Major Tom
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Major Tom
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:
Why is it 2051?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's the Japanese calendar. Just to show, that this is not the only millenium.
-
Cool, I didn't know that! I thought that the + thing meant something, but, didn't look into it further! Thanks!
Given time, you can probably dig in a Tank into just about any position. Cobblestone can be ripped up, and a tank driven into the hole beneath. Bridges, however, are another issue. You can barracade a tank into a position there, but, digging in in the sense of "digging in" is not possible. The tank would receive some extra protection, but, will loose out on any benefits of a lower shiloete and the lower hull being completely protected.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doodlebug:
Bad choice of wording on my part but the fact is that the German Army was the first to put this style of warfare to practical use. The British well may have conducted such manoeuvres in the Thirties and been the first fully mechanised army in the World but they had not adopted them as doctrine nor recognised the implications stemming from the adoption by others of this style. Many may have imitated but the Germans innovated in this area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly
A theory is only a theory until someone puts it into practice. The Germans took a theory, refined it, and did it, to good effect.
-
Know what is a good counter to German armoured cars with heavy guns? The Daimler and the Greyhound. These tanks have 37mm and 40mm Guns, fully capable of nailing the light skinned Halftracks and Armoured Cars. I am in a PBEM agaisnt a British player with the Auto Select giving him a wack of Daimlers, which gave my armoured cars and halftracks a beating. They shouldn't be sent against German MBT's, but, they can clean up the light AFV's.
Sure, Puma's can take out Shermans, but, what can't?
The thing about the German units, is, they tend to be VERY specialized. Either they are good at killing Tanks and bad at killing Infantry or vice versa. Allied vehicles tend to be more universal, neither supreme at one aspect, but, not pitiful at another. Shermans are probably the best all-round tank. Capable of killing the latest armour but still a good Infantry Tank. Their Infantry is better for both long, short, Infantry and AT opponents. German squads are usually more specialized (SMG Squads, HMG Squads, Rifle Squads, etc...). This is why Allied units are more expensive then they appear. They ALWAYS look sub-par (in comparison to German opponents) for whatever job they do, BUT, they can perform any job with good effect, this is where German forces tend to suffer. Try using a Tiger or Puma to kill a bunch of Allied Infantry!
-
Actually, Blitzkreig tactics were originally developed by the British. During the 1930's, the British went through a series of wargames with their 'Mobile' Division (later the 1st Armoured Division), in which Vickers Mark III tanks along with other fast vehicles enacted armoured and mechanized lightning attacks. British theorists proposed that the North African desert would be the prime area for Tank vs. Tank battles, as, the lack of intervening landscape obstructions would result in Armoured warfare resembling more a naval engagement. The French also produced some very interesting theories on armoured warfare.
The problem with the French and British was that their High Commands were less interested in these forms of warfare, as, they won the last war without them. The Germans had the luck to have their high commander willing to take some risks, at least early in the war...
Had the First World War lasted into 1919 the Allies would have been the first military force to launch a blitzkrieg-like attack, with medium and fast tanks being directly supported by tactical bombers in the offensives planned to invade Germany. The Armistace stopped this, and the plans were forgotten.
-
I think that the sole question should be, is there a year 0 or not. It doesn't matter why this time era starts (ie. Jesus's death, birth, reserection, baptism or barmitspha (SP)) but, to wether or not there was a year zero. Millenium (in reference to time) means 1000 years. If there was no year 0, then the first millenium finished on January 1001 (ie. 1000 full years have gone by from the start date). Thereby, the next millenium would be 2001 (ie. 2000 full years have gone by from the start date).
Of course, we all know that it is really the year 2051, so the millenium passed by a long time ago.
-
It would be an interesting mod to have improvised reinforced tanks. There are many instances of Shermans and Persings stacking sandbags and even logs on their hulls to stop hull penetration. They only added minimal protection, but, resulted in many breakdowns due to overweight. Plus, it did increase the confidence of crews to risk their tanks.
-
Actually, the Stuka WAS the perfect Ground attack aircraft, it was just VERY easy to shoot down in the air
Its design was perfect for a Dive bomber, it inspired terror wherever it went. The only drawback, one suffered by all dive bombers, is that it is easily shot down from fighters.The Ardennes offensive, if supplied better and given an extra punch (ie. more tanks suited for mobile warfare) it was probably the best option availible to the Germans. Sending tanks to the Eastern front will make little difference. But, if Antwerp could be captured, the British would have to pull another Dunkirk, and the Americans might have to retreat back to the Brittany peninsula. It might have even brought about a negotiated peace with the Allies.
