My disappointment with CMBB

[MikeyD]

If you try playing CMBB in the same time frame as CMBO (44-45) you'll probably be more comfortable with the game. By that time the big guns on boths sides have shown up, the Russian 'bad leadership' downgrade is no more. Its basically more of a fair - and familiar - fight. Early war fighting is practically a whole 'nother game!

What you should do is download some of the famous CMBO demo scenarios (Chance Encounter, etc.) converted over to CMBB and give them a run. It's an excellent way to give you a good idea of how things are different and how they are the same.

[ww2steel]

Here's something from real life similar to the first post... yes... the KV's were that good.

(From many other examples- this is the closest to the original post)

(Zaloga, Vanguard #17, p20)

"...Freed from the threat to the north, a platoon of PzKpfw 35(t)s was dispatched the next day from the bridgehead and worked its way to a small wood near the lone KV-2 at the crossroads. They kept up a steady stream of fire to distract the Russian crew while another 88mm gun was carefully brought up from Rasyeinya. When in position it opened fire, scoring six direct hits. The tank crews dismounted to inspect the KV, which had not even burned. On reaching the tank they were appaled to notice that only two of the six 88mm rounds had penetrated the armor. There were seven small gouges from the 50mm strikes, but there was no damage evident from their 37mm guns. As a couple of the tankers climbed on board the gun began moving towards them. An engineer who had accompanied them had the presence of mind to drop a couple of grenades through the holes in the turret rear, finally putting an end to this troublesome roadblock. This single KV had played a prominent role in delaying the advance of..."

There are many, many accounts like this. KV's taking hundreds of AT hits, etc, and returning home. Often they simply ran over enemy guns and tanks after they ran out of (or were not supplied) ammo.

BTW- I am writing a book about the armor of the East Front (about 300 pages). If anyone is interested. It will be complete in a few months.

See ya,

Mike

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by ww2steel:

They kept up a steady stream of fire to distract the Russian crew while another 88mm gun was carefully brought up from Rasyeinya. When in position it opened fire, scoring six direct hits. The tank crews dismounted to inspect the KV, which had not even burned. On reaching the tank they were appaled to notice that only two of the six 88mm rounds had penetrated the armor. There were seven small gouges from the 50mm strikes, but there was no damage evident from their 37mm guns.

I still refuse to believe this fairy tale.

[ww2steel]

...and why is it so unbelievable... :confused:

1) It's from a German source, not a bragging Russian source.

2) No one disputes the inability of the 37 or 50mm guns to destroy a KV2 from front. (35mm and 55mm with standard Pzgr ammo @ 500m, 30deg, borrowing game figures / vs 75mm@30+ of the KV2)

3) We have no idea how far away the 88 was, or what ammo was available to it. In analysis now it seems maybe only HE, maybe a high deflection angle to the surface it was shooting at. Even the turret rear at a 45 degree aspect angle would be 106+mm relative thickness plus shot deflection. Quite possible even with Pzgr or especially Pzgr40 to have only a 33% penetration. The range is obviously far enough that they could expect to 'sneak up' on the crew and ready the weapon without being seen (don't know if they unlimbered or not). The tanker writing the report didn't specify any of this.

-trying not to be abrasive, but I don't like my posts being called "fairy tales" with rolling eyes.

Respectfully,

Mike

[ May 01, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]

[Cessna]

I must admit, I'm sceptical.

1. For one thing, I've seen this story tell of a KV-1 and of a KV-2. Which one was it?

2. How much ammunition does a KV hold? I've got a couple different numbers from different sources, but most say around 110 rounds for a KV-1, and the KV-2 carried far less ammo. That's more than enough to put up a good fight, but to hold out for days?

3. This took place at the beginning of the war, when the Germans had air superiority. If it was blocking such a critical road intersection, why didn't the Germans have it bombed? They had days to do so. I could believe that they tried to bomb it and failed, but the fact that bombing isn't even mentioned strikes me as strange.

4. The same goes for heavy caliber indirect fire artillery. Hit it with 150mm+ for a while, and you'll certainly at least give the crew concussions...?

5. Tanks are relatively blind, especially at night. Why didn't the Germans try sending in engineers with demolition charges at night?

I'm not going to say it is a fairy tale, but there are a number of reasons why I am suspicious...

