Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Shorker in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.
  2. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Fizou in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.
  3. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from apd1004 in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.
  4. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Kraft in T-14 might be appeared... sooner than May.   
    But thanks anyways for providing our Armata Thread of the Day.
  5. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Kraft in Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !   
    I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.
  6. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from LukeFF in T-14 might be appeared... sooner than May.   
    But thanks anyways for providing our Armata Thread of the Day.
  7. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from antaress73 in Javelins shooting thru trees   
    Trees do offer some protection against Javelins. I ran a test during development that showed Javelins hitting vehicles in trees about half the time. I don't know if this is too high or not. It is higher than the TOW2B.
     
    The one aspect that is not realistic is the Javelin using it's diving top attack mode through the canopy. Javs firing at targets under tree cover should be forced to use direct attack mode. This is not presently modeled in the game although it has been requested.
  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Kraft in Yet another one classified Russian munition :)   
    Stalin probably reached out from hell to guide this shot.
  9. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from animalshadow in QB Squad Points Need to be Revisited: Affecting Balance of QB's   
    Ah, Rugged Defense. I cut my PBEM teeth on that ladder way back when. Good times.
     
    I don't know if Black Sea is amenable to Short 75 type rules. I would probably not allow the US to use APS vehicles, the presence of which is speculative anyways from a reality standpoint. The Russian micro UAV that I can't remember the name of should be banned, IMO, since it is immune to US AA (in reality they can be shot down with machine guns if spotted). Beyond that I'm not sure.
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from wee in The Baltic States   
    I would be more impressed if that were backed up by serious increases in defense spending. Most NATO counties barely have an army anymore.
  11. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in New russian tank Armata   
    I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


     
    Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


     
    Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

    Regards:

    Your repitllian vampire overlords.  
  12. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from GhostRider3/3 in The mighty IS-2   
    The lower hull, yes, although I don't remember at what ranges. The upper hull is impervious to anything except the 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger, which didn't even fight in the East. 

    Of course it is, although the IS-2 "mid" and "late" with the D-25 cannon are a little less slow than the "early" IS-2 armed with a A-19 cannon.
  13. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Graphics suck?!!?!?!   
    Real time or WEGO over TCP/IP? Not my cup of tea but a valid complaint.

    Better AI? The addition of triggers has helped a lot. If branching triggers ever make it in people will be begging for mercy. But even now the AI is a far stronger opponent than in the CMX1 games. I've actually LOST games to the AI. That never used to happen.

    Better graphics? Fine, but keep in mind that the better the graphics the more expensive/time consuming they are to produce. I question if BFC has the resources to produce artwork and animations on par with AAA titles. They would definitely have to hire more artists or scale back their release schedule. Sales might increase enough to compensate. Or they might not and then it's THE END.

    Personally I'd rather see efforts put into things like TacAI, UI, more detailed vehicle systems modeling, a revamped spotting model, mostly under the hood stuff.
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from sburke in Graphics suck?!!?!?!   
    Real time or WEGO over TCP/IP? Not my cup of tea but a valid complaint.

    Better AI? The addition of triggers has helped a lot. If branching triggers ever make it in people will be begging for mercy. But even now the AI is a far stronger opponent than in the CMX1 games. I've actually LOST games to the AI. That never used to happen.

    Better graphics? Fine, but keep in mind that the better the graphics the more expensive/time consuming they are to produce. I question if BFC has the resources to produce artwork and animations on par with AAA titles. They would definitely have to hire more artists or scale back their release schedule. Sales might increase enough to compensate. Or they might not and then it's THE END.

    Personally I'd rather see efforts put into things like TacAI, UI, more detailed vehicle systems modeling, a revamped spotting model, mostly under the hood stuff.
  15. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from coffeeis4closers in The mighty IS-2   
    Because the front hull cannot be penetrated by an 88.

    When engaging IS-2s distance is your friend. Their weakness is their slow rate of fire. For that to be a factor the IS-2 has to miss at least its first shot.
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Apocal in US Anti Aircraft defences   
    Is it? When was the last time a few US companies got bombed?
     
    The reason the US Army skimps on AD is because when the US Army actually goes to war those assets end up sitting around doing nothing or get retasked to do something useful. It's an inefficient allocation of resources.
     
    Frankly this whole discussion is navel gazing. It matters in Combat Mission but not in reality.
  17. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to ppo1001 in Was lend-lease essential in securing a Soviet victory?   
    A relly interesting discussion. When it comes to 4-engine bombers being 'ineffective'--I think that is a very bold and unsupported claim. The strategic bombing of Germany basically shaped the war as a whole in 1943 and 1944, even if it didnt have the desired impact on German production until the second half of 1944. Starting in 1943 it:
    1) Led to the Luftwaffe basically being stripped from the battlefield--particularly of fighter cover--leading to the colossal losses of 1944
    2) Led to the Germans investing huge resources into V-2 production--much more in fact than they spent of AFV production from 1943-1945
    3) Destroyed more production (Luftwaffe fighters lost in combat and through factory dispersal) than land battles such as Kursk
     
    IN 1944 it lead to massive redeployment of civilian workers to contend with bomb damage. Caused a huge diversion of resources into anti-aircraft production (for instance in 1944 the Germans were spending as much of their economy building anti aircraft weapons and supplying them with ammunition as they were building AFV), and eventually lead to a one third decline in German production from July to December 1944--a decline that had nothing to do with the land war as the germans had stockpiles of all raw materials needed to keep production rising until 1946.
     
    Considering that the building and arming of 4-engine bombers took approximately 15-20% of American war production (and a little higher of the UKs) it was a sensible allocation of force.
     
