Volksgrenadier

Maybe it should be posted in the CAS-thread, too. According to the "experts" in this forum, this was not possible, because their preferred armies were not capable to do this. Two 250 kg bombs, with 30 machines, are only 60 bombs for a wave. The believed "wisdom" in this forum, that Stukas were not highly effective, ignores the fundamental fact of the mimimum amount of bombs that Stuka attacks used. The low number of bombs (compared to other methods) is proove, that they were more precise than every other bombing method, because also the other methods would have been available for the Luftwaffe. But no other airforce in that time had the capability to use dive bombers effectively. And it should also be not too compplicated to understand: if they would have been not effective, there would have been no wish to use this highly daring and risky method wherever and as long into the war as possible and instead use methods that are more secure for the scarce Luftwaffe pilots. Especially in a time when German aviation technology was ahead of all others anyway. The answer is simple: Stukas were the most precise bombers of the time and the best pilots, like Rudel, could drop a bomb literally on top of a tank. But chauvinists can't stand this, becaue their preferred armies had nothing comparable. Aces like Rudel again and again used the slow and highly endangered JU87 - even with one leg lost, the prohibition to actively fly - instead to choose a much more secure conventional bombing method... Why? Because according to some "experts" here, he just didn't know his weapon!

Drunken German soldiers, but it's only a cartoonish stereotype for the Red Army... I understand.

Fernando, only a formal abolishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar

Playing the Soviets I have a question: How am I supposed to keep them moving, if their morale breaks down like for German units? I appreciate that nation specific modelling is avoided, but the sometimes incredible ignorance regarding own losses in the Red Army currently seems absent. Couldn't this be modelled by using special units and equipment and therefore by avoiding nation specific modelling? I'm thinking about Commissar units and alcohol. For example, the closer these Commissar units to friendly units, the higher their effect would be. With the ability to make them shoot on own units, this could enforce hard decisions on the player: do I order them to shoot on my own unit, because it has broken down and the attack will stall, or do I shoot at it and it will continue to move forward? And the other effect I'm thinking about is alcohol. If made available as "support", the player decides in the setup phase, if he wants to use it - and which units should receive it. Ignorance for own losses could be simulated quite well with the combination of the two effects.

I have not had a 251/2 in a scenario yet. How is spotting for indirect fire handled? Can the team leader leave the vehicle and spot? Or are HQs necessary for indirect fire spotting?

Hi gents, I'm currently working on my first mod and I want to ask you about the habits about their announcement. I recognize that new uploads to the repository are announced here from Battlefront. When does Battlefront announce them and when do modders start a dedicated thread? What if I want to upload my mod to another host, too? Is it ok to offer several download links? I'd also like to have a dedicated thread, just in case of feedback. Thanks.

The rules were the rules. If the Luftwaffe was the only branch with eyes on the enemy, and if no other pilot claimed the kill, it needed another pilot who had seen the kill and testified it, in case cameras did not film it. Under rare conditions and only with the word of of honor, a claimed kill was accepted as confirmed kill. Otherwise it was unconfirmed and not counted. Contrary to the Luftwaffe, the western alliied air forces allowed the claim of partial kills. The Soviet air force even had collective kills additionally to individual kills. Contrary to these armies the Luftwaffe used the strict principle of "One Pilot - One Kill". How extraordinary strict the German rules were, can probably seen best, when it comes to sharpshooters. Their kills needed to be confirmed by an officer. Everyone knowing how German sharpshooters operated understands that their confirmed kills are a conservative number.

YankeeDog, you don't have any sources? Then you are just brabbling.

Do you have any sources?

Ofcourse. This number is only the confirmed number, the kills that could not be confirmed are higher.

The Germans had a system that needed independent verification of claimed success, before it was accepted and counted as success ("bestätigte Abschüsse"). What someone claimed counted nothing, if there was no independent confirmation. How was this handled in the US army?

Thanks Cesare.

That sounds like a GREAT idea to me. Depending on the percentage of time already passed, a green to red coloring in the background of the time would give the player a feeling how much time is left.

I noticed, as soon as I switch on ML, AA stops working (Nvidia GTX560). Is this technically necessary or a bug? I really like the colors and contrast of this mode, but I can't stand the fuzzyness and graininess of vehicles, houses and tree silhouttes, and after a short time I always switch back to the smoothness of standard mode. ML with AA would rock.

Hi Amizaur, good reply. Good argument against my velocity argument.

