Vark

Surviving is one thing, being combat effective, or not suffering various degredations in combat effectiveness is another. The human body is very resilient, yet very vulnerable to damage, especially mental damage. I know people who have faced gunships and are still shaken by their experience, so much so they feel physically sick when they hear civilian helicopters. As for the, you only see the weapons when they work, equally applies to the opposition, who regularly show videos of ambushes but not bored men sitting around doing nothing, or being counter-ambushed or cowering from Apaches.

I cannot see how people can dispute the KIA figure by just watching the video, I guess ground troops scraped together various body parts and guestimated, or had nearly complete bodies to count. The 30mm shells can injure out to 4 metres and their HEDP warheads, exploding near, or on rocky surfaces/vegetation are quite capable of creating secondary fragments that can boost their PK probabilities. Secondly, the ROF of the M230 is approx 650 rpm and the spool up time is 0.2 seconds so the full impact of the two, three second bursts, (approx total 60-65 shells) is not shown. Finally, just because people are moving, after a strike, does not mean they are not seriously/mortally injured. I have seen quite a few extended clips, with survivors running away after Hellfire/30mm strikes, only for them to collapse, tens of metres away and not as a result of being out of breath!

I think we can agree CM1's infantry model is a little wonky, having said that the revised Steel Panthers engine turned them into the grim reaper! It will be interesting to see how CM2 handles this unit, given they had such an impact on the small scale tactical battles.

Two questions. Why do the animations of the M1's rock around so much, they resemble BMP's not MBT's. Check this clips to see what I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozz462phkyg&feature=related Why were the M1's rounds mainly impacting on the ridge in front of the ATGW? Is there the CM1 bug or were they just very lucky, as I thought HEAT rounds had arcing trajectories, the MG fire scored several hits on one of the missile firing posts.

When watching Live leak (formerly Ogrish) and other sites, context is everything. Ken Tout in his memoirs recalls the reaction to a German Panzer brewing up. "Burn you buggers, burn" are we suggesting he is a sociopath? I'm sure if these alternative media outlets had been available in previous theatres of war then we would have had similar scenes, but most would not be/or have been a celebration of the death of a human but the reverse, a celebration that the soldier is alive because a threat has been removed. It is in essence a release after enduring serious stress and fatigue, I have seen video gamers react like this after 'killing' a particularly troublesome and threatening AI "Boss". Liberal critics of both recent conflicts have jumped on these video clips as proof of their theories that soldiers are only soldiers because they are too stupid to do anything else, or it allows the sociopaths a hiding place from 'civilised' society. They conveniently ignore the fact that these clips are often the end result of a whole chain of events, which when viewed explain the event being watched. The classic "Massacre of innocent Iraqi farmers" at night by murderous Apache pilots, when watched in its entirety (9 mins versus 1 min) clearly showed the Iraqi's pacing out the distances between arms caches. In one version the Iraqi trying to use an RPG/SA-&7? was edited. My own take on the Generation Kill depiction, having read the book and seen some of the episodes is that the unit in question, being the tip of the spear might be allowed some odd-ball characters. History shows, some of the most quirky, eccentric characters made the most effective 'special forces' soldiers, read about some of the LRDG soldiers and you see quite a few similarities with the units in Generation Kill.

Would it be too much to ask that people did the most basic research before 'spouting off'. The, we are much better than you arguments is juvenile and self-defeating. Both sides soldiers fought professionally, both sides forces made mistakes and broke ROE's, which differed in their detail not their intent. Why try to illicit some illusionary national superiority with their sacrifice?

