Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

rune

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,769

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rune

    New To Combat Mission. (Question)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Ok, here is what I have found so far:

    "The 122mm was a two component load i.e. the round and charge was separate just as with large artillery shells so it took twice as long to load in contrast to the German 88s had a shell casing that had both charge and round.

    The 122mm on the IS2 was so big that they had to lower the barrel just for to reload, where the Tiger II could stay on target and reload. This means the IS had to re aim after each shot so the time between shots are a lot longer then the reload procedure. This may be the cause of the Russian crews frequently evacuated their IS2s after being shot at as German follow up rounds came very quick or in large numbers. Russian tank crews are otherwise one of the most disciplined in the war rather dying in their tanks fighting then evacuating (they were actually severely punished if found leaving their vehicles). "

    Grain of salt as I said, but found references to a book I am searching for.

    Rune

    0

    New To Combat Mission. (Question)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Trying to dig into why so slow...the only reference I have found to this point refers to a problem with the breech, and the gun had to be a certain angle for it to be loaded. However, take that with a grain of salt, since it was only 1 web site, and not so overly fond of the source. I will dig into it more... bu am also thinking they may be correct, why else change to a partial auto-loader? More IF I find anything on it.

    Rune

    0

    New To Combat Mission. (Question)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    I am going to disagree with Jason here. The Russians themselves give the low rate of fire. I quote:

    " In January of 1944 the last 40 JS-85s were manufactured at the ChKZ. After this, it produced only the JS-122. These mounted the new 122 mm Tank Cannon D-25T with a wedge-shaped semi-automatic breech, which allowed an increased rate of fire from 1–1.5 shots per minute to 1.5–2 shots per minute. In March 1944, the «German-type» muzzle brake was replaced with a better design from the TsAKB. At the same time, the JS-85 was renamed JS-1, and the JS-122 was renamed JS-2.

    At this stage, the issue of the JS-2's armament was not completely resolved. The military was not satisfied with its low rate of fire and limited ammunition stowage — only 28 two-piece rounds (compared to the 59 one-piece rounds for the JS-1 and 114 one-piece rounds for the KV-1S)."

    The entire articles is avail at:

    http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-development/28-heavy-tanks/32-js1-js2.html

    Also note the problems the Russians had with the armour on the IS-2

    Rune

    0

    Is there a special place for someone with a Challenge like Peng has?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    ALL,

    Costard, being a member of House Rune, and meeting the requirements by beating Boo like the red-headed step justicar he is, is hereby and forever more put up to the members [Not that member Bauhaus, sit down] for the sacred Knighthood of the Peng Challenge Thread. Bring out the stenographers and the beer, and let the partying begin.

    So let it be written, so let it be done. Welcome Sir Costard *Boot*, Knight of House Rune.

    Rune

    0

    Is the T-34's gun really under modeled in the game??

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Several more points of order.

    Battlefront does not use the data from reports german/russian/american or otherwise. Charles uses a formula which takes into account ammo type, armor type, materials, etc. There are no tables for penetration.

    Remember CMBB is several years old, I don't remember 100%, but I believe the ammo low quality was indeed factored in. Valera from the Russian Battlefield site was invited at my request and was a beta tester, and his input was used.

    Reminds me of the infamous sharpnel round debate.

    Rune

    0

    Big Guns vs. Armor

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    You are over-simplfying the gun effects. From a Russian web site:

    The first example of the A-19 tank gun was ready on November 12, 1943 — the barrel of the D-2 gun was removed from the M-30 gun carriage and installed in the D-5T base after after reducing its diameter. The T-shaped muzzle brake design was borrowed from the D-2 gun. The unusual muzzle brake was intended to reduce the main disadvantage of any muzzle brake: when a shot is fired, a large cloud of dust is kicked up from the ground, revealing the position of the tank. The T-shaped muzzle brake was intended to minimise any dust plumes due to firing.

    The JS-122 (Object No.240) passed the Government tests quickly and successfully. Thereafter, the tank was moved to one of the Moscow military testing grounds where it was demonstrated to K. E. Voroshilov. The tank's 122 mm gun was fired from 1500 metres at a captured German Panther tank.

    The round hit the side of the Panther's turret, penetrating it cleanly and tearing the opposite side out at the welded seams, throwing it back a few metres. During these tests the muzzle brake of the A-19 blew up almost killing Voroshilov. After this accident it was decided to change the muzzle brake to a 2-chamber design similar to that used by the Germans.

    The first part of production JS-1 tanks was delivered in October of 1943, and the JS-2 — in December. At the same time ChKZ continued to manufacture KV-85 tanks until the end of 1943.

    In January of 1944 the last 40 JS-85s were manufactured at the ChKZ. After this, it produced only the JS-122. These mounted the new 122 mm Tank Cannon D-25T with a wedge-shaped semi-automatic breech, which allowed an increased rate of fire from 1–1.5 shots per minute to 1.5–2 shots per minute. In March 1944, the «German-type» muzzle brake was replaced with a better design from the TsAKB. At the same time, the JS-85 was renamed JS-1, and the JS-122 was renamed JS-2.

    At this stage, the issue of the JS-2's armament was not completely resolved. The military was not satisfied with its low rate of fire and limited ammunition stowage — only 28 two-piece rounds (compared to the 59 one-piece rounds for the JS-1 and 114 one-piece rounds for the KV-1S).

    Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round — BR-471 — could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600–700 metres. The less powerful frontal armour of a Tiger could be penetrated at distances up to 1200 metres. However, at such distances only very well trained and experienced gunners could score a hit. The vertical armour of a Tiger I, although thicker than that of a Panther, was more easily defeated by the sharp-nosed projectile of the JS-2 Main Gun, whilst it often ricocheted off the sloped armour of a Panther. Later, Soviet designers noticed the blunt-nosed projectiles worked fine against sloped armour. After several tests, designers revealed the effect of «normalisation». The powerful HE round, OF-471, when fired at German tanks, caused cracking and could even completely tear off the front armour plate at the seam weld. The first results of the IS-2 in combat (backed by the results of its tests at the Kubinka testing grounds in January of 1944) forced designers to look for new solutions to its problems.

    However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.

    This was explained by an interesting change of circumstances in the Summer of 1944. The Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armour very brittle, especially at the seam welds. The first encounters of JS-2 tanks with the Germans also showed that the front protection of its hull was not impenetrable.

    In the beginning of 1944, an attempt was made to improve the protection of the JS-2 by tempering the front armour to very high hardness. In practice, it led to a drastic increase in the number of components needed for the hull and significantly increased the cost of the tank's production.

    So it comes down to the year, the armour material, the type of ammo, etc. etc.

    Rune

    0

    Updated TF Thunder

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Both the first and second mission of the original campaign were mine. If there is enough interest, I can re-do the 2 missions with updated forces and release as a single mission. No ETA, currently plotting evil in Normandy. There were 5 AI plans if I remember correctly, so would take some time.

    Rune

    0

    Latest Driver from Nvidia

    in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support

    Posted

    Phil, something to keep in mind:

    Developers and enthusiasts can now get their hands on Nvidia's second OpenGL 4.1-supporting graphics driver for both Windows (version 259.31) and Linux (v256.38.03). OpenGL 4.1 can only be 'unlocked' on Fermi-based products like the GeForce GTX 400 series the new Quadro cards.

    So you are using a new driver, with new code, only available to the gtx 400 series cards. Doesn't help you, i know, but something to keep in mind. Hopefull nvidia will straighten out whatever they broke with the new code.

    Rune

    Soon as i posted this, I found this:

    http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=281429

    Looks like it IS an issue with the nvidia driver [no surprise], and other people are running into the problem/

    0

    Latest Driver from Nvidia

    in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support

    Posted

    Phil,

    Going to disagree with you. It is not the game, as it doesn't happen to older cards, which means the game IS coded to the opengl standard. The problem is the nvidia drivers aren't 100% compatible with the opengl standard.

    Changing to directx would require almost a complete rewrite of the engine, I know you aren't going to see that. It is also the reason you don't see the problem with other games, betting the majority are directx.

    TheMinistry, correct, there is not much battlefront can do other then to program to the standard. If they attempt to fix it, and nvidia changes code, they would wind up breaking the game again and again. Code to the standard and hope nvidia fixes the problem.

    Last, nope, the engine is coded to the opengl standard, that will not change with normandy. Hopefully nvidia will fix the issue or at least eliminate the crashes for you by then.

    Rune

    0

    whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the PENG CHALLENGE of outrageous fortune

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Sod.... freaking....off. All of ya. Except Seanachai. Yeah, except him... his special...with words...

    This one is under my protection. He sends me alcohol and is wise with the ways of true football. Granted, I haven't gotten my World Cup Coin yet, but hey, he has wine. Joebob may have given this one a title anyway, you know how long winded Joebob gets when he discusses titles.

    Rune

    0

    CMSF will potentially have Close Combat style delineated AI?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Actually that would thought there were triggers is a high compliment to the scenario designers. As we learned more by designing, the guys got better and better at creating some wonderful scenarios.

    To answer your question, the AI controls the tactics at the lowest level. Take cover in a house, dig in, what to fire at, use which weapon, etc. Also as stated above, when to retreat. It does not handle a counter attack, altho this may change in the future. So for now, the counter-attack by the enemy is the evilness of the scenario designers themselves. :)

    Rune

    0
×
×
  • Create New...