Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Zamo]

While I conceed this does not include a certifiable AAR or historic instance, I believe this is the data cited regarding Stuarts and Greyhounds destroying Tigers. Check it out. I have not verified the account of the Greyhound, but it does list some units and dates.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/5096/upgtiger.htm

Zamo

[Iron Chef Sakai]

ok this thread realy needs to end, cmbo is not age of empires or star craft ok? the sooner people realize this the better off we'll all be, hehe. any unit can basicly destroy any unit, end of story, how hard is this to understand? no vehicle, tank plane,ship or sub or anyhting else was invulnerable from destruction. yeah tigers were awsome tanks, but they did lose some, if they actualy were impenetrable, then all the 3rd reich would have had to do is build one tiger tank and slowly and methodicly destroy everything in it's path since it couldn't die. i mean the british had some realy nice battleships but they could still sink. the bismark was a revolutionary battleship, was superior to anyhting the allies had at the time, but a itty bitty sword fish plane was it's undoing, a sword fish was a bi-plane launched from a british carrier, basicly a realy dated torpedo plane, a torpedo launched form a swordfish scored a lucky hit on the bismakrs rudder, jamming it making it go round and round in circles, and then later making it easy prey for the birtish fleet. all having better tanks or anyhtign else does is give you a better chance of accopmlishing what you want to do, it is far from automatic even when used in a sound tacticla situation. now stop crying people, oad up your game and have some fun, i'll play anyone in an ip game, its more fun then playing the computer

[Maastrictian]

I've been following this thread with some interest, but I have to say that I've had to skip every one of your posts Iron Chef because of the style they are written in. Please, as a courtesy to the other people in the forum, try to use some capitolization and paragraph breaks in your posts.

Giant blocks of text can be very hard on the eyes.

Thanks

--Chris

[Ogadai]

Steve, you comment is well taken but yet again, it appears I am being charged with something I am not guilty of. I am not biased against the report(s) because of their nationality. Far from it. I am biased against the report(s) because of percieved problems with them, that even Slapdragon admits to.

I find your comment about Soviet Reports interesting. That might be true for Americans but outside of the USA, I've always been taught to take all reports skeptically until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everything the Soviets said was false and everything the USA said was true. Rather all such reports have to be checked. Slapdragon seems to have taken this strange idea that if its an American report, it has to be good, despite admitting there are possibly flaws with it!

Now, RedWolf, the problem with your's and Jason's thinking, as far as I can see is as Steve has pointed out - you're ignoring doctrine, belief and intended use for the 95mm CS Howitzer armed tanks. Even the title betrays what they were intended for - CS - Close Support. Their AT capability was secondary. They were intended to render high-angle, direct fire support to armoured formations. The British would not have then utilised them for AT work, because they'd not have considered it. Just as the 3.7in AA gun was not considered for AT work, despite its excellent performance and the obvious example supplied by the Germans of the 88mm. As Steve suggests, you're using perfect hindsight.

However, at the same time, Steve, I must suggest that perhaps your statement conveys the idea that you believe you got the ballistics and chance to hit for the 95mm CS How. exactly right. I have my doubts about that but am willing to accept that in the context of the game, it might be close enough. If Jason and RedWolf took a slight different approach with their argument, they might, I suspect get a more willing ear.

[Battlefront.com]

Ogadai,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steve, you comment is well taken but yet again, it appears I am being charged with something I am not guilty of. <hr></blockquote>

Ah, OK. I see the problem. I was getting the motivations of your comments confused with what apparently they really are...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Slapdragon seems to have taken this strange idea that if its an American report, it has to be good, despite admitting there are possibly flaws with it!<hr></blockquote>

... that Slapdragon is blindly believing something because it is American, rather than you are blindly dismissing it because it is American. I suggest rereading Slapdragon's posts here, and in previous threads. He in no way is saying it is "correct" because it is American, and therefore is beyond question. What he clearly (to me at least) said is that the SPECIFIC report he was making reference to is probably the best statistical accounting of the affects of air attacks on battlefield assets. He also states that because of his understanding of the report, which he (but not you) has read in detail, he is not ready to dismiss it. He does, however freely admit that it probably (for any of a number of reasons) is not EXACT. He even stated it is probably +/-10%. I see nothing wrong with this.