The German, operation in the East (Kursk) differed little from earlier German tactics. They concentrated massive numbers of Tanks against a combined force of dug in Infantry well supported by Artillery. The best option left to the Germans in 1943 was to have created a HUGE armoured reserve to smash any Russian offensive (ie do what the French and British almost did in 1940, cut off the head of an attacking pincer). If this plan was successful, it would have cut off and destroyed a large number of high quality Russian troops and AFV's, instead of if Kursk succeeded, would have resulted in cutting off primarily infantry forces. It was only during the Battle of Kursk when the Luftaffe lost total air superiority, so a counter attack could be supported from the air. This was one of the options proposed to Hitler, but, he perferred an 'active' plan.
-
Try keeping a tank armed with a 75mm Gun immoblie, and you will see how few shots it takes to knock it out. The best way to use bunkers is to limit the LOS, so that if a vehicle/squad enters its range of fire it gets nailed from medium-short range. Basically, bunkers are like a HMG or AT Guns that aren't quite easily knocked out by Mortor fire. In history, whenever a bunker was encountered it didn't take much to knock it out. Tanks were Bunker's worst nightmares.
-
I have dissappeared, with warning, before in my PBEM games. I have had some major troubles with my Internet Providers, having to shift to some new ones after they 'vaporized' on me. Just recently, my last e-mail provider decided not to inform me that my last few messages didn't get through, a week later I send out queries, and they never received a message from me (I wondered why all THREE of my opponents, all of which are very reliable, stopped sending me files
)I did have 2 PBEM games that I did vanish completely from (I stopped playing PBEM for around a month + because of my poor e-mail service and inability of my files getting through), but, it was near the end, and I was severely defeated in both of them and conceeded 100% defeat. I do know that it isn't satisfying not seeing the end scorecard, but, the technical problems I have faced were intense and I had no real other option.
I hold no hard feelings toward my many opponents who vanished over time. I have no idea on the reasons for them vanishing and should not judge without knowing for 100%. It could be personal tragedy, hardware/software problems, unexpected trip, or lack of time (Work/School). Maybe they CAN'T reply? Best thing to do, is to let things that happened in the past stay in the past. If it happens again, without warning or sufficient excuse, then don't play them again.
Don't accuse them of cheating or intentionally stopping a game if you don't know that for 100%. It is very insulting.
-
The one thing that gets me about the way that CM turns are run, is, that sometimes the 60 second turn ends either at the RIGHT time, or at the WRONG time, depending who you are. In many games I have sent along a Tank to creep up and catch an enemy before they saw me. I sneak up to them, and target them but the turn ends. This enables my PBEM opponent to manually select MY tank as a target even though their tank would not see it (If it were buttoned and/or facing in a different direction) until the 1st or 2nd shell flew by or hit/killed the sucker.
I know that this can't really be fixed, as, the turn has to end sometime, I just find it annoying when it happens. Although when it does happen to me in my favour I do feel relieved! So, since it doesn't really cause an inherent problem for just ONE player, it isn't such a gamey thing.
The gamey flag rush at the end rarely happens in my PBEM games, as, usually the enemy is routed, I am routed, or it is an immovable stalemate. Hunting down remnants at the end, is only fun if you are playing a game against the AI just to see how much damage you can inflict. In my PBEM games I would be more than happy to win a slim Marginal Victory. A victory is a victory.
-
Take a look at the TOE's in the game. You will notice that US forces cost significantly more. For example, I usually play British/Commonwealth, and have noticed that a US Company costs significantly more than a British/Commonwealth company. HOWEVER, this is primarily due to squad numbers being 12 (vs. 10), being equipped with Semi-Auto M1 Garands, the fact that each Company has its own Heavy Weapons platoon (3 Zooks, 3 MMG, 3 60mm Mortors) vs. 3 British PIAT's and 2" Mortors per Company. Take a look at the TOE of JoePrivate's example. The German Companies have virtually no organic AT, Artillery, or HMG compliments!
US Infantry is more expensive, as, as a whole it is much more effective. Sure, a single German Motorized squad is more powerful than a US 44/45 Infantry Squad, but, a US Company is more powerful than a German Motorized Company.
Regarding tanks, it has been mentioned before that just taking a TANK vs. TANK comparison does not signify a tank's true value. Shermans are much better at taking out infantry formations than any other German main battle tank. Their turret rotation and rate of fire are also superior. As has already been mentioned, it doesn't matter of the US has a 37mm or a 76mm, Mark IV tanks will die fast and a lot if they get too close.
The problem that many people face, is, that it is EASIER to use the German forces, as, individually they are superior to an individual enemy. It is easier to move around one squad than it is to move around a coordinated platoon or company. Gaining the experience on how to move a combined arm force is important to successfully fighting with an Allied army. The strength of British/Commonwealth/American force are in their diversity of weapons in their Platoon/Company organization. Use the 2"/60mm mortors to supress enemy troops. They are fully equipped with PIAT's and Zooks to take out roaving Panzers.
