Amizaur

By what "link" ? By radio ? What observer (whit a radio) ? How long would it take ? Usually such "observer" that have a radio, is in contact with our TC and is observing situation, would be a TC of another tank, that overwatches and supports the engaged tank. But another tank is not always on place, sometimes is buzy too, ect. The infantry AFAIK had historically (and has up to now) big problems contacting tanks. average infantryman doesn't have a radio. Sometimes an external intercom sockets were mounted externally of the tank, so some infantryman - equipped with a headset - could crawl in, connect to the socket and talk to the TC. But other than that, for a buttoned tank it's a great problem. There is only a radio, and it's not very good comm channel. And usually is reserved for tank-tank and tank-HQ comm. I'm not a military man, above is what I read or know or suppose. It's not that easy to warn a TC. Situations where it's possible would be IMO rare, and 90% of those situations would be when one tank observes and warns another tank about some danger or target. But it's not that quick and easy as one could imagine... I'm not that cruel for my pixel infantrymans. I do not run them into open to hunt tanks, a "12 o'clock duel" on the main street. And if I do, I accept that they are easily detected and engaged. A TC might have been watching this direction at the moment...

I guess it would be risky to try to push another tank. They would rather try to put some tow cables on it and drag it to the side, or use a bulldozer. But a truck or other non-armoured - "soft" - vehicle, should have little chance damaging a tank/track, so - if there was no other way, it wasn't under fire and the whole assault was stopped or slowed down - I think they would push it away with a tank, in worst case they are risking damaging a track (not being under fire) but the risk isn't great. A stopped assault (waiting for bulldozer) is worse than a single non-combat damaged tank. And the tanks may well become bogged trying to maneuver around the blockade. So... whatever. Speaking about all the combinations of "should be able to push"/"shouldn't be able to push" - I think SOMETIMES the problems presented are little overblown... Just a limit of mass ratio of pusher/pushed that - when reached - would make pushing impossible, would do the trick. Better yet - a formula that would make the pushing speed gradually slower when the mass ratio is closing to the limit and in effect would made the pushing impossible when the mass ratio limit is reached - the "pushing speed" would drop to zero. Drop in a highly increased chance of track damage during pushing - and we are done.

"tanks fighting in constricted terrain where there is a lot of firing, dust, smoke etc are very very vulnerable" They should be vuneralble. But AI controlled enemy tanks in my games usually arent. In my opinion they often detect and see targets too good and too quickly for my preference, and also react too fast after detecting them. I could bring many examples. But don't have patience to make screenshots, videos or describe in details every case when enemy tank is behaving like a vigilant and quick terminator robot... Sure, sometimes they don't see the AT teams... but much too often they detect them too easily. Just my opinion. I have a sense of proportion and would not be frustrated by that if this if such superspotting and superfast targetting was rare.

The designers of the FCS (Future Combat System) tank would be probably very happy if they could achieve _in practice_ such level of C2 and crew Situational Awarnes - that the crew would get info - by some kind of comm link - about any enemy forces around the tank that are seen by anyone in the net, so even if the crew in that tank didn't spot them themselves they would be immediately warned and could rotate the turret and engage the target - all this in real time. It would be great if the FCS crew in the future had such working system available with so great SE and fast reaction time. I'm not talking about some kind of Link16 or other syustem that can relay to tanks info about detected over-the-horizon or behind-that-woods enemy units and tanks. I mean precise, real-time, one-meter level precise info - presented to the crew in easy way - about all targets, even single enemy soldiers, detected in proximity of the tank - in whole hemisphere from 5 to 100m, during intense combat. Now, do we really suppose that the tank crews in CMBN have such links and are often warned in real time about single soldiers or hidden and barely-visible, crawling-in-woods teams, immediately can see those target themselves and can engage them in matter of seconds even to the side and rear ? (the TC and even the gunner at once know where to look for that target and without a second of delay gunner start rotating turret towards it and engages it) ? I would say then that quality/quantity of information they get by a C2 link and the improvement of crew situational awarness gained by it is too good for WW2. It would be probably too good even for CMSF....

