mass on a Panzer IV turret is where the increased armor is! Both the shielded mantlet and cupola are in the center. Most gunnery shoots at a 2 meter by 2 meter target (or thereabouts). A truly hull down tank may present a target that is less than 1 meter high. Not only is this smaller, it disrupts range estimation greatly. Its really much harder than you realize. Get the range wrong and your error spread increases. [ February 03, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]