Jump to content

Joachim

Members
  • Posts

    1,548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joachim

  1. Well, if we ignore other factors (coordination, targetting) influencing ROF then it might just be a bad layout of the interior. The Hetzer has the same gun as other StuGs, but a slower ROF. But the ISU152 has the luxury of a separate breech operator, so should not suffer from any of those problems. Due to availability of interior comms coordination of loading, laying and firing should be possible, even with a slight delay. So that might be a "bug". Yet in CM most 150mm guns have ROF 2 (cf. Chris' CM database). Hummel, Brummbär, JS2/3, KV2, sIG. Even the towed sIG 15cm has ROF 3, as does the 105mmRCL. Which definitely hurts those tanks/guns. It hurts some of the prime Tiger/Panther killers for the Soviets. But it hurts some of the best German early war guns: Those able to reliably kill T34s and KVs, albeit with just a few HC rounds. OTOH having those large guns lobbing 4 or more direct HE rounds per turn at enemy inf would ruin the game, too. Especially the Soviet tanks (or the German open topped 15cm vehicles) would burn thru their limited ammo quickly when using area fire. I prefer the current ROF when targetting inf. Usually 1 or 2 rounds are enough. And the primary RL use of the brick throwers is throwing direct HE, not fighting tanks. So I see several "features" within CM: a) The ROF is fixed for a certain gun or tank (adding a "fire slowly" command would mean another command - BFC went for a minimal interface, so I can understand this decision) Looks like BFC opted to use tanks according to their RL use. The Soviet 122mm+ chuckers were intended as assault guns, not to fight tanks. For this role I prefer a slow ROF, enabling me to combat several targets over a prolonged period. c) IIRC CM was designed as an "inf Co with support" game. Given the intended scope in CM, a low ROF is a valid design decision. But Players fight mostly armor engagements. Even worse, most are Meeting engagements which were rare in RL.
  2. Tanks leading the attack works - but only when they massively outnumber the ATGs. Most tanks will not be koed beyond repair, so even if you lose 1:1, the gun is overrun permanently while the tank will be repaired. And this is during the breakthru action. The real value of the tank is during the exploit. The RL tank losses happened when the tanks were unable to capture the battlef field (and thus abandoned tanks could not be salvaged by the owner) - or when repair shops were overrun during exploits, tanks had to be given up due to fuel shortages while retreating, ... This is not modelled in CM. What is modelled in CM: A lone tank in Russia is lost. If you disperse your tanks to support a broad front attack - well, the Allies did that early war. It didn't work for France in '40, and it didn't work to spread out T34s in '41. It doesn't work in CM. I fully expect an entrenched veteran PaK front in CM to shoot up a similar number of tanks if all guns are well placed, can see all tanks, some guns can penetrate from the front and all are in medium combat range. In RL the guns were spread out to cover the whole front while the tanks were able to quickly concentrate. FOs were with the leading tanks - once the tanks encountered a threat, they went into reverse. HE from tanks kills guns at long range. AP from guns doesn't penetrate beyond a certain range. and you had a company of tanks vs a plt or so of guns. An armor company was the smallest formation for an attack. Now if you complain that standard QBs in CM don't mirror this - play special scenarios. Or use tanks the way they were used when they did not have massive odds. Then they were used like assault guns - well behind the inf, in a support role. The inf finds something - the tank keyholes, trying to get LOS to that part of the front only. Which means nothing else gets LOS to the tank. Once you discover an ATG and can't bring in a mortar - close counts with HE. But not with AP. Just area fire close to the ATG from a location where the ATG can't get LOS to the tank. And no, that ain't gamey.
  3. Well, please tell us that you were a) the only loader for your howitzer were refined into the typical small interior of a Soviet tank while handling a 50kg shell consisting of two parts. That would make it comparable. If you just were one of two loaders/ammo handlers in a gun crew - would you achieve that ROF alone while being unable to stand? Interestingly the German Brummbär has a similar low ROF in CM. Even for its HC round weighing just 25kg or half of the 152mm round.