Those pictures are small, so do I undestand correctly - the Panzershreck hit the tank, knocking it out, the crew get out (I guess they would be a little shocked and disoriented at least by the hit effects), and kiled the AT team with their pistols ?? Woudn't the AT team - after knocking out a tank - rather wait with their rifles and MP40s ready for for the bailing out crew and try to kill them right away - before they had chance to use their pistols ? They were only meters away... Was the AT team more supressed (and defenceless) than the crew of the tank they that was just knocked down ? What are the odds for such outcome ? Definitely possible, but chances of the tank crew should be rather low.... I hope those "Rambos with pistols" will be tuned down...

Modern tanks probably have more powerfull (in terms of shot impulse vs tank mass) guns, but the effect is probably mainly because they have also a "softer" suspension than average WW2 tank, suspension designed for fast moving on rough terrain. Anyway good hydraulic dampeners should quickly dampen the the rocking action, but the initial "back" movement will occur and be visible. IIRC some modern tanks with hydraulic suspension can "harden" or "froze" the suspension while shooting stationary, and then they are much more "stable" firing platforms with little or no rocking .

I agree 150m is too close for a marksman, but unfortunately the enemy contacts were showing up at about that range. Even that close, I would prefer that only the marksman was shooting - the team is called a SNIPER TEAM - at least as long as there was no return fire. I would prefer an LMG there, but I had no choice - in scenario it was a sniper team... Well if there is no tip for that, then I hope it will be adressed and... well, that's all about this.

Do you know any tips that would prevent a stupid MP40 owner, that is second member of a sniper team, from opening fire at any soldier within 150m or so - but at the same time allowing the marksman to shoot at them ? Currently this trigger-happy guy opens fire at any target that is in range, revealing their position, and it fires before the marksman can - so the enemy hit's the dirt or returns fire, making the marksman job harder. I let them without any orders - then they engaged any target, the MP40 guy usually firing first. I set them a cover arc - they fired when targets entered the arc, but again - the MP40 guy fired first. Is there a tip to make him not shooting (other than a murder) so only the marksman would shoot ?

Tested . But - after being spotted - stilll the overall chance for gun damage is higher. A chance counted as [ (number of KT gun damages) / (number of shells fired by shermans)] So the reduced accuracy and total misses are accounted for. Only the "not being spotted yet" effect - isn't . About proper tactics working or not: A proper tactic for 75mm equipped Sherman commander vs a Panther, would be to ambush it from the side or rear. So I move to an ambush position and I'm so fortunate to get a possibility of a clear shot against a Panther side at about 200m. The Sherman shots to a buttoned Panther and clearly penetrates it's side under the turret. The Sherman starts to reload, and the Panther immediately after penetration spots the Sherman and starts rotating it's turret. Before the Sherman reloaded, Panther's turret was pointing at the Sherman. The second Sherman shot, again penetration of Panther side. Panther seem to be not impressed again, as about a second after finishing rotating it's turret and after the second penetration by Sherman, it shots and kills the Sherman. I don't want to say it's impossible - those strange and frustrating outcomes. Only that they happen much too often in game for me... Things like I've described above had happened to me in CMBN many times. The penetration - if it didn't knock-out enemy tank completly - often seemed to have little effect on the working conditions and effectivenes of it's crew. The crew of penetrated vehicle instantly spotted the shooter (it seemed like they got position of the shooter at the moment they were hit), quickly rotated the turret and killed it - just like it was a ricoshet that hit them, not a clean penetration by 75mm or 76mm shell with possibly a HE burster going off inside. I'm starting to fear side-ambushing German tanks with fast rotationg turrets, so Panther and KT. Maybe I'll try rear-ambushes but they are harder to make . Yes, the "**** happens" and should happen, to make the game fun and realistic. But if it happens too often, frustration begins... The "5 penetrations surviving Sherman" could happen in RL. A defective Panther's ammo would help it greatly to occur . It also should happen in game. I think once a year for all the CMBN games played anywhere .

Sure it's a "muzzle brake" not "break". I guess a "hand break" in a car would sound funny too . Just an effect of quick writing and not checking

Where I could find this scenario ? The Google doesn't know it .

I like to use real life tactics too, and I use them whenever I can... and it's a bit frustrating when using some advanced tactics based on real life results in a non-realistic outcome, because those tactics doesn't work in the game, or work just opposite to the real life...

Your best tactic to not loose the gun would be to not aim at any of potentially dangerous targets (that have their own guns) . Better keep the barrel to the side then it won't be hit and damaged . And seriously - avoid ANY hull down position. Even being behind a hedge. You want enemy tanks aiming at center of mass of your tank's full silhouette, this way on medium ranges most of the shots will land on front hull and lower parts of the turret. You want to aviod situations where enemy tanks would be aiming at center of mass of your KTs upper part, where the gun is... Exactly opposite, to the real life... IRL you would prefer hull-down positions. In hull-down you would be harder to spot, and harder to hit, even if chances for gun damage would be a little higher than when fully exposed. But overall chances of being hit AND damaged would be smaller. Here, in game, chances for a hit from 75mm Sherman that will cause KT's gun damage at 400m distance are 0.2% while being exposed and 16% in hull down position * (txt below written in very small font) * - results of a single test

LOL so our achievements by this thread so far are: spoiling the game for 1 person ;D

2.57 - it doesn't rock, the tank doesn't seem to move at all. Only the gun barrel is "working". On the other hand, I'm almost sure if I found a video of an 76mm Sherman shooting it's main gun, it would move a bit and maybe even rock a little. It's a different platform.

It's a graphical, visual "issue" after all. Not important at all to the gameplay (IMO). But if we are talking about it and if for someone visual look and feel is important - I would say that I didn't see any rocking of a Panther or a Tiger on archival videos of combat or practice shooting. Or ot was so subtle, I didn't notice it. The gun recoil was full, so I doubt all those shots were blank rounds. Those tanks are so heavy and big (big base footprint, length, width) that recoil seemed to be fully absorbed by gun recoil system, the tank didn't rock at all *, just the dust raised from it's hull. * - didn't rock at all when looking at it from 10 or 20 meters. If the tank rocked for few centimeters back and forward after the shot, it would not be visible at the video, but of course the crew would feel it. On the other hand, in other cases of lighter tanks, where the proportion between tank mass, shell mass, shell velocity and recoil distance is different, the rocking may be visible. When a relatively light and smaller tank is equipped with a powerfull gun (like T-34/100 prototype) the recoil and after-shot rocking can even make the combination unpractical. Do I think it should be corrected ? Well, if it takes half an hour to change some data that is responsible for how much tanks are rocking to cut the rocking to half of current value, that's ok. If it takes more than half an hour, and if it require separate testing - then I would prefer this time was spent on more important issues. * * - correcting wrong or making a new helmet shape I don't personally see as an important issue but rather other things which have greater influence on the gameplay

Some lighter tanks armed with powerfull guns (like T-34/85 or Sherman Firefly) could rock a bit, after shooting. But Panther and Tiger were so heavy and with well designed suspension, that they were very stable firing platforms with little rocking, the recoil was well absorbed by the recoil mechanism.

It looked like and sounded like a "Weapon hit" which happens when a projectile hit's the "muzzle break" of a gun. But it usualy shows hit txt "Weapon hit" and the gun becomes damaged. Did the tank survive the first penetration ? If not, maybe the "Weapon hit" txt didn't appear because the tank was already killed ?

