Magpie_Oz

Yes I had the feeling it would be again at the expense of the pixeltruppen that the knowledge would be gained.

yep all of the "groovy" Germans tanks fought the Brits and Canadians, kinda get that when you are up against 8 Pz Divisions

I have CMBO to CMAK and CMSF with all modules and except for the text issue on the early CM games all of them run just fine. Not using compatibility mode either btw

It can be a simple or complex as you wish I suppose, I am remembering here the old days of the ASL gun chart where you could fairly easily see the probability of your gun penetrating the target. I'm not talking about being able to pre-determine what the result will be just get and idea of the answer to : Should I fire my 37mm at the Tiger? Should I set my M10 ambush 500m from the bend in the road or 800m? Should I drop a smoke screen 300, 400 or 600m in front of my 6 Lbr AT gun when the PzIV's advance ? Just general feel kind of stuff that allows you to gain an understanding of how your weapons will perform. You could of course look at "real" data but data derived from the game engine will be more useful.

Mortars are generally fairly light and rely on shrapnel to do their damage so I wouldn't imagine too much structural damage. Similarly direct fire tank guns , say 75 to 105mm will be punching holes in walls which will weaken the structure for sure but bring it crashing down? not so sure. 8" Arty now your talking.

I was thinking more along the lines of an empirical list, Gun Name, Pen at 500, Pen at 1000 Simple and to the point so you can easily see the data to make a quick best guess as to whether you would penetrate or not.

Is everyone taking notes here? There will be a test

I would think the main way to make a building utterly collapse is to take out the roof timbers as these hold the walls together. Given that these timbers are one of the strongest components of the building it would take quite a bit to bring a house down completely. Not something you would expect from a mortar The World Trade Centre collapse is an example of this, the fires from the planes cut the supporting members and the whole lot came down.

ok ok ok ok ok I got it I got it ahem A, A -> D1, D2, maybe II, A (but not "D1, the Panther formally known as A", sort of D with a twist), more likely II, G, G-ish / II-ish , F, E-50

Yes I see where you are coming from Pamak and from my perspective the notion of looking at simple casualties figures is not a good method of determining relative prowess on the battlefield, however as there is no real tangible way of determining whether the "Germans were better on average" we have to look at indirect means. My logic runs that if the German Army was considerably better in the field than the Allies, in spite all of the NGS and Air Support, they would have inflicted far greater casualties than they did as they had considerable advantages in terms of being on the defensive, in highly defensible terrain that they had occupied and fortified for 4 years.

I agree that some form of penetration v range chart could be useful, not from the sense of being able to exactly determine the result of a shot but mainly to be able to get a "feel" for how well your guns will perform against the enemy.

No, most smoke rounds are the base ejection HC type similar to the grenades, mainly because WP smoke is hot and tends to create thin colums rather than billowing clouds. Check this link for probably more than you ever want to know about British arty : http://nigelef.tripod.com/ammo.htm

So if we combine Achtung Panzer and Wiki it seems to be more : A, A -> D1, D2, A (but not "D1, the Panther formally known as A", sort of D with a twist) , G, F, Panther II, F , E-50 Everyone clear on that ? ...............

It is Queensland Day (and the Queen's Birthday long weekend) , surely battlefront would release it on the birthday of Australia's foremost state ?

I think the thing with the back blast weapons in buildings is that they WILL case some form of harm to the firer however there a numerous variables that make it difficult to model so it is better to simply not allow it.

The Russians had a 5 to 1 advantage in artillery at Kursk, a far greater advantage than the Allies had, even with the NGS. The Air Superiority would have helped for sure but my belief is that it effected the supply situation more than the tactical situation. The heavy bombers did have considerable impact but it was one more of shock effect as it was noted that if an attack did not follow fairly close on the heels of the bombers the element of shock would be lost. So for me it is still "even stevens" with the Allies and the Germans with the Allied numerical superiority allowing them the hold them by the nose in on spot and the whip around and kick them in the pants from another spot. A little village called Falaise

Well with the exception of the straw (I use a thin bamboo reed) I have been gaming this way for years, freaky how he got it in one.

Nah still not buying it. Have a look at Kursk, widely considered a major Russian victory over the Germans, they suffered over 4 times as many casualties and 10 times the tanks with a similar number of combatants involved, THAT is an example of mass against tactics.

Have you been spying on me ?

Yes but really I want "The Secret Diary of Henry Rawlinson."

The 1944 German army was far from a dying force it's level of equipment and technology was peaking. The Americans and even more so the British were well versed in fighting the Germans as they had been doing so continuously in North Africa and Italy, and mostly winning since 1942. The point with the atrocities is not so much that they were carried out and I agree that one side was probably the same as the other. The point is that it has been suggested that the German Army had a propensity for murder and rape of civilians and that this somehow made them better or tougher soldiers where as I would say it makes them more of an ill-disciplined rabble. If the Allied Armies were incompetent and out classed by a dug in enemy that had held the ground for 4 years and was in perfect defensive terrain and only won by way of their superior numbers and supply then you would expect for an horrific number of casualties on the allied side I would be expecting well of 3 to 1 against but instead we see parity.

I would think that a "military" briefing would be comprehensive and does contain "tips" on how to fight the coming battle. Or are you meaning that a "military" briefing should contain a certain degree of fog of war like bad intel or something?

yup that is number 1 in my etc

The supposed advantages are those elusive things to which we are referred. Tactical superiority, better training, better leadership all of which I see no evidence of. Sure the NGS and Air support was a factor no doubt I would not say the numerical advantage was great, it was about 1mill v 2.5 mill not really the minimum 1 to 3 one usually wants for a win. So if the majority of the casualties were with the non-German forces, what were the Germans doing ? Of the 4 Divisions in the Normandy area at the time of the landings 2 were second rate invalid Germans and "Ost battalions" the other 2 were veteran divisions, more regular Germans forces arrived later. Sure there were numbers of garrison troops at the beaches themselves but without doubt the fight was carried by the regular German forces in the bocage and Caen. The final tally was about 200k German casualties v 240k Allied casualties and an additional 210k Germans taken captive, which is around 40% losses. In my view the infantry v infantry battle was on a par and the results show this, in fact the Germans should have inflicted great casualties on the Allies as they had the advantage of terrain and defence. Even if we reject this notion, in a Coy to Bn level engagement in France in Mid-1944 the German side would be ravaged by airpower, NGS and lack supplies where the Allied side would be well supplied and supported so the Allied side would be expected to prevail. Either way the answer to the question is NO

yah I read a synopsis on a website ........ like that one in Iraq against the US Army squad, or there is another one set in the US Civil War and then there is another with a UK Squad v werewolves etc