Tux

Does this T-34 commander have difficulty spotting to the front while unbuttoned, by any chance?

You took the words from my mouth. Bodenplatte was a poorly-executed waste of trained interceptor pilots in interceptor aircraft in the hope of buying some respite from allied Tac Air in Western Europe. Experienced RAF ground attack pilots, taking cover during the attacks, mention how they were willing the German pilots to 'jink' as they attacked, rather than get cut down by AAA as easily as they did. There was nothing but the most basic of lessons to be learned from such an amateurish operation. Incidentally I roughly remember reading an anecdote of a recently bailed-out Luftwaffe pilot being marched into the CO's office at the US airfield he had been attacking when shot down, and where he landed. As he stood there he gestured towards a group of burning P-47 wrecks and said 'how do you like that?'. The CO pointed in the other direction at a flight of brand-new replacement P-47s which were just landing to replace the losses, mere minutes after the end of the attack, and said 'how do YOU like THAT?' The German pilot shrugged and said 'That? That is why you will win the war.' MikeyD, 13,000 sounds incredible in the proper sense of the word. As a rule I never believe kill claims in articles written about the 'claimant' unit. They often strike me as credulous acceptance of optimistic kill claims rather than properly researched stats - I'm sure you know what I mean.

Bil, do you think the 'success' you've experienced using cover arcs may have more to do with your common practice of using foliage and other cover to conceal your tanks and hence increase their chances of spotting first, rather than any spotting benefit provided by the CA? This seems like it may the case, to me. Can anyone help me find a diagram of where inside an ISU-122 the radio set is located? All I keep turning up is damned World of Tanks 'references'. I'd just like to compare the damage it suffered to the penetration point on Bil's ISU and also see if it was the radio set that prevented any injury to Bil's driver!

Because, taken casually, it sounds as though you are willing to discard compassion in favour of a cold-eyed 'calculated' morality. All too often I have seen arguments such as this (or easily-constructed strawman equivalents) fall foul of the suggestion that it is symptomatic of 'scientism' or the dehumanisation of mankind through science. It's all rubbish, of course, but I think you left yourself vulnerable to that accusation. I understand and can agree with this, to an extent. Again, I get what you're saying but I'm not sure it's that simple. If you're saying that the Nazi state could not maintain its own existence because it went ape**** on all its neighbours, then I wholeheartedly agree! I don't think the more subtle alternative - that it didn't survive because of the internal social stresses it encouraged - really had time to become a deciding factor in the success or otherwise of Nazi Germany. No problem; I think I knew what you were trying to say but, as I've said above, writing it down a bit too casually can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. A poorly-made humanist argument is music to the ears of some of our less tolerant brethren and it can be fatal to any thread, let alone one as suicidal as this one! Effort appreciated (by me at least) but I think this thread is probably beyond help...

I just want to pipe up here and say that, although I understand what you're trying to say, this is the kind of argument that gives people the misguided impression that atheism and 'belief' in evolution corrupts a person's sense of right and wrong. "Darwinism" is meaningless as a philosophy and outdated as a scientific theory. Darwin's work was incredible and inspired but it was incomplete, as you might expect. It did however lead the way for successors to test and expand upon the fundamentals and to uncover mechanisms and subtleties (the entire field of genetics being one, non-trivial example - Darwin had no accurate concept of how inheritance actually worked) which Darwin had never dreamed of. What 'Darwinian' (if you insist, although you're probably technically inaccurate in the way you use that term) and modern evolutionary theory says is absolutely nothing - that's nothing - to do with morality. It is simply an objective description of the way populations develop within their environment over time as observed in the natural world. Ugh, where to start? Evolution is a cold, unthinking, unguided and inevitable physical process which needs no 'help' from us and will continue regardless. It is categorically not a set of moral instructions or guidelines. It would make as much sense to say that the theory of gravity means that aircraft are 'immoral'. All of science is descriptive, not proscriptive. It does not "back" anything like a set of morals. What science does do is allow us to more objectively describe the results of what we choose to do and to measure and try to optimise our progress towards our chosen goal. We still have to choose that goal, though, and choose it we do. My choice, for example, is to act in a way which makes the people around me happier and, if possible, healthier and more content with life but I would never think of claiming that that is objectively correct or *retch* 'scientifically justified'. The point is it's up to us! Finally, I hope that the idea that "we only developed a sense for 'right' and 'wrong' because it gives us an evolutionary advantage over other species that dont have that sense" was intended as a short but hopelessly crude, inaccurate and over-simplified opinion, rather than as anything resembling a fact! The best I can do with it is tweak it to the following: I'm really sorry if this comes across as hyper-critical of what may have been intended as a casual, throwaway comment but mis-use of science (and evolution in particular) in philosophical debates is a pet hate of mine. I apologise for any offence inadvertently caused - it's nothing personal!

