Mark IV
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark IV
-
-
Hey, the thread was fun. This should go down in history as the "Board Riot" and is only a part of the history CM is going to make.
Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.
(Oops- sorry about the server).
-
If someone would kindly POST THE URL AND TIME you would find a lot of cooperation- the mispelled links and general confusion are helping to cause the problem.
Gimme a "click here- but not before 12:30 PST" or whatever, and you won't have people clicking about looking for what may or may not exist.
No one is sure where to find the GD thing and THAT is why they're clicking refresh, etc. Just state a procedure and a place and it will all be fine- the troops are milling about and want guidance.
-
O-kay, now we're getting kind of flamey.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
-
The Austrian Voere (sp?) hunting rifle was already offered for sale in the US using caseless ammo. It was reviewed by Finn Aagard a couple of years ago.
No comment on the Executive Orders... that subject's been done enough here.
I did find that the MG42 could be modified in the field to accept the ammo box for the MG34. That would also increase the cyclic rate!
-
The MG42 accuracy issue was only associated with bipod use. As an HMG it had all the stability of the '34.
Burst fire is cool, but a relatively recent innovation, as far as I know. And of course muzzle climb is less of a factor with 5.56 than with 7.92mm.
Last I checked on caseless there were still some corrosion problems that put front-line projects on hold. I am eager for affordable caseless to filter down to my lowly sportsman's level.
-
Quit talking about flame wars. What are you all, pyrophiliacs?
FWIW I don't think what passed in the other HE debate would qualify as a flame war, either, at least by Usenet standards. If you think that was violent you must be very sensitive, indeed. Rude and intransigent do not a flame war make, of themselves, though they set the stage for one.
It's OK to feel strongly and to state with emphasis. Some posts ask "will I be flamed?". Well, why would you?
If you all would avoid the use of value-laden terms like "hypocrite" ("inconsistent" would work without disparaging the integrity of an individual) the chances of flaming are low.
The final decisions really are the prerogative of the programmer, who has a lot on his plate that we don't necessarily see in the heat of defending a single point.
It's not as though this forum is a legal arena where debate can compel a game modification. State your case, defend it if necessary, and you've done all you can. The game is not public property, but a product offered for sale.
-
Neither MG 34 nor MG 42 was rare in the late war, though I suspect that's not what you meant (presumably you mean the oddball variants like MG15).
And rare AFVs are certainly more interesting. Wehrmacht formations using captured T34s would be a real hoot, whereas a scenario featuring captured MGs is not quite as stirring...
-
At full auto, they were supposed to change the barrel every 250 rounds. The change took 5-6 seconds.
How could almost doubling the ROF not affect the accuracy of bursts? Almost every article on the MG42 comments on this. Recoil causes muzzle jump and shooter vibration, and even the short recoil design has a mass of spring-buffered steel slamming back and forth nearly 25 times a second.
P08 does indeed look cooler. Unfortunately, body styling wasn't much of an advantage in tactical emergencies. I own one of each (Erfurt 1918 Luger and a Mauser-built '42 P38) and there's no comparison- the P38 shoots rings around the Luger, is far easier to service, and has the handy and safe double-action. To be fair, my Belgian occupation Nazi-proofed Browning Hi-Power outshoots them both, and is far more tolerant of different ammunition types.
-
Well, the gladius started out about 500mm long, and got shorter from there... I don't know which "Errol Flynn" sword was the problem, but the emphasis in gladiatorial combat was on the bizarre and unusual. The soldiers' swords seemed about right.
And the pilum served both purposes, as a stabbing weapon and as a throwing weapon. The Roman Army was around for a long time, and both the gladius and the pilum evolved- by Marcus Aurelius' time, the gladius had grown shorter, and the pilum was mostly thrown.
"Gladiator" is obviously not a "true story" even by Hollywood's definition of the term. It was still very catchy (I didn't catch the stirrups at all).
