How about a Brummbar?

[Simon Fox]

I was not demanding a vehicle based on production numbers, I was only giving an idea that the Brummbar, while uncommon, was not all that rare, no more so than a Jumbo or Firefly.

Well I don't have any problem with your position on the Brummbar that's for you to sort out with whoever wants to argue with you and BTS. I just wanted to tell you your figures on the Firefly were incorrect. My source was the Royal Armoured Corps establishment figures which are available on the web. I don't know what your source was but it is definitely short of the mark. I suggest if you wish to use an example stick to the Jumbo, then no one can attack your argument on that basis.

------------------

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[Tiger]

I assume R.P. Hunnicutt knows his stuff though I accept any given source could be in error.

Again, I wasn't asking for the Brummbar based on #'s produced as incorrectly inferred, only to show that it was as uncommon as the jumbo or firefly in cmbo (even more uncommon when we get a rarity system in CM2). You are correct that there were a few more Fireflys available, though not in time for the D-day landings *apparently* (could be wrong here) as they had to do a rush programme to get 12 in each armoured regiment according to Hunnnicutt.

-Tiger

[grunto2]

Originally posted by Perchpole:

OK, now take this Brummbar and drop it into the CM world. The CM game engine tends to model AFVs quite literally. Because of this the Brummbar now becomes an extremely potent weapon. It has armour comparable to that of a Tiger tank and is armed with a gun capable of firing 150mm shells. As a consequence - and purely in terms of the game - this vehicle would be too powerful. People would be tempted to use it out of character and, as a result, that fragile realistic thread which runs through the heart of CM would be needlessly compromised.

i for one would like to see the grizzly bear in cm2.

i think that the grizzly bear would have been 'ok' in CMBO. its rate of fire would be very low, and then there would those pesky 'flanking shots' to worry about.

in looking at my advanced squad leader materials the grizzly bear does indeed have 'the same' frontal armor as the tiger 1.

well, two things; in cmbo tiger 1s are 'nothing special' so i don't think that the addition of grizzly bears would skew things as much as you might be arguing; secondly, according to the asl book the grizzly bear's side armor is much thinner than the tiger 1's.

yes, i would enjoy taking one of these 'bad boys' out with a greyhound in the side/rear.

remember the low rate of fire as well.

of note, there was an improvised vehicle called the sIG 33B, 'which was a conversion of the PzKpfw III chassis to mount the 150mm infantry gun. Approximately 12 were sent to Stalingrad in 11/42; about 12 more formed the 9th Compamny of Pz. Regiment 201 in the 23rd Pz. Division, which took part in Operation Winter Tempest, the attempt to relieve Stalingrad.'

in asl the grizzly bear counter is also is used to represent the 'sIG 33B.'

in any event, let me put it this way; if i were playing as germans i would like to have the grizzly bear available; if i were playing as allies i wouldn't mind facing one.

my units have been ripped to shreds by standalone 150 sIGs in the past, so facing one on tracks wouldn't be, 'that bad.' 'my units' would 'get to that sonofabitch' sooner or later... =grin=

as an aside, i've never had any interest in the 'sturmtiger;' it simply isn't practical, apparently both in real-life and in cmbo/cm2.

it is interesting how every brumbar thread seems to attract 'sturmtiger' postings.

.02

Andy

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Alt-129 will give you the ü. Alt-132 is the ä. Alt-225 is the scharfes s(ß). I think there is a (less) cumbersome way, but it doesn't always work. It's something like ctrl+shift+", and then type u, or a, or o. But it doesn't seem to work. u.

[Simon Fox]

Tiger,

No Hunnicutt is correct, you are just misinterpreting what he says. 12 per armoured regiment is about right for June 1944.

That's 1 per troop, that is 4 per squadron, 12 per regiment, 36 per armoured brigade. With British, Canadian, Polish and Czech (later) Armoured brigades either independant or in armoured divisions amounting to 10-11, most of which are at unit establishment or near it(except the Czech). Plus a few in the depots and in Italy (ICs?) that makes 35O+ by D-day. See, I'm not saying Hunnicutt is crap after all

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

This thread really went out of hand, maybe my statements were a little too verbose, so here is the short version of my opinion.

