You guys are killing me!

[marcbarker]

New Assault Rules.....Gas Attack...that should wipe out a regiment.....tear gas was often used....smoke generators for a very wide range smoke effect....what is this 1 hex effect?

[big dawg]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
Ahhhhh yes...the magical shrapnel piece.

I bet it was a +10 shrapnel blessed by a level 10 cleric & enhanced by the 14th level magic user.

AHH the good o'le D&D days.

[marcbarker]

But let us not forget the 45th level Master Supply Sargent...who drove a borrowed deuce and a half that kept going back and forth till it ran out of gas then got the horses borrowed from the cav and they took off like wildfire...

[Deputy]

Perhaps they are working on the "bent barrel option" where you can shoot around corners? Believe it or not there WAS a real barrel for the M3 submachinegun that had this mod. I truly think it should be a priority for the CS. [:'(]

[marcbarker]

well yes but I liked the Mr. Limpet Device.......swam to the beach prior to the assault and the sound waves disrupted all unts on the map

[Achsah]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: big dawg

ORIGINAL: Deputy

In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks.

Deputy,

Were you stacking your armor in tight groups with multiple tanks & no avenue to retreat? Both of these factors can greatly affect the damage you receive. A hidden unit would provide LOS on your units.

I just read a book called Barrage, the guns in action by Ivan Hogg. He describes battles in Africa where thirty (30) PZR IIIs and IVs attacked a battery 25-pounders of the 4th Indian Division starting at 2,000 yards then continuing to 300 yards before retreating with no less than EIGHT German tanks destroyed, and 5 of the Indian guns destroyed in the 45 minute battle.
It goes on to say that the tanks returned late in the day and opened fire from 4,000 yards. The tanks were in tight formations and lost SIX more tanks before retreating.

Good luck!

Nope, no tight groups and big stacks. I am well aware of the "12 point limit" for stacking[;)]. And they were Panther tanks, not MKIII or MKIV. I'm pretty much finished with 1.04. I'm back to 1.02b. I just don't like the direction the patches are going. I'm gonna withdraw from complaining too. It's obviously falling on deaf ears. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I appreciate the assistance. [:)]

Heya Deputy,
i'm not sure what others may have replied to after this post so if i repeat something my apologies. Even big tanks can get waked by artillery..this happened a lot in Normandy for example. Like i said before you don't even have to score a real kill..all you have to do is panic or shock the crew the tank. But in fairness its possible that that the program is killing to easy or to much. The early kv tanks for instance used to have bad armor(not thickness) and would flake easily. But having said that, the ai can be surprising accurate in what at least seems unspotted fire(i think the old ef 102 either flat out cheated as a play balance thing or i just did not spot the spotters) if after a normal local victory forces the ai to roll dice and you have a lot of stuff left over around an overun you just completed.This can take on rather serious proportions even in a firefight if you force the enemy spotters out of los!..so not only is hex density an issue so are greater local densities.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Pasha

Heya Deputy,
i'm not sure what others may have replied to after this post so if i repeat something my apologies. Even big tanks can get waked by artillery..this happened a lot in Normandy for example. Like i said before you don't even have to score a real kill..all you have to do is panic or shock the crew the tank. But in fairness its possible that that the program is killing to easy or to much. The early kv tanks for instance used to have bad armor(not thickness) and would flake easily. But having said that, the ai can be surprising accurate in what at least seems unspotted fire(i think the old ef 102 either flat out cheated as a play balance thing or i just did not spot the spotters) if after a normal local victory forces the ai to roll dice and you have a lot of stuff left over around an overun you just completed.This can take on rather serious proportions even in a firefight if you force the enemy spotters out of los!..so not only is hex density an issue so are greater local densities.

Pasha: Sorry we veered off and got a little goofy. [:D]
Normandy is kinda special because you are talking NAVAL artillery. That is a lot more powerful than 105 or 155 guns. Panic and shocking the crew should be covered under disruption...it shouldn't destroy tanks. What we see in the new patches is 60 and 82MM mortars destroying tanks. That's just plain silly. The worst effect a tanker would get is ringing in his ears from a mortar round direct hit. And if there is only one tank platoon in a hex, mortar fire should not be deadly accurate anyway. As a matter of fact, mortar fire isn't accurate at all. It was made to be an area fire weapon and not have the rounds all fall in one precise location. I've experienced Tiger tanks knocked out by mortars. I could maybe see a fluke of ONE Tiger tank knocked out, but not 2/3 of a platoon destroyed.

[marcbarker]

I agree on the normandy issue a big difference between a 14" shell blasting 10 feet from a tank. or an 8" sheel landing in the middle of a platoon , there would be a high degree of disruption as well a higher chance of a immobilize situation...but the turret could still fire...maybe a solutoin would be a disuruption then if moved you lost 20% fire power while still having the whole platoon

[marcbarker]

A 60mm mortar has a chance to immobilize on a hit to a tread but not even a direct hit on the top of the turret

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: barker

A 60mm mortar has a chance to immobilize on a hit to a tread but not even a direct hit on the top of the turret

It would have to be an awful weak tread and a very lucky hit. Since mortars fire in a high arc, the chance of it hitting a tread directly are slim and none and Slim left town [;)]
The 60MM mortar is about as powerful as a regular hand grenade. Pretty weak. [:(]

[borsook79]

It seems that you are forgetting how fragile tanks are. Sure, artillery fire may not destroy a tank beyond repair. But really damaging the tracks, wheels or the engine/cooling system is very easy. So easy it's bit scary actually. If a turn is 6 minutes and a typical scenario has 10-20 of them such a tank should be considered destroyed. So far nothing unrealistic about the things described in this thread. The only issue is when you're playing a campaign, and such damage would be repaired 1-2 hours after the end of the scenario. This could mean that reinforcement rate should be made higher. Although that would allow you to replace tanks that were reduced to few burning scraps of metal too...