As for having a healthy skepticism about reports... here in the US (well, at least at my college where I majored in History) we are also taught to be skeptical of anything written until there is good cause to think otherwise. Dismissing something out of hand was not taught, rather how to attempt to discover its validity. A common saying here in the US is "don't believe everything you read/hear/see". And even if you do have reason to suspect that things are not 100% correct, that is no reason to dismiss it all together. American's are found of saying "do not throw the baby out with the bathwater".

I saw Slapdragon explain, in some detail, why he feels the report has merit even if it is possibly +/-10% accurate. You, on the other hand, dismissed either a report you haven't read as unreliable or Slapdragon's reasoned approach to determining its validity. Either way, I find fault with your thinking.

As for Soviet stuff... there has been a long taught knee jerk anti-Soviet reaction here in the US. I suspect it also exists, in some form or another, in other "Western" nations. Perhaps scholars were not so pulled in by this bad logic, but certainly many people (scholars included) were. And still are! I have seen it here on this BBS. I was brought up in this culture, but I know I managed to put (most) of it aside. I still look at their data with some suspicion, but the lower down it goes the less suspicious I am. Another technique for getting a sense of validity.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, at the same time, Steve, I must suggest that perhaps your statement conveys the idea that you believe you got the ballistics and chance to hit for the 95mm CS How. exactly right.<hr></blockquote>

Not true. I think I said several times that we might have things wrong. There is just too many things incorrectly documented for us to say with 100% certainty that "this is absolutely correct". It might very well be that the figures CM uses are totally wrong. Or perhaps a part of the application of HEAT data in the equation is wrong or missing something. I totally don't deny that possibility. Same with the Bazooka and pretty much anything in CM. There is always a chance that something isn't quite right, but some things are more suspect than others. However, in any even the "evidence" presented in this thread to prove CM is wrong is, in my opinion, far more suspect than CM's portrayal. In some cases it is conjecture (never a strong case) and in another it was just strange (KV1 vs StuH) and in yet another case simply wrong (comparing late war HEAT rounds to early war targets). But in general is was vague at best. So taken as a whole, not a compelling case. In addition to that...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If Jason and RedWolf took a slight different approach with their argument, they might, I suspect get a more willing ear. <hr></blockquote>

My ear was willing to hear what they had to say regardless of the way it was presented (I put up with Lewis for 2 years for example ). However, I've been down this road before with Jason and therefore didn't want to get into yet another pointless exercise. In spite of myself, I did get sucked in and... it went just the way I thought it would. He might be correct, but we just spent a couple of hours debating something and we are right back to where we started from. He says we are wrong, we think his evidence is weak/faulty. In a real give/take debate something other than this would have happened. One of the parties would have changed their minds or both would have agreed to disagree and live with it exactly like that. The reason I don't like debating Jason because my experience shows this doesn't happen. If he challenges us we are always wrong in the end, no matter what I or others say inbetween. So why bother?

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

I've been following this thread with some interest, but I have to say that I've had to skip every one of your posts Iron Chef because of the style they are written in. Please, as a courtesy to the other people in the forum, try to use some capitolization and paragraph breaks in your posts.

Giant blocks of text can be very hard on the eyes.

Thanks

--Chris<hr></blockquote>

I tend to skip Iron Chef's posts more from a content stand point than a grammatical standpoint. I find them strangely lacking in relevance. Although I have to admit that you make a very good point. The writing style does detract from them as well.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

bigtime software i only have one question, you make some good arguments but what it with the ,"well what i was taught in college as i majored in hotory or what not"?

how does that make your way of deduction correct? i mean this is all opinion is it not?

how many colleges are in this country? how many history professors?

how many history proffessors teach their class the same way?

how many history students actual excel at it?

how does the fact that you took history in college simply make you right? you have had some good arguments even though i did not always agree up until this point.

why do people on this forum seem to get snobby about the acheivement that they know a little bit about world war 2 wich was basicly a bread crumb in the history of the planet anyway?

like dorosh using the word intelectual in a snobby way, wich if was realy an intelectualy he would have knew the true meaning of the word and not applied it in such a non sensicle manner.

i think more people should stop taking offense that someone debates what they think, it realy isnt a bad thing whether your right or wrong.

and most importantly , whay arent there more people posting on the opponents forum, ip games are where it's at people!