I wonder if it works the same now in 1.1, as in 1.0. Currently the ratio of gun-damaging turret hits is VERY dependant on geometry - how the barrel of target-tank is situated (rotated to the side, or elevated up, like for KTs in "default" configuration) and where is the aim-point and center of the hit-patter located in regard to the gun. Hull down position sometimes means 100x higher probability for gun damage. I run again the initial test of KT gun damage. I put them on hull-down at 300m, rotated them precisely in a way that their guns would point at Shermans - the guns were a little elevated, unfortunately, but there was nothing I could do about it. If KT actually aimed at Shermans, the end of the gun would be lower, more in path of the incoming Sherman shells. I positioned the Shermans in groups one behind the other, so they were firing in line (one straight trough another, grr). Now the results - for about 150 shots made by Shermans during one turn, 95 hit KTs. There were 11 hull hits, and 84 turret hits. From turret hits, 32 landed on weapon mount (no damage), and 24 hit the weapon. One weapon hit didn't damage the gun. The rest 28 hit various parts of turret armor. Now from 84 turret hits, there were 24 weapon hits. Resulting in probably 23 gun damages. That is 28.5% chance for weapon damage during turret hit for a hull down KT at 300m. Percentage would be higher, if the KTs lowered their guns while aiming. This shows how to different test setups can give diametrally different results. The difference was basically the hull-down position. The chance for gun damage raised from about 1:700 (0.2%) to almost 30% !!! And what happened to my KT during the scenario play I described, now I understand it was NOT a bad luck. My KT was about 200m from a Sherman, it aimed at the Sherman (was reloading), and there was a hedge just ahead of my KT - which maked it a more hull-down like target, probably the Sherman didn't aim the center of mass but higher, center of visible part of my KT. It was much closer to test situation described above, so the chance for gun damage was MUCH closer to 30% than to 0.2%. So no wonder, that it happened. And will happen to me again. And again. The accidental/anegdotical occurence turned out to be NOT that accidental, after carefully recreating the very situation that happened and all (well, mostof ) the factors. Quite often "there IS something" not right, that causes some of this "anegdotical" anomalies, but unfortunately it's not obvious and it has to be be tracked and hunted down. Which is quite hard task for ordinary players, or even betatesters, without help of some debugging/testing tools... without knowing what is hapening under the hood, but just by observing the outcomes of the game... I hope the official betatesters have some such tools. I made sure . All 10 of them obeyed the fire arc because none of them targeted the Shermans, but only 7 of 10 rotated their turrets to the center of the arc. Thanks, the .50s were very annoying They are not very accurate at all, in the first place . I hate CMx2 "fancy" shell/tracer/hit graphics . I heard about the inaccuracy of the replay, but for me it seemed ok - the displayed trajectory of the shell and the place that was hit was - as far as I could locate it and tell - always consistent with the displayed text.

