akd

You can't give a split-off team separate orders from the parent squad in the AI plan

Racism drove the policy of segregating blacks in the Army, but the segregated "Nisei" regiment was more a product of national prejudice against the Japanese because of the war. Latinos, Koreans, Chinese, Native-Americans, etc. all served in unsegregated units (but of course not without encountering racism). Of course, there was nothing special about the US in having racist policies regarding military service in this era. Take Australia, for example:

Or you can just take all the ammo out of the halfback during setup or before disembarking. They have a halftrack to reposition with, so weight shouldn't be a problem.

PM me and I'll get the save.

Not sure about the 75s, but pre-planned on-map linear missions are all affected by a different bug I have already reported. This going into spotting instead of FFE at mission start issue is separate, apparently occasional problem. If you have a save and it is small enough to send by e-mail, PM me and I'll try to see what is going on with those 75s.

Are you sure it is lost? In QBs, all the ammo is with the weapon team, not divided between the weapon team and the ammo bearers.

This is intended and will not be changed. Do a search for the many explanations.

The pre-planned linear mission problem where the first few rounds of FFE are fired way off-target is a consistent, separate bug. This appears to be an inconsistent bug. I was able to reproduce with the on-map 60mm mortars in "A Delaying Action" but not with the on-map 60mm mortar in "1 Training - Roadblock". Does anyone have a save of this happening with an off-map asset? I am not able to reproduce that.

Pre-planned (setup phase) missions have no spotting phase and begin on turn one, unless the player orders a delayed start. The only delay is the time of flight. If you are seeing otherwise, you have either encountered a bug or a describing something other than a pre-planned mission. Michael, you can request a 5, 10, or 15 minute delay for a pre-planned mission.

What dead vehicles issue?

I suppose you could argue the same for any fire mission, pre-planned or not, but it would require a significant overhaul of the TRP system (you shouldn't get a 105mm arty TRP after firing a 60mm mortar mission).

I'm not commenting on whether APHE behaves correctly or whether shell deformation is modeled (we in fact went into an in depth discussion of this during beta testing), but these multiple penetrations are not because the target becomes invisible to the shell. A through and through penetration is tracked through entry and exit and velocity is lost penetrating both plates. If entry is at a non-normal angle, the chance of exiting through the far plate is reduced.

No, if you see multiple penetrations it is due to a through and through penetration of the target.

I agree, and I don't believe abstract terrain has any effect on firing on the move. Just pointing out that if it did, "grass" would not be our base line for a "smooth" surface.

Just a reminder that "grass" is not really a smooth surface in the game, like a soccer field or lawn. It is more like a country field with dips and ruts from drainage and other irregularities. The only truly "smooth" surfaces in the game are probably pavement and dirt lot.

At a minimum, no wind, good visibility, regular/normal crews ( or max skill if testing absolute accuracy), gun and target isolated in firing lanes with no visibility into adjacent lanes, target prevented from firing back or changing position (there are a few ways to approach this), and "typical" size target (M4A3 or Pz IV would probably be good). For useable data from the above: at least 100 individual gun target tests minimum. To keep the test manageable, I would do 20 lanes and repeat test scenario five times. For each individual gun/target interaction per lane and per test run, results of each shot should be recorded in order (hit, miss long or miss short), i.e.: 1st shot - miss long 2nd shot - miss short 3rd shot - hit 4th shot - hit Etc. Likely I'm missing something important, but I think that should provide usable data. To make a meaningful case for change (if you think the results are off), this data would probably need to be comparable to well-sourced historical test data.

Setting tanks up facing each other and then seeing who "wins" is not a valid way to compare the accuracy of gun systems.

Steve, seems this tank only has one casualty.

What gave you that impression? PzIV turret front is vulnerable to M61 APC fried from the M3 gun at 2000 yards.

I don't think penetration is relevant here, as the concern raised was the vulnerability of troops in front of windows. If you want to test the protective value of the walls, either hide them, or even better, test them behind a wall with no windows or doors. The vast majority of Norman walls are of stone masonry at least 12 inches thick, and often much thicker. Whether these are providing proper protection in the game is another issue.

The same text pictured above is in the March 1944 edition of FM 7-10.

4th and 29th Divisions had not seen battle before Normandy.

The manual is just giving a general description of the state of comms at the time (i.e. not what it is today or what is often portrayed in movies). Radio comms is pretty much just a binary condition in the game: either you have it or you don't. Only real difference I can think of is that some vehicles can maintain comms on the move, but foot units have to re-establish comms after moving. Frankly, although I would love to see a more complex radio/wire comms simulation, considering the general reaction to the current levels of complexity in comms, heads would probably explode if SCR-536s stopped working in woods, or if incompatible frequencies were modeled, etc.

For comms purposes, there is no practical difference between the two.

Use BACKSPACE to undo orders one at a time.