[Ogadai]

Steve, thank you for you willingness to admit your error WRT my motivations. I still believe you're cutting Slapdragon a bit too much slack but thats your opinion.

As I said, I am not being dismissive of Slapdragon's report but rather skeptical. He appears to have to taken any effort to be skeptical, to be dismissive and has launched upon his usual defensive posture of acussing all and sundry of being "anti-American", "nationalistic", etc. If nothing else, I find it more amusing than anything else 'cause its exactly what he accuses everybody else of!

As for the Soviet thing, well, your nation was much more tightly tied up in the Cold War thing than the rest of the world. In Australia, we tended to sit back a bit further and look at what both sides was claiming and treated them both with heavy doses of salt. From my own viewpoint, I found all too often what America claimed (still does claim in some cases) to be unsupported by the facts. However, that lies outside the scope of this discussion. I am sorry though, that its effects have been such that they have made it difficult to accept foreign reports merely because of their source. At least you've identified the problem.

As for the 95mm/Bazooka thingy, I think the problem that Jason/Redwolf and some others are having is that while you state you're willing to listen to cases and make changes, it appears that you seem to set the hurdle impossiblly high. Essentially it seems that no matter what criticism is levelled, it is impossible to either have an admission of fault or a change made to the game.

I don't think necessarily that the you've got it wrong, going by the data and knowledge I have available to me. Jason/Redwolk, others have various times have provided sufficient evidence to suggest that not all is exactly right in the state of Denmark, if you get my drift.

As to the cyclical nature of such discussions, I think thats more a problem of an unwilling to compromise on all sides. Anyway, I enough has been wasted on this thread, I suspect. No game is perfect and not all data is known. Jason, I'd suggest you accept that!

[Iron Chef Sakai]

this thing is longer then the ping thread, i think everyone should just agree to disagree, lol

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chef:

...i think that my english is fine, if your going to make fun of something, you should start with my typing....<hr></blockquote>Thanks for the invitation, I will.

Now if you look at your keyboard you will note on the right hand side there is a large asymmetrically shaped key (somewhat like a reversed L) which is generally marked "Return" or "Enter".

So every time your mind starts to wander and go flying off on a tangent just wack that key a couple of times and you'll be amazed at how much more positive attention you get.

[JasonC]

Thanks for the reference Zamo. It does indeed give units and rough dates, but the story fails to check out. I am refering to the first anecdote, about the supposed charge down to 25 yards with an M-8 Greyhound, KOing a supposed Tiger I from the rear with 3 rounds. Here are some of the problems with the story -

1. The unit is identified as "E troop" and the equipment item as an M-8 Greyhound. E Troops of cavalry squadrons were either the M8HMC company (75mm assault guns based on the Stuart chassis), in the 5-company independent cavalry squadrons, or the Stuart light tank company, in the 6-company armor division cavalry squadrons. So right away, there is reason to suspect mis-ID of the American vehicle. Both a HMC and a Greyhound are "M8s". But only one is standard equipment in an "E troop". And it is the 75mm assault gun, not the 37mm armored car. Range would not matter with 75mm HEAT, but there would be nothing remarkable in it penetrating even 80mm flat armor, provided it got a flat hit.

2. The parent unit to which the force is attached is the 7 AD, which defended St. Vith in the Bulge. There was little German armor to face before the Bulge, and 7 AD was sent to the sector for that purpose, so the date ("December") probably refers to a period during the defense of St. Vith. There were numerous cavalry attachments at this time (24th cavalry group with 2 squadrons/battalions, plus 7 ADs own, etc). And the narrative describes a period in which the cavalry is screening "northeast". There was a cavalry screen NE of St. Vith, so it fits. However, there then arises a problem about the enemy formations present. At the start, the only one opposite was the 18 VG division, and infantry formation with no heavy tanks, only some assault guns.

3. The only German armor mentioned KOed in the main history of this period and location, is 6 "light tanks or assault guns" supporting the "mobile battalion" of 18 VG (perhaps its Fusiliers, perhaps bike mounted). And the official history credits these to Shermans from the 14th Tank battalion sent to support the sector. Assault guns would not fit the turning turret depicted in the anecdote - let alone the Tiger designation - and it is unclear what "light tanks" a VG division would have. All these make it possible some other period of time is meant.

