z-warfare

So someone else thinks the same thing. Doesn't that ADD credence to what JasonC is saying? And if TDs neither rocked nor were ineffective, what do you think they were? [ December 26, 2006, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: z-warfare ]

Sure it's something with the engine. But the ballistics of the 37 and 75 are very different... wait, does this mean that any gun in CMAK might theoretically be 2 different guns? Is that how different shell muzzle velocities are actually represented, 'below the hood'? And how do 3-mg pillboxes work? Weird, weird weird. You'd think it'd be simpler to have two distinct guns capable of being damaged independently, but i sure wouldn't know.

Worthless speculation: Gun hit on the 75 ricochets up, gun hit on the 37 ricochets down, every time?

Sounds like a great book. The difference between 6 and 2 tanks or TDs doesn't seem too much, though, against 48 AFVs of any type... Sources and citations aside, Elsenborn area aside, could you elaborate your view about the ineffectiveness of non-halftrack US TDs? I think we're bogged in a pissing contest, to mix metaphors.

I will maintain that it's not only a posed picture but a posed department store mannequin. Karstadt Warenhaus AG had a line of Stielhandgranate-holding mannequins in the late 30's, and this is an image of just such a one placed on its belly in a field.

Don't we agree that ATGs are disadvantaged (in terms of stealth) by the game's modelling & borg spotting? Could this crest stuff be a reasonable counterbalance to this?

I think 'withdraw' can be useful if the unit is at least veteran and in command of an HQ with extra morale. But that's about it.

I will argue that 86% are made up, not 94%. Also, crap it certainly may be, but the point i got out of it was the difference between firing, essentially, from cover versus 1-to-1 confrontations... which i imagined might apply to the tank 'hunting pack' debate. If it's a debate. And heck, it just sounds cool... "Lanchester Combat Models"? C'mon! Even if it is the phrenology of military science.

A carefully-posed mannequin.

Gotta select the right dates (in 41 and 44, i think, probably more) and then the 'Finland' region - don't be misled by 'North'... can't recall the exact dates of the wars Finland was involved in but that's the key for QB's, i think.

What got my attention in that paper was the distinction in 3.2 there between "aimed" and "unaimed" fire, or units firing from dispersed cover and units firing together, not the idea that it might be 'true' or anything close to a realistic model. It is indeed an extreme oversimplification, and i never realized it was accepted as anything more than a thought experiment.

I personally feel that light tanks are at their best chasing down and exterminating already-routed infantry. A very particular and limited role.

but it can be interesting: <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0606/0606300.pdf"> Lanchester combat models pdf </a> </p> Maybe goes to show 'hunting packs' of tanks can be good, but that there's a time and place for dispersal too?

...Can transport 2 squads, when they're packed in crates, perhaps. But seriously, anyone know if the AAA Moebelwagen's name is some kind of a pun on moving truck? Like it resembles a van with flip-down panels?

Great scenario. I guess i'm living CMBO by proxy... And another question... is there a particular reason the Germans have Rifle 44 infantry in this conversion instead of, say, SMG-armed Jagers?

Got it... Mucho obligato, Mr. Roboto!

I've had a desultory look around for the CMAK conversion of CMBO's Chance Encounter, and I couldn't find it at 'der Kessel', can anybody point me in the right direction? I only ever had the CMBO demo but man was that scenario a classic.

Out of curiosity, and hopelessly unrelated to Combat Mission... but to bring French into it would 'Berger Allemand' (Alsatian/German Shepherd) mean the dog is a mountain dog or a recovery dog?

I've been playing around with things like PTRDs and satchel charges and the like (versus Ferdinands, for ****s and giggles) lately and i would say that sometimes, a squad in what is to all appearances a perfect position to lob a satchel charge just... doesn't. Then after standing there they inevitably get walloped by the vehicle about 50 seconds later. I would agree that it comes to plain bad luck. I guess it makes up for the other four-fifths of instances when a 20-odd point engineer squad takes out a 300+ point AFV. Also i will advise that a force of 60 PTRD teams can button, but apparently not actually destroy a big cat. [ November 23, 2006, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: z-warfare ]

Ah, looks like they got a few Kar-98's and MP-40's...

I'd like to know what proportion were eaten!

all aboard the party wagon next stop moscow

Damn lucky to get issued one of those. Any idea as to HOW rare these kits were? 1 in 30,000?

bump again, and a fine reference it is. Got a final version?

bump, out of curiosity - what became of any scenarios involving these sorts of strongpoints? Haven't searched, lazy.