Odin

The group was out in the open on Migo's test, so it reflects the same or similar circumstances to the handbook quoted by Holmes. You can't really believe it is realistic to take 280 shots+ for a bolt action to hit such a target at 300m? I have also run my own test where I traversed a German grenadier platoon on flat open terrain for 12 minutes moving laterally back and forth across three Soviet 'regular' teams positioned 280m-330m away (distance depending on the location of the squads they were firing at). At times the German squads were walking at other times they were running. The Soviet teams shooting at the Germans were: - A one man scoped sniper - scored 9 casualties - A two man squad, each armed with SVT-40 semi-automatic rifles - scored 5 casualties - a two man squad, each armed with Mosin Nagant - scored 0 casualties This was the first and only time I ran the test, and both two man squads expended over 100 rounds. They represent the conditions specified by Holmes, except they were less than half the 600 yard range he mentioned. Unlike your expectation the squads did not get mauled by the bolt actions and going by these results, my experiences in the game, and Migo's tests I just don't believe bolt action rifle accuracy comes anywhere close to reflecting RL rates of accuracy (going by what my two sources state - and both refer to experiences with bolt action rifles).

I think it shows exactly what the average accuracy per shot is. There is no way a bolt action firing at a static target should have a higher rate of inaccuracy than an LMG, as automatic or quick semi-automatic fire is not going to give the shooter the opportunity to reset his aim with each bullet fired.

You make some great points @shift8 and I agree that accuracy under combat conditions is going to be nowhere near as high as it is on the shooting range. However, I still think that the bolt action rifle results in Migo's tests are perplexing and very likely show that rifle fire in CM is too inaccurate - which is something I have suspected anecdotally from just playing the game over the last few years. A point about your argument, you mention shooting on a range is easier because targets are placed at specific intervals which sights could be adjusted for. That point is also true for shooting with a scope, so I don't see that can help to explain the vastly improved accuracy of scoped rifles which migo's results highlight. The 300 maximum range which migo conducted his test at is also well within what a rifleman with an iron sight bolt action would be expected to hit with far more frequency than migo's results suggest. Again I agree that in the field opportunities to zero in sights are going to be infrequent, but it's the sheer inaccuracy of the bolt action rifle fire in CM, highlighted by Migo's tests, which for to me undermine these compensating factors. Excuse me for presuming, but I imagine you trained with an assault rifle, rather than a bolt action? Semi-auto assault rifles have many advantages over bolt actions of the type like the K98 or Enfield, but accuracy isn't one of them. Just to go back to the source I referred to (Richard Holme's Tommy). He quotes a section from the British Army Field Service Regulations of 1909. This defined rifle ranges of 600 yards and under as 'close', 600 and 1,400 as 'effective',1,400 and 2,00 as 'long', and 2000 to 2,800 as 'distant'. Holmes himself writes that in 1914 an enemy presenting himself to rifle fire in the open at ranges less than 600 yards was in 'very serious trouble'. Now he is talking about the 1914 regular army, whose marksmanship training far surpassed the conscript one of 1916 onwards. However, Migo's test was conducted with 'regular' units firing at a static target, without cover, at half (and under) the 600 yards quoted by Holmes. My second source worked day-in-day-out for a couple of years instructing conscripts how to use Enfield rifles. He is also sure (I have spoken to him again since my first post), that a competent conscript armed with an Enfield would have results which far surpassed the stats recorded by migo's tests (to the point where the CM results are incomparable to real life rates of accuracy). No doubt CM has some combat compensator which significantly lowers accuracy from what could be achieved on a firing range. However, even after all these compensating factors are taken into account, I don't think it is reasonable to claim it's historically accurate for it to take 280 shots+ for a 'regular' infantryman, armed with a bolt action rifle, to hit a static man sized target 300m away presenting itself without cover. . @IanL my opinion is based on two reputable sources, not just a hunch. The first is evidence cited in Holmes's Tommy (pp377-379) the second is a former British Army weapons instructor who trained conscripts in the early 1950s to use the Enfield rifle (and most of the small arms available to Commonwealth troops in CM).