4. But the only other German armor formation committed to the assault on St. Vith from that area, was the Fuhrer Begleit brigade. It had one battalion of mixed Panthers and Pz IVs, and another of assault guns - but no Tigers, and no Tiger Is in particular. The only two formations that fought in the period that did have Tiger Is, are the 4th company of the 506th sPzAbt, which was away to the south, not in the 7 AD sector, and a Fkl unit deployed along the same direction, toward Bastogne rather than St. Vith. Leaving it most likely the German tank, if indeed a turreted tank, was a misidentified Panther or Pz IV from the Fuhrer Begleit brigade.

5. The anecdote stresses the importance of hitting the "weak rear armor" of the Tiger I. But the Tiger I's rear armor is not weak - it is the same thickness as the hull and turret sides. In fact, the lower side hull, below the top of the track but above the road wheels, is the only thinner plate on the Tiger I. All the rest are 80mm (or 82mm with manufacturing tolerances, perhaps). But Panthers and Pz IVs do have weak rear armor (30mm to 40mm), making it profitable to hit them there. In particular, a 37mm AP at point blank could plausibly KO either variety with a rear hit.

In short, it probably was an M8HMC not an M-8 Greyhound; there weren't any Tiger Is there; the whole engagement story only makes sense for other German tank types. I continue to regard this story as an endlessly retold urban legend, based on systematic mis-IDs. The fact that the unit supposedly involved transmigrates from Alsace to the Bulge from one telling to another, moving from cavalry with the 12 AD to cavalry with the 7 AD, does not reassure. There is precious little reason to expect a 37mm AP to penetrate any plate - front, side, or rear - on a Tiger, I or II.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Thanks for the invitation, I will.

Now if you look at your keyboard you will note on the right hand side there is a large asymmetrically shaped key (somewhat like a reversed L) which is generally marked "Return" or "Enter".

So every time your mind starts to wander and go flying off on a tangent just wack that key a couple of times and you'll be amazed at how much more positive attention you get.<hr></blockquote>

My Enter key is symmetrical - what kind of Aussie board are you using? Time to upgrade.

In other news - underneath so mentioned "enter" or "return" key is one called "shift". Depressing it simultaneously with a letter key will cause it to display as a capital letter. They are the funny ones we start sentences and proper nouns with.

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

bigtime software i only have one question, you make some good arguments but what it with the ,"well what i was taught in college as i majored in hotory or what not"?

how does that make your way of deduction correct? i mean this is all opinion is it not?

(snip)

how does the fact that you took history in college simply make you right? you have had some good arguments even though i did not always agree up until this point.<hr></blockquote>

Now, I don't seem to recall Steve ever saying that getting a history degree "simply makes him right." But I suspect that part of the requirements to his history education was 1) learn how to research multiple sources so to discern trends on some historical issue, 2) learn to discern the reliability of the references for a historical issue, and 3) learn to argue in a valid manner.

I think that Steve, in nearly two years time that I've seen him post here, has well proved his education on those matters. He's not always right, but he's been willing to "do his homework" so to be more right than wrong where he can. But I haven't seen that from you yet in turn. At least I appreciate a new willingness of yours to "break out" your comments to make them easier to follow.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

why do people on this forum seem to get snobby about the acheivement that they know a little bit about world war 2 wich was basicly a bread crumb in the history of the planet anyway?<hr></blockquote>

In the grand scheme of world history, yes, WWII wasn't the singular defining event. But anyone who thinks that WWII historical study is nonessential to discussion of WWII armored vehicles like the KT is undercutting his credibility right off. Isn't what this thread is about?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

like dorosh using the word intelectual in a snobby way, wich if was realy an intelectualy he would have knew the true meaning of the word and not applied it in such a non sensicle manner.

<hr></blockquote>

Michael is not an "intellectual snob." He'll get into "grog" discussions like I do, but similar to me, demonstrates a willingness to learn on military historical matters where prior knowledge is limited. (And with his military service experience, he's likely a definite shade more experienced on a number of military subjects than either you or I.)