  4. Well, it would be great to know what your opponent in a game of rock-scissors-stone will do before showing your own fingers to him. But it would ruin it the game Same with ATGs. They are pretty expensive in CM. Much more expensive than in RL (due to their higher chance of actually getting a tank into their sights in CM than in RL). They are usually dead a few minutes after they are discovered. Now think of their value if they would be easily discovered before they have a chance to fire. What you can do is offering a cheap lightly armored vehicle (RL tactic!). Or send infantry first like AE suggests.
  5. The ATR still has to hit something important if it penetrates. And it doesn't help much on a strategic scale if you send a single bullet thru a carrier. The carrier will easily be repaired. Total write offs or capturing vehicles hurts the enemy long term. Light AA in frontline use and SmK ammo for the MG42 filled the roles of the ATR - and they sent several bullets thru the vehicles. Which lead to more damage and had a bigger chance to hurt the crews and passengers - or at least persuade those to abandon the carrier. You see something similar in CM: I had good quality HT crews regularly ignore ATR hits in CMBB (of course it were my ATRs...). Low quality crews bail out. Which helps in the battle. But not much in the war.
  6. Well... the most recent hit I saw was a partial pen that caused some crew kills and thus led to an abandoned Tiger (might have been HE). I remember a long range 122L48 partial pen on the front upper hull of a JPzIV/70(V) at well above 1km. Abandoned. Its 75mm round penetrated the front of the ISU122 a split second earlier. No effect. In my expereince larger rounds tend to have a bigger behind armor effect and thus kill or brew more often in CMx1. While 75mm rounds tend to penetrate 45@20° but then fail to do damage.
  7. 2,200 cas + 4,000 captured + unknown missing is roughly 7,000 Austrians 3,500 cas + 1,300 captured/missing = 4,800 or roughly 4,500 French That might explain the "different" numbers and would support DT. IMHO JC lacks the morale component for the Austrians and the "priority target" column for all firers in range. a) morale component The average Austrian soldier spends lots of time on the front while the French has only a fraction of the force up front. The rest is reserve, out of shooting range. It does not matter whether the skirmishers actuallly fire - the threat is enough to wear soldiers morale down. After 3 days Austrians who probably spent several tours in the front row are routed by fake bugle calls while being in disorder already. While France routinely sends their rested column troops into the decisive moment of battle. Soldiers in line formation close to where the column attacks will target the column, not the skirmishers in open order directly ahead of the respective firers. That changes the numbers for the effective target density a bit, but does not change the overall effect. Only a fraction of the line is in range of the column.
  8. Well, the idea is to not pull out the MG, just the crew... when things are really hot. Doesn't work in CM.
  9. No, not my design. The problem with historical scens is that they worked in RL because the involved forces did what they did. Trying to recreate the battle using just historical forces is impossible as tactics are just as important. Forcing one side to stick to tactics means scripting the battle - which is often annoying as that side can't decide much. If the attacker tries to flank, the defenders setup vs an attack along the road won't work. 4 KT is overkill. Even one can decide a battle. So either reduce the turns forcing the attack to rush (boring), use mud to keep him on the road (scripting, boring) or give the defender more assets - eg another similar position on each flank/map edge that can't be approached frontally (mines, AT ditch). This way the attacker has to combat 2 positions with flanking fire. Which most likely represents the historical task of attacking into a continuous front line. The attackers decision is whether he tries to find a seam or attacks 1 position frontally.
  10. If there is SMG-inf behind the crest, then overloading will be costly until ammo is dry. But by then reactive arty should do its job. Concentrated arty from the IS2... well, with just 2 rounds per turn and the risk of rounds going over the crest you won't see much concentration. Make sure you have a covered arc vs inf so the slow turret remains in the direction of the target. No. Ranged HMGs disrupt or pin enemy inf. They buy time. Works well if you pin the point, target it with arty and the arty comes down just after the main body reached the pinned scouts. The MGs will be spotted at 200m - at good opponent shouldn't waste precious ammo on sound contacts.
  11. Digging in IS2 with a slow turret and ROF? Then it might be a better idea to tweak the scen using 100mm ATGs. Or just half the number of KTs.
