Jump to content

Killkess

Members
  • Posts

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Killkess

  1. Are there no hit decals on era tiles? Ive seen multiple penetrations where i could see holes in the underlying armor but the era tile was still "intact". Aren´t they supposed to explode/beeing damaged by hit decals or when beeing hit by heat warheads? Ive not seen any missing ones either.

     

    Sidenote: What is the visiual difference between T90AM with or without APS? I cant see a difference.

  2. While mounted in their vehicles tank crews are effectively deaf unless the engine is turned off and the commander has removed his internal communications equipment so I think you need to recalibrate your expectations in that regard. 1 meter is approximately 1.09 yards. 80 meters is approximately 80 yards so very close to the 100 yard length of an American football field. The ability to see the length of a football field through wooded terrain is not as much a certainty as you might think either.

    Bull never stated that his tank was 80m inside the forrest and the enemy was stationed just outside the woods. As far as i understand the situation was that his tank is positioned just within the woods and that the enmy tank is 80 m away sitting in unconcealed open terrain. Thats a big difference.

  3. Hated by the crews, but judged as surprisingly successful.

    Which is understandable: small, a good and fast gun, quick and good front armor (60 mm@60° - that is more than 120 mm effective thickness!).

    A bit late to jump in, but i still want to add that this seems to be a often repeated myth.

    The Hetzer had a very bad power/weight-ratio. This combined with a frontheavy weight distribution and an almost overloaded suspension system made this maschine anything but a fast and mobile hunter.

  4. Depends if its AP or ball ammo. By the next module BF will have figured out a way to differentiate load-outs between the 2 :D

    Here is a threat that talks about 30 Cal M2 AP:

    http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-306879.html

    The numbers i've read and also the numbers mentioned in the link suggest that the .30 AP and the SMK-mauser ammo has a penetration of about 10mm of steel at 100m at 90 degrees. The front of the 251 is armored at 12.5mm angled at 22 degrees, the flanks are 8mm at 30 degrees. If i remember correctly the 251 were build with high hardened plates. I see nearly no chance for the 0.30 gunner to penetrate the armor at almost any range frontaly or even with flanking shots.

  5. A track at 300 yards is a big target. Don't think you would have to hit the gunner or shield to be effective. Just spray the track and let the penetrating bullets ricochet around the compartment. At 300 yards I would suspect the .30 cal, 7.92 and certainly a 50 cal from MG's could easily penetrate the thin armor on a track. I'll let the experts confirm or deny that. The 30-06 from a Grand at 300 meters-not sure either. The 9mm/45ACP and 30 cal from a M1 Carbine probably not.

    While i am not an expert i highly doubt that halftracks were such vulnerable to small arms fire. Angled plates and hard steels should give good protection vs .30 at any range.

    Some of the grogs here for a comment?

  6. While i cant realy join the technical debate i just want to highlight that tanks in cm2 share some unhistorical advantages in urban warfare. The mixture of super-spotting and non excisting firing-height-restrictions often gives armor an edge over infantry forces which they historical did not have.

    Due to this i see no real sense in restricting the use of certain infantry at-assets from inside buildings while armor shares much more questionable capabilities. If BFC cant fix the tanks at least give the inf better ways to handle this.

  7. In my opinion the main issue with artillery is that we have way to flexible options to call in firesupport. Linear targetting, to small target areas and to responsive artillery easily generates oversaturation. While i like to have some more controll over the fire-mission i miss some kind of "minimal" target area or even fixed sizes like in CM1. Seeing even "entrenched" infantry beeing slaughtered by a couple of small mortars doesnt reflect WWII realities.

  8. I love this section

    For this test, a 24-gun 155-mm battalion was used to achieve the Soviet criteria of 50 percent destruction. To accomplish these effects, the fire plan for each of the three iterations of the test required 2,600 HE rounds with a mix of PD and VT fuzes. In each iteration 50 percent of the infantry fighting positions were destroyed and about 50 percent of the personnel were wounded or killed.

    And i like that section because in WWII the only artillery pieces neccesary to achieve comparable results is a couple of 60mm mortars. :P

  9. Pretty poor taste of your opponent to hit your setup zone with an artillery strike. ..... In meeting engagements they should not be allowed. In Attack/Defend circumstances, only the attacker should be able to have a pre-planned strike into the defender's, much larger, setup zone.

    Kursk comes to my mind... why a defender should not be allowed to use artillery against known enemy troop concentrations? I feel that the problem often is the very small and pretty predictable setup zones.

  10. The front hull would only be vulnerable to British 17 pdr and that only fairly close or lower quality plates (though the last were pretty common in the late war).

    Discussions about german plate quality come up every now and then mostly without conclusive results. What is your source for this statement?

×
×
  • Create New...