Hmm... I played a (modified for fun) mission in which I had one KT and some infantry against 8-10 Shermans, light tanks, halftrucks and Us infantry. I started it, moved the KT to contact. When first Sherman was spotted the KT fired on the move and missed - because I didn't managed to stop it in time (I advanced with Slow command, as Hunt is not working for me). KT stopped and was reloading, when Sherman fired one shell which damaged KT's main gun and it was well, end of scenario fun. I was so upset that decided to do some tests and see how often it happens. All the tests were on CMBN+CW so 1.10 game version. I positioned in 10 lanes 10 KTs against 30 Shermans 75 (3 Shermans for one KT in a single lane). KTs were given buttoon up and short cover arc commands, Shermans were emptying their ammo magazines on KTs. After few turns and a barrage of about 30 x 43 = >1200 AP shells (number of Shermans x 43 AP shells) hitting 10 KT, there was only ONE main gun damage. Later I got second one after two more turns (about 220 shots) of second iteration of this test. The hit that disabled the gun, was "Weapon hit" ( I would also mention here, that I sould suggest to make the colour of "details of armor hits" text - different for armor-piercing rounds than for ordinary MG and rifle bullets. Now, when a tank takes a non-penetrating hit from a gun, it's really hard to see it among hit descriptions of multiple hits from .50cal MG that was also firing at that tank. Hard to see the difference. I would love if heavier caliber hits were displayed in red or something, and MG hits white or gray or something like that. I hope it's not hard, it's just different colour... Also, when a weapon mount is hit, it could also tell which one, of what weapon) During test, most of hits (maybe 2/3) were on KTs front hull, minority (maybe 1/3) was on front turret. Changing 75mm Shermans to 76mm Shermans (more powerfull guns) didn't increase ratio of gun damage or weapon hits. Just few KTs were knocked out during the test then. So... it seems I was just extremally unlucky in my scenario. (Well, at first) Now, I remembered that Tiger E tends to lose it's cannon very often in my experience, so I decided to test what is different between KT and Tiger E. I changed KT to Tigers E in my test and run the test again. With Tigers E as the target, after few rounds I got only one "Weapon hit" (and gun damage) among 10 bombarded Tigers E, but I noticed that on flat terrain from 200m virtually all shells from Shermans are hitting the hulls of the Tigers. There was really close to zero front turret hits. And I wanted to test gun damage. So I modified the map in a way that Tigers were almost hull-down, behind some raise od terrain with a stone wall on it. Only the upper part of the front hull and the turret were visible. I run the test again, with Tigers almost hull-down. Now, many initial Sherman shots were misses (experience regular, range 300m, against hull-down Tiger E), but after a while all the Shermans were hitting Tiger turrets consistently for the rest of the turn. After the first turn of this test I checked the results. All 8 of the hull down Tigers (2 were misplaced by me and were not hull down) had their guns disabled (!). Each Tiger was hit about 3 x 8 = 24 times, most of this were turret hits, but it was SUCH a contrast to KTs which were also hit on turrets HUNDREDS of times, with gun damage extremally rare. I closely watched the replay, and noticed that every "damaged" Tiger got a weapon hit on the barrel, and some of them got 2 or 3 such hits during the first turn of the test! Each Tiger was hit ~24 times, let's assume (I didn't count it) 18 shots landed on turret front, average number of "weapon hits" I would estimate for 1.5. So about one "weapon hit" for 10-12 front turret hits, it would seem... not that bad as I could suppose by in-game experience. [ Maybe I'll start collecting an actuall in-game statistics, for every tank hit in my games? ] But this ratio is valid for this range/geometry setup only. More on this later. The "weapon hits" were when the trajectory of Sherman shells was very close to the Tiger's gun tube, it seemed they hit the very mount of the barrel, but the animation of hit/explosion (a puff of smoke) was graphically positioned on the Tiger's muzzle brake. It looked like it were all just hits on the muzzle brake, which was positioned in the center of the spread pattern of Sherman shells - when Tigers were hull-down, the Shermans were aiming close to the center of Tiger turrets. At this point, I still thought they were a "barrel hits" or hits on the "mounting point" of the barrel, on the mantlet close to the barrel. I only wondered why almost all the hit animations were positioned on muzzle brakes then, and not on the barrel itself or on the mantlet? But I was also wondering, why the two not-fully hull-down Tigers had their guns ok. They got lot's of front turret, and mantlet (weapon mount) hits too, but their guns were ok. Those two Tigers were positioned on a slope, so their barrels were pointing upwards, and the muzzle brakes were above the top of their turrets actually. I becomed suspicious that those "weapon hits" were actually almost exclusively "muzzle brake hits". I run the same test again, but now I ordered for Tigers a cover arcs about 20deg to the right, so they rotated their turret 20deg right. The gun barrel was now nicely exposed to hits (much larger cross-section of the barrel visible) but the end of the barrel with the muzzle brake was now moved right, out of the way of incoming Sherman shells. After one turn, 7 Tigers had their guns OK, 3 had guns disabled. I took a closer look. Those 3 Tigers with disabled guns, actually IGNORED the cover arc order and DIDN'T rotate their turrets to the center of the arc, but still pointing forward. But 7 Tigers obeyed the cover arc and rotated their turrets 20deg to the right, and despite taking really MULTIPLE mantlet (weapon mount) and front turret hits, with shattered optics and ratios, they all had their guns OK. Here is link to the saved game file (with replay of the turn I have described above): http://www.sendspace.com/file/6cg415 Conclusion - it SEEM for me that "weapon mount" hits, that we understand as mantlet hits (if they happen to hit close to the gun, and not hull MG), are not responsible for main gun damage in 1.10. Or it hapens rarely. I didn't see any gun damage after "weapon mount hit" in above tests. The gun damage happens with the "weapon hit" on the gun, and it SEEM that the "hitpoint" of the weapon hit is located at the muzzle brake OR just the end of the barrel. Because taking the muzzle brake "away" from the path of incoming shells practically eliminated (or almost eliminated) "weapon hits" and gun damage. All other hits on gun mantlet, and the "exposed" side of the barrel didn't cause "weapon hits" and no gun damage occured. If above is true, that would also mean that.... only the tank that is engaged (aimed at) by a Tiger can damage it's gun. Other tanks, firing at the Tiger from other angles, are not supposed to cause gun damage. Their shells have little chance of hitting the muzzle brake. Now, why the Tiger E happens to get it's gun damaged more often than other tanks... I'm not sure. Maybe "hitpoint" for "weapon hit" of Tiger E is a bit too large? Maybe the 3D model used for hit detection and penetration calcs (I guess it's not the very same, as the visual one, but similar) has the muzzle brake too large? I guess not every glancing hit on the barrel or muzzle brake would damage the gun to the point it can't (or is dangerous to) shoot. So maybe the size of it should be decreased a bit. In the above test if took about 10 front turret hits for one gn-damaging hit, but if this happened - on average - once for 10-15 front turret hits during actual gaming, I guess no one, including me, would feel it as too frequent. I would test it again with single tank vs tank setup (and not 3 on 1), on various ranges, to see if there are any "spikes" of this performance, with the probability of gun hit being much higher in some conditions. The idea of closely connecting gun/barrel damage with hits of the barrel end/muzzle brake... well it definitely works ok, when the gun is pointing in direction of the incoming shell. It would definitely not work well, if the gun is pointed elsewhere. Maybe second hit detection point should be added at the base of the gun, a point with diameter little smaller than the diameter of the gun barrel at the base. The game would then interpret hits DIRECTLY to the base of the gun (a gun pointing elsewhere) as gun damaging hit. It would be ok. But... no... it would not work well for Saukopfblende type mantlets, which were probably supposed to absorb hits at gun base without gun being damaged or jammed. Maybe for now, just the size of Tigers "muzzle brake" hitpoint should be decreased. Because currently a hull-down Tiger is quite prone to gun damage if it points it's barrel at the shooting tank. And is not prone at all if the gun is pointing elsewhere. I also wonder, why my KTs didn't get so many gun damages in the same test. Maybe the center of Sherman shell's hit pattern was somwhere between hull and turret, and at the range I tested (200m) rarely a shell was passing at height that it could hit the muzzle brake. And maybe just KT's muzzle brake (or it's invisible brother, used for hit detection) is smaller than for Tiger E. I will test KTs hull down, with hit pattern centered on the gun and see if the results are the same as for Tiger E then. It also shows, how a single, "syntetic" test, with "limited number of variables" can give misleading results sometimes, because some effect that is the case of observed anomalies, can happen rarely or not at all at the setup of the "clean" test. Various setups and conditions should be tested too, to make sure that some strange effect is not omited. When we understand fully how some things work, and want to collect a statistically meaning data for this well understood mechanism, then a "syntetic" and "clean" test is great. But when trying to find some bug, some anomally, a single large "syntetic" test in single setup can omit some things and "prove" that there is no bug or no anomaly. Would be better to make multiple small tests with various setups, and only when noticing something strange, expand the test for this setup to collect statistically significant data, and then compare it with another big, statistically significant test, now a "syntethic", simple and clean setup, to see if the observed (and measured) effect/anomaly is universal, or only happening in those specific conditions of the first test. Goodnight and... regards for all people that are still testing anything that late

