Churchill VIII vs. Panther: Surprising Test Results (Long)

[CombinedArms]

I started a thread recently praising the price-performance qualities of the Churchill VIII, appreciating the fact that, for about 140 points, you get at tank, that, though admittedly slow and having only a few tank-killing 'c' rounds, has a terrific HE gun that can kill Panthers from the front with it's 'c' round and offers strong frontal armor. This seemed to me a rare package for the Allies: a tank that's comparatively cheap, with good frontal armor and good tank killing abilities.

Some questions arose about the accuracy of that 95mm gun and whether luck entered into my recent success with killing Panthers, so I thought I'd devise a test of the Churchill VIII price/ performance capabilites in a standing fight against Panthers. The results surprised even me, the Churchill VIII advocate. After a little initial experimenting I decided to set up a series of face-offs between Churchill VIIIs and Panthers. Using the 1500 point QB setting, I created a series of five hotseat armored QB meeting engagements each involving tanks of equivalent cost: 7 regular Panther (VB late: 199pts each) vs. 10 regular Churchill VIIIs (142 pts each). The point values for these opposing groupings was about 1400 each (1393 Panther/ 1420 Churchill). I bought no other units.

The terrain was flat, open and rural, the map small, and I simply found the most open patch

of ground and set up the Panthers and Churchills facing each other in opposing ranks near the front of the respective setup areas. The distance was about 600 meters. The tanks were facing forward close together (15-20mm) so that nobody had a flank shot. I gave no movement or firing orders and simply hit go and let them whale away at each other for 60 seconds each.

Here are the total results from the five QB rounds--who was dead, alive, or alive but damaged, after 60 seconds:

Panthers (35 total)

30 Dead

1 Gun Damaged

4 OK

Churchills (50 total)

15 Dead

2 Immoblized

1 Gun Damaged

32 OK

I think that's a pretty remarkable showing for the Churchill. Twice as many Panthers were killed. Eight times as many Churchills survived. It wasn't possible to keep track of all the hits and misses, but my observation was the that the Churchill guns were pretty accurate. The Panthers probably scored a higher percentage of hits, but when the Churchill did hit, it was more frequently a kill. Also, when a Churchill ran out of c rounds, it instantly popped smoke and backed away from the fight. That was very consistent and

helped the fangless Churchills survive, though it did concentrate fire on the remaining tanks with c rounds.

It was often possible to predict the outcome of a game, based on how many "c" rounds the tanks were issued. When several tanks had a lot of "c" rounds, and every tank had at least one or two, the Panthers generally got wiped.

Here are the Churchill's two strongest results, both of which I could see coming, since these tanks had c rounds galore.

Round 2

Panthers

7 Dead

0 OK

Churchills

0 Dead

1 Immobilized

9 OK

Round 3

Panthers

7 Dead

0 OK

Churchills

2 Dead

1 Immobilized

7 OK

Another result was in one sense a clear victory for the Churchills, but also a little dicey.

Round 1

Panthers

5 Dead

1 Gun Damaged

1 OK

Churchills

4 Dead

6 OK

This looks like a clear, if less dramatic, win for the Churchills, too, but in fact the Churchills had been issued very few c rounds in this turn and they were absolutely all out after 60 seconds. So that lone functioning Panther might have proved a problem.

Still, I'll take the overall result, any time. I recognize that this is an ahistorical use of the tank, and I recognize also the Churchill

VIIIs problems--the slowness, the bogging tendencies (though these are no worse than a Sherman's) and the sometimes limited c rounds (I found them ranging from 0-9. Actually a fair number of tanks had 7-9 c rounds, which is

usually all you'd need, but you run the risk of getting zero) But it certainly has substantial virtues, especially for the price. I think the

Churchill VIII/Firefly team makes a great combo--or alternatively the Challenger, Achilles or Archer. I'm also intrigued by pairing the Churchill VIII with the Cromwell VIII (114 pts, sporting the 95mm, and both fast and light, but with less armor).

