sburke

Did you mean googling or oogling?

and I thought that was Moe Howard yelling "Spread out!" nyuck nyuck nyuck

Playing busting the bocage as the German side in the demo and watching this German leader singlehandedly bolstering the defense in the sunken road. First leading an ambush of the advancing GIs, then scrounging a PzShk to kill a Sherman then finally being gunned down as he was trying to scrounge more ammo for the PzShk. His loss was gut wrenching. Then on the other side of the map watching as my PzShk executed a perfect kill on a Sherman and supporting engineers when the support guy opened up on the tank with his MP, causing the TC to button up and nailing some of the engineers. The gunner then nails the Sherman and the two of them finished off the crew as they exited with their MPs. I just sat back and watched it over and over again in awe.

I didn't realize tanks were marsupials.

No, in fact if you do not want it firing you better give it a short target arc. I recently had an idiot Landser loose off a PzShk when walking, miss by a mile and get himself and a recon team hiding nearby killed.

Thanks good suggestion. I was thinking how to do this and have a border that wouldn't have any potential influence and was looking to have ridiculously wide lanes.

LOL next thing he'll be cursing Monty when the Commonwealth...I mean the "other allied units including commonwealth and some not commonweath" module comes out.

Thanks Phil and no I for one hadn't considered that might be going on. Will add in your suggestions here and re test. If there is anything else that you would suggest, throw it out there. Don't mind seeing if we can widen the pool of available data for you and hopefully do so in a manner that the results would be trustworthy.

We aren't allowed to use that example as it occurred during WW 2. Just for the record - Arracourt wasn't a defensive battle, the 4th Armored was attempting to advance which means it more rightly falls as an operational meeting engagement. It was only after having mauled 2 Panzer brigades that 4th Armored went over to a defensive operational tempo. As a meeting engagement we also can't use it.

absolutely agree. That little addition makes such an oversized impact on immersion that it actually surprises me. I find myself putting more weight into aiding my injured than actual victory conditions.

I'll bet you were hearing it when engines were catching fire and breaking down at Kursk. Oh wait do I hear another caveat coming...wait for it... Oh that was 1943 when they were still going through teething troubles, you can only use the 1944 models as examples. Sorry yes I realize that was unnecessarily sarcastic. The Sherman also overcame those issues in it's design as well, but we are never allowed to forget those.

Damn Spartan losers. No I get your point, it is just that Germany set the conditions for all this by making strategically stupid choice after strategically stupid choice. The US Army made a lot of poor decisions admittedly with the Sherman based on both a perception of the role of tanks in modern war and logistical concerns. None of those poor decisions however was a strategically war losing one. The Panther was an over engineered solution for Germany at a time when it was growing shorter and shorter on resources. (Don't even get started on the Tiger). Considering that it was never going to be able to be deployed as you have noted in a manner that played to it's strengths, isn't it almost inescapable that Germany developed a tank that they were fundamentally unable to employ correctly? In turn doesn't that make the development of the Panther another flawed strategic decision? I know that is all mostly irrelevant. The strategic decisons Germany made meant there was never any way to actually achieve victory and it is a pretty darn cool looking tank. However, gettting back to the OPs original question, I don't dread playing against them in CM. The Panther has it's weaknesses and the Sherman has it's strengths. The issue is simply trying to turn the battle to maximize the Shermans strengths versus the Panthers weaknesses.

Thank you for thanking us, but just to note. I AM a fanboy of the game, I don't actually know we have PROVEN anything wrong, and the game is nowhere near "broken". It is simply facing more scrutiny from more people trying to understand what works where and is being refined. Your over the top melodrama and your apparent feeling of vindication not with standing, I LOVE this game and have not received any flack for the testing I have done, if anything I have gotten some very nice advice from BFC as to how to set up tests to try to make sure the data is useful. So if you aren't playing it and are not contributing to the discussion with anything helpful, why don't you just go do something else with your time that you might actually enjoy and leave us with our broken game which we somehow still find a way to enjoy.

LOL that would be the Elsenborn part. The Twin Villages would be where the 12 SS found out the Panther was meant for nice country roads and not village driving. Parking spots were just too small and occupied by nasty little GIs stalking em with bazookas. Seriously if you don't have it, pick up the book. Would make for some nice scenario development come the Bulge game.

How can you forget the twin villages?!!! If you don't already have it Michael, you have to order The Battle East of Elsenborn and The Twin Villages" by William C. C. Cavanaugh.

Well, considering I am the kind of player who even in a PBEM will send units to tend to the wounded just because, I can't argue with that. However I would see that as more appropriate once the tank is no longer quite in the frontline. Would I do it if it were included...maybe. I just am not sure that I would see those repair units showing up during the hour to a couple hours that I have units shooting at each other. On the other hand, being able to change a shot up jeep tire...hmmm... Armor covered arcs first!

I am not disagreeing that the Panther in a stand up fight at 2000 yards in clear weather with no air cover, not having to race cross country or travel any real distance to the battlefield, with a crew that won't bail when hit with a WP round and having your turret faced in the right direction is a better tank. But if you have to have all those conditions to prove it then it it really that much better? If you want someone to say the Panther had better armor and a more powerful gun, hey I'll be happy to say it. What is being questioned is, is that the only basis to evaluate the Panther and if so...I'll take the Pershing.

Yeah I'd have to agree, half the rush for me is actually watching the turn and seeing how it unfolds, The subtleties in the game are phenomenal. Hell look at the discussions in the forum. I have personally been delving for a week now into how much protection can you expect from a rural stone wall and should you assume it is a good position to move your troops behind to find cover from enemy fire (and I still am uncertain). Then watching the scenes unfold (I prefer wego as you miss far too much of the detail in RT) is like having a new WWII drama made just for you. This is one game where I think you are always learning so just dive right in. I would say spend a lot of time reading through the forum, there is a great amount of variation in response. Some folks are having a hard time dealing with the game for a variety of issues, but I think most (based on the specific thread on first impressions) really love it. Mostly I say just go ahead and play the game and form your own opinion. I have paid a lot more for a lot less even in the old boardgame world.

Yeah I have read that but I think it only helps make the point. The documentation IF it is reporting the same action, does not fit Barkmann's version of events. If it isn't then there isn't anything even remotely close. So either the Allies way under reported a skirmish resulting in the mauling of a tank company, the action was simply over inflated in the fog of war or it was completely made up. It is even possible the propaganda ministry over inflated the event and told Barkmann to put his signature on it to help boost morale. I don't know Barkmann so I am not about to say he simply made it up. I do believe in mistakes made in the fog of war, I also believe it is possible the propaganda ministry inflated the whole story. I don't believe a tank company was mauled and it somehow disappeared in archives. I am by no means a historian who has dug through all the records, walked the ground or talked to anyone who might have been there first hand. I probably have about as much info as I am ever gonna have and as much as we have talked this and many other subjects to death, you guys are the only ones I know who share my interest in talking it to death so thank you all. I'm glad somebody disagrees or we wouldn't get to banter the subject. Magpie gets to defend the possibility Barkmann was right and I get to keep bashing a Monty who probably doesn't deserve it. Don't you all just love having a place to argue over it?

Not yet, but I have been wanting to do some general testing of buildings anyway so will likely be hitting that this week.

LOL I couldn't help but laugh reading that. ***Sgt Daniels nudged the body of the enemy lying face down in the ditch then muttered, "He certainly seems suppressed".***

I hear that. Honestly I can't even say I know what the results SHOULD be for these tests. I can see an argument going either way that a prone unit would be harder to hit versus a unit with head and shoulders above a wall or a unit behind a wall could hunker down a bit and have the protection of the wall. I just want to make sure I am not sending my GIs up to that wall for cover as they advance in the mistaken assumption that it is the right thing to do given a certain set of circumstances. The behavior exhibited when they have a wall to their rear within 8 meters is something else, but I have no idea what the results might be showing or not. I don't come across many small walls that close to a tall wall so I don't expect it is going to make much difference in the long run.

Why? Is that the excuse de jour? How come whenever folks make a claim about the uber capability of the Panther and claims are made that it would produce much better results if it had been used in x manner, when anyone cites it being used in x manner and not performing there is always some caveat. Tell you what cite an example of the Panther being used on the Western front on the offensive that backs up your suggestion. I will grant you that the German army could have made much better use of the tanks sent to the Western front in fall 1944, but I am hard pressed to be able to find an example to support your theory. Is it that the Germans simply always found a way to lose or is it that qualitatively the Panther just wasn't that much better to be able to offset the weaknesses of attacking a competent opponent with an adequate AT capability? Arracourt lasted several days and yes there was a fair amount of close encounter fighting, but the Germans chose those conditions to attack under. The fog was generally early morning and if it weren't for the fog, then the excuse would be allied air power. As my Grandma Rosannadanna used to say, it's always something. If it isn't allied airpower supposedly destroying hundreds of German tanks, it's fog making the Panther somehow weaker than the Sherman. http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-ch05.html#b4

So on the other 2 low wall types I found generally the same behavior. All 20 lanes have no rear wall. All units are regular/normal/no leadership bonus/fit run as veteran 2 player hot seat. Numbers are units in open wnd/dead, units behind wall wnd/dead. Distance is approx 230 meters. 15/20 63/98 stone wall 15/23 70/82 brick wall

Unfortunately part of the problem of trying to get corroboration is there is no real US account of the action as from the US side perspective there simply was no significant action on the scale Barkmann reports. That is where folks like myself have difficulty believing Barkmann. A fight like this losing a tank company would surely have shown up unless someone conspired to hide it. It just doesn't seem likely anyone would have cared enough to do that. It just shouldn't be a treasure hunt to find evidence of the US losing a Sherman company in broad daylight especially one that just doesn't appear to turn up any decayed remnants of a ship much less gold.