Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thats right! I needed to find out whether or not planes could be shot down so I built a scenario with 9 Flak capable vehicles and (gulp) 25 thats right TWENTY FIVE fixed flak guns of various types against 5 waves of four fighter each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehe, that exploding jabo looks just like my F-80 over Wonju Supply Dump. You sure that's not a shot from MiG Alley? :razz: I note in the shot shows a number of (dead?) 88s and similar big bore flak. How'd they do? And what's that greenish thing in the foreground that's shooting? You know, you put a "teaser" up on page 2 with the firing vierling. Dammit man, that whole SITE is a teaser . I read, "... so I built a scenario ... " AARRRGGGHHH!!!! (resumes chainsmoking, paces to decanter, fumblingly pours another whiskey, continues pacing furiously) -Bullethead

Steve-o (hey, it's hockey season ) said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was this one huge hill that troops could go up/down on, but just barely. Vehicles? Forget about it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do different vehicles have different hill climbing abilities? For instance, those very low JPz things with the long guns sticking way out front... they'd have trouble with steep slopes. And I've read that the Sherman, despite all its well-known faults, could climb steeper hills than almost any other tank. -Bullethead

Durutti said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From reading a couple of books on the battles around Caen it seemed that whenever the Allies tried to make air attacks during a 'close-up' fire fight they almost inevitably knocked out some of their own vehicles through mis-identification. The radio comms were just too crude then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Comms are still too crude today. Anybody remember all the "friendly fire" our planes did to us poor ground pounders in the Gulf? I sure do--I lost 2 friends to it. -Bullethead

You know, I'm rather surprised nobody's mentioned the Brit general Slim in all this. PLUG PLUG PLUG for a CBI/PTO CM <G> -Bullethead

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still have to get the colors correct, but for now it at least works<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like the new color scheme better anyway. -Bullethead

2 more right here in this forum 1. Folder color: Now I'm seeing red folders in the middle instead of at the top. 2. Messages where that guy was putting a quote in a red block and his answer in a black box have changed colors now. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>American 50 caliber machine gun (M1919 I think). I was trying to picture the size of the projectile in my mind<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As has been said, the .50cal bullet is 1/2 inch in diameter. But to picture it, consider this: it's roughly the diameter of your little finger and the length of your thumb . The M1919, however, is .30cal. The .50 is the M2, known as "Ma Deuce" to the troops. -Bullethead