Well, AFAIK it doesn't work this way. At least, not in case of average soldier. In ALMOST all soldier (tanker) memories I have read, a penetration, described as an "explosion" in crew compartment, which was accompanied by a bright flash of light, sparks flying everywhere, smoke and sometimes a fire, often also wounded or killed comrades - it ment just game over. Sharp end of their present activity, and start of a differen "survival" program. The "fighting" was over at this moment and usually a gunner would not think about shooting even if the shell he had loaded in the barrel. He thought he don't want to die, or didn't thought at all, just the instincts taking over. Many of them can't remember how did they get out. So IN GENERAL the priority was to get out of there. It could be becasue of fear of explosion or burning alive, it could be because they knew that reloading the gun that hit them, and putting another shell trough their tank, would usually take no more than 4 seconds.... Of course, there were exeptions. Humans reactions can vary wildly, as someone mentioned, and just as there are people panicking and becoming useless after first bouncing hit on the armor, there are also some highly motivated people that do not panic, and try to fight as long as they can (if they believe this is right thing to do), even if the rest of the crew is dead, with blood all over the place. I have read about such cases, too. But - again - in general, AFAIK, the reaction was to get out of the tank - if the penetration was serious OR it was highly probable that next penetration is a matter of seconds. The second condition sounds like the case of Sherman in Normandy - if there was a penetration, of even any heavy hit on the armor, it was VERY probable that next penetrating shot would arrive in seconds, in time that is required to reload an AT or tank gun. If they were so lucky to survive the first hit, it really was the best option to bailout, even abandoning a working tank. Because usually they had very little chance to respond in time to PREVENT second hit/penetration... and they could be not so lucky to survive the second one..... I agree that the proper way to judge the game is to collect the statistical data on a large sample of events. I have tried it too (on small-medium scale), and found the average results to be not as bad, as I thought. But strange things happen more often, than one (knowing a bit about statistics) would expect, so maybe the distribution of cases (between no casualties, one casualty, two, ..., everyone dead at once) is the problem. Or maybe there is no problem at all and just my perception is biased. Best would be know the formulas used to calculate the number of casualties but this is not going to happen , so I hope someone would make this large sample of tests and compute the results so we could compare them to known statistics, and see if everything from tanker's memories can be placed somwhere in the results of CMBN model . P.S. I'm sorry for some of my posts being a little chaotic and full of little mistakes. Usually I do not see that when reading it just after writing, and when I read it again a bit later and notice them, it's too late to edit the post.