[ May 01, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Cessna ]

[ww2steel]

That brings up a good point... though it doesn't specify 'days' if the delay was very significant I would think that they would use air/ artillery attacks. I should think it was maybe for only a few hours.

You also bring up something I intended to put in my original post to agree with the author's original post for this thread (though I think CMBB is great!). I feel that vehicles when buttoned up can see far too well in the game.

As a whole I think the Vanguard/ Osprey books really have their stuff together. I take the stuff in them as reliable.

See ya,

Mike

[Bone_Vulture]

If this was a stranded tank, it might've been possible that all heavier artillery units were tied up to the front, and I don't know if Luftwaffe did "special deliveries" against lone targets.

But the oddest parts of the story still are - as mentioned above - the model of the tank, it's given ammo load and the odd fact that the Germans supposedly allowed the tank crew a good night's sleep without trying to sneak explosives to the vicinity.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

If this is the same incident, I've got a copy of the AAR somewhere. They did use an engineer squad at night. All their charge managed to do was split a track. Locals fed/supplied the crew at night.

As for air support, if this was a single tank behind the front, you assume air support was available to that unit, could be spared, and that hitting an armored, point target was deemed possible. (Tank plinking.)

In my spare time I'll try to find the copy of that report.

Ken

[Thomm]

Originally posted by c3k:

They did use an engineer squad at night. All their charge managed to do was split a track. Locals fed/supplied the crew at night.

Did they shake hands with the engineers when they met??

[Andreas]

I have also always been very sceptical about this. The story originates from the KTB of 6.PD though, as quoted in Jentz "Panzertruppen Vol.I".

That is enough to make me believe it.

[Cessna]

I can certainly believe that a KV tank blocked a road intersection for several hours. Hell, Audie Murphy, a single infantryman, blocked "6 tanks and waves of infantry" for a while.

It's the "days" angle that I don't believe. The report above doesn't say "days," but several versions of it do - I can't help but believe that's the "urban legend" factor creeping in...

[Andreas]

From this thread:

The story of the KV originated from an report from 6th Pz. Div's, Pz.Regt 11 dated June 25 1941. Ie:

In the meantime a Russian heavy tank had blocked the communications route to Kampfgruppe Raus, so that contact with Kampfgruppe Raus was broken for the entire afternoon and during the night. An 8.8 cm Flak battery was sent by the commander to fight this tank.

It was just as unsuccessful as a 10.5 cm battery whose fire was directed by a forward observer. In addition an attempt was made by a Pionier assault troop useing balled explosives failed. It was impossible to get close to the tank because of heavy machine gun fire.

*See: Jentz Thomas L. PanzerTruppen vol 1. pp.198.

Regards, John Waters

Emphasis by me. Anything not in this report is probably legend.

[MikeyD]

"I still refuse to believe this fairy tale. "

You know, you've got the perfect tool to test out your theory. Create a test scenario with all the appropriate parameters and give it a run! ...oh wait, you don't have to. That very scenario's already on the disk. Run that puppy several times over and you'll see sometimes the Germans come out on top, oftentimes the lone Russian tank does. Why couldn't the latter result have happened in real life?

And to make the scenario outcome more realistic, no gamey 'Banzaii' infantry rushes in the hope one squad gets through. In 1941 the Germans weren't hot to throw away the lives of their troops... just yet.

[ww2steel]

I have made a quick scenario based upon the KV2 version of the scenario as Vanguard/ Osprey gives it. Despite what happened in the book account (though I guessed at ranges) the KV2 normally gets spanked!

See my Combat Mission page-

http://www.ww2steel.com

Mike

[Kondor99]

I have been in an M1 tank, which surely has better all-round vision than a T-34.

Simply put, when you are buttoned, you can't see **** around you.

Jason: rather than construct an elaborate rationalization re: the spotting ability of buttoned AFVs, why not just fix it? This is a well-documented and understood fact among even amateur WW2 buffs: Buttoned AFV's are like blind elephants.

CMBB in its current state is ridiculously unrealistic due to this bug. Really, it affects 2 big aspects of WW2 combat:

1. AFV's can operate without infantry quite successfully, even in built up areas.

2. Long range hull-down sniping is suicidal b/c the target immediately knows where the fire is coming from. In Gulf War I, the Iraqi T-72's were being plinked from 2km away, and they couldn't even figure out from what the direction the fire was coming from. Not gonna happen in CMBB.