1) Brummbaer and Turmtiger are not similar, because the Sturmtiger is firing water bombs that had to have a blast value of ca. 1600 in CM terms. The Brummbaer's gun has less blast than the Hummel's, but more shrapnell, so it is the ultimate gun to drive people out of their foxholes and not overall more powerful than existing SP guns.

2) The Brummbaer has far less armor than a Tiger. I don't have a chart, but it weights 28 tons, that is only a little more than a Hummel, which uses the same chassis but the gun is lighter (2 tons versus 6 tons) so that leaves 6 extra tons you can spend in armor.

3) I would prefer the lighter faster versions of the sIG 33 on tank chassis, for example on the 38(t) chassis, which is the Grille.

4) The sIG 33 has been mounted on almost every vehicle. I have a nice photo of a complete 15 cm Inf. Gun screwed on a Pz. I chassis, gun's wheels, normal lafette and all. No armor except original gun shield.

[Guest Germanboy]

On the topic of Fireflies, Peter Brown gives the following figures:

June 1944 - 318 (2 are IC with Polish 1st AD)

Dec 1944 - 650 (additional 123 in Armoured Replacement Groups)

June 1945 - 1050 (700 of these in depots)

Not exactly rare, even in June.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Tiger]

Yeah Simon is correct I am misinterpreting the info. Ok how's this: about as uncommon as a jumbo, not quite as rare as a pershing or challenger, certainly more common than a Sturmmorser Tiger or IS III.

-Tiger

[Perchpole]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Disallow something because even though it was historical it might be too powerful and you don't think in-game historical forces can deal with it?

I'm sorry, Tiger. I'm not here to win arguments. Certainly, I have no desire to win this argument - particularly when you insist on putting words in my mouth solely to justify your own point of view. I have never said that a vehicle should be excluded from the game because it is too powerful. All I have attempted to do is hi-light the fact that the CM representation of several real world AFVs may make them too powerful in the game. At this moment in time, I do not believe the current CM engine is refined enough to represent these vehicles accurately. You - and some others - are far too concerned about the "on paper" stats of the AFV; how much armour, how fast, etc. This is exactly what the CM game engine looks at too. I'm just trying to make you realize that with some vehicles & weapons, these physical dynamics alone could lead to an unbalanced or inaccurate game model. Although we may know the subtle differences between certain real-world vehicles - the CM game engine does not. These subtleties are neither apparent nor necessarily important when dealing with typical MBTs. For a select number of special vehicles, however, such differences could give rise to many an unexpected result. Ultimately, these special vehicles require a degree of special treatment.</P>

That is the entire basis of my argument - and I stand by it. As I said when

I first entered this thread, I simply urge caution.</P>

Now I urge we put this one to bed!</P>

------------------

Perch

[This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-16-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Perchpole (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Freak]

redwolf:

The Brummbar's front armor was indeed 100mm thick, like the Tiger. The big difference was the low weight of the Panzer IV chassis which initially had problems with the 150mm StuH 43 L/12 Gun which proved to be to heavy. In December of 1943 new and lighter version of the gun was produced and was designated 150mm StuH 43/1 L/12.

Information gathered from Achtungpanzer.com

[Freak]

Here are the Specifications:

Weight: 28200kg

Crew: 5 men

Maybach HL 120 TRM 112 / 12-cylinder / 300hp (late)

Speed: Road: 40km/h

Cross-Country: 24km/h

Range: Road: 210km

Cross-Country: 130km

Fuel Capacity: 470 litres

Lenght: 5.93m

Width: 2.88m w/o Schurzen

3.29m with Schurzen

Height: 2.52m

Armament: 150mm StuH 43 L/12 & 7.92mm MG34 (early)

150mm StuH 43/1 L/12 & 2x 7.92mm MG34 (late)

Ammo: 150mm - 38 rounds

7.92mm - 600 rounds

Armor (mm/angle): Front Superstructure: 100/40

Front Hull: 80/12

Side Superstructure: 50/15

Side Hull: 30/0

Rear Superstructure: 30/25+0

Rear Hull: 20/10

Top/Bottom Superstructure: 20/83 + 10/90

Top/Bottom Hull: 10/90

Considering that a large percentage of direct straight on AP shells will hit the front superstructure, the Brummbar could be considered better armored then the Tiger.

