Chupacabra Posted December 16, 2000 Share Posted December 16, 2000 The patch to having Allied tanks use tungsten more readily when they have itis, IMO, a good thing. I believe however that there is an ahistoric overavailability of tungsten among Allied tanks in CM, and the change to tungsten is somewhat highlighting this. IIRC tungsten was only officially issued to TD units. The rationale I've heard for giving tungsten to Allied tanks other than TDs in CM was that tank commanders would mooch tungsten from TD units. As far as I know however, this wasn't reflected in the TO&E. However, there are plenty of instances in which units used equipment which wasn't in the TO&E which aren't modelled in CM. One example off the top of my head was American infantry units unofficially adding as many automatic weapons as they could carry, including more BARs or in some cases captured German weapons. Basically I feel that the change to tungsten has solved some problems but created others. Allied tanks are now far more effective at killing German armor than I believe they were historically. What I'd propose would be to either go back to the official ammo loadouts and restrict tungsten to Allied TDs only or at the very least to make tungsten considerably less available to non-TD units than it currently is. I'm sure someone's going to accuse me of being a German übertank apologist, and there's not much I can do about that. Except to say that I'm playing around 12 PBEM games right now and I'm playing at least half of them as the Allies. I'd appreciate feedback on this. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 16, 2000 Share Posted December 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Basically I feel that the change to tungsten has solved some problems but created others. Allied tanks are now far more effective at killing German armor than I believe they were historically. What I'd propose would be to either go back to the official ammo loadouts and restrict tungsten to Allied TDs only or at the very least to make tungsten considerably less available to non-TD units than it currently is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jon, we have talked about this before, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I think that if the game is trying to stick to TO&E for the most part, there is little or no reason to abandon this here. If ordinary tankers were supplied with Tungsten, by all means let them have it. If not, they should not be able to use it in the game, IMO. TDs don't have a huge HE loadout, despite the fact that in Real Life™ they often carried a lot of HE, AFAIK. I would also be quite interested in what other people think about this, and what the general impression is about the effectiveness of allied tanks vs. German Übertanks is now that Tungsten use was changed. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted December 17, 2000 Share Posted December 17, 2000 The best solution would be to limit the maximum amount of tungsten rounds available to each tank. I believe that for US tanks this would be 1 or 2 for tanks and maybe up to 3 0r 4 for TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted December 17, 2000 Share Posted December 17, 2000 I've been wondering why nobody ever brings this up in their desire to see Ami tankers fire their tungsten rounds first --- that maybe it was more historically correct when they didn't, because the odds were that they didn't have any to shoot! 'Course, my Allied tanks never live long enough to hit anything (increased AP penetration doesn't do you any good when your armor looks like cheese-cloth), but having a few "T" rounds makes up for the brittleness of early game Ami AP rounds. Hmmm --- dare I use the "G" word in describing this compensation? On the other hand, since tungsten ammo wasn't that common among US Shermans, maybe the percentage should be cut drastically for said tanks (0-1). Or, if as BTS sez, the presence of T rounds on board represents determined scrounging, make them available only to Veteran tank crews and above, while Regular and below get none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrano01 Posted December 17, 2000 Share Posted December 17, 2000 Does anyone have any evidence on scale of issue of tungsten ammunition in the British Army. I too have read that the US only issued it to TD units and tanks ended up scrounging rounds but I have not seen anything to indicate issue practise for British APDS rounds. ------------------ The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. (Field Marshal W. Slim) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted December 18, 2000 Author Share Posted December 18, 2000 I'm not a big fan of self bumps, but in this case I will cheerfully do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 Well, now that the 1.1beta allows a higher likelihood of T round usage it's time to balance that effect with less availability. From what I've read most tank units didn't receive tungsten (a.k.a. hypershot) until very late in the war. Tank Destroyers were given priority, but they too never felt there was enough. Maybe someone can provide more factual data on T availability? Nonetheless, I would like to see the cost of T rounds to be very high; somewhere around 50 points each for tanks and 25 points each for TD's. This would make it a real tough choice in deciding whether to go with a few T rounds or another AFV. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 12-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 This must be the reason for the Patton's Royal Tiger quote. What's one King tiger when all the 76's have a couple of Tungsten shots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Hi Guys, Guy, to be honest Im not all that sure that Tungsten availability at the moment is really that high? Remember, Tungsten isnt available to US tankers at all before September, and between October to December it really isnt all that common for Sherman 76mm's to carry them (they usually get 1 or 2 rounds, if any, from my tests). Once you hit '45 though, this is reasonable evidence to suggest that Tunsten was becoming available in considerably higher quantity, and thus in CM you will see it more often. Tungsten availability in CM is based on the best figures Charles concluded from his research, though this sort of data is hard to come by. If you guys have any factual evidence to indicate that CM's data is not correct, please let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts