A Canadian Cat

My bold. This - so much this. If I am facing someone who is using their BMPs to fire at likely enemy locations and or directed by its infantry squad I am very very scarred. It is very effective.

No, there is no way.

Because they are still being used. The newer .brz files from modules contain new stuff and do NOT replace older stuff. Thus no deleting v1 .brz files when v2 comes out. Also the patches do not replace all the contents the just have the fixed versions of any items so you still need to keep the original .brz files. I know I risk aggravating you (and I do NOT want to) but come on man take a deep breath and enjoy the game.

Pro: ??? Con: that turret is nearly all shot trap - the roof armour of the tank had better be really good.

Man that looks cold!

OK that will be the difference.

I have a list of scenarios: https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/index.html Sadly some internet vandalism occurred when the blitz lost its .org domain so I recomend either avoid theBlitz links or copy them to a editor and tweak the .org to .club before actually using them. On the scenario lists you can search for H2H to get scenarios that have some design intent to work in as a PBEM game. This is my go to method. Check the Win% column and look for one with 5 or more play through and check the Win% column. The scenarios closer to 50 50 are better balanced if find one 33 66 don't necessarily shy away form it give the 33% side to the more experienced player and you might find it pretty fun for both. This balance is in scoring though so you can still face a tough challenge. Don't be put off if that happens - see it through.

Good, glad to hear it.

That sucks - I cannot help you there

Stop hurling abuse and start having your guys hurl lead The best way to avoid this is to have teams in place to deal with the bailing tank crew. Nothing encourages them to move alone better than another fire team or two opening up on them from a short distance away from behind cover.

That is correct there are several instances where all you get to do on the first turn is set a password and send the file to your opponent. Just go with the flow. There is even a scenario where you can be sent a file that also just lets you set a password and do nothing. That does feel weird but its OK too - it has to do with early intel which means that the side that gets the intel has to setup second. I assume it has worked for you guys?

I just tried this with 2.16 and an M2A3 APS. No issues. During setup it looks fine. I gave it a cover arc order to its right about 45 deg. Watched the play back and the TOW launcher stayed attached as it should. Next turn I removed the cover arch and watched the pay back as the turret moved back to centre still all good with the TOW attached. Any other actions taken that might be needed to make this happen? Any mods installed on your system?

I believe the original question was: what tank strategy should have been taken and would it have had positive effects (from the German point of view). My answer to the second part is no it would not have had a significant effect on the out come of the war.

This is all very interesting and I do love learning more about cool hardware etc. but in the end I don't think it would have made a huge difference. I have been following the World War 2 YouTube channel. It is a great high level accounting of the timelines and major events. What has been clear for "months" now is that the Germans are going to run out of resources: men, material and fuel. There is just no two ways about it. Their logistics are a mess and they pretty much started out that way. They never had enough trucks, had too many different kinds of trucks. They never had enough horses. They just did not have logistical support for the armies they did have. Streamlining tank design and production would not have been enough. They needed to solve their fuel shortages, their truck shortages etc and on and on. A really great example popped up in either this last episode or the one before. After they captured the major oil fields from the Soviets they held them for, I think it was 5 months. The plan was to deny the Soviets oil and use the fields to help alleviate the German fuel shortages. They never got them up to normal production and nearly all of the oil they did produce was consumed by the southern army group so it never helped with the German wide shortage (mind you it didn't drain it further) and the Soviets just expanded production further away and by the time the Germans were being pushed out of the fields they did capture the Soviet oil production was at record highs. Total failure. So, even if they got cool a new tank design that was better they still would have had to abandon too many of them because they could not supply their armies with enough fuel.

Yep, this. Although I also like the 1000 doors example. The host is giving you more information by opening a door - they always open the door that does not have the prise. My only nit pic is this is not a logic problem its a math problem - probabilities to be specific. But that's just being pedantic.

This had not been reported so it is now.

That is an odd one. I have reproduced it in CMBN with cover arcs and armour covered arc and even 120 degree or so fails too. However if I give it a small arch pointing towards the rear then I can give it a full 180 towards the rear and the turret turns. Heading to the site to see if it is already there and log it if not.

Oh man those comments - I have not heard of that scam before.

Dimensions are a factor too. Where do you get "with the same armor" from? Like I said I am not an expert on armour protection I was just pointing out it is unlikely that the T64 or T90 would have the same or better protection than the larger M1 variants of similar era simply because it does not have as much material.

I don't actually recall saying that.....I believe my exact word was 'Undermodelled'. Which seems like a pretty good match for @The_Capt's statement above: Just to clarify - for expectation setting. @The_Capt said that fragmentation and blast damage was "a little anemic". He did not say that tanks getting KO'ed was under modelled.

Source for this claim? I'm not really a tech spec wizard but you might want to consider these numbers: T-64BM weight is 45 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64) T-90SM weight is 48 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90) M1 is 61 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams) M1A2C Sepv3 is 73.6 tonnes The M1 series tanks are pretty damn heavy. Yes, I am aware that weight is not protection but for protection all else equal heavier is going to be stronger. Don't forget that all else is not equal but the armour technology advantage is with the M1 not the T series. No matter how good they are, and they are, the armour technology in the T series tanks is not on par with the M1 tanks of the same era.

I have had M1s KO'ed in Black Sea from precision Russian 155mm shells. I did not do a precise test to determine odds - I as just making sure it could happen. And it does. Which is why people saying that artillery never kills tanks became uninteresting to me. I saw it happen regularly and didn't think the numbers were our of line with expectations. This too. Hits do cause sub system damage. Yep, phrased as "hey shouldn't external systems suffer more from near misses" is a lot different from artillery is broken. Snipping all of @The_Capt's excellent analysis. Expectation setting is important. This is important too. CM has always been about giving the vehicles and systems the properties as close as they can to reality. It's never been about creating a balance of equipment. Scenario designers tweak various things especially scoring to give both sides a chance to win the scenario. If your favourite vehicle is not a tough as you think it should be chances are likely you don't have a realistic assessment of its capabilities. Sure there can be bugs but I usually start by asking my self is that result really out of line? Most of the time it's not.

Thank you for clarifying. Also thanks to @The_Capt for asking the right questions and for other testers to confirm that this was logged recently as a problem. So, it turns out this *is* on the list to be looked at.

Wait what? Which is it? No damage or damage only when directly hit. Exactly. There ya go. Some with RL experience that might not match. Now there can be a discussion.

I had not. I watched the first one. Can I have those 6 minutes back please (I fast forwarded a bit). So, that thread is just like all the others. I don't see anything new or insightful there. Vehicles frequently show no sub system damage when they are knocked out. It is just how the game works so no indication there. I suppose ERA blocks could be damaged - I actually don't know. Anyone have any data RL on that? I've seen lots of sub system damage other than tracks in other tests I've run but I did them in Black Sea. So I suppose Shock Force could have something that might need improving. Over all I don't see anything that screens "its broken".