3. Anti-tank guns, which were deadly in real life, are a joke in CMBB. They get off at most 2-3 rounds and then are simultaneously spotted by every unit on the board. Ridiculous.

Overall, Steel Panthers WaW ends up giving me consistently more 'historical' results. I just wish it wasn't so damn ugly!

That having been said, this is a pretty good infantry sim (yawn).

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Kondor99:

I have been in an M1 tank, which surely has better all-round vision than a T-34.

Simply put, when you are buttoned, you can't see **** around you.

Jason: rather than construct an elaborate rationalization re: the spotting ability of buttoned AFVs, why not just fix it? This is a well-documented and understood fact among even amateur WW2 buffs: Buttoned AFV's are like blind elephants.

CMBB in its current state is ridiculously unrealistic due to this bug. Really, it affects 2 big aspects of WW2 combat:

1. AFV's can operate without infantry quite successfully, even in built up areas.

2. Long range hull-down sniping is suicidal b/c the target immediately knows where the fire is coming from. In Gulf War I, the Iraqi T-72's were being plinked from 2km away, and they couldn't even figure out from what the direction the fire was coming from. Not gonna happen in CMBB.

3. Anti-tank guns, which were deadly in real life, are a joke in CMBB. They get off at most 2-3 rounds and then are simultaneously spotted by every unit on the board. Ridiculous.

Overall, Steel Panthers WaW ends up giving me consistently more 'historical' results. I just wish it wasn't so damn ugly!

That having been said, this is a pretty good infantry sim (yawn).

Doesn't Steel Panthers have borg spotting? I wonder how they did it.

[Redwolf]

SP doesn't have that massive return fire problem, its whole "spot the shooter and shoot back" concept work differently, mostly but not exclusivly because it is a IGOYGO game with optional automatic return fire.

You can also retreat in sub-turn intervals which makes real shoot-and-scoot more realistic, as you can retreat when people actually recognize you and you say "uh-oh, better get out of here".

Also, hit probabilities of a defending 88mm L/71 are a lot higher, IIRC.

[A.E.B]

Hi all

Another problem with CMBO/BB/AK is the haziness of range and where exactly units are positioned, particularly with infantry units.

Basically, the best way for infantry not equipped with PIATS, Bazookas, or Fausts to kill tanks is to get close.

Basically, all the vision devices - slots, periscopes and sites - are mounted on top of the hull or on the turret (the exception being the front). This fact means that most tanks have a blind zone around them.

As an infantry man, if you could get in close to the side or rear of the tank, then that tank couldn't see you if buttoned. This is how infantry were able to place charges or mines or bundle grenades directly onto a tank (thrown bundle grenades were pretty useless).

This is why close infantry support is so vital if tanks are going to operate in terrain that will allow infantry to get close.

Also, the tank itself provides cover for the close assaulting infantry - but then CM doesn't allow tanks to be used as cover.

Regards

A.E.B

[Spotless]

The manual states that AFVs do have blind spots modeled on the game at close ranges and outside their frontal arc.

I do wish they could be used, both live and dead, as cover. The "follow" command could be tweaked to allow close escorting infantry in MOUT conditions.

Since vehicles can cause collision issues for other vehicles, it seems that "full cover" versions have to be in the future of the game.

On BO vs BB/AK...the simple act of better command an control (like covered arcs, advance and move to contact commands and shoot & scoot) makes BB/AK a hands down improvement over BO. For lords sake in CMBO you can't even tell your armor what way they should be looking for threats without pointing the whole vehicle that way! Ambushes with their TRP-like model in BO are a joke. Fire coordination and control is black and white: you are hidden or you are firing, rather than sector-based fire assignments. All in all, the major leap forward ok BB and AK was WELL worth it.

And because it was such a leap and improvement, its completely irrational to think that just because we all like the subject matter of BO that they could (or should) patch an obsolescent version of their game.

Soon enough we'll have a full spectrum, theatre spanning opus of a game. But as is, the boys at BF have done a stellar job of constantly improving their games, despite some issues that are well covered here.

[Gen. J-sun]

Hi, I agree with Julian J on some points.

1)The ease at which inf. are routed, I've seen a regular squad routed from 3 mg burst (no casualties). Inf also show irrational behavior like I order a squad to flank a Tiger. They take fire, they get scared perfectly normal, cover is 20m away they choose to turn around and run 200m to their start point and guess what??? THEY ALL DIED :mad: