Lt Belenko Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 All this eye candy is nice, but do the gauges in the Priest represent the true oil pressure when moving at road speed? Tim Allen : When I walk into that (Sears) Craftsman tool department, my nipples get rock-hard! </Tim Allen > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppelhopser Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Would have been interested in a few pictures of german pixel men as well. Otherwise I enjoy what I see in the context of what was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 More Germans?! There are dead Krauts under the PAK, AND a burning JagdPanzer IV. What more could you want? Okay, you can only see the smoke of the later, but that's being fussy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migo441 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Beat me to it Elmar! I was also going to draw attention to the PaK crew. They aren't very lively, but you can at least see an entrenching tool and gas mask case. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Why the army modified the helmet chin strap late in 944 to negate the fact that when the strap stayed locked it did in some cases caused serious neck injuries and or death to a soldier (neck broken). This reminds me of a WWII U.S. propaganda film showing soldiers training for hand-to-hand combat. One techniques was indeed to come up behind the enemy, grab the helmet and yank it back, pretty much throttling the guy with his own chin strap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Dunno about WWII, but IIRC the current crop of kevlar helmet chin straps got redesigned recently partly for this reason (also for improved comfort and stability) I thought that was more for allowing the helmet to absorb the shock of a projectile impact without transferring the force to the wearer through the chin strap. Or at least lessening the force transfered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Here's infantry with gaiters (spats). Leggings. They're called leggings. But you're right, they're also called gaiters sometimes. They were pretty universal among the non-airborne infantry in Normandy, and I think again during the Bulge battles, but weren't always seen at other times. I don't know what the story is on that. I imagine though that during cold wet months the GIs were happy to have everything on their feet that they could. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Bodkin, eh, maybe. I was at a briefing recently about all the new and shiny kit coming through The System, and I recall something about the kevlar helmets being redesigned to better cope with overpressure situations, based on all the experience gained from IEDs. But, there was a whole bunch of kit, and the briefing was pretty rapid-fire. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Blast doesn't cave your face in, but it can toss you few meters away without killing you. If it is very close you will have burns (you are wounded) and might have your lungs turned out (you are dead) without any scar being seen on your body. In that case it doesn't mind if you have an helmet on or not; Cheers Really? This must be some kind of special blast that isn't a short duration overpressure. Considering that the regular kind of blast will quite happily cave steel plate in, or throw a body some distance (usually in several pieces) without causing lung implosions. Blast itself will not cause burns - that's down to residual burning particles or radiant energy. Most fatalities resulting from blasts due to HE weapons are down to secondary fragmentation. For backup pedantry: No instantly fatal blast will leave a scar on the victim, regardless of . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 The whole 'to chin strap or not to chin strap' thing always puzzled me as well. For what it's worth, I found this link on the Mythbuster's website. And this link as well of the ball and clevis strap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I don't get the disagreement here. Think of a helmet like an umbrella. A strong gust will either pull your umbrella from your grasp or turn it inside-out, or drag you down the street after it. With a helmet (basically an overturned pot), a blast may catch it from below and try to throw it back. The chin strap will either give way or it won't. We've all read the old combat anecdotes "The blast threw me XX and I came to on the far side of X." Naturally there wouldn't be quite so many anecdotes "The blast caught my helmet from below, pulled me off my feet, broke my neck and killed me." They're designing vehicles these days with breakaway fenders percisely so an IED blast can't get leverage on a vehicle and flip it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Really? This must be some kind of special blast that isn't a short duration overpressure. Considering that the regular kind of blast will quite happily cave steel plate in, or throw a body some distance (usually in several pieces) without causing lung implosions. Blast itself will not cause burns - that's down to residual burning particles or radiant energy. Most fatalities resulting from blasts due to HE weapons are down to secondary fragmentation. For backup pedantry: No instantly fatal blast will leave a scar on the victim, regardless of . We are not speaking of a thermobaric explosion , neither of an EFP explosion (explosive Formed projectiles), just of a shell (Artillery and or mortar) landing on the ground or exploding 5 to 10 meters over the target. Neither are we speaking of the effect of the steel fragments. We are just speaking about the blast effect. There are numerous studies being done on that issue since the Irak and Afghanistan WIA and post traumatic disorderq found on the guys having been affected by blast. Will post some things about it, if you are interested. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 This has to be the most off-topic and odd argument/debate between wargamming grogs I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 This has to be the most off-topic and odd argument/debate between wargamming grogs I have ever seen. Surely, you have forgotten the tripod/Bren controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I just took a picture showing trees up to 2km away, will see if Steve will let me post it. Rune This great little post seems to have been lost in the shuffle. Any word on this? Or even better yet, how about some Water? It has been mentioned for CM:Afghanistan and CM:Normandy but very little info. or screenshots have made their way out so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Sorry, been too busy with creating a scenario. Will follow up today. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I just took a picture showing trees up to 2km away, will see if Steve will let me post it. Rune Sorry, been too busy with creating a scenario. Will follow up today. Rune No Doubt an "Evil" scenario involving an American Airborne squad's attempt to attack a German Defensive position across a 2km open field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Thank you for the bone! Looking good... Okay, okay, here's some railgroggery criticism. You've been warned. Dammit man, haven't you ever heard of the problems with logistics on the Eastern Front? Yes? Good. Part of the problem was the need for German rolling stock to adjust to the Soviet rail gauge. Oh, what's that? I'm glad you asked... The STANDARD GAUGE is defined as 4' 8 1/2". That's the distance between the rails. That's the gauge the Germans used. Now, LOOK AT THAT RAILROAD SCREENSHOT!!! Are those soldiers part of some ubersecret dwarf battalion? Maybe they were created to put less of a strain on resource? Less food, pack more in a truck, burn less fuel transporting them, you know, all the benefits. Sure, a bit of a drawback in a fist fight, but just as good behind a trigger. (Marching distances per day are a bit poorer as well.) I'm just wondering, since the screenshot shows a man who can barely reach from one rail to the other. This needs to be corrected. If it isn't, we'll never have accurate trains in the next module! Back to work!! Thanks for the updates. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 This will be classified as "cool" for 2010. Just don't release the game between 11 June and 11 July 2010.... I beg you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Surely, you have forgotten the tripod/Bren controversy. Ah yes, I stand corrected. This is the *second* oddest thing I have seen debated here because I omitted Space Lobsters from the list "D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 No Doubt an "Evil" scenario involving an American Airborne squad's attempt to attack a German Defensive position across a 2km open field You don't have to help him :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migo441 Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Surely, you have forgotten the tripod/Bren controversy. Curse you! Seeing this caused me to seek out and actually familiarize myself with the issue. I've seen various permutations of "bren tripod controversy" bandied about on the forums over the years. I sort of assumed that the debate boiled down to: Side A.) Brens were mounted on tripods all the time and were a crucial component of the Commonwealth war effort roughly comparable in effect to the Avro Lancaster heavy bomber. To not incorporate this into the CM games is a supreme disservice and affront. Side B.) A Bren was mounted on a tripod ONCE. And that was on a training ground in Dorset! If they are going to add a gazillion features to CM, then a tripod mount for the Bren should be the gazillion and first. This is ridiculous topic and I can't believe anyone actually cares about this. As it turns out, I wasn't far off. (Note: I am wielding sarcasm and I'm not trying to provoke or... God forbid... reopen the debate!) It's interesting because a forum search of "bren tripod" today returns 183 threads among which the newest post is today and the oldest is June 15, 1999. And of course very few of these threads actually discuss Brens and tripods! It seems the true value of the Bren tripod controversy is for the term to enter the lexicon here and serve as shorthand for an intense and overwrought debate. The helmet chin strap debate has a long way to go by comparison. I don't see anyone (yet) calling for chin strap on/off status to be modeled and corresponding modifiers to apply to soldier injuries, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 No Doubt an "Evil" scenario involving an American Airborne squad's attempt to attack a German Defensive position across a 2km open field You don't think evil enough. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 You don't think evil enough. Rune That's true. If it's a scenerio designed by Rune, it would be an American Airborne Squad's attempt to attack a German Defensive position across a 2km open field while blindfolded, duct taped to the sides of a 1932 industrial boiler, half sunk into the ground, while being drenched in a rain of boiling poison. The squad would also be understrength, inasmuch as it would be entirely composed of two week old chihuahua puppies. The German defensive position would be surrounded by a mote also filled with boiling poison, a force field and zombie werewolves. With laser beam generators embedded in their heads. And the 2km open field would be vertical. And that's Rune on an off day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 That's true. If it's a scenerio designed by Rune, it would be an American Airborne Squad's attempt to attack a German Defensive position across a 2km open field while blindfolded, duct taped to the sides of a 1932 industrial boiler, half sunk into the ground, while being drenched in a rain of boiling poison. The squad would also be understrength, inasmuch as it would be entirely composed of two week old chihuahua puppies. The German defensive position would be surrounded by a mote also filled with boiling poison, a force field and zombie werewolves. With laser beam generators embedded in their heads. And the 2km open field would be vertical. And that's Rune on an off day. Getting warmer... Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts