Oddball_E8
-
Posts
2,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oddball_E8
-
-
Yes. In fact, it has been possible since the beginning, except for some vehicles, it depends on the 3D mapping I suppose,..
Awesome!
That leads to the follow-up question of, why don't we have that then?
-
Looking at the hull .bmp's of your IS-122 made me wonder.
It appears that it shows both sides of the hull instead of just mirroring the hull like it used to.
Does this mean we can finally have tanks with different text on the sides of the hull/turret?
or am I missing something?
-
I'd really consider this in a map in replacement of water areas to create ponds just because of the level issues with water. Hell you could create a pond any height you want. Interesting possibilities Mikey, thanks
Certainly possible using the [TAGS] system if you are designing a scenario.
That way, even if the player doesn't use the lilypad mod, you could include it as a tagged scenario specific mod.
-
After all the tests, I have found that it is possible to destroy or damage a tank with a flamethrower, but the chances are so minimal that it would be a waste of ammo to even try it.
The main thing that bothers me now tho, is that there is absolutely zero effect on the crew morale.
Not even if you manage to immobilize the tank and damage the radio and optics (which I managed once in my 10x flamethrowers vs 1 tank scenario).
The crew didn't even bat an eye despite being stuck in an immobilized tank with no radio and no optics surrounded by 10 flamethrowers firing at them.
This bothers me since even a PTRD firing at the front of a Tiger tank from far away can have an effect on the crews morale.
Coupled with pnzrldr's comments about being a tanker and how he would react to a tank being on fire, it just doesn't make any sense that they don't react at all.
I'm ok with the chances being astronomical to damage a tank with a flamethrower (I'd like to see them higher since I don't feel it's realistic the way it is, but I'll settle for it being possible at all), but to have the crew completely unbothered by having their tank set ablaze (and even damaged) just doesn't make any sense.
-
Wow, people still used those?
I stopped using them after 10 minutes of playing CMBO
-
I have a strange issue with the SdKfz 251 mod. When I am looking at the side of the hull from the larger distance it shows one version of the markings (number). When I move the camera closer it changes to another version (different number). As if there were two versions of hull mod showed depending on the distance of the camera. What could be the reason for this?
I believe the way that the game works currently is that it randomly picks one of the files if there is more than one and uses that for the entire battle.
(if, for example there are three side textures for the 251 with different numbers, it'll pick one for the entirety of the battle).
I think it also does this with the low-res long-range textures, however, it picks that one randomly as well.
So (if I am correct, I can't be sure) if you delete all but one of the numbered textures from your mod folder it should pick the same for all distances.
Of course, this is all pure speculation as I haven't tried it.
-
Im guessing "heavy shot trail" is the sound to edit.
No, those are only after-effects applied to the shot sound so that there is a bit of an "echo" after you shoot.
Mostly not used when using mods (since most soundmods have their own echo in the shot).
The sounds you are looking for are in the "zips" folder under the "bullets and shells" folder.
I am 99% certain tho, that I have heard zips from tank gun shells too. However, since they use the same sounds as the small arms do, they won't sound nearly as impressive as the OP would want them to.
-
Let's make this happen!
-
I think we whould have a community faces mod!
Everyone who wants to be in it can contribute a decent photo of their face and then someone who is good at that kind of stuff *cough*JorgeMC*cough* could put it together as a mod
-
While I might not like this design alot (not a fan of the lilys) I do agree that marshland needs water to look right.
-
Another thing about the FT's in CMRT... Why do they arc so high?
I think this contributes to them missing so often.
But in real life, fire doesn't arc like that.
Here's a clip from mythbusters where they use a vintage Vietnam War era flamethrower at a range of 60ft (around 18m)... Notice the complete lack of an arc?
-
Apparantly, you can actually knock out a tank with a flamethrower.
But it is exceedingly rare.
An Immobilization or even knock out (catastrophic explosion due to engine damage) can happen, but it is around 1 in 100 or less.
Radio seems to be the easiest to damage with the FT with around 10 in 100. After that is the optics with around 6 in 100.
The crew NEVER gets any hit on their morale tho, so apparantly sitting in a tank that is burning is not as scary as pnzrldr portrays it. :/
Of course, these are just tests run in game with one flame thrower behind an enemy tank.
I used the late model flamethrower (not sure if any other models are in the game) against a T-34/76 late.
It strikes me as odd how often the flamethrower team actually completely missed a huge tank less than 20 meters in front of them that wasn't moving at all. It seems to me (from videos, not personal experience) that it isn't that hard to hit what you are aiming at with a flamethrower. Especially not something as big as a tank.
These results are not super accurate, but they give an insight into how rare it is for a flame thrower to take out a tank in-game.
And if that tank happens to be moving as well, you might as well just shoot at it with a pistol.
But of course they won't so they'll waste their precious flame fuel on something that is nigh invincible to them.
And to 76mm's pleasure I also had a GAZ jeep in the scenario with another flamethrower team next to it and that got killed every time. (when the FT team hit it).
-
Oddball, could you please include an open-top AFV such as a Marder or SU-76 in your test? If FTs have no effect on them, that is a problem!!
No, those work fine, this is about the ineffectiveness of flamethrowers on tanks.