Take care, they are not 'Predator like' in their 'invisibility'. I got sloppy during a game and moved a crack sniper from one piece of forest to another and had him gunned down at 100m. His colleague, a veteran, sneaked across and lived. Read up on basic sniper tactics and you should be ok, in covered terrain or woodland they can be detected but it is a rare occurence. Trouble is they totally unbalance games as they become elite scout-snipers (realistic) able to instantly broadcast, to all friendly units, the presence of all enemy units they encounter (load of pants). Due to their ability to stalk, they can destroy a carefully thought out attack, which tries to conceal its main thrust and no, lots of split units and 2 man teams do not mitigate this ability. The 10 round limit is bizzare and I have read that it represents a series of shots, or an artificial way to limit their effectiveness. I once had a Hathcock Vietnam encounter transposed to Stalingrad and was suprised at the ineffectiveness of my Elite sniper team.

Sorry, cut and pasted from Word, so the separate column for total M4 kills has been placed next to the last gun operational, in each test.

Latest test results about crest positioning and vulnerability of anti-tank guns TEST 1 4 entrenched PAK's infront of crest v's 30 M4's Turn 1 Gun 1 pinned in 14 secs and guns 2 and 3 KO's in 22 and 42 secs respectively Turn 2 Gun 1 broken 32 secs, gun 4 KO'd 31 secs Turn 3 Gun 1 panicked 46 secs Turn 4 Gun 1 KO'd 31 secs 3 M4's KO'd TEST 2 4 X entrenched PAK's reverse crest 15m + Turn 1 Gun 1, 2 crew casualties 28 secs, gun 2 1 crew casualty 48 secs, gun 3 pinned 21 secs Turn 2 All guns pinned Turn 3 Gun 2 KO'd Turn 4 All guns pinned/taking cover Turn 5 Gun 3 broken 23 secs Turn 6 Gun 1 Abandoned 35 secs, gun 4 Abandoned 42 secs Turn 8 Gun 3 KO'd 12 secs 8 M4's KO'd TEST 3 Entrenched PAK’s 3m from reverse crest Turn 1 Gun 1 pinned 53 secs, gun 3 KO’d 22 secs Turn 2 Gun 2 1 casualty 35 secs, gun 4 KO’d 40 secs Turn 3 Gun 2 KO’d 55 secs Turn 4 Gun 1 panicked 44 secons Turn 5 Gun 1 KO’d 60 secs 2 M4’s KO’d I have only run this test once so it could be an outlier but I think there are some conclusions to be drawn. Entrenched anti-tank guns are woefully misrepresented in CMAK, guns positioned just on the reverse crest seem to gain no advantage than those on flat terrain. Guns positioned some 15 m behind the crest are far more effective, killing twice as many targets as the other two positions. You could begin to argue that positioning guns from behind the crest is not cheating at all, but an attempt to give your guns a more realistic chance of survival. If I have anytime, I will repeat these tests to see if this tentative conclusion can be strengthened or challenged.

No problems DT, the odds were there to test the veracity of the claim that the guns would be invulnerable or, at the least highly protected. The next test will have 4 PAK behind the crest and 4 PAK on the flat ground, protected by brush, so as not to get minced before they get rounds down range. I will let you know the results.

CMAK, 1943 scenario designed specifically to test the proposition that if an AT gun has a kinked target line, and is set back from a crest, it is pretty much invulnerable to return fire from tanks. Terrain: 200m by 800m billiard table flat apart from a height 9 ridge set at gentle elevation. Forces/deployment: All regular DAK= 4 X PAK 40 set away from the crest US = 30 X M4 Shermans in 6 platoons Result: 2 X M4's KO'd by the 24th second. ALL PAK's KO'd in 36 seconds though most pinned/broken by return fire by the 30th second (only one was firing after the 30th second) None of the guns were spotted before opening fire and most return fire was effective very quickly. Conclusion: In CMAK, hiding guns behind a ridge so that the target line is kinked ends up in a lot of dead PAK crew's.

A school friends father had inherited a pair of Zeiss binoculars his grandfather had taken from a U-Boat officer. He, the grandfather, said that they were far, far superior to his service issue binos, especially the quality and light collecting qualities of its optics, vital in the Atlantic. We never told him that we used to open them up and burn ants with the lenses!!! Field of view isn't everything, true, but it greatly helps with target aquisition, especially if multiple targets or fast targets are engaged. Again, the 6 X mag sight of the Firefly, with its narrow field of view, suggests its SOP was stalk and shoot, not face off in long range gunnery duels with big cats.