[Warmaker]

Why worry about the inclusion of the Brummbar? It's not a superweapon. Big gun? What about the IS-2? And the Pershings' inclusion into CM for something that was brought so late into the war? Maybe just a slight alleviation for ubertank envy?

Oh well. Personally, I'd like to have the Brummbars in CM2 and I can live without the rare Sturmtigers. And just as I've said in past Brummbar threads, I'd love the chance to send dozens of Russian infantry flying through the air with my trusty Brummbar! BOOM!

One more thing though: What's wrong with overkill anyway? Battles "can" be won with overkill right? What I say is this: There's no such thing as overkill, just ensured victory!

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Freak]

Warmaker posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why worry about the inclusion of the Brummbar? It's not a superweapon. Big gun? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warmaker, I am not. If I had it my way, I would include all the super uber tanks like the maus just cause it would be fun to play with. But hey, I'll have to make my own game for that.

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

Warmaker,

My post was just to clarify the armor rating which redwolf gave us.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Alt-129 will give you the ü. Alt-132 is the ä. Alt-225 is the scharfes s(ß). I think there is a (less) cumbersome way, but it doesn't always work. It's something like ctrl+shift+", and then type u, or a, or o. But it doesn't seem to work. u. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The easier way in Win98 is to go the Control Panel, open Keyboard and select the language tab. Then add whatever language layout you want. Then you can quickly shift between layouts. öäüß Beware that these foreign layouts will also temporarily rearange some familiar keys, like switching the z and y for the German layout and moving the symbols around.

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[JAK]

Hi there, I think that the case for the Sturm Tiger is better than you think. The Sturm Tigers (18 production models) were divided into 3 companies and these I believe where used in late 1945 in the defense of Germany proper. The inclusion of the SturmTiger could be simulated through the use of high point values, and a very restrictive time frame, maybe BTS will include the ability to purchase a Heavy Assault gun Zug(like the Panzer Recon Companie) and the nessacary guns will be included. In this manner you could only aquire the SturmMorser in the regular purchase method buy buying a AS-G Zug.

Jake

"Hold still you sod, these bullets cost money!"red devil-Arnhem

[FinnN]

I think a good way of accommodating weapons like these would be to add an optional rarity multiplier to the points value (for all units). This would mean that you could have two sets of points values - one for units based solely on their armour/speed/etc and another penalising players for going for rare/specialised equipment. In contrast very common units could have a multiplier that would make them slightly cheaper to partially offset the points loss. You could even vary the points multiplier by time too - so purchasing an item at the very start of its availablity would be more costly than when they were fully in production. I'd imagine it would be really easy for the programmers to add this to the game. To take the idea further you could have a situational multiplier where units designed for use in street fighting would be penalised slightly if bought on a map that's predominantly open countryside. I guess that would be harder to decide on, but just as easy to program as it's just a minor alteration to the points tables.

Have fun

Finn

[offtaskagain]

The Brummbar is way better armored than the Tiger I. Has anyone bothered to look at a picture and see how well sloped the front superstructure is?

[Warmaker]

Freak, I wasn't arguing against your post, more directed towards Perchpole's leeriness towards the Brummbars/Sturmtigers. Actually found your stats useful, since it has been a while since I've seen any stats on the Brummbar.

Dangit! I just want to blast some commies into the air!

As for the "better armor" than the Tiger I, yes, it looks formidable up front. That's the way it should be given its intended close support role. However, look at the side armor for hull/superstructure which is thinner if not equal to the Panther's flanks. Again, it's a matter of how you take care of your tools. What I'm going to miss from the Tiger I's is those extremely thick side armor values. I can't tell you how many times that has saved my rear

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]