    The ME 262 is a really fascinating case. Partly I think Galland and the rest of the Luftwaffe like to blame Hitler for delaying the project, when actually getting the kinks out of all aircraft production actually took much longer than expected. The Germans, in fact, had a terrible time developing aircraft during the war--see not only the HE-177 but he ME-210 and many others. IN many ways the only aircraft that they developed efficiently during the war was the FW-190. Even had the ME 262 been introduced 6 months earlier, its hard to see exactly how it would have changed the air war materially. By 1944 the real problem the Germans had was that they were running out of fuel to train pilots (because of the pressure of the strategic air war). Its hard to see how they could have provided that many extra pilots for the ME 262. As it was, by 1944 poor German pilot training meant that 25% of German aircraft were actually lost simpy being flown to their deployment areas. Their pilots really were flawed. Such a loss percentage would have been even higher for the ME 262 as it was really tricky to fly.
     
    That being said, more ME 262's would certainly have lead to an increase in Anglo-American strategic bomber losses, but its hard to say how big of an increase. I doubt that Allied jets would have made a big difference because the big problem with all early jets (which the Germans never really solved with the ME 262, was their incredibly short flying time. They could only fly for a short period of time because of fuel consumption. Allied jets could probably only have actually met ME 262s in combat had they been based in France.
  18. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to John Kettler in Ukrainian T-84 Oplot analysis page   
    Tanknut Dave has a very good page on the T-84 Oplot, a term I now understand to mean "bulwark." This page goes into tremendous, glorious grog detail (manufacturer's sheet?) on the tank, to include the thermal sights (don't understand the magnification stuff at all; makes no sense--NFOV is 1/3 mag of WFOV), other visionics, signature reduction measures of which I knew effectively nothing, even how many grenades and AKS cartridges are carried. Part of this page is a mini tutorial on the nits and grits of the ammo carousel and its specific operating parameters. There is a full discussion of the CM suite on the tank, too, including the duration of the aerosol screen once deployed. Don't plan on staying long. Lasts all of a minute. The ballistic protection section seems impressive, but it's much easier to claim the ability to survive various threats and something else altogether to actually deliver on the claims. Vid of an Oplot on the Poligon is pretty cool. Amazing how little can be seen of it when running through the brush.
     
    Regards,
     
    John Kettler
     
     
  19. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from nsKb in 4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest   
    Yes. Even humidity will degrade it to a small degree. The dust kicked up by large artillery barrages can block it (although I don't think that is modeled in the game). Infrared light is still a type of light, after all. But infrared light will penetrate obscurants more readily than visible light because of its long wavelength -- particularly light on the mid to far end of the IR spectrum, which is why thermal sights can see through most types of smoke.
  20. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Apocal in Max Effective Tank Ranges?   
    Same source:
     
    "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945", by S. J. Zaloga and L. S. Ness, 1998 (Alan Sutton, Thrupp) gives on page 179 a table of the ranges in metres at which Soviet tanks and assault guns were knocked out by 75mm and 88mm guns in 1943-44, as follows:
    Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun
    100-200_______10.0%_________4.0%
    200-400_______26.1%________14.0%
    400-600_______33.5%________18.0%
    600-800_______14.5%________31.2%
    800-1000_______7.0%________13.5%
    1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5%
    1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6%
    1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0%
    1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7%
    1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5%
     
    However, note the time period. Tanks and self propelled guns with weaponry capable of 2000+ meter shots with any sort of reliability comprised a very small portion of the total vehicles in battle until about mid-1944 when the Panther began to be seen in larger numbers (and were still a minority till the end of the war) so that is why the discrepancy with the NW Europe numbers.
  21. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from wee in 4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest   
    Yes. Even humidity will degrade it to a small degree. The dust kicked up by large artillery barrages can block it (although I don't think that is modeled in the game). Infrared light is still a type of light, after all. But infrared light will penetrate obscurants more readily than visible light because of its long wavelength -- particularly light on the mid to far end of the IR spectrum, which is why thermal sights can see through most types of smoke.
  22. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Capt. Toleran in CMBS v1.01 Patches are now available   
    It is the former.
     
    Unless one of those mods is Vin's Animated Text you really don't have to worry about removing them at all. As a beta tester I get new "patches" nearly every week and I never remove my mods.
  23. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from gnarly in To Button or not to Button? (Spotting the enemy)   
    Unbuttoned TC does lose his sensors when unbuttoned, so here is a possibly incomplete list of vehicles that spot better while buttoned all the time (but only to the front of the vehicle).

    M1A2 Abrams
    T-90AM
    BM Oplot
    M2A3 Bradley
    M3A3 Bradley
    M7A3 B-FIST
    Khrizantema
    Tunguska

    I don't know for certain, but I think it very unlikely that vehicle crews have night vision goggles, so nearly all vehicles should stay buttoned in low light conditions.
  24. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in US military aid to Ukraine - no politics please   
    Russians are too good at history to hand the US a bloody shirt to wave.  The one way to ensure the US keeps doing what it's doing, only LOUDER AND MORE ANNOYING is to tell it to stop.
     
    A better solution would be simply "OH NO WE ARE DEFEATED BY THE UKRAINE!"  and drawing down very loudly and openly then waiting two or three weeks for the US to get distracted by Kayne West again before going right back to arming the rebels.  American ADHD is by far more powerful than clumsy threats.  
  25. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Capt. Toleran in M25 CDTE - salvage priority?   
    Weapons are sometimes damaged, so they are randomly not salvageable. If it is NEVER salvaged then that could be a problem.
×
×
  • Create New...