Copied and pasted from the Armchair general forum Originally Posted by wokelly "I originally posted this in the other thread but frankly I have seen on many different forums this general lack of understanding of optics on WWII tanks, so I figure it deserves its own post since I spent a bit of time writing it. Telescopic sights is something most people don't know a huge amount about or there are lots of myths about. One of the big ones I hear and is that allied sights were inferior in magnification to German ones. Allied optics for the most part were not inferior in magnification to German ones. Originally the British 2 pounder gun and associated tanks had a 1.9x magnified sight, which was somewhat inferior to the 2.4x magnified German sights on tanks, which may be the cause of this myth. However American and British tank sights (6 pounder, 75mm, 17 pounder etc) had a 3x magnified sight which was slightly superior in zoom to the 2.4x magnified German sight on more of their common tanks such as the Mark III and Mark IV. Only certain German tanks had the fancy adjustable zoom optics that had both a 2.5x magnified and 5x magnified option for the sight, mainly on the late production Tigers (originally had 2.4x) and Panthers, and probably other late war ones. The StuG Assault gun series had a 5x magnified direct fire sight it retained but it was not adjustable. However several allied tanks had high powered optics as well. The Sherman Firefly was equipped with a 6x magnified sight, but whether this was zoom adjustable or had to replace the standard 3x magnified optic I am unsure of. The Shermans with the 76mm gun also had a 5x magnified optic while standard shermans had a 3x magnified optic. So why the notion that German optics were better than allied ones? It has more to do with other factors besides the simple magnification. The 2.4x magnified German sight on Mark IIIs, Mark IVs, and early tigers had a wide 25 degree field of view. In comparison allied 3x magnified optics had only a 13 degree field of view. The zoom adjustable German 2.5x and 5x optics also had an wide FOV compared to allied optics. The 2.5x sight had a 28 degree field of view, while the 5x optics were 14 degree FOV. In short German 5x optics had slightly better FOV than allied 3x, and German 2.4x and 2.5x optics had roughly double the FOV. The high powered 6x sight for the Firefly had a 9 degree field of view which is rather limited. The only allied optic that compared to german sights in magnification and FOV was the 5x optic put in the Sherman 76 series, which had a 13 degree FOV, similar to the 5x mag 14 degree FOV of the German adjustable optics. The StuG was something of an exception, with only an 8 degree FOV for its 5x mag optic, which means it was inferior in that respect to allied optics of similar or even better magnification. What this meant in practice is that German gunners had an easier time acquiring targets their commander assigned for them, as the larger field of view allowed them to see more than allied ones did. Another advantage of the German optics was their design which created a 'Mili-radian' sight. If you have ever seen one you will see a lot of triangles, but there is a purpose. The triangles utilized a mils that, combined with some math skill taught to panzer crews and a rough idea of tanks size (not hard when your enemies has focused production of a few types of tanks exclusively), allowed the gunner to calculate a rough range of the tank without even having to take a ranging shot. This allowed German gunners to have a high chance of getting first shot hits, and combined with the high velocity guns and powerful guns they had access to from the middle of the war onwards on their tanks, this often meant a kill on the enemy tank before they could react. They were adjustable with a dial around the edges of the optics that let the gunner know what range was dialed in. Its rather complex but if you are interested you can find a guide here http://www.75thguards.com/ww2online/...ight_Guide.pdf American optics were rather primitive in comparison, simply a line down the middle with crossing lines representing 400 yard intervals. They were totally range nonadjustable and it must have been rather infuriating trying to land a second shot since the lay of the gun and sight would be thrown off with the recoil and with so many lines you could forget which of those many lines you had lined up on the enemy tank." I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the above statement, but the website forum is populated by people only to eager to dispute 'facts' (no one did) and lots of serving and ex tankers contribute, from both the US and UK, again none of them queried the facts presented. I know the German sight picture was clearer, especially at low light, wider and far more capable of gaining first round hits due to a crude but integrated range finder. Finally, from reading accounts of veterans, the German ability to hit with first rounds was one of the the most unerving things, the allies could hit targets at range but needed several goes. From my own reading of accounts it seems to me that if a Firefly got engaged in a shoot out with a Tiger the Firefly had failed in its job. They were often used to ambush tanks, carefully stalking their prey but not having to get so suicidally close as a conventional Sherman. As for the comment about dust being kicked up by the 17lbs, interfering with subsequent shots, what about all the German tanks high velocity guns, unless they all had uber-muzzle brakes!