Great piece of research @Migo441 To me the iron sight bolt action rifles look to be far too inaccurate at longer ranges. I recently read Richard Holme's 'Tommy', where refers to evidence which demonstrates that British infantry in the run up to the First World War were trained with Enfields to hit targets at 600 yards with a relatively high accuracy rate (sorry I don't have the book to hand so can't cite the exact page and information at the moment, but can do later). Anecdotally, I can also point to an old friend of mine who was a weapons instructor in the British Army in the early 1950s. The Enfield was still the weapon of choice at the time, and again he has told me 600 yards was the standard for a competant conscript infantryman. Now I accept that that both of these instances refer to trained infantryman, shooting static targets on the firing range. However, the CM accuracy rate of 350 shots per casualty at 300m for a regular soldier armed with a K98 seems far too inaccurate to reflect the weapon's RL accuracy in the hands of a competant soldier - which I'd expect a 'regular' solder in CM to be. What are other people's thoughts on this?

As Splinty says it's definitely an early Stug G. The Ausf F had a different shaped upper hull (the F's upper hull projected out further around the point where the man standing with his back to camera is). If you look at models of the G and F in CMFI you can see the difference in shape

I thought flares were used regularly during night time fighting as a means to repel enemy attacks, and would be an excellent addition to the game. Take this American report on German nighttime infantry tactics for example: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/night-fighting-tactics-german-ww2.htm

Welcome @Banjohero, You've made a good choice, CM might not have the graphical frills of Mew of War, but it licks the pants off MoW, and the such, in terms of authenticity. I highly recommend giving 2-player PBEM a go. I know a few on here don't play it much, or at all, but for me it is where the best CM experiences are to be had. The AI will never present the challenges that a human opponent can, or the sociable experience of PBEM for that matter (although you don't have to communicate with your opponent if you don't want to). PBEM games can stretch into months, and at first I thought this would bother me. But I can say if anything I prefer playing CM this way for two reasons. Firstly, because I can have a few games going on at the same time, without them taking up every spare minute of the day. Secondly, because waiting for a pbem turn in the middle of an exciting battle can create a brilliant level of anticipation. I can be between PBEM turns and I'll find myself planning my next play, eg can I win that long range tank dual, pull off a flanking manoeuvre, or repel an opponent's assault. If you want to give PBEM a go I recommend you do two things. First, join The Few Good Men which is basically a community of CM pbem players. They're a great bunch on the FGM forum and you'll be able to find opponents of all abilities on there. There are also lots of tournaments and multiplayer campaign tie-ins run by members such as Rico and Kohlenklau, who create some brilliant CM experiences. Secondly, download Green as Jade's CM Helper. This is a free bit of software which removes all of the manual admin of uploading and downloading PBEM turn files to dropbox and greatly improves CM's 2-player experience as a result. As someone else mentioned you can play 2v2 (or even 1v2 or 3v3 etc), but if you're on a team of players you won't be able to use CMHelper as it was designed for 1v1. Welcome aboard the good ship Combat Mission!

Great resource Poesel

If that is the reason it's a disappointing decision given how little CMFB adds in terms of new equipment when compared to the new content created for other CMx2 titles. Also there are other weapons which have made the cut for past titles that were even fewer and far between eg obscure German halftracks, jagdtiger etc....

As MikeyD humorously pointed out the first photo is almost certainly one taken at the end of the war. I just thought it an interesting WWII version of how many people can you stuff into a mini . The second photo, and plenty others I've seen, suggest it is reasonable to expect CM hetzers to carry at least a similar number to men to what the SU76 can carry in CMRT (6 if memory serves me correctly?). @womble, to my knowledge it was standard practice for German infantry to try to avoid hitching a lift on the back of any sort of tank when coming under enemy fire, and I follow that practice myself when playing the CM. My point is there are some big scenarios in CM and plenty of occasions when it is useful to transport men around the battlefield when they're not under enemy fire. Hetzers do have a flat roof surface for infantry to sit on which should make a graphical representation easier than trying to place them on one of the SPG's gradient surfaces. If other types of German SPG can carry infantry, there is no reason why hetzers shouldn't be able too.