All that Michael has done has pointed out that your demonstrated quality of arguing is about the same as your demonstrated use of grammar & spell-checking. I don't worry so much about correct spelling, but you really should improve your ability to argue if you expect to be taken seriously by others here. Seeing one arbitrary statistic on one History Channel program, and accepting that as gospel truth, doesn't impress much on me either.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well said, Spook, and for the record, I have always enjoyed reading, and especially learning from, guys like you, Steve, Slapdragon, ASL Vet, Germanboy, Simon Fox, M. Hofbauer, and others too numerous to mention here. You've all helped me raise my own personal bar as far as critical thinking and analysis goes.

And then there are the others...

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

bigtime software i only have ONE question, ... [lots of questions snipped]<hr></blockquote>

Learning how to count while you're brushing up on your grammer and spelling probably wouldn't hurt any either. I counted about nine seperate questions in there.

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

My Enter key is symmetrical - what kind of Aussie board are you using? Time to upgrade.

In other news - underneath so mentioned "enter" or "return" key is one called "shift". Depressing it simultaneously with a letter key will cause it to display as a capital letter. They are the funny ones we start sentences and proper nouns with.<hr></blockquote>By golly you're right! I should have realised that this Chef bloke had to be a Mac user. As for the rest, let's break this one acheivable step (or key) at a time. We don't want to overwhelm the poor chap.

[Ogadai]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm sorry, I just can't let this go by. Why the picking on the Iron Chef? So, he can't type or format a damn. Perhaps English isn't is his first language but it appears he's not going to be cut any slack for his unwillingness to conform to how we all like to read a message. I'm ashamed of some of the way you have seen fit to respond to him. How old are you lot? You're acting like kiddies in the schoolyard, picking on the kid whose different 'cause he's different.

Ny all means, refute what he says, attack him for silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence and even if you so desire, ignore him. However, don't pick on him 'cause he types differently or badly.

Looks to me like the sort thing my kids do, rather than what adults should be doing.

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

A fascinating source of information Jeff but I just noticed one thing that seems to have been missed, that scanned report states that the primary role of the 95mm round is for smoke screening and high explosive. In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS?

Just to make it clear however, I'm not trying to say this is a huge problem which impeaches the whole game or anything as the limited amount of ammo able to be carried of 95mm calibre means that I'm happy to have as many H.E. & "c" rounds as possible! But still a possible error all the same.<hr></blockquote>This has always puzzled me too. Certainly this was one of the 'traditional' roles of the CS tanks. In the early desert stuff they were the only tanks with main gun smoke ammo. Though of course it would have been a 3in howitzer.

[Michael Dorosh]

On the contrary, Ogadai, I do cut slack where formatting, spelling, etc., are concerned, as I am far from perfect myself.

Iron Chef comes on here with his pop culture knowledge of WW II and continues to denigrate those who knowledge is deeper, thumbing his nose at the conventions and methods of those who have studied seriously while simultaneously making fun of them.

And yet, unlike the rest of us who all realize we have a lot to learn from each other, he more often than not refuses to accept how foolish his "arguments" are, or how silly he looks by arguing points that are clearly wrong, or attempting in any way to improve his own knowledge. His standard refrain is "I read a book about it years ago but I don't remember the title, but what difference does it make anyway."

To us, the method is thing - the medium is the message, as McLuhan said. For him, the method has no weight or meaning, and he is left amid a sea of unproven conclusions, which to him are gospel.

Perhaps we're lucky he doesn't cloak this all in a camouflage of scholarly sounding babble. But I guess that's what we have JasonC for!

I think they are the same person, some strange version of Jekyll and Hyde. Really, have you ever seen them post at exactly the same time?

I rest my case!

[Ogadai]

If the CS isn't supplied with smoke rounds the, as you mention, Simon, "traditional" use of the CS tank, then why not? Is there a way to actually alter the ratio of ammunition types within a given vehicle? I haven't found it but I'm still discovering aspects of the game. BTW, Steve, I hope you've got someone else to write the manual for CMBB...

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

This has always puzzled me too...<hr></blockquote>

More puzzlement: the CM 25pr, when used on-map, has no smoke rounds, although it does (correctly) have some AP rounds.

The standard load for each 25pr was 144 rnds HE, 16 rnds Smk, 12 rnds AP.

Regards

JonS

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm sorry, I just can't let this go by. Why the picking on the Iron Chef? So, he can't type or format a damn. Perhaps English isn't is his first language but it appears he's not going to be cut any slack for his unwillingness to conform to how we all like to read a message. I'm ashamed of some of the way you have seen fit to respond to him. How old are you lot? You're acting like kiddies in the schoolyard, picking on the kid whose different 'cause he's different.