Anyway, this is all a discovery for me. I came into the game focusing on the US forces and I've found US armor to be generally overpriced and

underperforming, esp against tanks. (A recent thread to the contrary, I've killed few if any Panthers from the front with the Sherman 75). The British armor--at least in its most effective forms-- seems to have an awful lot more to offer, esp. in the CM environment.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Redwolf]

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

Some questions arose about the accuracy of that 95mm gun and whether luck entered into my recent success with killing Panthers, so I thought I'd devise a test of the Churchill VIII price/ performance capabilites in a standing fight against Panthers. The results surprised even me, the Churchill VIII advocate.

<hr></blockquote>

You made a slight mistake in choosing constant distance. IIRC, the 75mm L/70 penetrates the front of a Churchill VIII turret at 500m and below. So obviously a distance that is slightly more than that (20%), but still quite close maximizes the Churchill's success chances by keeping the hit chance as high as it can get outside the Panther's effective range.

I have to re-read the recent 95mm thread, but I remember the outcome (for me) was that I couldn't fight the high penetration figures of the 95mm HC anymore (even Redford's book has it), but that I found the hit chance too high.

The most distrubing thing about it -again for me- isn't the Churchill, which you can avoid, but the 95mm Cromwells, which run around like Hellcats in Fionn-75 games.

I don't have a problem with a badass tank you cannot easily kill and that bites you badly if you come near it, as long at it is lame.

But the Cromwells, especially taking their number (via purchase price) into account, are a problem, because they can chase your valuable armour towards the map edges, emphazising a different game problem. You cannot keep you Panther at their effective range, which is wide, to make the 95mm hit probablity low. The battlefield isn't big enough. The problem gets worse on attack/defense because of the wider-than-deep battlefield.

The outcome of the 95mm thread and the cited documents lead me to suggest to lower the hit chance for guns with -say- a lower projectile speed than the US 75mm, which effectivly means all guns that fire HC instead of AP. Doing so can be explained, in addition to worse lower velocity punishment, with the fact that close support and SP artillery gunners are not really trained to shoot on moving vehicles, but tank and TD crews are. Maybe the hit chance can be lowered just for moving targets?

Rexford, do you copy?

P.S. Obviously, random armour quality from 85-100% for the Panther and Jagdpanther would help as well.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[gredeker]

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

You made a slight mistake in choosing constant distance. IIRC, the 75mm L/70 penetrates the front of a Churchill VIII turret at 500m and below. So obviously a distance that is slightly more than that (20%), but still quite close maximizes the Churchill's success chances by keeping the hit chance as high as it can get outside the Panther's effective range.

<hr></blockquote>

OK, someone run the tests again at 200m, 400m, and 800m to provide comparative data.

[CombinedArms]

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

OK, someone run the tests again at 200m, 400m, and 800m to provide comparative data.<hr></blockquote>

I would do this myself but, having never used the scenario editor, I'm a bit clueless about how to set it up. My guess is that the Churchill would continue to hold its own, though it might not dominate as it does at the 600 mm range.

[Equinox]

Try setting up bocage boxes and put your test pieces inside. Box off an area with reasonable width and length appropriate to your test (1k/500m/250m etc) and place your testers inside. In the adjacent box have another test setup using a different range. So long as the tanks arn't too close to the bocage they will never see each other and you'll be free to test away without fear of flank shots ruining your data.

[M Hofbauer]

I tried a test at 300m. ten Panther G vs ten Churchill VIII, all regular.

situated in ten seperated firing lanes, so that they would be facing each other one on one.

Redwolf is right, at 300m the Churchills die like flies when hit by the 7.5cm/L70.

I broke off after three tests since the results seemed convincing enough.

test #1

Panthers dead: 2

Churchills dead: 9

test #2

Panthers dead: 4

Churchills dead: 6

test #1

Panthers dead: 3

Churchills dead: 8

(totals are more than ten because in some instances the tanks would kill each other simultaneously)

There you are. 9:23 in favor of the Panthers.

