CM:BN Beta AAR/DAR Bois de Baugin - German side

[JonS]

Don't forget that at one stage there were four (4) Shermans shooting at that JgPz.

[Battlefront.com]

I think what Emrys said is about right. Shorts are going to be tightly grouped because left/right error (for a well zeroed gun anyway) isn't a big deal for rounds of this size and velocity. Short/long is. Once you fire long you tend not to fire long again provided you don't have other issues going on. And longs are not seen impacting in most cases because they sail off far away from the target (remember, vector is real and not faked like CMx1).

Gunner fires one long... gunner adjusts, fires short. Not wanting to fire short again he tries to just inch it up a bit. More likely to fire short on the 3rd shot if no hit achieved. Or gunner fires short... gunner adjusts, fires long. If miss on 3rd shot, once again it is likely to be a short.

Which is why there's an average of 2-4 shots to score a hit. One usually goes wild, tells gunner which way to adjust, adjustment made, maybe a hit is scored then or maybe it's another miss. Chances are in this case 2 of the 3 shots will be short.

And as JonS pointed out, 4 Shermans firing at the same time means a possible 4-12 shorts all pretty tightly grouped.

Steve

[gunnersman]

I think what Emrys said is about right. Shorts are going to be tightly grouped because left/right error (for a well zeroed gun anyway) isn't a big deal for rounds of this size and velocity. Short/long is. Once you fire long you tend not to fire long again provided you don't have other issues going on. And longs are not seen impacting in most cases because they sail off far away from the target (remember, vector is real and not faked like CMx1).

Gunner fires one long... gunner adjusts, fires short. Not wanting to fire short again he tries to just inch it up a bit. More likely to fire short on the 3rd shot if no hit achieved. Or gunner fires short... gunner adjusts, fires long. If miss on 3rd shot, once again it is likely to be a short.

Which is why there's an average of 2-4 shots to score a hit. One usually goes wild, tells gunner which way to adjust, adjustment made, maybe a hit is scored then or maybe it's another miss. Chances are in this case 2 of the 3 shots will be short.

And as JonS pointed out, 4 Shermans firing at the same time means a possible 4-12 shorts all pretty tightly grouped.

Steve

So what your saying is it wont delay the release. That's good news!

[LongLeftFlank]

I think what Emrys said is about right.

Steve

Great, as if Mike's sigline wasn't already long enough.....

[Michael Emrys]

Great, as if Mike's sigline wasn't already long enough.....

Still thinking about it. Not effusive enough to normally make the cut, but considering it's coming from the Boss...

Michael

[Russkly]

Right, I want it, and I want it NOW!!!!!

Give it to me.

R

[vincere]

JonS, I posted this in US DAR:

'Elvis: thank you for this entertaining DAR. I have been looking forward to it after work each day and the time you put into it is appreciated.

Also, I had half a mind to keep myself going with Shock Force until my preferred theatre of East Front; but both your DARs have really got me excited about Normandy.'

Same applies here- cheers.

[Lanzfeld]

Great, as if Mike's sigline wasn't already long enough.....

LOL.

I call it the "insecurity line".

[JonS]

16: Patience

Patience is a virtue. The surviving Jg.Pz.IV has been parked over on Hill 144 for a bit over 20 minutes now, and has been instrumental in destroying the enemy attack on Hill 154 and up the centre. With the enemy armour on Hill 154 and in the centre gone, I decide it’s time to do something about the platoon of Shermans in front of Hill 144. From the current position they cannot be engaged, and the remaining 50mm PaK on Hill 154 isn’t powerful enough.

Therefore, my plan is to pull the Jg.Pz. back onto the flank of the rearmost hill, from where it should be able to cover the open fields to the left – from my POV – of the D-28. But there’s a catch. The position it’s in now is excellent, but any move forward is likely to expose it to flanking fire. Therefore I order a couple of short Hunt’s forward in an arc to get the heavy frontal armour facing the known location of the US tanks, then a reverse back into dead ground, the more hunting forward in an arc along the side of Hill 148.

(larger image)

Of course, after spending so much time planning and prepping orders, this was the result

(larger image)

(larger image)

(larger image)

(larger image)

Elapsed time: 19 seconds from first to last photo.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. I now have no mobile heavy anti-tank weapons, and the only gun left is the miserable 50mm. Life is about to get a whole lot more painful for my infantry.

Patience is a virtue. One I apparently lack.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Why is there grass growing in the foxholes? :mad:

[Piecekeeper]

Haha man....those foxholes looks really ugly! But the game looks great!

