PS

Thanks McAuliffe for the prompt reply.

To cut a long story short, had to get a new hard drive so lost my original download of the map converter. All the links I've found are long dead so any chance of a new download link please?

Sorry was in a hurry and didn't check it, corrected the APCR and APCNR. Thanks.

It is often stated that the PIAT was used as a short range mortar. Was this with the HEAT round or could it fire 3" mortar rounds? The fuse on the PIAT was very sensitive as foliage could set it of when it was used to flush snipers out of the trees in Normandy.

No, in the collectable section and sorry its only the shell. I don't think it was for the SG113 as this was a recoiless gun and could not have squeezed this down. It does look like the photos and diagrams of APCNR I have seen. The front holes are to let the air out as it went through the cones. Does anyone knows if the resulting round had its accuracy affected by being squeezed. I mean as the front edge will have rifled grooves cut into it will this affect the flight characteristics and it would have to be squeezed dead central or the round would arc (a problem with sabot rounds). A normal shell's shoulder sits on the rifling lands and the driving band cuts into it. Possibly difficult to tell as these guns could only fire APCNR but is there any accuracy data on this. What about the 2-pdr littlejohn. Was the APCNR less accurate than AP shot, some crews removed it and fired the APCNR as APCR. [ May 03, 2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: PS ]

If it is of any interest a 77mm round is being sold on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=585&item=2240912099&rd=1

I think the following file contains some PIAT accuracy tests. If not I will try to find the site that does. http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2pen14May02.PDF By the way Maj. Cain won his VC for using a 2" mortar under his arm to repel a german counter attack. The 5, or was it 7, tanks he knocked out with the PIAT didn't count.

Other games have good eds (SPWAW) or tool-sets (Close Combat)to allow mods without abuse. If you lot want to cheat thats your problem. Isn't bad data (2-pdr HE rounds in N.Africa) cheating anyway, as it gives an advantage when there wasn't one. Make it only work in single player mode then. No I don't expect BFC to get everything right but as they don't then an ed is needed. Sorry for repeating tank ramming but there are too many ideas to keep looking at everytime. A few more ideas: 5) Gun emplacements like the trenches to give a higher cover valve than a quick foxhole. Tanks could drive into these for hull-down as well. 6)Picking up weapons when your men run out of ammo. Yes this is from Close Combat. 7)There is more but I should make a list before I start. 8)A better campaign mode of serveral interlinking scenarios. This one has prob been posted.

Do you mean the Mk VI? They carried AP for the Vickers .50 to deal with light armour and .303 Ball rounds for soft targets in the early campaign. The 15mm Besa on the Mk VIC and Humber AC had AP rounds. This excellent heavy MG is sadly not modelled in CMAK. Jentz states that the BEF in N.France found Ball rounds to be ineffective against german AT gun-shields, 8 months later no AP rounds had been issued.

A few more ideas: 1)An unit editor so WE can correct all those little mistakes rather than wait for that patch that never comes. 2)Tank ramming. It would have made CMBB ace. The first time the British encounted the King Tiger it was rammed by a sherman and this was then burnt out to burn the Tiger! 3)Crews returning to abandoned tanks or a member left inside to fire back after a couple of turns. This would keep you on your toes and make sure you either kill all the crew or set the tank on fire. 4)No LOS behind vehicles so the PBI can hide behind them. They have no cover value. [ April 19, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: PS ]

Have got another quote apart from the Armour in Conflict about the 2-pdr "HE" being for soft vehicles and bunkers but can't find it yet. My earlier remark about no British AP MG rounds in the desert comes from Tank Combat in North Africa by Jentz so only deals with the early battles. The HMSO manuals for the Churchill and Cromwell lists AP rounds for the 7.92 Besa but they also list c.22 6-pdr rounds and a large no. for the 75mm, ie listed but not carried in combat. Were MG AP rounds issued later in the desert campaign to the Army as the RAF did have .303 AP rounds.

The Vickers manual listed ALL the mechanical faults that could happen when firing. So if one happened you knew how to fix it.

The pre-war British 3-pdr(47mm) had a APHE so it made sense for the 2-pdr to have one. Because the 2-pdr was a much higher velocity weapon a solid shot would be less likely to shatter and hence better penetration. From the GJS forum: http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour05.htm http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour01.htm Would appear the British only listed solid AP rounds for afv ammo storage in 1944. I've seen the churchill accounts as well and I think they were at close range. The 88mm Flak did have large openings in the gunshield and some crews removed the shield, poss to reduce the size of the gun.

The 2 pdr had a APHE shell but was never issued in the desert or ever? It was to be used against soft vehicles and bunkers and the MG against AT guns. Most pre-war AT-guns had the same type of round. As has been said, this would have been fine but the Germans used 88s so the MG become ineffective. The APHE round would prob not had worked as the round had a delay base fuse so unless the target stopped the round dead it would have travelled a short distance before it exploded. The thing with the MG role against AT guns was that the British only supplied ball rounds for it. The 2 pdr AT gun shield was proof against ball rounds so why it was thought no other country did the same was strange. German tanks had the SMK round for their MGs so British 2 pdr AT gun crews were vulnerable at ranges up to c.600m. Going back to the original question I think Rommel asked the same question.