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

[Warmaker]

I hate to beat a dead horse a bit more but just to add about the effectiveness about the 95mm gun: You need to take into account the accuracy, esp. for a moving target. The 95mm has a velocity of 503m/sec. Slower than the 75mm of the Shermans.

Often playing on the receiving end of Allied guns, stick to those 17 pdrs if you want to play with the Cats. Not as good with the blast values but still more accurate and reliable in the AT role as far as CM is concerned.

There's two things I hate facing in CMBO:

1. 17-pdrs

2. .50 cals

[CombinedArms]

I braved the rigors of the scenario editor (actually nothing much with a flat field--no bocage dividers, though) and set up battles at

800 mm, 400mm and 200mm. The results pretty much bear out the suggestion that the closer the range the better the Panther performs.

At 800 mm the Churchill VIII still triumphs. Here are the results of 3 battles at that range between 7 regular Panthers (1393 pts) and 10 regular Churchill VIIIs (1420 pts)

Panthers (21 total)

17 Dead

1 Gun Damaged

3 OK

Churchill VIII (30 total)

7 Dead

2 Immobilized

21 OK

At this range the Panther's gun is visibly more accurate, but despite making many hits, it can rarely penetrate the Churchill's front. The Churchills eventually zero in on and kill the Panthers. I stopped after 3 rounds because the results seemed pretty clear cut.

At 400 mm, things become more complex. The Churchills wiped the Panthers for two rounds, killing them all with small losses, but then the Churchills started getting hammered. A lot of it seemed to come down to luck. Whoever got the edge in early kills swamped the other side. I went seven rounds trying to find some kind of pattern. Eventually the Panthers emerged with a fairly definite edge, based--it appeared-- on somewhat better accuracy and somewhat better penetration results. It may have been an illusion, but the Churchills seemed to get more consistent kills on hits from longer ranges.

Panthers (49 total)

31 Dead

18 OK

Churchills (70)

46 Dead

1 Immobilized

1 Gun Damaged

22 OK

At 200 mm the Panthers clearly dominated. Again, for some reason, the Churchills won the first round killing 7 Panthers with a loss of two, but after that it was all Panther. The final results after seven rounds.

Panthers (49 total)

29 Dead

3 Immobilized

1 Gun Damaged

16 OK

Churchills (70)

49 Dead

2 Gun Damaged

19 OK

Interestingly, though at longer ranges the tanks of both sides, without movement orders, had remained pretty static, but at 200 mm they moved around quite a bit of their own accord. The outermost Panthers several times slid into flanking positions. The Churchill movements seemed more random.

The moral seems to be that initially I got such dominating results for the Churchill because I inadvertently chose its ideal range vs. the Panther--600mm, just outside the Panther's ability to penetrate consistently and close enough for the Churchill's gun to be reasonably accurate. 800mm was almost as good for the Churchill with the Panther's further loss of penetrating power somewhat compenstated by the Churchill's loss of accuracy.

At 400 mm the tables shift toward the Panther, swinging dominantly in the Panther's favor at 200. Still, if it lands the first shot, a Churchill can kill a Panther at any range we've mentioned.

So the moral is--try to engage a Panther with your Churchill at longer ranges. The closer you get, the more likely you are to die.

[Ogadai]

Aren't these sorts of test very artificial?

The reason why I say that is because of several factors (in no particular order of importance):

1) We know that CM does not model meteoreological effects (ie windage) which means that low-velocity weapons, such as the 95mm CS How. are much more accurate at medium to long range than they should be.

2) The Churchill VIII was in reality a relatively rare vehicle, I believe there were less than 100 or so made.

3) Players for some reason who "purchase" these sorts of vehicles do so without consideration of the proper organisational constraints under which they were used (ie 2 per Squadron, part of Squadon HQ, etc).