I only have the vaguest knowledge of Napoleonic warfare so I will defer to those who claim to know. http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/napoleon/typhus_russia.htm http://brucebyfield.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/napoleons-invasion-of-russia-and-the-challenges-of-managing-large-projects/

Jason, I'm no Tiger fan and have been concentrating on infantry heavy engagements circa 42-43, uber armour, my gun has a bigger calibre gun than yours, pissing contests are quite frankly a bore. I take your point about hail fire and the resultant and mobility and firepower kills and wonder, given their effectiveness in CM why light flak was not issued to anti-tank units. I do remember for a joke buying 20 light flak units and watching as they took apart a Tiger platoon, something my T-34's were loathe/unable to do! My point is that CM is a game that should evolve and part of that evolution should be to try to replicate factors which confronted real commanders. Sure, pick Tigers, but make sure they do not move backwards, otherwise the supporting infantry might misconstrue your motives and panic. "S**t! If the Tigers are retreating we are in real trouble!" Oh, our nice shiney Panthers are so dependent on rail movement that they have been detrained in such a hurry that they have not had a chance to establish a radio net etc etc. I don't know if this is just mental masturbation over an implementationally impossible dream but I do wish that designers were not constantly reinforcing the uber-German myth for financial gain. Then again supply side economics triumphs historical realism and CM is afterall just a game. I'll try out your scenario packs when I've finished George Mc's pack (I've had to temporarily cease playing, as the combination of those superb scenarios and my recently aquired modding ability was causing serious attrition to my work schedule). A final point, early war scenarios are spoiled because the Russian 45mm is eriously under modelled, who would have thought it! Can anyone thing of any rule system that short changed German firepower?

Jason, do you think a more accurate AFV damage model in CM would go towards mitigating the uber-tank reign, as the vehicles suffer gradual attrition. I'm thinking about simulating, albeit quite crudely, non-penetrating hits on Tigers knocking out their electrical traverse motors, forcing the use of manual hand cranks which, in the case of the Tiger, required two full revolutions for each degree of turret rotation. Or vision blocks cracked and damaged so that the vehicle looses a high degree of situational awareness, unless the commander unbuttons, and radio aerials blown off by near miss HE strikes, forcing greater command delays. Or would a better AFV engine remove unrealistic factors which over-accentuate the effectiveness of Russian armour, i.e. no rear facing periscopes on some T-34's allowing panzer-jager tactics of stalking and ambush.

Should read beasts!!

Jason, is your advice to "cheat" based on the the inherent problems with the CM engine being unable to simulate certain tactical factors which allowed such an aggressive approach.A reflection of reality, Russians 'cheated' when confronting such bests or the unrealistic frequency with which uber-tanks appear in matchups? How, I wonder will the CM2 engine affect any of these approaches?

The good news, when using support weapons, is that you do not have to worry about firing arcs too much. MMG's can fire through attacking platoons they are supporting, or directly across their frontage, which in reality would lead to a charge of gross-negligence and some painful blue on blue incidents. MG's in CM1 are seriously short-changed and this helps you close with the enemy far more rapidly than in reality and suffering far less casualties, especially when they defensively fire from the flank and suffer from the abstracted tile based beaten zone.