OK, I feel convinced . You are right, a specialised team of combat engineers should be, by definition, trained how to clear such things and be equipped with all needed stuff, including det cords and plastic explosives that can be placed precisely. When I was thinking about it, I probably have imagined just some ordinary soldiers equipped with some explosives and a general knowledge how to use them . If you'd tried to achieve all those tasks by precisely using optimal amonut of explosives, then I agree all of them would take about the same time. But in case of bocage or a minefield, you could probably use an "overkill" method with good results, placing larger amount of explosives less carefully. That method would not work against hedgehogs. But in general, I agree .

The "somewhat carefull settinf of charges" means that blowing such obstacle - if it's firmly attached to something solid - would require few things. First, it would require combat engineers that really do understand how the explosives works or were trained to clear hedgehog obstacles. I'm not sure, maybe this requirement is just true by default - maybe an average combat engineer understands explosives well and is specifically trained to blow such things. But they would also need much more TIME to carefully place those explosives (while being exposed and at danger of provoking a mortar fire or something like that, while spending their time at hedgehog field). Also they should have available proper kind of explosives that they CAN place properly. Or they would have to spend there even more time, trying to be creative with what they have, or trying to work it out by an overkill . OK, it should be possible - if there is really no other way - but it should take several times as long as clearing other types of obstacle, and at least a "veteran" - or highly motivated - combat engineer team . I'm personally ok with the fact, that it can't be cleared in game . I'm more bothered by the fact, that a an ordinary tall hedge is absolutely impassable for a whole squad of highly-motivated infantry. They should be able to make a pass spending some time, even if it took something like 10-20 minutes. In worst case, they could make a pass using automated weapons. It was possible in "Predator" to clear quite a few joungle tiles using the minigun . So it should be possible to make a small pass in a tall hedge using an MG .