Alchenar, I already had raised the question, why, if the Soviet systems with the 122 mm gun were so accurate, why were the optics only allowing 1500 m for exact targetting? Why could only experienced crews hit at arm's lenght of 1200 m? As long as this is not answered, it is the best indication of a long range inferiority. These results obviously do not show training or combat situations, but probably show the results of an already perfectly aimed gun: according to your partial list, every shot of a 122 is a hit. Even at 2700 m it takes only one shot! But "strangely" then on the tanks in combat the Soviets used optics that reduced exact engagement ranges to 1500 m and according to one source I sited, already at 1200 m experienced crews were necessary to hit.

Wouldn't a search tab, or a dropdown list of all available units which gives back the info where and when a unit can be found, be handy for the battle and QB editor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

YankeeDog, do you have any numbers that support that? I do not agree. Have you read the Tiger- and Panther-Fibels? They explain very well, how important a flat trajectory is. The flat trajectory allows the gunner to use a visor that only roughly matches the real distance of the target but still score a hit at certain ranges. Lower velocity trajectories in my understanding always mean a more curved trajectory. And that means exact range estimation becomes more important to switch to the correct visor for that range to have a chance to hit at all. I highly doubt that the Soviet 122 guns had the same combat accuracy as the German guns, with their low velocity and poor optics. I found several indications on the net, that support that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-122 This is a strong indication of a curved, not a flat trajectory and bad accuracy at that range already. I presented Battlefireld.ru already, that mentions that at 1200 m experienced crews were necessary to achieve a hit. Then there is the notion of the 1500 m as maximum exact engagement distance. Which I find even more remarkable, because the huge projectile at that distance still has enormous energy to penetrate lots of enemy armor. Such a restriction of the optics to 1500 m max would be absurd, if the gun/optics/chassis would allow good accuracy at that range! This is a strong indication, that combat accuracy was only present up to battlefield.ru's mentioned 1200 m, and they fit with the mentioned 1500 m the maximum for the exact optics. Comparison to the German 88/L71: Hit percentage @1500m : Training 95%, Combat 61% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43 These numbers mean from 10 shots, under combat conditions, six are hitting at first shot a tank in the open if the range is known! While the Soviet 122 mm gun plus optics plus mechanics is already at the maximum to even achieve a hit (the low ROF and low ammo count make things even worse). Looking at greater distances the huge quality difference between the Soviet flagship gun and the German becomes even more obvious: @2500 m: training: 74%, combat: 30%. That's already 1 km beyond the exact engagement range of the Soviet 122 mm calibre! And how about the smaller gun from the Panther, the 75mm/L70? The same good quality: @1500 m: training: 100%, practice: 72% @2000 m: training: 92%, practice: 49% @2500 m: training: 73%, practice: 29% ... http://www.oocities.org/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html The above sources support very well, that no adequate Soviet guns for the high accuracy German guns existed. Everything indicates they needed a 122 mm monster gun, because they were not capable to produce an equivalent to the German (or the British 17 pdr.) high velocity guns. When they noticed their 85 mm version was not strong enough, why didn't they increase muzzle velocity like everyone else? Smaller calibres are easier to handle than bigger ones. The answer to me is obvious: they somehow lacked the technology to produce high velocity flat trajectory guns (I could imagine their production facilities did not have precise enough tools and machinery). If you cannot achieve the 1000 - 1100 m/s that would be sufficient, then increasing the calibre remains the only solution. One must not forget, that from 1945 on the Cold War started and the Communist propaganda was not interested to discuss any inferiority in technology compared to defeated Germany and the Western powers. In 1945 a posing in technological achievements had begun. So one should not be surprised to find no explicit studies mentioning the inferiority of Soviet muzzle velocity and the incapability to increase it. I guess under the Communist's Gulag system I would have praised the capabillity of the 122 mm rockthrower, when it hit a tank @2000 m by accident, too.

Maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't mean the gun's accuracy, I mean the overall accuracy to hit. The Panther's muzzle velocity was roughly 1000 m/s, the 122 mm had only 800 m/s (that's a whopping 44% percent more kinetic energy per kilogram from the Panther's gun!!!). 800 m/s from the Soviet 122mm is almost as slow as German HE grenades. But with the much heavier grenade from the Soviet 122 mm, this is more like lobbing into target, which makes a very good target range estimation necessary to hit a spot, compared to a straight line from the Panther (or the German 88 mm guns).

Damages of Panther tanks examined by the commission NIIBT Poligon from 20 to 28 July 1943 http://english.battlefield.ru/damages-of-panther-tanks-dp1.html These numbers indicate the Panther was practically impenetrable from the front for the 76 mm and almost impenetrable for the 85 mm. The successful use of 85 mm in this statistics almost exclusively against side and rear is an indication, that it was necessary for these guns to let the Panthers pass by to have any success! In the case of an acceptable frontal performance of these guns, there should be more successful frontal and less side and rear engagements. Just like the German 37 mm ATG (tank-knock-on unit) needed to avoid frontal engagements and could only be used against flanks and rears against T34s.