Moon said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> do you guys need (want) a quick start section/tutorial scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, simply because it seems to me it's impossible to have a true tutorial because the AI and combat results are different every time you play the scenario. Thus, there'd have to be some major coding required to make something repeatable enough to be a tutorial. I'd rather BTS not waste time on this crap . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>would you like to see a step-by-step "how to make a map" section?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most definitely. Not only for scenarios per se, but because Fionn's CMMC idea will require a LOT of good map making . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>how much value has a historical overview over CM's time period for you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In a game manual? ZERO!! Just put a short bibliography or recommended reading section at the end and save all the pages for discussing game mechanics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>would you like descriptions of the scenarios and operations provided on the CD to be printed in the manual?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a couple of sentences at most. Give us something so we know the basic idea when we want to fight a specific type of battle, but not so much as to spoil the surprises. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>do you want/need a tactical hints section?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As for true HINTS I think the URLs of this board, CMHQ, etc., would be all that's needed in this regard. But there should probably be a page or 2 on the very simplest forms of basic tactics, for the unwashed masses. You know, keep your units in command, use overwatch, how to do a single envelopment. No more. Specific other things: 1. Complete list of all hotkeys, together with a brief explanation (remember how nobody understood the elevation angle of the camera?) 2. Brief description of how the AI does things like select targets in mid-turn, so when folks see this happening they'll know why. 3. Brief description of all the various factors that go into firing accuracy for same reason. 4. Brief description of everything that goes into morale state for the same reason. 5. A GOOD INDEX!!!!!!! As far as general comments, I would also like to see ZERO photos from real life. Such "atmospheric" things only rob space and cost money while telling you nothing about how to get the game working or play it better. Only use screenshots from the game, and only when they illustrate points in the text. Also, print it in ink that won't smear when you hit it with a highlighter . -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 12-31-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some of the early Sherman models, for example, reportedly had metallgurical flaws and this is simulated in Combat Mission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This reminds me of something that's been gnawing on me for a while re: Sherman armor. The original design of the Sherman had, I believe, a 55^ sloped front plate 2" thick. On these tanks, the drivers' hatches protruded out as little humps on the front slope. These tanks also usually had final drive covers on the lower front hull that were semi-circular in cross section, relatively thin, and made up from 3 bolted pieces. Later on, the "ultimate Sherman" design became standard, with a 2.5" front plate at 47^ (flat across front, drivers' hatches on top surface now), and a much thicker, somewhat pointed, 1-piece final drive cover. From what I can tell, these design changes had no effect on the model number of the tank. IOW, some tanks had all the original features, some all the old, and some had various combinations, depending on which factory made them and what date. Yet if they all had the Ford motor, they were all called M4A3. So, finally getting around to my question.... Which type(s) of front armor did CM pick for the various models of Shermans? Does the "+" Sherman in "Chance Encounter" mean the 47^ slope and the others the 55^? The graphics are all of the 47^ slope, however. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>tell me how a discarded sabot round is better for busting through tough armour even though it loses part of its mass during flight. Does it have to do with the shape or the materials (tungsten) in the shell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It has to do with the ratio of projectile mass and frontal area. The penetrator of the APDS round weighs about the same as an entire APC shot, the sabot's weight being relatively insignificant. However, the APDS penetrator has only about 1/4 or less the frontal area of the full caliber APC shot, which means the penetrator doesn't slow down from air drag nearly as much as APC. Thus, while both APDS and APC might have about the same muzzle velocity (about the same total mass and driving force in the tube), the APDS round keeps a much greater proportion of its speed at longer range. Thus, it delivers more energy to distant targets. Plus it gets there quicker, meaning greater accuracy both from flatter trajectory and less lead required on moving targets. On top of this, the APDS round has better penetrating properties than an APC round moving at the same impact speed. This is because the APDS penetrator's impact energy is concentrated on a smaller area of the target. So, near the muzzle where there's not much difference in speed, the APDS round has somewhat higher penetration. But way down the range, the difference is much greater because the APDS round has so much more speed remaining, on top of hitting a smaller area of the target. These days, I've read APDS has a higher MV than an APC round. I'm not sure why that is, but I think the early versions in WW2 had about the same MVs. -Bullethead

Capt_Manieri said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> dog mines do sound pretty interesting<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simple thing. Ruskies put tilt-rod mines on backs of starving dogs trained to eat under AFVs. Idea was they'd blow up German tanks. However, in practice they didn't care who owned the AFV. Thus, they were phased out of the inventory fairly quickly. -Bullethead

Richard said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So right now I honestly don't know where the game is headed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, let's hope it gets somewhere. I don't care what Fionn says, I've had too much emotion invested in RTM for way too long NOT to buy the damn thing when and if it finally appears. If for no other reason than to salute the sheer balls of the guys who thought it up, even if they couldn't pull it off in the end. I don't care if it runs at all . Hey Steve, how 'bout hooking up with these RTM zealots? Like's been said, if RTM can be most of what it wants to be, it'll be as revolutionary as CM. -Bullethead

Hehehe, anybody ever use the Russian anti-tank attack dog units in TOP2 ? -Bullethead

Merry Christmas, one and all. I hope Santa brings everybody cool computer upgrades that actually work, as well as massive amounts of your favorite booze . -Bullethead

aaronb said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Damage Overpressure (in psi) Brick housing/commercial buildings destroyed 10 Reinforced concrete structures destroyed 20 Severe lung damage/eardrum rupture in humans 20-30 Death of humans 40-100<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, thanks. This is just the sort of data I was hoping somebody could turn up. It looks like it takes more overpressure to turn a man into a casualty (incapacitated/killed as opposed to stunned) than it does to blow down the 3rd little pig's brick house. So, looks like whatever pressure an 88 generates, it isn't enough to make a casualty in CM terms. It can break windows and temporarily stun (suppress) guys, but I've never heard of one blowing down a house just with muzzle blast alone. Ergo, CM shouldn't have muzzle blast casualties. Thanks again. -Bullethead

