Jump to content

General Jack Ripper

Members
  • Content Count

    2,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

General Jack Ripper last won the day on February 23

General Jack Ripper had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About General Jack Ripper

  • Rank
    Going Postal!
  • Birthday 12/14/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/user/ChrisMaillet52

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Burpelson Air Force Base
  • Interests
    Wargaming, flying airplanes, shooting guns, drinking, smoking, reading, and watching football.
    You know, all the really important stuff.

Converted

  • Biography
    I was born, I grew up, and this is what I am.
  • Location
    Tilton, New Hampshire
  • Interests
    War Games of all shapes and sizes.
  • Occupation
    Commercial Pilot (Unemployed)

Recent Profile Visitors

8,009 profile views
  1. Just finished 'The Savior Generals' by Victor Davis Hanson. It never occurred to me much before how the divergence of political opinion from military reality can so quickly destroy what would otherwise be a successful military action, in the case of Tecumseh Sherman. I also really enjoyed the part about Matthew Ridgeway, being a general I know little about, and now feel keen to correct that shortcoming. ...and I feel a kind of kindred spirit in Belisarius. I think he and I would have been friends, of a sort. The ability to simply throw the book out the window and do what's best to win is a skill few commanders posses, and even if they posses it, they rarely exercise it in light of outside considerations.
  2. Emrys had recently had some health problems. Hope he's okay.
  3. I got a real scalp massage once. Can confirm gif is accurate.
  4. I don't know what metric scenario designers use when determining the time available in a scenario, but I wish they'd get a new one.
  5. Well, we can forget whatever I said in the briefing, because I don't think things are going to work out the way I thought they would. Do not use the plan as a script. I'm now fairly certain whatever changes were made to wooden bunkers have rendered them immune to anything short of direct fire 75mm. I've expended both 81mm mortars and 75mm off-map artillery against them, to no effect. Looks like we're doing this one the hard way: Sorry for the wait.
  6. I've been playing for years, and I don't have a clue. The AI does seem to prefer short or quick barrages, but that could just be the fact I don't really present any large targets for them to shoot at.
  7. It's inevitable when people are passionate about a subject. If anything, it should be taken as a compliment that Combat Mission is a good enough game for people to get their panties in a twist about it. Dispassionate mediocrity is the final death knell for a game franchise.
  8. In my battle against BletchleyGeek, I endeavored to use psychology to cover what turned out the be a significant shortage of bodies. I was outnumbered 3:1 but managed to get him to agree to a ceasefire that granted me a Minor Victory. All because I shoveled bullets, shells, and bodies onto the ramparts in an effort to convince him he couldn't win. If he'd refused the ceasefire I would have been forced to surrender, or at least fight a diminishing set of skirmishes while he stomped my guts out.
  9. Congratulations, Bud. It seems to me all you needed was a little motivation from the gallery in order to get stuck in and win.
  10. Yeah. And? Throw us a bone here Steve! Where are my neon colored laser-based space crustaceans? Sheesh, it's like you care nothing for your real customers.
  11. I see you like to risk those longer ranged shots. My understanding is that if the tank fills your entire sight picture, then it's impossible to miss. Like the side of a barn.
  12. It wouldn't even need to be a full title, a forces expansion pack added to the top of Red Thunder or Final Blitzkrieg (basically just porting some OOB's and equipment from one title to the other), to allow scenario designers to make hypothetical scenarios would be welcome.
  13. You are not supposed to get shot in the side on purpose. Gotcha. The Sherman was designed with an armor basis intended to be immune to the 37mm PaK38 AT gun from all possible aspects (that being the standard issue German at gun in 1941 when the tank was designed). The side armor is thick enough to achieve this design specification without needing to be sloped in order to meet it's overall weight requirements. Later versions of the Sherman had reinforcing armor pieces welded over the ammo storage in the hull side, but generally speaking, you want that internal volume when your overall ETO command is asking for an ammo capacity of 90 rounds in each tank so you don't need to modify your design to make sloped armor. It's much easier to weld extra plates on at the factory instead of re-casting or re-welding the entire hull. I think the biggest consideration people need to keep in mind about the Sherman is that it was effectively a pre-war design, that was modified many times, but still in 1945 it was a pre-war design. Design of the M3 medium tank was finished on February 1st, 1941, and the order to design and build the M4 medium tank was given at the same time. The only real requirements for M4 was to be shorter in height than M3, to retain the M3 hull and chassis to the utmost extent, to have armor basis to defeat the existing AT Guns fielded by the Germans and Japanese, the addition of some type of AA protection (.50 cal), and the mounting of the 75mm main armament of the M3 in a larger rotating turret. This wasn't a tank that had a carefully considered design process stretching for a year or two, the Sherman went from T6 Prototype to M4 production tank in about five months.
×
×
  • Create New...