jtcm2

He's in a bar somewhere telling people about PzIII and "Whittmann" etc etc

Oh yes, good point.

Thanks, v. instructive. This, of course, with the Tiger not firing back.

Just to follow up: 76mm (L42 or 51) is modelled about right in CMBB, yes ? ArgusEye points out that in CMBB, ATGs don't fare as well as in real life, because of borg spotting, non-modelling of armour failure after repeated hits, and non-prevalence of hits on running train-- which, I assume, means that in RL, 76mm ATGs could and did take out Tigers at close range better than in CMBB. What about T-34/76s ? In CMBB, against Tigers, any attempt to close and flank usually ends badly. Was this tactic not used in real life ? Was it as costly in RL as in CMBB ? Or are there more factors (borg spotting, non-kneading, non-targetting of running train) which affect the execution of these tactics with T-34 against Tiger ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11winters.html?src=me&ref=general

More appropriate for the CMBO forum, but http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11winters.html?src=me&ref=general

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11winters.html?src=me&ref=general

Yes, Redwolf. But is there not a post somewhere in one of the 25 pages of the thread where someone (you ? BigDuke ? Undead Reindeer ?) writes that that the CMBB 76mm cannot harm the CMBB Tiger at any range from any angle (including point blank)-- and that this doesn't seem to correspond to reality-- therefore that something must be wrong with the tests. (Did I get this right ?) On another note, I just went to an exhibition in Paris on music in the URSS. If you like socialist realism: http://www.cite-musique.fr/minisites/1010_lenine/index.htm

Sorry to be obtuse, but should 76mm be able to puncture a Tiger's skin at *any range at all* ? I felt that to be part of the issue. Thanks re Panther vs T 34/85. Alas, my faithful iMac, after 10 years, just decided and went funny (I kept in on an older version of OS X specifically to play CMBB)-- and I can't get the CD to appear on the desktop anymore.

So what's the answer: is the 76mm undermodelled or not ? For that matter, is 85 mm undermodelled or not / Years ago, I was playing against Graves Registration (if anyone remembers him). A late 1944 battle in Hungarian plains (maybe near Debrecen-- does anyone know the scenario ?) I was playing Soviets. Long scouting and infantry swarming found a Panther and a Nimrod (for I was fighting against Hungarians) behind a wood). My infantry molotoved the Nimrod and were starting to bother the Panther. At this point, I rushed a plt of T34-85s down a road to go and fight the Panther. They closed in, the Panther was still behind its woods, and then-- we both had to stop the battle. What would have happened ? In CMBB (and in real life), a plt of T34-85 rushing to a frontal fight with a Panther at decreasing range, perhaps 300-200 m (admittedly one trying to shake off 1 plt of Russian infantry trying to grenade it)-- who wins ?

What was the original question again ?

"The Holocaust is a chapter in the history of ideas". (P. Veyne)

I'm sorry to butt in as an ignoramus. I always assumed that CMBB had undermodelled 85 mm and 76 mm, because of wrong design choices, perhaps determined by a soft spot for German armour ("German science" as JasonC says). It seems to me that ArgusEye is not a fanboy (too often newbies come onto the forum and exult in German armour), not a player who akes pleasure in driving heavy cats around-- but bases his claim on sources-- namely that the Soviet stuff wasn't that good, actually, and that CMBB does represent this well. This has real consequences-- for how CMBB represents and simulates reality, for what players can do, for playing styles, etc. JasonC and BigDuke6 stick to their guns-- and also adduce sources. I'd like to know the truth-- and try to understand the arguments.

This is very interesting, and I don't have a dog in this fight either way-- except to ask if CMBB is realistic or not. Everyone seems to agree that the StuG with 50+30 front is not well simulated. Points of disagreement seem to be: -is CMBB right to show 85mm ammo as not terribly good in 1943 ? -is CMBB right to show Tiger front and side as pretty invulnerable to 76 mm ? (if I get this right)

So is 85 mm OK or not in CMBB ?

Do we conclude that playing with StuG's is fine, if one keeps off the 50+30 ones ? That 80 mm is well simulated in being penetrable, if only just, at 500 m ?

Lionel Wigram ? http://wih.sagepub.com/content/7/4/442.abstract Anyway, I like the idea of getting used to going into battle with dribs and drabs and odd ends rather than the paper force of a battn

Is it more realistic ?

Am I right that very many of Wittmann's Eastern Front armour kills were obtained in his StuG, then Tiger, rather than PzIII ?

Specifically, I had the impression that he had served in the artillery, because that was what StuGs were classified as ?? -- anyway, two points have been established -- Wittmann did not serve in a PzIII, so all of our correspondent's points about 50mm etc can be revised --DT quotes a source showing 1. that the 122mm guns in SU and ISU version had AP versions; and 2. that they achieved considerable penetration at long range. Another of our correspondent's points seems to bite the dust. Next ?

Hmm, reinventing the wheel, how fun. The consensus reached on this forum after about 10 years is, I think, that Russian guns and armour and consistently *undermodelled, and the 80 mm front StuG significantly overmodelled-- based on tactical reports and instructions from both sides.

Yes, the main position is visible from the treeline. There is a draw leading up to the crest-- the assault position took it, and so will the reinforcements if they have sense. Sapper operations-- good point ! How do you put landmarks in your map ? I think I'll sprinkle the map with indications such as "German fire support position from neighbouring strongpoint" (a bunker in one corner with LOS to some of the German position) "Minefield-- uncleared" "Minefield-- cleared" "Minefield lane--marked" "German heavy support weapons" -- after all, it's not as if the reinforcement Co (counter-counter-attack ?) is going in blind.

In my scenario, the German position in on a reverse slope, below a wooded, and mined and wired, crestline. Behind the position, a small hillock, with 2 HMGs with depleted ammo, and empty 82mm. They're suppressed (to show that they've been noticed and shot at, perhaps even hit with mortars), and very tired from the firefight. The main effect is that they've got LOS over the position, can take potshots at the Soviets and locate them if they move (and tell the counter attacking force)

Would the attacking support weapons relocate ? Would the defending support weapons stay put ?

In the scenario, the German position is a Co. sized stronghold, bashed in by a Battn sized attack, pure infy under a barrage. Would the Russian attack not have gone in as a 2-Co strong formation, either in column, or manoeuvering ? If so, should the remains on the position not be those of two, not one Co ?— i.e. 9 squads rather than 6 ?