I'm enjoying FB and currently playing the War Without Mercy scenario via PBEM **SPOILER ALERT** Playing as the Germans, this is the first time I've used hetzers in a scenario. However, I'm surprised to see that infantry cannot be mounted on them. Although small, hetzers were used by German infantry to ride into battle. Are there plans to add the ability to mount infantry on them in a future update?

I don't know which unit he was in, I'll ask him next time I see him. Re firing over open sights, sorry I should say I didn't mean just to refer just to the Allied artillery in Western Europe in 44/45, I was also thinking of German units in the West as well as German and Soviets units on the Eastern Front, where armoured thrusts into the enemy rear (if you'll excuse the pun) were perphaps more commonplace. Although I will admit that I'm going off anecdotes.

Thanks for the quick response Mickey, it isn't so much the ability for SPGs to provide indirect 'on-map' fire I was interested in (although that would also be cool. I have used on-map 150mm and 75mm infantry guns for those purposes in Kohlenlau's CM-PzC Ortona campaign). What I'd really like to see are models created for medium calibre artillery pieces such as the 105mm and 25pdr so they can be used in scenarios for direct fire purposes (and possibly on-map indirect fire in monster scenarios such as those used by Koh in CM-PzC Ortona)

I'm looking forward to the release of CMFB and would like to know if there any plans to release more (non-SPG) 'on-map' artillery pieces as part of future modules/vehicles packs? I'd love to see pieces like the 120mm mortar, the British 25pdr, and German 105mm included in the game and put to good use by scenario and campaign designers. The impending release of FB reminded me of a story an old friend told me a few months back. He grew up during the Second World War and his dad served in the Royal Artillery, fighting in Normandy and the Ardennes (amazingly his father was also old enough to be conscripted at the end of WWI). He recounted a story his father told him about how during the Ardennes offensive German armour broke through the American lines a few miles ahead of his unit which forced the 25 pounders he was serving on to engage the Germans with direct fire as GIs came streaming back into the rear. It's an amazing story but not an abnormal one, and situations like this could make for interesting CM scenarios. I know Sextons, Wespes, Priests etc are available, but if we can have rare 'funnies' and converted French armour why not a few more famous bits of arty?

Unless there is something I've missed in the editor, they are still shades of the same colour. I agree with iluvmy on this one, it is very difficult to make out the different Allied deployment zones in Chaumont

So you're only allowed to say positive things on here? I could not disagree more. Plenty of critique and suggestions have been given to BF in the past and they have taken elements of it on board to improve the CM series. Those who come here not just to praise, do so in the hope that by going to Battlefront's forum suggestions will over time be listened to - and this has proven to be the case in the past. My take on CM is that it is very good, but still some way off perfection. There are lots of tweaks which could be made to improve it, (eg Wiggum's suggestion for optional infantry movement formations strikes me as a desirable upgrade), and over time I hope a few of these ideas will be taken on board. The BF forums are big enough for threads which are generally praiseworthy/neutral as well as those which offer critique. I will happily read both, but if certain members don't like to read critique and have nothing constructive to say in response to those who make it other than, 'don't come here', then maybe they should just avoid threads like this one - which given its title is likely to offer a critical perspective.

To be clear, the vehicle firing was immediately spotted. Sure the sound of the gun would have drawn attention, but this would not allow enemy units to spot and target the tank that fired and gave away its position.

Couldn't have said it better. Bulge should be a module if evaluated on content levels, but its going to be a game and frustratingly we will have to purchase a Commonwealth module again. Every other WWII CM2 game title to date will have been released with more new content than Bulge will receive. I know a lot of members on here don't like to hear negative feedback, but I think a significant proportion of longterm CM payers feel similarly deflated. But all that said I love CM, so Battlefront will be getting my money - just not with the same levels of goodwill this time round. PS @Wiggum15 despite what many on this forum tell/shout at you, your opinion is valid. If everyone just gave positive feedback, there would be no motivation to improve the title.