  12. "Hits" and "kills" are different numbers. Even a pen by a 45mm round might not take out a PzIV. Try to put 4 ATGs on a CM map and 16 tanks. The guns open up from hidden, but at some distance. They hit every 4th round, pen each 6th and "kill" each 10th. If lucky they score 2 tanks within 30 seconds, then the guns are gone. The result should be pretty close to RL. Now take 8 guns and 8 tanks. I'd bet my money on the guns if they are entrenched and have a chance to penetrate. There's a reason for "The smallest armor unit on the attack is the company" (some German army handbook). And a reason for many CM players bunching up their tanks. Many "kills" in CM are just "abandoned" because of 2 missing crewmen. In RL you might either combine 2 crews and re-man the abandoned tank, take the full crew from mechanical breakdowns - or bring in a fresh crew in the second echelon thus reducing CM tank kills.
  13. Hey - we are talking about a retreat. The MG is the last position firing while all others already headed back. They are the last to run. So no court martial. Almost at running speed is not as good as running speed. As stated above - the last to run might carry their wounded before they carry a gun. Medics ran before and already should be busy anyway. Ammo bearers are members of a group. Groups share resposibility. Shared responsibility often means no one is responsible. If you are 50m from a MG position and the crew gets killed by lots of incoming - head towards the enemy or head backwards, hoping someone else will take up the gun? Of course someone might order you to take over the MG. Then you might try. But if 1 or 2 from the "fresh crew" sent over become a casualty, that attempt will be abandoned. Producing a new gunner takes 9 month plus several years. Producing a MG takes less time. It weighs less so transport is easier. You need somebody to handle the crate, but the gunner needs food and water while he travels, so some handling, too.
  14. If the MG covers the withdrawal into a second line, then the duty of the gunners is done once ammo runs out or their comrades have reached the fallback. A "fresh" MG might await the m-gunners. So it would be more important for the gunners to reach the fallback fast and alive than carry the MG. In an unorganized withdrawal, the gunners would more likely defend the MG. But if the MG is the last fighting weapon, then riflemen will have a much better chance to escape. Which would lead to a higher proportion of MG losses vs riflemen, too. Ammo bearers that already delivered their ammo might not return to a crew killed MG. Hey, it's not their job. Keeping up a high level of hvy weapons can be done by keeping the ones that are there or supplying fresh ones. A good doctrine would encourage both. Supplying a new MG is easier than supplying a good gunner. German Cav covering a withdrawal would operate as follows: 1/3rd covers withdrawal. 1/3rd moves back. 1/3rd prepares new position. A prepared new position includes supplies. If you compare front line strength of divisions to the logistical tail of the same (German) division, the rear echelon guys are the majority. They ought to be good for something, too. Withdrawal means shorter supply lines and the depot might be less reluctant to give away its stock when the enemy is closing in. That's theory. Dunno about the real thing.
  15. 23.7 guns per km. How many tanks were on the same frontline? Massing tanks is easier as the attacking tanks choose the place. How many guns were not able to penetrate the front but never got side shots? How many gunners lost their nerves and fired on the front of the tanks advancing towards their gun plt position, not on the flank of the tanks they could kill with a side shot but threatened the next ATG plt 500m away? Plus: a) Whoever holds the battlefield can recover some of the lost tanks or guns. If the ATGs lost, the guns were gone. c) If the tanks lost, the attack was often stopped well ahead of the guns. Recovery at night or under cover of smoke. The guns can't counterattack to claim the field. Theoretically there were tanks for that, but if those move forward 500m, the ATGs can't cover them as effective range of Soviet ATGs vs tanks is lower than effective range of German tank guns vs tanks and ATGs.
  16. Equipment gets lost with personnel lost, will be dropped on the retreat, will break down, ... If a MG crew becomes casualties, some might return a few days later. Their MG is lost. If half a MG crew becomes casualties - will their comrades carry the wounded or the gun? If just one crew member out of six becomes a casualty we won't see 1/6th of the weapon vanish. If a MG breaks down, the crew might still be alive. So just considering one cause and its relation between personnel strength and number of weapons won't work. You'd need to know the mix of all reasons for personnel or equipment losses. Which might depend on the tide of war and the experience of the soldiers. Cons and vets might drop their equipment much faster than greens or regulars when on the retreat. The attacker will loose less heavy weapons as those won't get overrun. It will be the forward elms that die first. On the retreat, heavy weapons might cover the withdrawal and thus get lost. Read: I doubt a study considering one unit, nation or war will realy forecast another unit, nation or war.