4) CM assumes that the HEAT round for the 95mm CS How was on widespread issue when no evidence has been presented to suggest so, when the role of the vehicle was "Close Support" (ie direct fire of HE against targets which were visible), which suggests that HEAT wasn't often used.

5) Players ignore the doctrinal constraints on the use of particular weapons (this is related to 3, above), in otherwords, the weapon wasn't meant to be a tank killer so it would rarely have been employed as such.

6) The way the tests are structured in "laboratory conditions" means they ignore that no tank commander in his right mind would sit directly opposite another on a billiard table flat piece of terrain and flail away at a another.

It is interesting though, that the tests, in all their artificiality confirm that the Churchill VII/VIII was the safest tank to man in the western Allied armoury (units equipped with them had the lowest casualty rates in NW Europe).

[Sir Uber General]

... and you dont hear that too often if you are an allied tanker!

[Ogadai]

7) We tend to forget that CM imposes artificially short ranges on most battles...

[Redwolf]

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

1) We know that CM does not model meteoreological effects (ie windage) which means that low-velocity weapons, such as the 95mm CS How. are much more accurate at medium to long range than they should be.

2) The Churchill VIII was in reality a relatively rare vehicle, I believe there were less than 100 or so made.

5) Players ignore the doctrinal constraints on the use of particular weapons (this is related to 3, above), in otherwords, the weapon wasn't meant to be a tank killer so it would rarely have been employed as such.

<hr></blockquote>

These three points combined are why I propose an accuracy drop for CS tanks and SP artillery.

Even if not directly justifyable by velocity, we can say the wind isn't taken into account in CMBO, and -more importantly- the CS guys were not trained for moving target shooting.

P.S. thanks for the new tests with other ranges. I think they are still a little unfair to the Panther, since all tanks stand. A competent Panther owner facing a Churchill will move. Either to close the range, or at least to prevent the Churchill from zeroing in.

If the Churchill cannot zero in, it will misfire the few HC charges it has, and then things get down a tough road for it.

I still don't get why people don't fear the Cromwell as much. At least in bigger games where you can buy a full platoon of them they can play havok with the entire Axis force, short of Tiger II and Jagdtiger, but including Jagdpanther and Tiger I and -of course- infantry, a rather unique combination. Of course, vehicle crew morale in CMBB will help here to prevent the Cromwell bunch from charging the Jagdpanther.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Ogadai]

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

These three points combined are why I propose an accuracy drop for CS tanks and SP artillery.

Even if not directly justifyable by velocity, we can say the wind isn't taken into account in CMBO, and -more importantly- the CS guys were not trained for moving target shooting.

P.S. thanks for the new tests with other ranges. I think they are still a little unfair to the Panther, since all tanks stand. A competent Panther owner facing a Churchill will move. Either to close the range, or at least to prevent the Churchill from zeroing in.

If the Churchill cannot zero in, it will misfire the few HC charges it has, and then things get down a tough road for it.

I still don't get why people don't fear the Cromwell as much. At least in bigger games where you can buy a full platoon of them they can play havok with the entire Axis force, short of Tiger II and Jagdtiger, but including Jagdpanther and Tiger I and -of course- infantry, a rather unique combination. Of course, vehicle crew morale in CMBB will help here to prevent the Cromwell bunch from charging the Jagdpanther.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote>

I'd support an accurary drop for CS weapons but not necessarily SP artillery - which was often trained to fire against tanks. To assume they weren't is going too far. Its like suggesting that Medium artillery could be used against tanks - yet Ian Hogg recounts how 5.5in gun crews were trained to do exactly that, if necessary.