Your conclusions are incorrect. Muzzle flashes are modelled, if you fire a gun in CM2 - particularly a high calibre one - it will make a huge difference to your opponent's ability to spot the unit that fired. This is the case for both good and bad visibility conditions. Just to emphasise the point, I played a night time scenario recently in hot seat mode (so I got to see what was happening on both sides), and the only way enemy tanks could be spotted at anything over 60-70m was if a tank fired. Once the tank fired, the other side's tanks with LOS would spot the muzzle flash and have visual contact on the vehicle that fired for 10 seconds or so, before losing the visual contact again. There was no other reason for obtaining such VCs other than muzzle flash, and the same results happened consistantly. As for daytime conditions, its basic CM knowledge not to give away your AT gun positions by opening up on infantry. If they do, they will be spotted very quickly, so best to have them on target armour arcs and wait for enemy armour. Try it for yourself, and you'll be plesently surprised.

Phil, You must have JS-2 frontal armour to bounce an 88! Get well soon buddy, the BF forums aren't the same without you. Owen

The maker used some original methods, which superbly explained the the flow of the battle - no easy task given its size. It's a shame the video has only had a 147 views, he'd probably get far more if he posted it on YouTube. I played out Wittmann's Demise last year H2H, and managed to make it to the end with Black Knight alive and kicking. SPOLIER: I adopted very different tactics though to the film maker. I almost totally avoided the centre apprach across the large wideopen field in the middle where Wittman met his demise in RL. Instead, I assaulted the Canadian Sherman's head on over to the far left with the Tigers (the advantage being the tigers flanks are protected when attacking along the left flank due to the terrain), eventually breaking through the Cabadian lines and enabling me to swing my tiger assault right. Meanwhile over on the far right, when the reinforcements arrived, I pushed the grenadiers supported by panthers and MkIVs through the apple orchards and and on into the village.

Thanks guys glad you enjoyed it. @Kuderian my AAR has only made it into the German command's conversation thread, so most of the guys on the FGM forum wouldn't know about the Campaign. To the victors - well fought and good game. Hope to see you on the battlefied soon!