One thing that I have noticed in PBEM QB's, is, that the Allied forces tend to get more Artillery spotters when the auto select option is used. Using artillery officers, and the Allies have some of the best ones (British 3" spotters are cheap and deadly! Never go to war without them!), are important to defeating German Infantry, and even these pesky heavily armed Armoured Cars. If you want to see the reverse argument (that German tanks and stuff are too inferior) try buying some M5 Stuarts instead of M4 Shermans. They will rip apart your Pz II Lynx, Panzer IV's, as well as those darned 50mm Puma's.
IF the German force has its costs increased, or the Allied force has their costs decreased, EXPERT Allied players will have a field day with ANY German opponent. I have won and lost with both the Allies and Germans in many PBEM games. I see no problem in costs, and I credit my defeats to poor positioning and ill planned strategy.
-
I am pretty sure that each French Platoon had a HQ tank, which I believe was equipped with a radio for communication up the ranks. The way that the Command tank communicated with other tanks was through a series of flags. Their orders were not quite as detailed as what could be said through a radio, but, radio communication in the heat of combat wasn't very precise either.
I think that French tank formations should behave like regular Infantry formations. Each of the 'troop' tanks will have to be connected to a 'command' tank. In order to act at 100% efficiency, it has to stay within a certain radius (just like Infantry with their platoon HQ). And if the command tank is knocked out, the rest of the tanks will act like Squads without a HQ.
Small turrets could be modeled by reducing the speed of a tank's firing rate. Since the commander is also the spotter and gunner, it would take a lot longer for it to line up and fire an aimed shot than the larger turretted British and German tanks. Possibly there should be a special setting for the Tactical AI to consider, wether or not they want to sacrifice spotting and targetting for rapid fire, and so on. If a R-35 is in the heat of battle with a Panzer III it would be less concerned with getting a perfect shot than to get as many shots out there as possible (counting on a lucky hit).
Actually, it all works out pretty well. The French will be suffering from restricted command and control as well as firing rates, but the Germans will be suffering from weakly armoured and armed tanks. Should make for interesting encounters. I would hate to be the German player up against British armour, which didn't suffer from either lack of command and control as well as having above average armour and a good AT weapon in the 2 Pounder (good for 1940, and better than the German 37mm).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:
The vast majority of French tanks (some 1500 - 1700) were distributed at company strength throughout the Infantry regiments. This number ought to be compared with the 1130 Infantry battalions fielded in 1940 to appreciate the dilution of the French tank force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My understanding was that most independent French tank units worked primarily at the Battalion level. I have a book of Camoflage and markings for Allied and Axis tanks from 1939 to 1940, and all of the historical pictures of independent (mostly R-35, with each battalion containing 45 Tanks) units stated Battalion sized (ie. this tank belonged to this independent battalion). These battalions were either directly attached to a division, or, more commonly attached to a GBC (loosely translated as Group of Tank Battalions) which had 2-4 Battalions, roughly a Brigade sized unit.
There were a few independent Tank Companies, but, they were primarily B1 Bis and D2 tanks. Not every infantry Battalion had Armoured accompanyment, only the Motorized Divisions had tank strength, and this was an attached company.
In a way, a tactical CM battle will be much better for the French than for the Germans, since it was more common for Armour to be present with an Infantry force as it wasn't totally concentrated in the 10 Panzer Divisions and Motorized Divisions.
-
All you need is a good old fashioned war!
Keeping these ships alive will also mean that you will have to manufacture replacement parts, ammunition, and other equipment not used in any other type of vessel in the Navy.
-
I think most of the history of Italian-German antagonism was due to the occupation of most of the North of Italy by Austria for a few hundred years. The two world wars were only just antagonizing an existing problem. This is also one of the reasons that the Italians didn't perform very well during WWII. They were allied with their historic enemies (Germany) and enemies with their historic allies (Britain and France). The Italian population just wasn't 'into' the war like other nationalities.
-
If they have weaponry capable of smashing through armoured air bunkers, I am pretty sure they can get through the Iowa's armoured deck and belt. Keeping these large and expensive ships in service when cheaper ones could fulfil their roles is not a wize move for any navy in peacetime.
-
If you feel that Tiger crews should be veteran-elite then just make them as such.
-
I think that the main problem is, after 55+ years, these ships are starting to show their age. The Essex and Midway Class carriers were extremely useful, but, the cost to keep them running wasn't worth that of what they would get out of them. This is the same for the Iowa class battleships. There still migth be a need for them, but, the cost to keep them running isn't worth the benefit of them being a part of the fleet. Plus, if sunk (and they are very vulnerable to modern weaponry) you will loose so much military power.
The 'best' possible scenario is for the USN to create some sort of Monitor class, not quite as large and expensive as a battleship, but, capable of massive firepower. Possibly even the inexpensive pre-dreadnaught design could be rehashed? (you no longer need multiple guns to ensure a hit with radar tracking)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:
Relax, guys. The movie isn't titled "Pearl Harbor: The Documentary".