So, sometimes crews of the penetrated vehicles (with or without someone being killed) tend to panic, bail out instantly, or just break and back up the tank, or just sit there in tank doing nothing. And eventually bailout. Thats fine. On the other hand, sometimes a penetration (even energetic one), or even multiple penetrations, even with some crewmembers dying, have absolutely no effect on remaining crew - without a second of delay, they continue to spot targets (including the shooter), rotating turrets, aiming and shooting (sometimes even killing the shooter who ambushed them, fired first, achieved clean penetration and now is reloading). The current combination of effects, either "panicked for good and bailing out/reversing" or "not affected at all" is in my opinion not ehough. There should be some "shocked for few seconds" state, that would be quite common penetration result. Even 1-2s of "delay" after being penetrated would mean much more realistic outcomes (much less situations where penetrated tank quckly rotates it's turret and kills the shooter before it can reload and make second shot). The "no affected at all" situation should be least probable IMO and happen mainly for low-energy penetrations (small calliber or low excess of energy). The "shocked for few seconds" would be most common for high-energy penetrations or penetrations where somene in the turret was killed. The time would be somewhat random (but depend on morale, experience, and the energy of penetration), so - SOMETIMES there would be no effect and no delay at all - like now, the crew "wouldn't seem to notice" at all taht their tank was penetrated. - Usually crew of seriously penetrated (but not knocked out) vehicle would need 2-3 seconds to recover (time needed to regain some vision - but not hearing with their eardrums ruptured - and notice that are fine, not wounded, the tank is still operational and there is no fire) - sometimes such crew would be "off" for long time, like 20s or so, even though they are NOT panicked - just shocked or maybe - "forgetting" that there is still a battle going on outside of the armor - trying to help their wounded comrades. It happened sometimes. Then after some time (if they were still alive) they would pull themselves together and continue to fight - even without any "panic" effect. A separate issue is, that have feling that probablity of a crewmember being killed after penetration is currently too low in CMBN. I've seen sometimes Shermans being penetrated 2-3 times in a row by a Panther - sometimes even knocked-out by the first hit, with two other hits following before the crew get out - but with no casualties!! It's of course possible, but definitely it's not that rare, as it should be. Where did those shells go ? What was their trajectory that they didn't either kill or seriously wound any crewmembers ? The real statistics were AFAIK than a penetration meant - on average - one killed and one wounded. Sometimes no casualties, only light wounds (they bailed out anyway ), sometimes whole crew killed at once, but on average - and also most frequently - the outcome was "about" one killed and "about" one seriously wounded. Just the shell (or it's fragments) after penetrating had to go somwhere, and if it hit the central part of the tank, usually it had to either hit directly or pass very close to one of crewmembers...

To take 3-4 hits on mantlet it's IMO way too much . Tankers did their best to shoot at the enemy in a way, that the enemy had little chances to shot back - the armor can not be trusted completly and there is always (not that small) possibility of something important being damaged while hit. Do not know how robust the Panther mantlet mount (pivots) and the optics were, but after taking 3-4 76mm hits on it, personally I would be happy with the gun is still operational . On the other hand, in CMBN the gun is quite often damaged just after first mantlet hit, and there is a large percentage of mantlet hits too. I have feeling that the guns in CMBN are being damaged much more often, than one could suppose after reading lot's of tanker's memories and battle descriptions...