[marcbarker]

How many instances in the battle of kursk or even in the hedgerows...they were immobile but still fired....and got kills

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It seems that you are forgetting how fragile tanks are. Sure, artillery fire may not destroy a tank beyond repair. But really damaging the tracks, wheels or the engine/cooling system is very easy. So easy it's bit scary actually. If a turn is 6 minutes and a typical scenario has 10-20 of them such a tank should be considered destroyed. So far nothing unrealistic about the things described in this thread. The only issue is when you're playing a campaign, and such damage would be repaired 1-2 hours after the end of the scenario. This could mean that reinforcement rate should be made higher. Although that would allow you to replace tanks that were reduced to few burning scraps of metal too...

And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have. Tanks are NOT fragile at all. I have knocked down good-sized trees with a US M113 infantry carrier, and that's a lightweight aluminum vehicle. It takes a LOT to damage a full size MBT. And I place the MKIV and larger tanks in that class. Good grief man...these are NOT armored cars we are talking about. This a monster made of steel that stops at almost nothing. That's WHY the Germans gave special awards to infantryman who took out tanks single handed. Artillery is NOT an effective anti-tank weapon. It's an anti-INFANTRY weapon. TANKS are effective anti-tank weapons. Anti-tank guns of decent size are effective anti-tank weapons. Anti-tank rockets (Panzerfaust and Bazooka) are effectivie anti-tank weapons, IF you can get close enough to use it and put it in a vulnerable spot. Most artillery, unless it gets REAL lucky and scores a direct hit on the engine compartment, is only going to scratch the paint on a tank.
Artillery fire is almost the same as mortar fire. it fires in an arc and the shell is coming almost straight down, depending on how far away it is from the target. It is NOT accurate against tanks. It wasn't made to be. It's an area fire weapon that is made to kill infantry...period.

[marcbarker]

M113....those were the days at Benning.....a bit bumpy and crowded but alright...I do know that in that Light Vehickle you did not want to be in it if a round hit......gave you a hell of a headache....40mm will swiss cheese the side plate up on a M113 APC...even the M-60 we had to let those bad boys run over us while in a fox hole....talking about making yourself small...then pooping up with your law and hoping there wasn't follow up infantry behind it......hell we watched traing film that t-72 slicing up a M-60...then The M1 came along, anything below 76mm was pointless...they taught you to aim for the treads...disable...go on top with mag and phos grenades with fuel jug...mag and phos burn through top armor and fuel you pour in thru the hole and ignite all inhabitants.....
 
60mm mortar against a MK IV or even a MK III highly unlikely on kill

[Deputy]

We had the M113 at Fort Lewis, WA in the 3rd Armored Cav. In Nam they took the governors off of them and they could really tear ass. They also did makeshift improvements of the armor protection. I qualified at Yakima, Washington on the M60. Geez that tank was TALL!!! Would have made an easy target for the Soviet tanks. Lucky they finally came out with the Abrams.

[marcbarker]

how true...i was 11 bush AB 10....had a ball benning, bragg, polk, and jackson

[Deputy]

I was 11C20, Leonard Wood, Gordon, Nam, Okinawa, Lewis. Got a secondary MOS of 11E20 after I filled in for a tanker as a loader and later gunner on an M60.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have.

I'm sorry, but is not an argument. Unless you're saying that you've served in a WW2 armour unit? Do have a look at malfunction statistics of those tanks, read some journals and see what the reasons were. Again I am not saying that WW2 tanks were going to pieces (well, maybe the American ones ) under artillery fire. All I'm saying is that artillery fire was perfectly capable of inflicting damage that was fixable, even quite fast, but considering the game time scale it can eliminate such a tank for the rest of the scenario. Although Barker is perfectly right, most of the time it would be damage preventing movement, not firing. But this is the limitation of the game engine, with this scale it should allow the vehicles to be immobile but able to fight, true.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Deputy
And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have.

I'm sorry, but is not an argument. Unless you're saying that you've served in a WW2 armour unit? Do have a look at malfunction statistics of those tanks, read some journals and see what the reasons were. Again I am not saying that WW2 tanks were going to pieces (well, maybe the American ones ) under artillery fire. All I'm saying is that artillery fire was perfectly capable of inflicting damage that was fixable, even quite fast, but considering the game time scale it can eliminate such a tank for the rest of the scenario. Although Barker is perfectly right, most of the time it would be damage preventing movement, not firing. But this is the limitation of the game engine, with this scale it should allow the vehicles to be immobile but able to fight, true.

Whoa!! We weren't talking about malfunctions. We were talking about COMBAT DAMAGE from artillery/mortars. What are you basing your opinions on???If you haven't served on a tank at all and are just basing it on hearsay from others, then that opinion is flawed. And if a tank receives FIXABLE damage, then it CAN be represented in the game via disruption, NOT DESTRUCTION. I don't understand why so many are in such a rush to destroy tanks with artillery and mortars. Are you making units of strictly cavalry and infantry and other soft targets? Good grief...this isn't a game about the "charge of the light brigade" and Gunga Din!!!! [8|]

[marcbarker]

My uncle as a matter of fact was in the 3rd armor...their order of fire was 1st round Phos then imeediately followed by 2 more rounds of AP in quick successing. The actual penetration of 1 shot from a sherman was not that good. That is why 2 or 3 sherman had to go up agains a tiger or panther. The SU 85 and 100 was not an effective AT but very effective against Inf and in support role. HE shells had an Immobilizing effect more then a kill factor