WOOOOHOOO!!! I GOT IT!!!

[Grisha]

Geez louise! I can see why the Soviets chose the 122m L/48 over the 100mm L/54, just look at the penetration values for HE shot in the 122 L/48 (mike8g's post on page 11, at the bottom)!

[ September 21, 2002, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[mike8g]

Originally posted by Kestrl:

Can anyone please post some German 1941 equipment screenshots?

I'd like to see some early war armor.

Thankyou

Here they are:

[The ol one eye.]

Please please PLEASE could I see a shot of a quad .50 halftrack in action?

Thanks for all the great shots!

[John Kettler]

KwazyDog,

Thanks for the swift reply!

Reduced to fundamentals, what I'm suggesting is that BFC's brew up criterion (ammunition detonation via projectile overpenetration, apparently) is correct for AP shot, may or may not be correct for HEAT, and from available evidence including Operational Research (OR) from the Western Desert battles done by the British, is apparently wrong for AP shell, for the reason that detailed analysis by the British of their tank losses vs. the Germans found that the British tanks firing AP shot only were doing repairable damage to the foe and only minor crew casualties, while German AP shells which got only halfway into the fighting compartment were destroying most tanks outright and putting whole crews out of action, often permanently.

It follows, then, that if overpenetration is what drives the ammunition explosion probability, AP shell will be systematically robbed not only in all marginal penetration cases but many clearcut ones, since the projectile will have little residual energy after penetration, hence little chance of exploding the ammo. In the battle one person described, at 1200-1500 meters many Russian tanks died, but only a handful exploded. This result is not in consonance with lots of battlefield reports and combat footage, nor with known acute exposed ammo stowage problems in their tanks, a vulnerability clearly seen even during the Gulf War.

By contrast, British OR found that well thought out, systematic armored ammo stowage on German tanks made them hard to kill even if penetrated, for the armor around the ammo blocked all but the largest fragments which would've otherwise pierced the cartridge cases. To some degree, CMBO addressed at least part of the issue

considered here when it modeled the greatly improved survivability of the "wet" Sherman models as opposed to their Ronson forebears.

Ironic, isn't it, that several tons? of blast force and thousands of resulting red hot hypervelocity splinters traveling all directions in an enclosed compartment should apparently count for less than just what the AP shot dislodged while piercing the armor? Doubly so when we recall that the AP shell is also pushing through the same volume of armor and displacing most of it into the target tank, after which the shell explodes.

Hope this made better sense.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

The Russians specified Diesel engines for Lend Lease tanks because of the greater vulnerability

of gasoline powered vehicles, supply commonality and ease of fuel production.

[Kwazydog]

John, here is Charles's response to you origional post.

First thing, I should say that the chance a tank actually *explodes* from a given hit in CM is not a clear-cut scientifically provable thing. It's not like we found charts telling us precisely how often a Pz IIIF explodes when hit by a 76.2mm AP round. So there is a certain amount of educated guessing involved here.

That said, there are several points John to consider :

1. CMBB's AP shells *do* cause more internal damage than AP shot (all else being equal). In CMBB, AP shells (assuming they penetrate the

armor) most decidedly *do* cause more internal damage from their explosive charge.

2. Causing more damage with an AP shell (as opposed to shot) does not automatically mean that the target tank must therefore *explode*. In real life, tanks can be terrifically damaged internally without actually exploding.

3. AP shells come in different varieties. The *German* AP shells actually have only a very small explosive charge. Far smaller than, for

example, the explosive charge inside a typical American AP shell. This gives the German AP shells better penetration capability, but less kill power behind the armor. All AP shells are not created equal, and the game lists those with larger charges (for example, the lend-lease Sherman AP shells) as "large HE charge".

4. AP shells which barely penetrate the target armor often fail to detonate properly or fully. The shell itself is usually torn up pretty badly from the impact in such a case. You generally only get the "full" blast if the shell penetrates cleanly with energy to spare.

In the "long range kill" tests described on the forum, firing at long range makes it likely that the penetrations were achieved with small

margins, meaning that the remnants of the shells which made it through the armor were low on energy. It also means those remnants would be less likely to explode with full capacity. And the shells in question are German, which pack a very small explosive charge to begin with.

Hope that helps!

Dan

[Pvt. Ryan]

Speaking of explosions, isn't the length of this thread dangerously close to K-Killing the forum? Maybe its time for someone to start a new thread rubbing in how most of us still don't have CMBB?