[umlaut]

Why is there grass growing in the foxholes? :mad:

Because they´re too small to fit a lawn mower in :-)

[Sloth]

LOL.

I call it the "insecurity line".

ROFL

(I understand that a monumental sig line can help to differentiate the quality of the poster, but Lanzfeld's reason is a lot more entertaining).

[Pvt. Ryan]

Because they´re too small to fit a lawn mower in :-)

Roomba needs to make a lawn mower.

[civdiv]

Question about catastrophic damage to armor. During the WWII era, were catastrophic explosions common from AP fire? I am talking about the pictures you sometimes see where the turret is blown off, etc. Is that a product of the initial kill by fire resulting in the ammo going up all at once, or is that more of a factor of a tank that burns, and after a while the ammo goes off?

It would be cool to see some catastrophic explosions, but only if it is realistic.

Also, I would assume a burning tank is something to stay away from. Can a burning wreck have secondary explosions that result is damage to units in close proximity? I seem to remember this happening to me once in CMSF.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I can't comment on the realism of tanks exploding catastrophically, since I have no idea how realistic it is, however . . .

Also, I would assume a burning tank is something to stay away from. Can a burning wreck have secondary explosions that result is damage to units in close proximity? I seem to remember this happening to me once in CMSF.

. . . this is in.

[gunnersman]

Question about catastrophic damage to armor. During the WWII era, were catastrophic explosions common from AP fire? I am talking about the pictures you sometimes see where the turret is blown off, etc. Is that a product of the initial kill by fire resulting in the ammo going up all at once, or is that more of a factor of a tank that burns, and after a while the ammo goes off?

It would be cool to see some catastrophic explosions, but only if it is realistic.

Also, I would assume a burning tank is something to stay away from. Can a burning wreck have secondary explosions that result is damage to units in close proximity? I seem to remember this happening to me once in CMSF.

There are plenty of catastrophic explosions in the Combat Mission series. But they are mostly noted by loud, firey explosions.

The Sherman was notorious for "brewing up" on the Western front. But eventually Shermans started getting built with "wet stowage" compartments. That is, ammo was kept in bins filled with a fluid that did not allow cook offs as easily. Sherman's with wet stowage are designated with "W" in the name. For example a Sherman without wet stowage would be M4A3(75) Sherman and a Sherman with wet stowage would be a M4A3(75)W Sherman.

But the whole turret flying phenomenon occurred in the East. The T-34s were known for it. The turrets on the Russian T-34s were set in place with nothing holding them on the turret race other than the weight of the turret...which is plenty. Even T-72s to this day are known for flying turrets. But flying turrets are not modeled in CMSF.

So...in brief...no flying turrets modeled in CMSF AND Shermans did not have flying turrets = no flying turrets.

[Michael Emrys]

Question about catastrophic damage to armor. During the WWII era, were catastrophic explosions common from AP fire? I am talking about the pictures you sometimes see where the turret is blown off, etc. Is that a product of the initial kill by fire resulting in the ammo going up all at once, or is that more of a factor of a tank that burns, and after a while the ammo goes off?

Depends. I've never attempted to do a survey that would answer your question authoritatively, and doubt very much that one is even possible. I don't think that information was widely recorded. But my impression is that in the vast majority of cases, burning tanks simply burned. Now that would often result in a spectacular fireworks display because the propellant in the ammo would go up. But that alone would not blow a tank apart. Tanks are after all pretty rugged machines, and it takes HE going up to produce truly catastrophic explosions. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't. It tended to happen to Soviet tanks rather more because the HE they used in their shells was both more powerful and more unstable than the TNT used in Western formulations and could easily be set off by the propellant going off.

Michael

[Erwin]

FWIW: Saw a documentary that claimed that the "Ronson" phenomenon was not due to the gasoline power as much as poor ammo storage location or poor armor at that point. You'll see Shermans with extra armor wielded on the sides for this reason.

[Michael Emrys]

But the whole turret flying phenomenon occurred in the East. The T-34s were known for it. The turrets on the Russian T-34s were set in place with nothing holding them on the turret race other than the weight of the turret...which is plenty. Even T-72s to this day are known for flying turrets.

I have seen quite a few pics of German tanks with their turrets blown off, but just how common that actually was I have no idea. I expect that the more spectacular images are the ones that get reproduced more often in more venues.

Michael

[Alchenar]

I have seen quite a few pics of German tanks with their turrets blown off, but just how common that actually was I have no idea. I expect that the more spectacular images are the ones that get reproduced more often in more venues.