Right then... It's been some time since my last update, and as you've seen the Canadians were victorious in my San Leonardo slugfest. So this is going to be a compressed final AAR post highlighting some of the significant points in the battle during its last 50-60 minutes or so...As I left things last time, my assault on the Canadian bridgehead to the German left flank was in full flow.Here's an overhead of the battle. The tank icons in the upper-left hand corner assaulting the Canadian infantry positions around the bridgeheadAnd quite a few Canuck infantrymen met there pixel truppen maker in the sky (aka Phil) during the attack.It's from here on in that things become 'tricky'. First off, two MkIVs are lost to a 6pdr AT gun positioned in the Canadian bridgehead. The loss of the first tank was a surprise, as I didn't realise that there was a surviving AT gun. The loss of the second panzer was just annoying as I knew the AT gun was there, and ordered the panzer to area fire at it, but the panzer could not spot the gun and was distracted by bren gun carriers. A fatal mistake which led to its destruction - as the 6pdr swivelled round to to dispatch it at almost point blank range...The first MkIV assaulting the bridgehead meets its maker Shortly followed by the second With the bridgehead attack brought to a halt, the surviving panzers were ordered by the general that be (Phil) to withdraw to in counterattack elsewhere. Unfortunately, One MkIV was lost to another AT gun, while another got bogged. Meaning only two MkIV's exited the battle.Bang goes another panzer With the tank support gone, the AT defence was left to a 88mm Flak , two 50mm AT guns, and two 75mm AT guns. A small group of armoured cars were also on their way.Unfortunately, the Canadian observers got a sighting of my 88mm, positioned on the outskirts of San Leonardo, and called in an incessant mortar barrage on its position, until it felt like they couldn't have many mortar rounds left,and having created a moon scape around the gun, the Canucks final scored a direct hit.With the panzers and 88mm gone, here's how the battlefield looked from my perspective.My right wing has been opened up with the demise of the 88. Only a few HMG teams are left defending San Leanoardo - which combined with two more positioned on the edge of the woods to my left - try to pin down the advancing infantry with long range HMG fire.At this point the Canadians seemed sure they had the upper hand and with with the Flak dispatched, my right flank is open and the Canadian infantry intensify their attacks down there. I continue to try to suppress the enemy's infantry movement with long range HMG fire. Which does enough to pin down the Canadians until I can call in a 105mm artillery strike on one of their advancing columns.Death from above, If you look closely, you can see a couple of mushroom plumes from the 105 Arty fire dropping to the far right on the map. It seemed to inflict quite a few casualties and I saw Canadian infantrymen breaking to run for the rear. Sadly, the assault down my right wing was too strong for my 105s to repel and the advance continued. At the same time the Arty began to drop, a squadron of Shermans arrived (by battle's conclusion, I'd estimate there were 10+ Shermans on the field).The Shermans were evenly distributed, as the Canadians adopted a broad frontal assault, supported by further infantry (possibly a battalion+ worth of infantrymen distributed across the battlefield?).In hindsight the wise thing to do at this point, would have been for me to withdraw all of my grenadiers, under the protection of the AT guns and few HMG guns. I made the mistake though of just withdrawing one motorised grenadier platoon. Which was to cost me later on in the battle.With the lone grenadier platoon exiting the battlefield, the remaining men dug in, looked to the sky and prayed for savation in the form of a few Paks. The AT guns were set up 700m+ behind the infantry's front lines with armour target arcs set, laying in wait for the ShermansWith the Canadian infantry of my right bogged down under artillery and HMG fire the Canadian commanders dispatched a platoon of Shermans to kicjstart their advance. With a platoon of Shermans trundling across the the map with their flanks exposed, I decided to role the dice, and removed one of the 75mm's target armour arcs. It took aim at one of the Sherman's flank from at just under the 2km mark. After a few range finding shots, the AT crew pulled off the shot of my CM playing career and took out the Sherman at about the 1800m mark. WHAT A HIT BOYS!Fire at will menTake a bow son! Just after this takes place, a combination of 75mm and 50mm fire pepper a couple od Shermans supporting an infantry advance through the centre. My 50mm guns manage to force one crew to abandon their tank; but the lack of punch fails to KO the tank. In the meantime, the other Sherman knocks out both 50mms, before its self being KOed by one of my 75mms, positioned further back.That's a nice piece of emmental With both 50mms taken out, I'm up against it, and the Canadian infantry positioned in the centre proceed to push forward. With my defence in the centre weak, I have little to repulse them, except for my two remaing 75mm PAKs. So I give the order to open up on the exposed Canuck grunts, 800m of so in front of AT guns' positions.Over the course of the next two turns I see at 15-20 red crosses flutter up in amongst the exposed Canadian infantry. But I know it can't be long until the enemy turn the mortars against my AT guns. Sure enough the two lone Paks come under incessant mortar fire, effectively nullifying my AT defences.The only glimmer of hope is the arrival of a three armoured vehicles to my far right. But in the face of a tidalwave of tanks and infantry, they are not the bulwark I require to dam the onslaught.The reinforcements consist of a 37mm and 75mm halftrack and a 20mm armoured car... oh dear The 37mm is promptly dispatched by an AT gun, which is within LOS on its arrival on the battlefield. During the next turn an HMG team in San Leonardo is ordered to fire on the 6 pdr's positon (from almost 2km away). It manages to suppress the AT gun, allowing the short-barrelled 75, halftrack to sneak up to the ledge of a rise overlooking the the Canadians advancing on my right flank. The halftrack spots two Shermans supporting the Canadian attack and fires at both using shoot and scoot tactics over the course of 3-4 turns. It manages to penetrate both tanks, forcing both crews to bail. But much to my frustration it cannot deliver a knock out blow to either, due to the low velocity of its gun, and limited HEAT ammo.Damn that's annoying! Unable to stem the Canadian tide, I decide to make for the hills, and set my men on quick march orders for the nearest exit zones. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, it was a mistake on my part not to withdraw my infantrymen earlier - as realistically pre-panzerschreck era - what could they hope to achieve against a well organised tank supported assault?A few turns later my men are fleeing as the enemy catch a scent and relaise there be easy prey to be had I had hoped to withdraw under the cover of my two surviving Paks. But they are forced to eat dirt under continuous mortar fire, amazingly both hold out for 10 minutes+ until they are eventually knocked out.One Pak crew manages to get their heads up long enough to fire a round off at the lead tank of Sherman column. Sadly the crew miss and are in turn KOed a turn later. I should have taken account of the huge distance between the my frontline grenadiers' positions and the rear exit zone, which is 1.5km+ away. As the Canadians unleashed a avalanche of APCs and tanks they manage to catch 30-40 men, mercilessly cutting down those that don't surrender.That said most of my men just about make it to the exit zones.And they even manage to inflict the odd casualty on the way (although no where near in the same proportions as they suffered losses during the closing stages of the battle).With that the battle brought to a close, and we can survey the AAR screen.Upon relection, if I had withdrawn my infantry much earlier in the battle, I could have ended up with a much improved kill ratio, but as was is I learnt a lesson about multiplayer campaigns and the benefit of exit zones - If facing overwhelming odds better to shy a battle and live to fight another day. On another note if I had been given the MarkIVs for the duration of the battle, I would have grouped them together, parked them just behind a rise of a hill, and laid in wait for advancing Shermans, popped them over the crest at an opportune moment and let the Shermies have it.It's possible use of the panzers for the duration of the battle could have turned the tide in the my favour. Ultimately, with the encounter taking place over such exposed ground, it was always going to be decided by tanks.But, despite ending in defeat, I really enjoyed the battle, and my thanks goes out to@kohlenklau for organising it! Cheers Phil!ODIN OVER AND OUT.