I'm also very worried by your last comment. It appears that while you're seeking greater "accuracy" in how accurate the 95mm CS How is, you're still not recognising that there weren't such things as "platoons" of tanks equipped with that weapon (with the notable exception of the RM Support Group). Therefore, people shouldn't, unless they are being excessively "gamey" should be creating such units. Indeed, if I found myself facing an opponent who purchased that, I'd forfeit the game, rather than allow him the pleasure of beating me with such an unhistorical force. Indeed, one has to wonder why proper historical organisations weren't forced on players for armour assets, as they were for infantry.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Ogadai ]</p>

[Redwolf]

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

I'm also very worried by your last comment. It appears that while you're seeking greater "accuracy" in how accurate the 95mm CS How is, you're still not recognising that there weren't such things as "platoons" of tanks equipped with that weapon (with the notable exception of the RM Support Group). Therefore, people shouldn't, unless they are being excessively "gamey" should be creating such units. Indeed, if I found myself facing an opponent who purchased that, I'd forfeit the game, rather than allow him the pleasure of beating me with such an unhistorical force. Indeed, one has to wonder why proper historical organisations weren't forced on players for armour assets, as they were for infantry.

<hr></blockquote>

I was talking about a CMBO platoon of that kind, I know that it is not historical, but people do that all the time to beat SMG hordes or StuHs and it is certainly better that the M8 HMC bunches, which are twice as numerous as the 95mm Cromwells or three times as numerous as the 95mm Churchills.

However, in my opinion, the CMBO game engine is good enough to make players drop this ahistorical selection. So why did they only have 2 of these tanks per troop? Why did the commander at Villers-Bocage ordered his HQ CS tanks to stay in cover and not fight along the 75mm tanks?

Because they sucked for tank combat, both the vehicles and the crews. While they don't do right now in CMBO, I think they could easily be made so, and again referring to the document linked from the last 95mm thread and my statements above, I think that an accuracy drop is the right thing to do, at least a drop against moving targets.

I would be interested in further discussion why SP arty should be assumed to be more trained in hitting moving targets than CS tankers.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Andreas]

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

I would be interested in further discussion why SP arty should be assumed to be more trained in hitting moving targets than CS tankers.<hr></blockquote>

Depends on what sort of SP guns you are talking about. In the Commonwealth lingo, anything that is not a tank is an SP gun. This includes the M10, Sexton, Stug III/IV, Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Archer, Hummel, etc.

Clearly quite a few of these were expressly AT weapons, some had a dual role, and some were really just howitzers on tracks designed for indirect fire. Which ones did you mean?

[Brian]

Mmm, I would think that the SP version of a Field Gun would have its crew trained in a similar manner to that of the Field Gun.

Of course, that will mean you'll need to know what the definition, role and function of a Field Gun is, to understand the point I'm making (hint, what is the secondary role for Field Guns?

[Andreas]

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

Of course, that will mean you'll need to know what the definition, role and function of a Field Gun is, to understand the point I'm making (hint, what is the secondary role for Field Guns? <hr></blockquote>

Hehe - yes. I am not so sure about this for the Wehrmacht though. I would be interested to see the training schedule for a Hummel crew, as opposed to that for a Stug III crew. My suspicion is that they differ markedly, despite both being in the Artillery branch of the service. But I just don't know it.

[CombinedArms]

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

I still don't get why people don't fear the Cromwell as much. At least in bigger games where you can buy a full platoon of them they can play havok with the entire Axis force, short of Tiger II and Jagdtiger, but including Jagdpanther and Tiger I and -of course- infantry, a rather unique combination. Of course, vehicle crew morale in CMBB will help here to prevent the Cromwell bunch from charging the Jagdpanther.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote>

Well, having looked closely at the Churchill VIII, I'm now also beginning to appreciate the manifold virtues of the Cromwell VIII, which, as you suggest, turns out to be a helluva tank for the money. It's got the same 95mm gun at the Churchill, and costs only 115 pts--or so. (Looking closely, I find tiny point variations in these tanks from month to month--why?) For the 1400 points that would buy 7 Panthers, you can buy twelve Cromwell VIIIs.

