Bulletpoint

Some vehicles don't have those and are completely blind to the sides and rear. The buttoned M8 Greyhound for example won't spot infantry behind it.

It used to be that if you sent infantry through forest on hunt orders, they would sometimes just stop and go prone for seemingly no reason at all. No contact marker, no shots fired. Then if you told them to keep moving, there would in fact be enemies very close by. So that matches your idea that units can be aware of enemies without getting a contact marker. However, I think this behaviour has been changed for infantry. They seem less likely to stop hunting now, and also often don't stop even when taking fire.

Yes, it's official. The delay is there to represent the difficulties of a tank to elevate or depress the gun enough to hit infantry close by. Also, tanks seem able to detect infantry close by quite easily if the tank has a cupola. At least that is my experience.

Here's something I found on Wikipedia: "An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign [...] also found that once German tanks had been fitted with armoured skirts that detonated shaped charge ammunition before it could penetrate the tank's armour, the weapon became much less effective." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

The skirts in the game already protect very well against shaped charges. I've seen many Pz IV and Panthers survive bazooka flank shots on their Schurzsen.

Tanks are programmed with a delay before they can shoot at infantry close to them. I think that's what happened in this case. But it spotted the infantry quite quickly. That's why it started to turn towards them.

I don't understand why people keep talking about Fulda Gap as if any real fighting could ever have taken place there before the whole area was obliterated by nuclear weapons.

Strangely, the tank had no trouble spotting the infantry in this fog.

Interesting. I think I read somewhere that it's about the diameter of the charge - that the depth of penetration is roughly equal to the diameter. But I'm no interest at all in this stuff. Also, yes, it's true that it's not a scientific test. I was just surprised it didnt go through more paper. Also, I thought the paper would be burnt or at least discoloured from the heat - but it seems the damage is much more like a physical punch than a burning molten stream.

Here is a video I found that might interest people interested in shaped charges. How many packs of printer paper does it take to stop a shaped charge? Fewer than you might imagine. I'm thinking maybe those sandbags on the tanks had at least some effect after all.

Thank you for the detailed reply. I'm wondering if it is not only the extra distance, but if the combination of just a bit extra spacing and the metal cage might help to break up the shaped charge jet? That it breaks up the symmetry of the situation just a tiny amount? It seems unlikely to deflect the power of that molten jet, but then again, it also seems unlikely that a mesh screen could do anything to deflect AT rifle bullets..

Yes, agreed. I had the same problem several times.

I haven't played this scenario, so can't comment on it, but in general I'll say that there's always a dark temptation for a scenario designer to start thinking he is in a competition against the player, and that he wants to win. That doesn't lead to an enjoyable experience for the player.

In that case, it looks like a bug to me.

What do Osprey base that claim on? Were any tests ever carried out? I've read several times that the hollow charge physics were not fully understood at the time, but I still find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not be smart enough to do a couple of tests to find the optimal standoff distance for their shaped charge warheads? Also, I could imagine the purpose of the springs would be to prevent the fuze from triggering - a bit like a modern RPG cage.

My guess is that you are playing on Iron and it's too dark for the rest of the platoon to see the SL, and just a bit too far away to hear him.

If a scout team is able to get into the trigger zone, that means the AI group is not longer able to control that ground, so it's good that they fall back. In my scenario, the AI groups were very small, down to individual teams at times.

In one scenario I made, I did it a bit differently - I painted trigger zones that would make enemy teams fall back if the player is close to occupying flanking positions, or if the player approaches the enemy positions to a certain distance. This means that enemy teams that have been thrown back will get a chance to retreat before the player takes those hedgerows and guns them down in the open.

This is a very good idea. Realistic, increases challenge, and it avoids the immersion-breaking situation where you'll force enemies back from hedgerows and then just find them camping out in fields later.

That's probably just the way the game looks out of the box. When you see videos of people playing this game, they usually use a lot of texture mods to make the game look better.

I think it wouldn't really impact older maps. If you used a new engine with, say, 3 categories to load up an old map without these categories, it could just lump all units into the default group 0: general mixed units. The old maps would then continue to work in the same way as when they were designed, but new maps could take advantage of the new feature.

The problem with halftrack gunners is that they are placed too high. They should have their eye level with the MG sights, looking down the barrel. So, more of the head pokes up over the gun shield than it should.

I think the misunderstanding here is that Bruno didn't see any red "penetration" message, so he assumed the tank had not been damaged, so the crew should not bail. But when the tank cannon is hit and damaged, the game only shows "Hit: Weapon" in white letters, so it's easy to assume the hit did no damage.

Short summary of this thread: Tank gunners are too accurate because they are able to line up the sight on the exact centre of mass of their target every time. The aim doesn't get thrown off with each shot, leading to sustained perfect accuracy. Tanks in hulldown spot enemies much worse, because their hull crew members can't see. Tanks in hulldown don't get any bonus to avoid getting spotted. Tank guns get knocked out from impacts from extreme shallow angles, where in reality the shell would slide off and hit the mantlet. The mantlet is way too vulnerable on many tanks. In short, these factors combine to making hulldown a losing tactic for many AFVs in this game, whereas in reality it was part of doctrine, especially for StuGs etc.

They either live in the countryside, or they compensate for something. That would be helpful, because I can't remember seeing undamaged tank crew bail unless the tank got damaged. I'm thinking maybe you are overlooking something, but let's see.