It's only a movie, it can't hurt you.
-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately, many people take movies based on a historical event on face value. Sure, they are pretty sure that the romance thing didn't happen, but, they probably see the battle, political events and so on as 100% the truth. They are benefitting from choosing a historic event as their focus for the movie, they at least should be as true to it as possible. If not, then why couldn't they have just created some sort of fictional scenario to base around the romance??
Compassion, if it were the Canadians bombing Pearl Harbour, then wouldn't the Baldwin bothers be starring in the movie??
-
Socialism, in a pure form, just like Capitalism in a pure form, it works only in theory. Theoretically each have good poits, but, severely suffer in other areas. Pure socialism where all work is considered equal will result in stagnation, as there would be no reason to improve ones self or take on a difficult chore. Pure capitalism ignores the fact that hard work by itself cannot guarantee success, and it is virtually impossible for the poor or disadvantaged to improve themselves.
Like Andreas said, most Western societies are a mixed Capitalist-Socialist blend where the benefits of both, plus some negative aspects, are present. The extreme of both are worthless, but, together they result in a powerful and secure society. Pure socialism failed after the Russian revolution in 1922, and pure capitalism failed after the Stock Market crash of 1929.
My mother is Italian, and the worst thing she could have done (in regards to her family and community) was to marry a German (marrying an Englishman was pretty bad, but, not that bad
. So, I guess it goes both ways. -
I see the US vs. Canada portion as jest between good friends. No other two nations have ever had such a good relation over such a long period in history. There are tensions, but, they are only trivial.
Regarding French and Italian bashing, I see this mostly as playing off a historical military myth. It also is in jest. We are all aware that the French were a little apprehensive about going to war in 1939 after suffereing the greatest proportion in relation to their population of losses in the 1914-1918 war. They also didn't always surrender once the Germans came in sight. In fact, even the breakout in Sedan was only due to the Luftwaffe intervening. The Italians performed some brilliant actions as well, even though they were suffering from lack of equipment (modern and obsolete) and poor relations between officers and soldiers. Stick any nationality in France and Italy's place in 1939 and you probably will not get very different results.
Unfortuantely it is just popular misconceptions that make up these remarks. As Babra said, it all starts in good natured jest.
-
Saving Private Ryan, and Thin Red Line were good movies, showing that a war movie doesn't have to fall in the Hollywood trap in order to be successful. Sure, there were problems with both (innacuracies and very extreme characters in SPR, and a long and confusing plot in TRL) but they managed to avoid (in the most part) the simplicity of the 'good vs. evil', 'david vs. goliath" of mainstream movies.
The CGI, when used, looked great in the 'Pearl Harbor' previews. The use of real naval vessels was probably more expensive, and looked a heck of a lot worse than if the would have made computer generated images of REAL vessels. Unfortunately, the movie looks like it was made by people who have no real interest in the era, other than they feel they can make a lot of money off an event that everyone knows a little about.
I think that the Doolittle Raid was only included in the plot so that the defeat at Pearl Harbour will not be the last thing on the viewer's memory when they leave the theatre. Like a true Hollywood movie, the good guys get a thrashing, but always win at the end.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
What is more important, substance or appearance?
Please, listen to yourselves.
As long as they got the MESSAGE right, who CARES what the messenger was decked out in?!
(Now, if they got THAT wrong too, then I could understand...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is, what is the message? If they cannot show a certain period of history without having it have a happy ending, what kind of message is it?
They have the ability to make it look 100% realistic, and if they go through the trouble in getting all of the uniforms to look good, the CGI to perform brilliantly, then why can't they just get the small details right! I don't care about the Machine guns being wrong, or if they buckled their helmets with a J-Type strap instead of a B-Type. I am just sick of them trying to pass off blatantly modern ships for ones from the 1930's! I mean Tora, Tora, Tora was 30 years ago! Also, just like Titanic, they managed to take an exciting event in history and ruin it with a love story.
14" Naval Artillery
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Actually, the Iowa class Battleships were relatively poorly protected. 6" Deck armour and 12" belt armour were pretty low when compared to Japanese, British, Italian and German contemporary Battleships. The Iowa's never suffered any battle damage, but, if they are like their predacessors (with same armour strength at the same angles) then they would have suffered greatly, even from single 500 kg bomb hits. Ships like the North Carolina and South Dakota were heavily damaged by relatively small hits.
6" deck armour might seem like a lot, but, battleships with heavier armour were sunk by relatively few hits. To say that battleships are unsinkable is the same claim that Vice Admiral Tom Phillips said when he went out with the Prince of Wales (one of the best protected ships of her time) and the Repulse to get sunk by Japanese aircraft.
The Iowa class is almost 60 years old. It is about time that they are replaced.