Do explain because some of us do "give a ****" and I don't think "get out of this forum" is going all out? The relatives you lost were to the Germans, using the term Nazis just lets them off. Someone put them in power. I am not a great fan of war films and find them either hammy Second World War propaganda or modern gung-ho. Suppose we can't and won't show the real horrors of war. Good luck with the scenario.

Sorry, but I'm not going through all those replies , so if I have copied someone else I apologise. It would be nice if the gun\howitzers and SPs with them in could use the TRPs. Have a minimum indirect range so they could only be used on the larger maps. These howitzers had a variable charge system to produce a high looping trajectory. Why have this? Nice to used the on-board art sometimes and not just spotters.

Sorry, but how can you take any film like that seriously. Hundreds of thousands of young men died during WW2 so why not make scenarios about their real sacrifice. I will tell you about a real life "Private Ryan". A friend of the family who is now 83 lost all 3 of his brothers. One in North Africa, one in Normandy and the last one in Burma. He served right through the N.African Campaign and part of Italy before being sent home. No, not to sit the rest of the war out but to train for the Normandy landings and the rest of the N.W European Campaign. He very nearly got sent out to the Far-East but Japan surrendered before his training was finished. If you are going to make the scenario as real as possible forget the Tiger tanks (none in the America sector on 13 June), replace these with some old french thing, Pzfpfw IV or a Stug or two. I think it was a real Marder used in the film and Jagdpanthers were not in Normandy at that point in time and once again only on the British sector at the end. So if a GI saw one he wouldn't have know what it was. It has been said that GIs called every gun they faced a 88 and every tank with a long barrel a Tiger. But who didn't. I can remember reading on an earlier forum about a similar question and the comment that any German tank commander using Tigers like that would have been shot, if he had survived. Crews were not even allowed to smoke in a Tiger. Real life don't always make good films or scenarios. Sorry for this gripe and my earlier glip comment about the socks but it is now coming up to the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. I don't know how many of you are America but you lost a lot of men in Europe (see Tank Ace's quote) and so did the Canadians. All those thousands of miles away from home don't forget that.

I don't mind that a hand-grenade in the game can take a tank out as long as a molotov can do the same or better. I was not saying that tanks are invulnerable quite the opposite but you don't assault a 30+ ton tank with a standard frag grenade, except in films. The Germans threw mines in front of tanks not a hand-grenade. Hand-grenade modeling in CMBO was about right but it got farcical in CMBB. Why is it that when sequel games are produced they always bring in new glitches rather than bringing in the best of the old with the best of the new. The angle of the lower front armour of churchill tanks is 20 degrees; in CMBO its 0, in CMBB its 25 and in CMAK ?

After wearing those socks for more than six days was that Tiger knocked-out by a stinky bomb?

A standard German potatoe-masher would not disable a late war Russian tank or even a T34\76 or KV-1 so why does it in CMBB. The Hungarians who knocked out the Russian tanks have stated that the older models (T34\85 and ISU152) were very easy to knock-out with molotovs because of the large open grill vents on the engine decks. While I'm at it, the panzerfausts in the game are crap. These things had a very large hollow charged warhead and were highly effective. Why do squads fire all 4 at a IS-2 or at any other tank to knock it out while in real life the German troops in Berlin were knocking these out with one. They didn't have a chance to fire four!

Made up a small city scen. One German reg HQ, 3 split reg rifle squads and 2 tank hunting teams = total of 36 molotovs plus grenades in defense. The Russians just had 8 T34/85 and 3 IS-152 a mix of reg, vet and crack. NOT a single tank was knocked out using the molotovs even with top pen. All the tanks lost were the result of normal grenades. I tried this on full patch CDV and unpatched BTS versions.

Two things to say. 1)The British tested their a/t mine on the Tiger's tracks and nothing happened so what chance does a 1-lb Russian frag granade have? What an overkill! 2)As for Molotovs, what happened in Hungary in 1956? Was it 200 Russian tanks knocked out, mainly T34/85 and SU 152, using Molotovs. [ March 17, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: PS ]

They took the muzzle brake off the MkV 6 pdr so it needed a counterweight. Found pictures of Centaur and Cavalier with counterweighted Mk Vs. Why not the Valentine? Prod did but was removed, will need some time to dig out my photo collection. Before someone makes a remark I know the first Churchill Mk IVs had a Mk III 6 pdr.

I think the 6 pdr tank mount still used shoulder elevation like the A/T gun. I did read why the MkV 6 pdr had a counterweight and will try to find it. The MkV in the Valentine did not need one. It is prob down to the mount type as the 17pdr M10 Achilles needed one but the Firefly didn't.

Sorry I thought the tungsten round came out in 1940 to improve pen. This must have been the MkII bullet that I saw. The only full data I have is: AP.WMkII 2980fps IT70(Hardness 440-475) 743grs 15mm/30 100yds 12.5mm/30 500yds Also: 20mm/0 500m 3250fps 21mm/0 300m So is CMBB and CMAK using the tungsten bullet data?