On the attack you could try two platoons leading with two squads leading, in each. Company HQ follows and then a trail platoon. If contact is made the two forward platoons try to find then fix the enemy, with the option of passing their trailing squads forward to gain some advantageous ground. HQ follows to rally units out of command (especially if the lead units start to move independently, under fire). If the situation warrants, the rear platoon can pass through the middle, between the lead platoons and continue the advance. This way the 25-30m spacings between squads can be maintained, but it does increase the attacking frontage and therefore the exposure to fire, especially in restricted terrain of low visibility conditions. Pre-battle examination of the map can mitigate this unwanted attention, especially tiles that allow sneaking units to break LOS. An advance to contact might benefit from one lead platoon and two flanking ones, HQ in the middle. If the lead platoon hits trouble it can retire through the gap, supported by the two flanking platoons. If it achieves local success the advance can be continued, with the original lead platoon now taking up a flanking position, or if more aggressive action is suitable both flanking platoons attack and the formation reverts to a two up company attack. This formulation can be repeated with the individual squads replicating the changes in their parent formation. I've been playing a series of encounters with a reinforced 43 German pioneer company and have found these tactics work pretty well, even advances across open maps! Though the day the AI bought six guns was not a happy one and the Company HQ played shepherd for most of the attack! One final note, rotating your lead platoons is vital as the squads exhaust their ammo so quickly with assaults. The "Taking Viipuri" battle left my lead platoons low on ammo after fighting through a modest trench line, although it was manned by some early examples of genetically engineered and enhanced Soviet supermen. I'm sure that company commander was wearing a spandex suit and cloak!

To be honest, with borg spotting as long as you have friendly infantry around it does not make too much of a difference. I once had a JSU-152 refuse to target a German squad (spotted by tank riders) but AI tanks seem omniscient when supported by even a few footsloggers. I think the variable spotting routines used in SF and replicated? in Normandy and the future releases will be an enormous step forward in highlighting the vulnerability of buttoned AFV's, even with infantry escort. Is there a resource which explains how Russians fought their tanks! I've heard of pell-mell charges and firing on the move to fast dashes and firing on the short halt or whilst creeping along. How did/did their their tactics change to reflect their equipment, tactics training and greater availability of radios. Did the SPG's and tank destroyers have different tactics, or was it just overwatch and relocation drills? I know infantry made short dashes into any available cover, when engaged (impossible to replicate with the current CM1 engine) but as for tanks I just have disperate accounts or dubious German 'after action reports'.

Do different movement commands impact on morale, as with the infantry? If a T-34 is moving fast is it more likely to run away when engaged, or are tanks immune from this unrealistic mechanism?

Gelb, not gelp!! Time for bed said Zebedee!!

No, don't trouble yourself DAF, it's a kind offer but I'd rather search throught the available mods myself so that I get aquainted with them. How I missed the Zis3 is beyond me, but thanks for the heads up. I'd like to start to mod but think a bit more time applying mods is the order of the day, though if I need any IT experience (writing code etc) count me out! Dammit Jim, I'm an artist not a number cruncher!" I'd found all the Elephant mods (Ferdinand has retro-fitted the hull mg?) but none have the classic camo you seeon the KO'd Elephants near Ponyri. A gelp base with rough (brush/airbrush) green bands that link together. See this photo here http://germandressdaggers.com/Panzer%206%20tiger%20Elephant.jpg I will have to take a break now as real life pokes it's head around the door and fixes me with an icy stare! Final question, if you could mod the CMBB game system what would you mod and why, limited to three top mods.

Thanks for that, does that mean that if I download it for CMAK it will appear in CMBB. Next crazy question, having looked for mods that are not there, how do I go about making one? I'd like an Elephant with the roughly applied green camo and I want to have a go at my own winterised versions of vehicles, most mods seem to have white wheels, whereas most photos in my collection show the wheels only partially white due to snow packing around the rims. I'd like to also make the faces of my winter troops far paler, to reflect the effects of cold and the list goes on. Is there an idiots guide to modding?