[sasnz]

to all you lucky chaps who have the new game, is there anyone out there who is able to tell me how big the new games can be in regards to points. in cmbo the largest game you can play is 5000pts, i am dying to get into some real big battles when my game arrives.

To all those submitting those screenshots, great stuff. Keep it up.

[mike8g]

Same as in CMBO: 5000 points maximum (not counting attacker's advantage or any force additions).

Some more pics:

Romanian tanks (the mesh is back...):

M-17: a .50cal quad halftrack:

The sound of those four machine guns is intimidating and this 'thing' is a real killer

Marcus

[ September 21, 2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: mike8g ]

[ParaBellum]

Marcus, great pics! Have to check out the quad .50cal immediatly!

Maybe against a company of conscript Waffelgrenadiere...

[K_Tiger]

No matter for me, how many tanks start to burn, if they arent able to shoot back, its fine...

Its only hardly to understand to see so few burning tanks after a couple of pennetrations with the new pennetration formula.

For example: 16 JSII and ISU`s kills, every tank got aprox. 3-5 full pennetrations and only two started to burn. The rest didnt even smoke. The picture wassnt realy war like...for "my" understanding...but its only me..

[Mumpfelfrumf]

CMBB is in my possession

After some battles I can say that either the AI is improved, or I got worse...

Can someone explain me how I can make screenshots

and how I display it here?

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Mumpfelfrumf:

CMBB is in my possession

After some battles I can say that either the AI is improved, or I got worse...

Can someone explain me how I can make screenshots

and how I display it here?

Press the "print screen" key on your keyboard, minimize CMBB, open a paint program (like MS paint), paste the pic and save it to your HD.

In order to show a pic on the forum you first have to upload it to the internet (homepage, pic hosting site), then use the "image" button and enter the web adress of the screenshot.

Voilà, there it is...

[edit: before you post it I'd strongly recommend to convert the *.bmp format (2305 kb) to *.jpeg format (232 kb). ]

[ September 21, 2002, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Mumpfelfrumf]

Thanks Parabellum i´ll try it...

[Mumpfelfrumf]

It´s my favourite tank :eek:

Is the quality ok for you?

[ September 21, 2002, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Mumpfelfrumf ]

[Commissar]

M-17: a .50cal quad halftrack -- Truly a great vehicle. Not only can it chew up aircraft, but also slaughter leg units like nothing else, besides an MG-42 or two.

[ParaBellum]

I'd increase the size a bit, maybe to 800x600. But then, it's always a compromise between quality and size.

Looking fine, though. And the Ferdinand is a mean machine!

[Commissar]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

John, although I have no idea of what you are talking about or if what you are suggesting is modelled, but Ill run it past Charles. We are talking about the chances of an internal ammo explosion here, arent we, as that is all I was referring to?

Guys, currently several vehicles are represented by similar models. We will be updating as many as possible though (not all, but many), so this should keep most people happy . It was either do this which will add to the tactical scope of the game or remove them altoghther, which I for one really didnt want to do. There is already over half dozen ready for the first patch which you guys should see in a week or so.

Dan

Please tell me that the T-44 and IS-3 are ones in which you will give the proper models for in the patch or following patch. They look so different from the T-34/85 and IS-2/M1944 respectively that it would be crime not to fix them. Thanks.

[MrNoobie]

where do you post your images?

[Mumpfelfrumf]

I uploaded them at facelink.com.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

BTW, any Finns more in the know than I am on the subject of paint jobs ? I mean, is that the way the painting was done in the pics Mike8g posted ? From where did the grey come ? I thought it was light and dark green, plus brown ? Or am I completely, utterly wrong in here ?

The camo is valid as of April 1943 according to Esa Muikku.

[MrNoobie]

man how do you find these place mumpf...ive been for 3 days now trying to find a reliable place to put photos

[Ligur]

Some of you guys need some hosting services, contact your ISP maybe?

And a BIG HAND for the great pics ppl! Keep 'em coming plz!

[The ol one eye.]

Thanks for the M 17, I cant wait to use it myself!!!!

[Dragon Army]

Marcus,

Thanks for the light armor pics! Can't wait until Monday! . . .or Tuesday.

[GriffinCheng+]

Originally posted by Mumpfelfrumf:

Is this the MG-less option? How about the one with MG?