Yes, I would imagine Yak-9B load outs were dropped from level flight or a shallow dive. I'm not actually sure how many 9Bs were even built. I'll have a look around.

As I recall, this would be the Yak-9B. I think it had room for two small bombs stored vertically in the fuselage just behind the pilot but it couldn't carry rockets. Even in the early war period when MiG-3s, LaGG-3s, I-16s, I-153s and Yak-1s and -7s did carry RS-82s I think they were mostly intended for air-to-air combat, attacking bomber formations and suchlike.

Thanks for posting the video Bil. I agree with others that the OT-34 firing its main gun at the same time as the flamethrower does seem a little OTT... Does anyone know if there are plans to add smoke to the flame jet as well? Footage I've seen of flamethrowers always has a smoke signature rising from the jet. In game it could possibly be recreated with a vehicle exhaust object attached to the stream?

There are certainly some I-16s in a collection in New Zealand. I've seen a Yak-3 fly a display at Duxford - it's a beautiful machine. The little scoop on the upper nose for the Allison engine does ruin its lines a little, though. I'd love to see/hear one with a Klimov VK-107 or VK-108!

You don't dissipate force by wrapping around something at right angles to its direction of flight. The silk did no such thing as "prevent penetration of the Mongol warrior's skin" but what I can believe it did do is reduce the damage done by the arrowhead and make it much easier to remove from the wound. Mongols hit by arrows were less likely to be mortally wounded and much more easy to treat and therefore less likely to die but they were not arrow-proof. Remember this is a silk tunic we are talking about and then apply some critical thinking to what you read. Padded cotton over an iron or steel mail shirt, I can believe helped to stop arrows. Were the horse-archers' bows lighter and less powerful than a foot-archer's? May this also have contributed to the Saracens' arrows' failure to penetrate the cotton/mail combo? I think you may be getting confused regarding the text in bold; the Mongols' silk clothing was probably great in the sun but I very much doubt that padded cotton over mail was any good at all. Happy to be proven wrong on any of this but sometimes I just feel the need to stick my oar in and say "haaaaang on a sec".

Pokryshkin's unit did, I think, convert to P-63s immediately post-war. That could have been with a view to sending them East again to fight Japan or it could have been intended that they operate in Europe. I don't know. I keep thinking, also, that the VVS had total air superiority in Europe and P-63s were delivered via Alaska, so why would they bother getting them all the way to Europe to fight the defeated Luftwaffe? It's not as if they needed them, or didn't have better indigenous fighter designs in plentiful supply... Incidentally I remember reading that several Far Eastern Soviet fighter units converted straight from Polikarpov I-16s to P-63s, which must have taken some getting used to!

Yes, I think I've read the same account but I'm not sure I would take the guy at his word, as honest as he may be: the P-39 and P-63 look pretty similar. The only real difference to the profile is a taller, straighter fin and the planforms really aren't that dissimilar either. Also, this is a guy who has never seen the things before (P-63s) and who must be working off some sketchy intel update or other. The cynic in me also supposes it might make a better story to have fought against the brand-new "Kingcobra" than to have popped off a few rounds at yet another flight of vanilla P-39s...

Steve and Michael Emrys Point taken and discussion continued, to an extent, in John Kettler's new thread. To clarify, I'm not actually arguing for more realistic CAS because I understand that it doesn't really have a place in CM at all and so I don't use it! . I'm perfectly happy for you to continue your fine work on the real priorities!

The P-39's lack of wing hardpoints betrays it's design and, indeed, employment as a fighter. So, for that matter, does the HE load out for its nose cannon and the machine gun pods which were fitted under the wing in some models. The impression I have gathered of the thing is that the Soviets quite liked it but virtually nobody else did (including my late grandfather, who flew it as a test pilot in WWII). Steve mentioned in another thread the way the US did very well to standardise their war material output and only build, for example, one type 1/4 ton truck. Well, they did the polar opposite with certain aircraft roles. I don't think any other nation would have persevered with the P-39 for as long as America did, given its outstanding failure to excel technically in any way and given that, at some point in time or another, it was competing with P-40, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F and F4U for the single-seat fighter/interceptor role, to mention only the most famous/successful. P-63 was Bell trying to make P-39 excel. They built a bigger, heavier, faster version and the USAAF, to its credit, recognised its inferiority to the P-51 and rejected it. The Lend-Lease market with the Soviets was good to go though, so the Kingcobra was built and duly exported. Regarding the agreement to only use in the East, I can't remember reading a definitive reason why the request was made by the US. I have always assumed that it was a tactic to force the USSR to at least appear to be leaning eastwards with a view to eventually joining the fight against Japan. A lineup of big, heavy, modern fighters in the Far East would at least look threatening to Japanese intelligence...

How an air attack was carried out was dictated largely by the target type. Obviously, multiple aircraft would not simultaneously attack a CM-style point target but would be forced to make consecutive attack runs. Attacking an area hundreds of metres across though (an airfield or battlefield, for example) would absolutely be carried out en masse, or even in line abreast, precisely so as to minimise exposure of each aircraft and the flight as a whole to AAA.