I was thinking about creating my first scenario and there are a few infos I'd like to share - but only AFTER the battle. Some I'd even like to make dependent on the player's result. For example I'd like to portray a historical battle. But I don't want to spoil anything to the player previously. Currently I can only provide this information in the briefing, or in a separate document. But both solutions can be read prior to the battle. But if the scenario designer could define a text that is only shown AFTER the battle, I could explain the outcome of the historic battle after the game was played. If the AAR-report would allow a debriefing dependent on the result, I could even offer a bous mission for extraordinary good results. It would be possible to include one or more scenarios, each one zipped, but protected with a password. A password could be shown only after the battle, dependent on the result. The battle I'm considering to make, was an almost impossible mission for one side. But if the player somehow manages to achieve an unexpected outstanding result, I'd also like to give him an emotional boost as CM player, tell him so, congratulate him and elaborate a bit on the potential tactical possibilities his performance allows and give him the opportunity to unlock the bonus mission(s). I think that a result dependent human AAR text could make the experience more human and emotional and less sterile. A few encouraging words in the case of a bad defeat, maybe could even decide if a player quits CM in frustration or gives it a another try. In the case of a result below expectation, the designer could discuss the tactics he thinks would have been successful. He could discuss how in reality the given tactical problem was solved and much much more. The possibilities are endless. Even some kind of story-told "campaigns" would become possible. Thinking this concept a little further, user interaction after the action could expand this even further: Congratulation, you have surprisingly conquered objective X/achieved a total victory/.... Important classified documents have fallen into your hands! The enemy is expecting reinforcements to strenghten this regimental sector at railway station XY tonight! Are you capable to launch an immediate surprise attack on XY or do you need to rest and consolidate your position for the expected counterattack? Your attack must begin in two hours at the latest and two platoons of the divisional antitank company would be placed under your command. But it is essential that the tanks are not lost. If your attack is successful and you can destroy these reinforcements before they reach their designation, the division could start it's attack on the weakened enemy already within the next 24 hours. Your decision?

Attack the messenger?

1200 m is arm's lenght for German guns of that time!!! While the 122 mm gun already had problems to hit at 1200 m. It should be mentioned that the velocity of the projectile is the most important factor to increase the grenade's energy with calibre. Ekin (= mv²/2) increases with square of velocity while calibre increases kinetic energy only proportionally. That's the reason why the Soviets needed a 122 mm monster, because they could not produce the necessary barrels to achieve a high enough velocity for better penetration. While calibre is important for high explosive capabilities, because volume is increased with calibre by cubing and the volume determines the amount of explosive. http://english.battlefield.ru/js-2.html I hope the results I saw in this scenario were not representative. If they would be, then the models are way off if Soviet guns have equal or even better accuracy and optics. The soviets needed a 122 mm calibre to reach the German gun's penetration capabilities of the 88 mm gun while the accuracy was never achieved anyway. Weaker optics in combination with a lower velocity, means a more parabolic trajectory and therefore the distance must be known better, much better, to hit. While the German gunner only roughly needed to know the distance and immediately had the correct visor and therefore usually achieved first shot hits, guns with lower velocity had eponentially difficulties to achieve first hits, if the distance was not known prior (but I guess this knowledge of reference point distances is not modelled in CM while optics are).

Played my first scenario this weekend (name of scenario at end of post) and all through the battle I noticed that my Panthers at longer distances were not able to hit with first shots at stationary tanks, AA and vehicles. Often they hit only after the third shot, although they had "As/Ace" quality. :eek: I also noticed that my tanks were unable to hit the AA-guns directly even after the fifth shot was half a metre too high. A PzIV @200 m against a IS-1: shot roughly 7 rounds left of the turret into the air at the exact same location. The PzIV did not re-aim. Soviet ISU122, with regular quality, placed in front of trees, with infantry on the tank, could spot my hunting unbuttoned tanks camouflaged in woods first - but contrary to my "Aces" which were unable to hit with first shot, the regular Soviet crews achieved first hits easily. I also noticed in that battle that a side shot with a 75/L48 @600 m could not penetrate an ISU122. That my Panthers needed often three shots for the open topped TDs in this battle also just fit into inferior performance in that battle. That my Panther could not frontally penetrate a JS-1 @~500 m even at fourth try? Extremely strange! If this tank would have been that superior, why was it's production stopped after only three or four months because it's armor was too weak? If the JS-1 is already that overmodeled, then I guess the Red Thunder JS-2 is simply undestructable... Anyone else having similar experiences? So far I am disappointed with Red Thunder, the modelling in this scenario felt a bit weird. ps: placing reinforcement in LOS of enemy guns is not the best scenario design, IMO. Name of the scenario: Angriff