Michael

The number of times you come across references on all sides to tankers putting multiple shells into already knocked out tanks implies that the typical disabling shot doesn't actually look like anything. (barring notorious exceptions like the Sherman and T-34 tanks).

...the two most common tanks in the war. Then again those reputations come from the same people who kept putting shells into the tank until they saw that big fiery explosions so they're possibly to an extent not valid as indications as to whether a tank died, just what would happen if you hit it hard enough.

edit no 2: there's one obvious way to tell: check for survival rates of tankers. A tank that explodes is going to kill all it's crew. My vague recollection is that 3.5 crew usually escaped a german tank that had been knocked out.

[finalcut]

The number of times you come across references on all sides to tankers putting multiple shells into already knocked out tanks implies that the typical disabling shot doesn't actually look like anything. (barring notorious exceptions like the Sherman and T-34 tanks).

...the two most common tanks in the war. Then again those reputations come from the same people who kept putting shells into the tank until they saw that big fiery explosions so they're possibly to an extent not valid as indications as to whether a tank died, just what would happen if you hit it hard enough.

edit no 2: there's one obvious way to tell: check for survival rates of tankers. A tank that explodes is going to kill all it's crew. My vague recollection is that 3.5 crew usually escaped a german tank that had been knocked out.

3.5 Men :eek: Think of the poor half man.

[Boche]

3.5 Men :eek: Think of the poor half man.

are we talking torso or legs here?

[Battlefront.com]

Question about catastrophic damage to armor. During the WWII era, were catastrophic explosions common from AP fire? I am talking about the pictures you sometimes see where the turret is blown off, etc. Is that a product of the initial kill by fire resulting in the ammo going up all at once, or is that more of a factor of a tank that burns, and after a while the ammo goes off?

It would be cool to see some catastrophic explosions, but only if it is realistic.

Also, I would assume a burning tank is something to stay away from. Can a burning wreck have secondary explosions that result is damage to units in close proximity? I seem to remember this happening to me once in CMSF.

You've got a bunch of good answers. However, there is this you should look at:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90961

Welcome back (again)

Steve

[JonS]

17: Improv Everywhere

With the demise of my only useful AT asset, I’m in a lot of trouble. Elvis still has four or five Shermans left, and can use their protected mobility and direct firepower to pick my defence apart piece by piece. It also means I cannot conduct anymore large scale movements, and my men are essentially reduced to defending in place.

Elvis had obviously been contemplating how to deal with the Jg.Pz in its position in the forest, since the turn after its destruction some 81mm mortars came in and pummelled its erstwhile location. Because it was on the treeline there were loads of treeburst/airbursts.

(larger image)

The HMG team that had been beside the Jg.Pz. quickly ceased being of any further concern to Elvis.

With my antitank assets rapidly wasting away, infantry AT has become vital. That meant I’ve had to take some risks to try and retrieve ‘schrecks and ‘fausts. That’s been reasonably successful, but being reduced to them it’s still a pretty poor tactical position to be in.

I’m cheered greatly though at minute (1502hrs) when this happens

(larger image)

(larger image)

(The 2½ is unskinned in this build)

Well, that’s one less platoon to worry about then.

Even more cheer arrived a minute later when an armed halftrack slowed to navigate around the burning Deuce, taking long enough for the 50mm to destroy that too.

(larger image)

More firepower that won’t be messing with my guys. It seems Elvis lacks patience too – moving his pioneers up on foot, and plotting non-overlapping movement paths would have saved him a lot of letter writing.

Despite these twin successes, I see a lot of movement up towards Hill 144, including a battalion commander. There must be a stack of troops clustered back there, so I call in the last of my indirect fire – some 75mm IG rounds to hit the northern slopes. Again, I can’t quite get the target area exactly where I want it, but it’s near enough. In order to get the coverage I want though, I have to accept the risk that some rounds will fall amongst my own troops – we’re very close together there. Also, this time I use the IG Company commander to call the mission in, reducing the time it’ll take for the rounds to arrive.

(larger image)

Over on Hill 154 there’s some inconclusive stalking going on. With the Jg.Pz. gone he’s trying to get his Sherman into a position to pummel la Campagne, while I try to stop him with ‘fausts. Neither of us are successful – me because my soldiers are mostly rattled, and won’t follow my orders anymore. Thus ends the 47th minute of this battle, taking the time to 1505hrs. Time’s up at 1540.