A quick update from the front. I am 27 minutes into the battle, and overall things are going well. The overhead shows the main action points since my last post. I have advanced two panzers, supported by a couple of infantry units, into the Canadian's Western crossing point at Frasers Bridge. The panzers ran amock inflicting heavy casualties on the Canadian infantry, as well as knocking out an AT gun and a few vehicles. Unforuntatly, at the end of the last turn an undiscovered 6pounder AT gun destroyed one of the MkIVs. I should be able to get the gun next turn with the other tank which has moved behind its position.The panzers push through the Canadian positions at Fraser's Bridge, wrecking carnage A few of the Canadian casualties An AT gun is taken out But a few turns later another gun takes out a MkIVTo the East Canadian infantry have continued to try to advance forward. I seems to have halted their advance by pinning the Canadian infantry down with long range MG from two HMG teams (almost 2km away) and the MkIV I moved over to the right flank.On the right surving German units are pulled back, while Canadian infantry is pinned down by long range MG fireI have also used a MkIV in the centre to destroy Canadian scout units which up until that point advanced unopposed.Smoke rises from a universal carrier destroyed by a MkIVThe loss of the panzer is disappointing, but I still expect to crush the Canadian bridgehead at Fraser's Bridge before Allied reinforcements arrive.

A quick update regarding the units' current positions and my plans.I haven't seen any other armour except the KOed Sherman, which put up a good fight disabling one of the Mark IV's 75mm.The Panzers are currently positioned on a ridge to the left of the map, but I'm going to advance them forward 70-100m so they have a better view of the buildings our side of Fraser's Bridge, where enemy infantry sound contacts have been made along with a visual contact on a Dingo armoured car.Afterwards, I would be tempted to move the Panzers across to the right so they can fire on the Canadian infantry which is advancing at pace on my right flank. But I'm worried about exposing the tanks' flanks to AT guns, so I will withdraw them either to woods to the right of the mounted grenadier reserve, or San Leonardo so the tanks to fire on the enemy's advancing infantry.