-
- yer sig
-
Welcome back, Captain.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lurker:
Try using your Heavy Volksgrenadier Plumbing Engineer units (pardon my ignorance concerning the proper nomenclature for this unit) to search for kitchen sinks in some of the larger buildings in town.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Schwerer Klempnerabeiter Korps. Easily recognized by the coveted PorzellanAngriff Abzeichen on their tunics.
Last-ditch attempts to use the crude Volks-Spüle were disappointing, and definitely not worth modeling.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 05-08-2000).]
-
A refugee from the Great HE Skip-Fire Debate, this topic is only to point out that there were substantive performance differences between the MG34 and the MG42 which MAY someday merit modeling.
The MG34 certainly cost more to build, not only in material, but in labor. The tight fit of the parts was the result of high tolerance machining which took longer to produce, had a higher scrap rate, and was less dirt tolerant.
MG42 was designed to lower production costs and to improve an existing design. One means of accomplishing both ends was to engineer a certain amount of "slop" into the tolerances- not only could they be machined faster, but they were less susceptible to jamming due to dirt and powder fouling.
Reduced bearing surfaces also increase equipment life and help increase rate of fire. The slop in the action had no direct effect on accuracy. Since the MG42 fired from the closed bolt position (delayed blowback), first-round accuracy "should have been" slightly higher (though it was considered somewhat less accurate for burst fire than MG34, from a bipod, due to higher vibration).
There is a big difference between 850 rpm and 1200+ rpm (with a lighter bolt-head, the MG42 could get to 1800 rpm), particularly if you are downrange. There is an even bigger difference between a jammed weapon and a firing one, and I don't know if MTBF data is available for the two, but an educated guess might suffice.
The difference was compared to the change from P08 to P38, though I wouldn't consider that fully analogous (and I would definitely draw the line at modeling different pistols!). MG42 was an evolutionary design, where P38 was a revolutionary design. Luger P08 did have beautiful fit and finish which worked to its disadvantage in fouling situations, and an almost kinky mechanical principle. The P38 was a radically different and superior mechanical concept altogether.
MG42 was also designed to be fully operated and serviced with mittens on- nice for those chilly Russian mornings.
-
There were definitely production advantages to MG42, some of which contributed to the ROF and reliability improvements as well...
...but I said I was done here. This merits its own little thread and should disengage from the Great HE Skip-Fire Debate.
-
Of the two MGs that matter (34 & 42), it could be argued that the difference is worth modeling, someday. If there were no substantive difference, the Germans wouldn't have switched from one model to another, with both produced and issued in the hundreds of thousands.
If the difference is that a burst at an enemy squad might hit two guys instead of one, or one instead of none, it would be significant at CM's level.
If higher reliability meant the weapon would be more likely to be available in a charge situation, that would be worthwhile, especially on the Eastern Front. Quick barrel changes would factor in there, somewhere.
The gamer might think a little harder about where to place his 42-equipped squads, assuming both models were present in a scenario.
But it wouldn't make or break the game. I'm done with this.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomm:
Why not call it MG42(15/34)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ouch! Then charges of inaccuracy would be too tempting for some to resist. That would be a little bit like equipping Wehrmacht squads with a single K98/MP40/MP44 (no WAY). Or equipping the US with a single M1/Thompson/M3. Yeccchhh.
The day might come when the differences could be modeled (eastern front?). Some of them were substantive.
MG42 had a much higher cyclic rate (1200rpm versus 8-900) and improved first-round accuracy which would merit a little higher "blast" or FP rating.
It was more mechanically reliable, so the dreaded "Jam" ammo status message would appear a little less frequently.
MG42 had no box magazine option (that I know of) so MG34 would remain the vehicle mount. It is interesting that the MG34 had a slightly higher cyclic rate with the box, since the mechanical effort to strip the cartridge from the belt was absent (where would we be with old Hogg?).