Quick comment: P-39s and P-63s were almost exclusively used as standard, air-to-air combat fighters so would be inappropriate as CAS aircraft in CM. Incidentally, I don't think P-63s would have been operational at the time of Bagration and I also seem to remember that it was explicitly agreed that the Soviets would not employ them against the Germans. Kingcobras were therefore Asian-front only aircraft. Pe-2s were very good medium bombers, dive bombers and occasional CAS-style ground-attack aircraft. Think of them as light equivalents of the Ju-88. This mildly annoys me, in terms of CM's depiction of CAS. Almost all CAS missions flown on all sides involved several aircraft fighting as a unit, not one pilot signing his own death warrant by flying repeated, low-level attack runs over a single target-area. I would far rather CM modelled CAS by having at least 4-8 aircraft turn up at once, strike the map in one or maybe two turns' worth of attacks and then vacate the area before AAA is fully awake and/or they're spotted by an enemy fighter patrol. Think 30 seconds of a hellish cacophony of pistons, gunfire and ordnance and then the fast diminishing sound of pilots jinking their way to safer airspace. Bil, thanks for yet another AAR. I can't wait to see how this one develops.

Weren't S-mines quite distinctive when they went off? *bang* as they jump into the air and then *bang* a split second later as they discharge their shrapnel load? No idea what proportion of German AP mines were S-mines, off the top of my head...

This thread is making me very curious to play the offensive half of this scenario once our game is over, Kensal. Having suffered under the weight of your assault I feel it must be possible for the Yanks to win this one.

I find it hard to believe this. The 'universal AFV' you mention would be the Czech-designed Pz38(t) and it came first. The JPz 38(t), which was nicknamed "Hetzer" sometime post-war, was based on the Pz 38(t) chassis which was very highly thought of but too small to mount a full, late-war tank on. Also, JPz 38(t) was a competent light TD but it would have been no replacement for any full tank in the Panzer Divisions, let alone Panther.

Was there much terrain cover around the flak-track to shield the crew from mortar fragments? I say this because, to counter your anecdote with one of my own, I lost a valuable 37mm half-track in a recent QB defence PBEM because I didn't take the hint and withdraw the thing when spotting rounds fell nearby. A single, distant US 60mm mortar proceeded to kill all but one crew member with nearby mortar hits in less than a minute. Btw, whether SdKfz 7/2s are properly vulnerable to various methods of attack or not, outside of the single scenario you mention, would be very easy to test.

Regrettably I didn't think to keep it at the time and I think h2hh might have 'tidied' it for me. I'll see if my opponent has a copy.

Yeah, I'm sure it's not/wasn't the only factor. The thread title was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Either way it certainly can't help!

I am playing a PBEM and just received a turn during which two of my advancing infantrymen were wiped out by a couple of freshly (and forcibly) dismounted tank crewmen. 'No big surprise there' I hear you say. The thing is, the event was accompanied by a very unusual sound - something like an 'MG42-lite'. I zoomed in on the action and both crewmen emptied their pistols at my men in less than half a second! I have posted a clip of the event on Youtube at the below link: I have removed foliage for maximum clarity but the giveaway is the sound of the super-speed discharge, the 6(!) spent casings in mid-air underneath the pistol at once and the sound of this tanker's un-spotted crewmate accomplishing the same feat a split second after him. You can also hear the distressed reaction from my men out of shot to the left. I feel fairly confident in calling this out as a bug!

I think some sort of graphical representation of where each crew member is looking would really help here. If we saw a narrow arc (which the player could toggle on/off like movement paths, etc.), similar in appearance to the 'covered-arcs' which we can designate by ourselves, moving to represent the search/viewing behaviour of each crew member of the selected unit it would give an invaluable insight into how spotting results such as the one in the post above occur. Different coloured arcs could indicate how much magnification (if any) was currently enhancing the unit's view due to use of optics, etc. My point is that the result in the above post seems ridiculous at first glance but may be wholly reasonable, if only we had some way of knowing that the gunner and commander both happened to scan the forward arc from left to right and therefore spot (and understandably focus on) the hull-down Panther first, without noticing the second one because they hadn't yet really searched that area. I think this kind of feature would cut down massively on the number of complaints from players about in-game spotting behaviour. It could also improve in-game immersion as you 'see' your tank crew frantically search for the enemy pinging AT rounds off their hull but, unfortunately, fall agonisingly short of looking in exactly the right spot... Good-bye "broken spotting", hello "unlucky but perfectly believable series of events"?

This, mate. Using Sherman 105s in an open-field shoutout will favour the Pz IVs due to the long reloading time for the Americans' howitzers. Standard Shermans are a perfectly good balance to Pz IVs in most situations, I find.