Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them

Recommended Posts

Andy,

Not as crazy as you might think. Tons of people out there now would recognize the name Annie Oakley, and she was born in 1860  and died in 1926. People still use the expression "the bees knees," and it dates to the 1920s. Calling something a doozy derives from the renowned Duesenberg, a car so incredible that it performed the Indy 500 racers on several occasions, and that's from the same period. Did you know "pic" goes back to at least WW II? Gobs of people still know about the legendary Sergeant York. There are many more examples I could cite. Absent a direct statement from one of the crew of Lu Lu Bell, or maybe family, wife or girlfriend, we'll never know for sure, but I think it's a reasonable possibility, and Lulu Bell Parker embodied the attributes that a tank needed to have:  fearless, hard-charging, agile, excellent shot, etc. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, mjkerner said:

An electrical gearbox? That's some funk right there.

57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What.....Humphrey Bogart?  Probably gonna need a ouija board for that!  :P

 

We need a qualified AFV psychic.

Considering we're on the topic of American AFVs:

T55gmcHaugh%2520(2).jpg

T55gmcHaugh%20(1).jpg

T-55 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage. A wheeled tank destroyer, fancy that? I'm afraid I do not know much history about this prototype. Why was it dropped at the prototype phase?

Germans had the SdKfz 234/4, with a 7.5 Pak. I do not know how effective it was. However, the concept of a highly mobile gun sounds like it's perfect for scouting, finding and eliminating tanks. Put this thing in a treeline, or behind a hill and it's the perfect ambusher. Tanks try to hit them with the funky stuff and they're out of there.

Panzermuseum_Munster_2010_0404.JPG

 

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is a great site for all things Armoured Car:  http://www.warwheels.net/

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

Germans had the SdKfz 234/4, with a 7.5 Pak. I do not know how effective it was.

Not very.....The PAK overloaded the suspension and it wasn't very well armoured, facing anything more potent than small arms, it was in trouble. 

This was a weapon of borderline-desperation, like the Sd.Kfz.251/22:

SdKfz_251-22_D_am_Strassenrand.jpg

Or the RSO PAK-40:

rso-sides-down-spg.jpg

It went downhill from there.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btr_60_with_100mm_gun_by_wolfenkrieger-d

cuban_fsv.jpg

qdlnniq.jpg

Cuban BTR 60s with custom T-54 100mm turrets. I bumped into this during a Red Dawn scenario in Steel Panthers. They wrecked a Patton tank. Not sure how relevant they are on a modern battlefield.

I can only imagine how overloaded their suspension is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not very.....The PAK overloaded the suspension and it wasn't very well armoured, facing anything more potent than small arms, it was in trouble. 

This was a weapon of borderline-desperation, like the Sd.Kfz.251/22:

SdKfz_251-22_D_am_Strassenrand.jpg

Or the RSO PAK-40:

rso-sides-down-spg.jpg

It went downhill from there.  ;)

All during the war and for some years before and after, most of the major combatants tried mounting what they hoped would be an effective AT weapon onto the chassis of any self-propelled vehicle that they had around that didn't already have a higher priority job to do. Some of these were fairly successful, like the StuG III, but most of them were mediocre fighting vehicles at best and at worst were just expensive ways to get their crews killed quickly.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The 'panzer-wrecks' books are filled with images of what happens when a Marder type tank destroyer gets into a duel with an actual tank.  ;)

I'd class the StuG slightly differently.....IMHO it was an effective assault-gun that, by dint of necessity, became an adequate 'Jagdpanzer' (as opposed to Panzerjager).

42 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

I can only imagine how overloaded their suspension is.

I could easily see that thing lying on its side if it tried to engage a target outside a front (or rear) arc of about 450:lol:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I could easily see that thing lying on its side if it tried to engage a target outside a front (or rear) arc of about 450:lol:

I just noticed that they added a muzzle break on the 100mm. Just so it doesn't do somersaults when firing.

Speaking of which, what's with that RSO's muzzle break on that Pak 40? It looks like an improvised counterweight -- not a muzzle break, at all.

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6429916_original.jpg

Looks like it might be armored, but it's seriously defective (wholly lacking) in the propulsion department. Kind of ingenious, though, and certainly no crazier than training US aerial gunners during WW II to fire while moving using shotguns from a moving truck.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

6429916_original.jpg

Looks like it might be armored, but it's seriously defective (wholly lacking) in the propulsion department. Kind of ingenious, though, and certainly no crazier than training US aerial gunners during WW II to fire while moving using shotguns from a moving truck.

Regards,

John Kettler

Interesting training aid. Why they didn't just use an old BTR for this? I'm guessing it's easier to shoot a MANPAD out of an open topped vehicle, as opposed to a top hatch. Is there an IR target up to the left. The half-assed Tetris camo makes me giggle.

1img_0012.jpg

1024px-BM_%C2%ABOplot%C2%BB_in_Kyiv.jpg

Now, finally -- a CM vehicle! I prefer the T-80 over the T-72, even despite the bad press. Glad to see the Ukranians modernizing and perfecting the design. If only we had Ukranian T-72s and RF T-80s.

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Now, finally -- a CM vehicle! I prefer the T-80 over the T-72, even despite the bad press. Glad to see the Ukranians modernizing and perfecting the design. If only we had Ukranian T-72s and RF T-80s.

They now have.....Five:

931480_original.jpg

Fully upgraded and ready for intense action in.....European tank trials.  :mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can make out those five represent the entirety of the Ukraine's currently serviceable Oplot force.....I believe approximately five more are floating around in their inventory, but AFAIK they are not serviceable at present.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Believe the correct designation is T-84 Oplot.....That's as Oplotty as anything the Ukrainians have, all the others are in Thailand.

PS - The only T-80 equipped with Shtora by default is the T-80UK command vehicle, it's been suggested that the T-80UA was fitted with the system, but I've found no actual evidence of that so far:

19fb7860_resizedScaled_1020to573.jpg

T-80UK

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the Oplot thing.....It seems they actually have.....Wait for it.....Six!  :o

All reconditioned for Tank Trials.....The others were allegedly sold to the US (condition unknown to me).

The various unserviceable chassis I referred to above all appear to have been reconditioned and are included in this total.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×