  17. Absolutely. Because when reading "31'000 scientists" the first thought would be that those scientists a) work somewhat related to the subject of the petition are working as scientists, not just working after an education that would (more or less ) qualify them as scientists.
  18. http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=die+br%FCcke&x=0&y=0 BP 10.99 - still a hefty price plus s&h to the US... German amazon has them at €9.99 plus s&h, but only German language available. http://turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com/results_title.asp?search=the+bridge&media=&shopref=Shopping%3ASearch+less+Home $24.99
  19. Watch the old version (B&W). The new one has a side-story added for the female audience.
  20. Disagreeing and signing a petition ain't the same thing. That statistics is nice, but an example for a certain book "So lügt man mit Statistik (How to lie with statistics)". Lots of the scientists will not be involved in climate theory and thus not take up sides. How many would sign a petition that they are 100% sure the dominant climate theory is exact and correct? That number would still be biased due to fundamental beleifs that we have got to fight pollution. I wouldn't sign both petitions (if Germans with degrees were asked). Back on topic: Numbers and statistics seem scientific and thus tend to make claims believable. Numbers do not say anything without a full context. Forget any "shortened" statistics. If not all details are given, it has no value. Those 15% are shortened (just like the petition, were only the convenient facts are given). So much from someone who taught statistics at university (and wouldn't call himself a scientist since 10 years)
  21. My memory supports this.... OTOH: "Einer seiner Adjutanten, der SS-Sturmbannführer Günsche, sagte: »Berlin ist sehr praktisch als Hauptquartier. Man kann dort bald mit der S-Bahn von der Ostfront zur Westfront fahren.«" (http://www.kunefke.de/index.php/von-baranow-nach-berlin.html) supports Zarq.
  22. That would be one option. But the starting positions are usually hidden and most prep bombardements in CM are in turn 1 - so no time to open up for the guns. A scenario might see a Soviet assault, open steppe, a few rear-slopes - gullies, patches of trees. Lots of Soviet high-level large guns or rockets, no TRPs. - so reacting to threats is impossible. Then T34s with tank riders advance behind a pre-planned delayed rolling barrage targetting any place that can't receive direct HE before rushing in. Next thing would see a massive Axis assault with 2:1 on map forces plus lots of arty for the attacker - and a huge negative Axis bonus, so he can't just exchange forces to grab the flags (worth a little less than the negative bonus) but has to care for his troops. A more likely scenario is direct HE towards spotted trenches or foxholes regardless of whether a unit was spotted inside. Or leveling every two-story house in a village with direct HE. Direct HE is cheaper in CM - and works better vs small target areas. Once scouts close to 150m from your trenches in the open - will your gun in that trench open up or sit and wait? It's just a smaller scale.
  23. For just staying alive: Thick frontal armor. Front is smaller target with less vulnerable areas. Unfavorable angles. Others: Killing bailing crews is easier the close they are. Recovery of tanks is easier the closer they are (read: you want them far away from fortifier German lines and close to your own line) Both. Reactive hits better as the target is located but after the target fired first. But you face the same dillemma in CM: Fire on suspected locations (which is just another kind of prep fire) or wait till you have a target. The less ammo you have the more likely it is you will use reactive fire only - which leads to the difficulty you mention. Would you use more prep fire if you had terrain markers indicating gun positions? More time for cautious recce with inf or light tanks? Both increasing the chance to hit sumkfink with limited ammo? Time and initial long distance depend on the scenario. QBs won't work here. But I bet "South of Kharkov" - 120 turns with a btn of inf on each side - will appeal to just a few players. Most scens or qbs put you right into the action. The concept of "balancing" a game limits prep arty, not CM itself. You've got to look for scens. Or play campaign games.
  24. You can fast forward 10 secs by pressing the fast forward icon, and ff 2 secs by pressing shift or ctrl and that icon. But no function to get twice as fast.
  25. Do you see the pbem folder and files when you use the windows explorer? Can you find it using windows search? Cause then a quick fix would be to copy the pbem file to a location which your email program can see and send it from there.
×
×
  • Create New...