MG15 is seriously just an aberration, an oddball wartime expedient. It might take a hit in the mobility department (in addition to sharing the general characteristics of MG34) which could be modeled by building in longer delay times before any move order was executed.
Then take the total production figures (if any exist), subtract a few for non-delivery, divide them over the entire remaining Wehrmacht and Volkssturm near the end of the war, randomly assign them, and expect to see a couple in about every 500th scenario. Then you'd have to do this for every single weird, captured, prototype-rushed-to-the-front-in-April45, oddball weapon there was.
Personally I'd rather see the time that went into MG15, go into something useful like ________ (fill in pet feature).
-
My apparently older version of Hogg & Weeks, Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century (1973), concludes the MG15 section with: "The resulting gun was long, rather heavy, and definitely clumsy; it was not issued in large numbers". (p. 5.23)
-
Well, Gladiator certainly does Rock (!!!!!!!!).
Just got back. Paid in the low 2-figure range, too. Worth every ducat.
-
I remember a Yaquinto eastern front game- Stalingrad?- that I really liked. I believe the turret had its own counter (???) on the tanks.
All I had played till then had been Avalon Hill games, and it seemed like a very innovative and realistic system... that was right before I enlisted, and they were gone by the time I got back into it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
??? StugIII is a later weapon system????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Technically it is, though that really wasn't the point. Mk IV Ausf. A went into production in 1937; StuG III was still in pre-production at that time, and the combat versions (hardened armor) didn't go into production until 1940. They both got their long guns in March '42.
It didn't occur to me that someone would prefer half of a tank over a Mk IV; most folks glom right onto the Cats.
Emphasis on defensive operations might favor low-profile assault guns, but the MkIV earned its laurels in both attack and defense (to be fair, so did StuG III, which is also unsung in pop history). But turrets are so darned handy in mobile assaults. Maybe that's why they used both vehicles together?
-
So this network engineer gets lost, and goes to a European farmsite. A cyberbabe greets him at the portal, and says she can help, but first there are some virtual farm animals that...
oh, never mind.
-
CCJ, you rule. This is a cool idea. I just can't get it to work.
Bracketing the pic with the img codes gets me the red X, but it won't open in UBB. Any suggestions?
-
Testing the juston system:
This is only a test.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 05-07-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Fat Guy:
Who did the research that decided that the MG 34 was not a front line weapon in 1944-45?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the answer was that it wasn't worth modeling, not that it wasn't there. CM is more about small unit tactics than about individual small arms modeling.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yeah it is true that you have it in the vehicles, but they need to be in the hands of infantry for the game to be accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would depend on the mission of the game. The difference between the weapons is not really significant enough to model, if your goal is simulating small unit tactics. It has been explained that the squads are essentially templates, and that increasing the number of templates would increase our already interminable wait, without materially affecting combat resolution.
If that is wrong, and the higher reliability and cyclic rate of MG42 would seriously change the outcome of conflicts, then you might want to document that and submit it politely. The weapon graphic is just a cartoon hung on a polygon, so it's easy for the MG34 to be a part of the vehicle roof. Have you looked in the Graphics file and looked at the bitmaps from which the units are contructed?
MG15 is definitely not worth modeling. There are infinite variants of small arms that are fascinating to collectors but wouldn't contribute to the game. I doubt whether the Ausf. D chassis mods with Ausf. H turrets will be modeled either.
If you are seriously interested in choosing the precise weapon and modeling its individual characteristics, there's always Deer Hunter (you can have one of the 3 copies I got for Christmas- sigh). It just seems kind of unnecessary. Random assignment of weapons may come with time (BTS has a way of surprising us). Relax.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok I'm stuck at work, can somebody post some info about the Demo ?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Got about 3 turns into the new scenario despite incredible background WHINING about STOOPID WAR GAMES; then I had to come into work.
So far have resisted the urge to: a) quit b)homicide.
I need to leave early today. Things were happening. SOMEBODY is disinvited this evening.