Though more lightly armored, it is very fast and has a very low psi.

So, for the price of a vanilla Sherman you get a tank that:

1. Has a better HE blast.

2. Can kill Tigers and Panthers from the front.

3. Has less frontal armor--but functionally is in fact very similar to the Sherman (i.e. it will survive the same kind of shots and be killed by the same kind of shots)

4. Is faster.

5. Has a virtually bog free psi.

It does have fewer HE and tank killing rounds than the Sherman's virtually unlimited quantities, but, hey, I can live with that for a tank with all these virtues. When you throw in the Firefly, Challenger, Comet and Archer (99 pts!) with their 17 pounder or 77mm guns (often coming much cheaper than Shermans with the much less effective 76mm), the British armored arsenal begins to look very good.

RE other comments above:

Yes, the tests are artificial. It's the nature of such tests to be artificial. I wasn't trying to find out how the tanks would function in actual combat but how they would function in a standing fight with cost factored in. That, however, has implicaitions for how to use them in actual combat that are worth finding out.

And--yes, using some of these tanks like this might be unhistorical, but Axis oriented players must understand that Allied oriented players are really desperate for solutions to the problem of German armor, which often seems to us vastly underpriced for its admittedly excellent performance capabilites. The fact that a Panther CAN occasionally be killed by some lucky tanker doesn't mean that:

a. The world is all wrong, somehow, or...

b. That German armor doesn't present us with severe problems.

The solution to these problems is hard to find in the US armored arsenal. Even such AFVs as the Hellcat, which can be effective an weapon against tanks and aren't too expensive, can't reliably kill Panthers or Tigers from the front--so you've got to risk your neck seeking a flanking shot-- and they run out of HE awfully fast. Meanwhile, a Sherman Easy-Eight with its all-too wimpy 76 gun and enhanced but still inadequate armor costs more than a Panther, which is in almost every way an obviously superior tank. A Cromwell VIII has much better HE performance than a Hellcat, is nearly as fast, can kill Panthers and Tigers from the front, will almost never bog, and is better protected than a Hellcat and only slightly more vulnerable to Panther fire than the Easy Eight. All for 115 points. What's not to like?

Stats seem to prove that among equal players the Axis forces win a lot more often against US forces--but the Brits actually have a slight edge over the German. This ain't because of their infantry or artillery! So it must be the tanks.

I can see why Axis oriented players would want to retain their advantage, which is to a large extent a product of the CM pricing system for US tanks. For me, on the other hand, as an Allied oriented player frustrated with overpriced and underperforming US armor, the British armor seems like a great discovery, and I'm very happy to have finally realized what it offers.

[Redwolf]

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

Depends on what sort of SP guns you are talking about. In the Commonwealth lingo, anything that is not a tank is an SP gun. This includes the M10, Sexton, Stug III/IV, Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Archer, Hummel, etc.

<hr></blockquote>

I was really talking about SP artillery intended for indirect fire (CMBO Wespe, Hummel, Priest, Sexton, M8 HMC).

I find it hard to believe that these guys were more trained in tank-tank combat than close-support tanks (Cromwell/Churchill 95mm, Sherman 105mm, StuH 105mm, Bison/Grille, Brummbaer).

[Brian]

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

Hehe - yes. I am not so sure about this for the Wehrmacht though. I would be interested to see the training schedule for a Hummel crew, as opposed to that for a Stug III crew. My suspicion is that they differ markedly, despite both being in the Artillery branch of the service. But I just don't know it.<hr></blockquote>

I'm glad that someone has their brain switched on, Andreas.

I suspect you'd find that there would be a scale of training - obviously the expressly designed AT SP guns, such as the Nashorn/Hornisse would have a lot more training than say a Stug crew who in turn would have a lot more AT training than say a Hummel crew. Then, experience would have to be a factor to be considered - Stugs quite often found themselves acting as Panzerjaeger, which isn't what they were meant to be doing, while occasionally even the poor Wespe and Hummel crew would have been (primarily I suspect on the Eastern Front) called upon to kill tanks if a breakthrough occurred and they were threatened.