Ny all means, refute what he says, attack him for silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence and even if you so desire, ignore him. However, don't pick on him 'cause he types differently or badly.

Looks to me like the sort thing my kids do, rather than what adults should be doing.<hr></blockquote>

Errr, excuse me but no ones picking on him. We're just rendering positive criticism of his presentation style so as to enable him to better get his "silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence" out to a wider audience.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i already stated that any facts including my own stated here when it came to percentages of vehicles lost and due to what, was not carved in stone.

i do not beleive that anyone is going to find the holy grial of stats, simply because they do not exist, all are debatable and all can find a happy medium wich i beleive was captured in the game. anyhting can happen, just like on the battlefield. thats one of the many things i enjoy about the game.

and people, if your playing against allies, stop deploying or even buying tigers for heavily forested and or very hilly maps.

here is how i see the whole tank discusion here, and i will try to sum it up with this analogy.

the allies had better over all quility tanks then the germans had from '39 to about 1942. just because the t-34 was superior to a panzerIII, i'll say j since that was the latest and best model of the series, does not mean that the Panzer III's did not infilct casualties on the higher quaility tanks they were fighting against. the germans had ot devise anti tank measuers and tactics when dealing with the russian tanks, and french tanks.

in doing this they had success in taking them out, just as the allied tanks and anti tank battereis could take out the superior german tanks of say 42-on, when germans had to throw tigers at heavily foritfied russian postions, they lost alot of tanks, the russians lost alout of tanks and anti tank weapons, and it was basicly a mess, same went for the western front, just on a smaller scale.

the thing is, the war was'nt always like a quick battle where you could attack at your liesure when and where you felt like and take scinetific results like i hear people do.

alot of the time the germans were forced to impale great numbers of men and machine in to fixed soviet defenses, wich were very bloody battles, both sides to heavy losses. idealy yes a tiger could be ver deadly if used in an ideal situation, the germans nor any other country had this luxury to take advantage of.

the germans had a time table ot take certain objectives. they coulnt no always pick and choose where to attack and where to defend. same for the russians, same for the americans, same for the brits/commonwealth.

Military tests are taken in a controled environment, where they are pretty much correct in their gauging of performance on those tests, it's just that so many situations were unconventional for , be it tanks, men , ant tank batteries or flak gun, pick somehting, they were not fighting in peek and perfect conditions for thier equipment to always have the advanbtages it was designed for, war is the furthest thing you will get to an uncontrolled environment, the tiger isnt always going to be put on a hill firing onto armor and troops from a nice clear view of steppe, where the cleary held the advantage in that situation. they were not as effective,....say prowling the rubble strewn streets of say stalingrad. were the germans like oh wait we cant send out armor there, it wont be as good? no they had to have it there even though it was vulnerable the situation called for it. so yes the tigers took their share of losses, and yes they were put in all kinds of combat, same with any other vehicle for any other country of the war. this game captures it perfect. anythimg can pretty much happen once contact is made, and all the stats and drawn out plans go up in the air, as the soldiers take over from there. the soldiers do the work, thats whyt it bothers me when they say things like, oh hitler invades poland in 1939.....hitler technicly did not invade anyhting, he ordered his army to invade and his army invaded, Patton invaded nothing, his army did. but thats another subject....

[aka_tom_w]

This thread seems to be getting better with age.

But I'm still waiting to see a post by Rexford.

I wonder.....

are we missing any other "heavy hitters" here?

(I mean absent Grogs who generally post with some significant degree of authority on these issues)

From what I have read I here and elsewhere, I am of the (possibly uninformed :confused: ) opinion that the zook and CS or C rounds in CMBO are modeled as more effective then they were in historical reality of WW II combat

.

BUT hey! that's only my opinion.

-tom w

[Ogadai]

Jon and Simon, I think we'd better stop that line of thinking, straight away, otherwise Slapdragon will be accusing people of trying to create an uberCommonwealth army again!

I was wondering, Steve if you've been taking note of the criticisms which have been levelled against CMBO from the various knowledgeable people on the board about Commonwealth matters? Will we see any correction in the next release, which addresses the Commonwealth, which is I believe CM3?