Los said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now whenever possible they would run wire all over the place to make it easier to call for fire but it was still a specialist task<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Los is dead on with all this. And just to amplify the above, wires don't move once you lay them. So this was pretty much only possible on the defensive. Thus, on the attack, communications had to rely on the radio which, as Los described, was a lot more primative than it is today. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a BIG gripe during the Gulf War, that and the fact that artillery branch at least back then was much more interested in fighting it's own war (artillery raids, interdiction ops deep battle blah blah) than they are actually supporting the guy on the ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehe, I gotta object to this. Yup, we were sure as Hell fighting our own war over there. Even for us guys in direct support roles, 80% of the missions we fired were counterbattery. HOWEVER, keep in mind that at least in 2MARDIV's sector (and we had some Army attachments ), intel said the Iraqis had 10 times the number of tubes we did. They shot some at us, but they shot more at you grunts. And we shut them the Hell down . But there were so many, they took a lot of killing. We were so busy keeping the heat off the grunts that we didn't have much left to take out mere MG nests . Anyway, at the time, it looked like the better idea to keep you guys from being shelled to bits than to do direct support. But we sure gave you grunts a lot of indirect support -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now my point is: if there is no arm then there is no surface then there is no force, but there is still a pressure<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As the shockwave is traveling between surfaces, isn't it exerting a force on all the air molecules in it's path? -Bullethead

Sten said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How close to a muzzle blast is always fatal? I have no idea. How far away is always safe? I have no idea. I don't think there is an answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Doc . That helped a lot. Looks like if you're right on top of the blast, it's impact can damage you. If you're a bit further away, the blast itself might not do much really dangerous, but it might toss you so you get hurt in landing, or throw some object into you. Very hard to draw lines, though.. Guess I've been lucky. The times I've been tossed, I've landed OK . -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>as a MD with some experience from patients with concussion wounds I can tell you that what Bullethead said is not even half of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doc, I know that sufficient concussive force can not only squash organs but can rip off limbs. But my question is all about what is "sufficient." Hopefully, you can help clear this up. Can you tell us what type of explosions caused the injuries you've seen, and how close the victims were to them? I've been pretty close to bigger bangs than Tigers could do and was no worse off than Tom Hanks in "Private Ryan" (perfect depiction of the effect in that movie, IMHO) -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can a tank be unable to rotate its gun because the building wall will stop its nozzle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And what about some of those JPz things with the gun sticking so far out the front. You'd think those puppies would have had terrible trouble turning around in cramped terrain, or negotiating more than very gentle slopes. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem with this is everyone on the team still sees everything on his side. No chance of mistaking a friendly for an enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I understand it, mis-ID is an AI thing. So while YOU as the player may know where all your units are, your individual units might start shooting at each other anyway. I believe there's a screenshot at CMHQ showing this happening. -Bullethead

As long as they do the PTO and CBI before North Africa -Bullethead

I think maybe a better title for this thread would be "Why the Americans Wanted to Capture Reisburg" <G> -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HQ units represent an agromulation of experienced grunts who know ... what the sharp side of a bayonet is for<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Well, how 'bout that! This here can opener actually fits on the end of a rifle!" (stolen from a "Willy and Joe" cartoon) Hehehe, arty snob-ism, I love it . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>some other things occured to me that hadn't been covered in the thread on arty that wound up yesterday(?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go it, JonS! We'll get the God of War out of abstraction yet . -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only problem, can you imagine how long a PBEM game would take?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it's possible right now to PBEM with teams. 1 guy inputs orders for his units and saves the game as a regular game, then sends it to his partner who does the rest of the units and saves it in PBEM form. It's just real cumbersome and basically doubles the turnaround time on a turn. I hope they allow team TCP/IP whenever that becomes available. -Bullethead