In the British/Commonwealth armies, a similar situation would have ruled - Archer crews obviously had a lot, while Sexton/Priest crews would have only a small amount of training (unless they were in Italy - can you guess why?).

[Andreas]

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

In the British/Commonwealth armies, a similar situation would have ruled - Archer crews obviously had a lot, while Sexton/Priest crews would have only a small amount of training (unless they were in Italy - can you guess why?).<hr></blockquote>

Hmm, maybe because fortifications were a lot more important in Italy then they were in NWE (outside the Siegfried line) - also, the lower number of tanks and the particular lay-out of the Italian countryside may increase survivability of Sextons. Finally, a hang-over from the desert times. I believe 8th Army did things differently in some respects. But to be honest, I am just guessing.

[Redwolf]

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

In the British/Commonwealth armies, a similar situation would have ruled - Archer crews obviously had a lot, while Sexton/Priest crews would have only a small amount of training (unless they were in Italy - can you guess why?).<hr></blockquote>

They had to do the tank hunting because all the M10 were busy doing indirect fire?

[Gen-x87H]

. This ain't because of their infantry or artillery! So it must be the tanks."

It is more than just the tanks. If force mixing is allowed the Paras are killer. But the one reason I play the Brits is because of thier 4.2 Inc mortars. At 92 points a spotter you can really cause problems for your opponent. In a 1500 point game you can have 240 107mm rounds to drop on your opponent. The Americans may be more popular if there wasnt a bug about thier 4.2 Mortars. But maybe that is just me.

I also love the Cromwell. Good Anti-Inf tank. 95mm gun is killer. And in a game over the weekend I waxed a Panther in a street fight at 100 meters.

Gen

[Silvio Manuel]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

. This ain't because of their infantry or artillery! So it must be the tanks."

It is more than just the tanks. If force mixing is allowed the Paras are killer. But the one reason I play the Brits is because of thier 4.2 Inc mortars. At 92 points a spotter you can really cause problems for your opponent. In a 1500 point game you can have 240 107mm rounds to drop on your opponent. The Americans may be more popular if there wasnt a bug about thier 4.2 Mortars. But maybe that is just me.

Gen<hr></blockquote>

Does anyone here like the cheap and nasty 5.5" FOs?

In a 1500 point game you can actually get *320* 107mm rounds to drop on your opponent (4 FOx 80).

What do you mean by "if there wasn't a bug about the [Ami} 4.2 mortars? What bug?

While I don't mind it, some would think that buying four 4.2 mortar FOs is as gamey and ahistorical as a Churchill/Cromwell VIII platoon. IMO, I don't think the Brit 4.2 mortars pack enough punch...or so I've thought while on the receiving end.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

Does anyone here like the cheap and nasty 5.5" FOs?

<hr></blockquote>

Shhhhhh.... Don't tell everybody. But as you say it, late months also has 5.5" VT, which is the most effordable VT in the game.

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

What do you mean by "if there wasn't a bug about the [Ami} 4.2 mortars? What bug?

<hr></blockquote>

It is more expensive for the blast sum, but also it is faster.

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

While I don't mind it, some would think that buying four 4.2 mortar FOs is as gamey and ahistorical as a Churchill/Cromwell VIII platoon. IMO, I don't think the Brit 4.2 mortars pack enough punch...or so I've thought while on the receiving end.<hr></blockquote>

Well, depends. In CMBO-sized battles both is unrealistic. They didn't have that many big-tube mortars, but they wouldn't be allowed to use the Corps artillery when accidentially running into a team of a company of infantry and a few tank hunters.

In CMBO, the bigger the artillery module, the more cost-effective it is. However, 4 cheap FO teams have a robustness advantage over one, and mortars are faster.