I'm running tests right now.
It is possible to immobilize a tank by damaging the engine after all. But the odds seem astronomically slim.
-
Where is this mod uploaded? Cannot see easily where to download from.
Thanks.
Apoll
-
There was a basis for the effects to be as they are in game. It was not just a random decision.
Of course, but I would love to hear the reasoning behind it.
-
YD - xactly.
In research this subject once before, I looked through all the US WW II medal of honor citations for infantry AT instances. There is a case of a jerry can (thanks ME for the volume correction) of gas emptied onto the rear engine deck of a Jagdpanzer, but none in the ETO of a manpacked flamethrower taking out a tank. There is even one of an officer taking out a tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as it was crossing a bridge, with the result that it drove off the bridge side and fell into the river below - but no manpacked FTs taking out tanks.
I have also seen reports of FTs vs Japanese light tanks in the Pacific that do report effective kills, but also describe how it had to be done. They would fire a very long burst without igniting the jet, to just "soak" the target as completely as possible, particularly the engine deck. Then ignite it with a second shorter burst. Ranges very short jungle ones, and light, primitive tanks, frequently already damaged by other means.
So yes it can do it, but it is not easy. And it is emphatically not just a measure of blowing the flame jet over the tank and that somehow itself taking the tank out.
Yes, but that showes that it CAN be done.
To leave it out because it didn't happen often is not a good thing. These situations will happen more often in the game than it did in real life.
-
Not by as much as you'd think. WWII Soviet manpack flamethrowers only held 9-10 liters of fuel, which was expected to last for 6-8 short "blasts". So it's not a heck of a lot of fuel per blast. And unlike with a molotov cocktail broken directly onto the engine deck, there's a lot of wastage with a flamethrower blast -- significant amount of the fuel either burns on the way to the target, or misses the target entirely, especially if shot at the tank from longer range (bearing in mind that "long range" for a manpack flamethrower is anything over about 20m). Precision weapons, they are not.
Now, if you want to posit a a guy with flamethrower actually running right up to the tank and hosing it down, you'd probably would be looking at a lot more actually hitting the tank. But again, for this kind of event to actually happen you're probably talking about a coup de gras on a disabled vehicle and CM's regular infantry close assault routine handles this just fine.
Unless that infantry happens to be flamethrower infantry, because then they are **** out of luck, since they don't seem to have grenades and flamethrowers are about as effective as firing your pistol at the tank.
-
Flamethrower effects against armor in the game are not negligible, they're simply not consistent. Designed to be so, makes success against a tank a hit-and-miss affair, a coin toss. Plus if you're the flamethrower side you're not going to see the crew panicking, you're just going to see the tank sitting there seemingly unscathed.
Well since I've run the test arount 10 times now and the only time I have gotten any damage beyond the radio and optics (and never both destroyed), was when I artificially immobilized the tank first in the scenario editor, I'd say that the chances are not a "hit-and-miss" affair, but something that is exceedingly rare, to the point of not being considered useful in any way shape or form.
As for the crew panicking, I play the scenario in hotseat so I can clearly see that the crew never ever panicked.
Not once during those 10 tests.
I'll be trying it again tomorrow, but I don't expect any different results.
-
Was that Panther hull down to it's target?
No idea, but I doubt it.
-
All:
This was my post when we discussed this prior to release.
Gentlemen - tanker here. You are seriously understating the effects of having flaming gasoline engulf a tank (your tank). Tanks are NOT waterproof. When it rains, tankers get wet. This is why molotov's work. Flaming gasoline will find ways to get inside the tank. Hatch 'seals' typically don't. Why do you think the US Army uses fairly significant air overpressure to combat chemical weapons? Wouldn't you assume that 'seals' would keep the nasty gas out? Not so much. Think like quarter inch or more gaps.
If you shoot a tank with a flamethrower, it is all going to depend upon how much winds up on the tank. Gravity will take the stuff down, while the heat of combustion simultaneously takes it up. If you get some on the engine deck, it will drip into the engine and ignite belts, hoses, wiring, batteries, fuel, etc... Very good chance of starting a real engine compartment fire. If you get it on/around the turret you have near certainty that some will come in via the vision slits, hatch gaps, MG blisters, coax port, air vents, turret ring, etc... If even a split instant of the pressurized spray hits an actual opening it is bad news. Imagine you are inside a metal box. How much flaming gasoline needs to be in there with you to significantly discomfort you? I submit the answer is 'not very much.' Experiment with your car if you like to prove this point.
Second, the combined effects of smoke and fume inhalation, oxygen dep and sheer unadulterated panic should have a VERY significant effect on crew morale. Tankers fear nothing so much as burning to death - think WWI flying crews. 88mm through the front armor, and then my chest? Well, sh** happens, at least it was quick. Ammo catches fire and I can't find the hatch handle to get out? Screaming, searing, agonizing pain as I am immolated? Yeah, that is NOT good. I do NOT want to play that game. Also bear in mind that a LOT of stuff on the tank is flammable. All the gear, rations, spare oil/grease, rubber, main gun ammo, smoke grenades, small arms ammo, hell even the PAINT can all burn if you get it hot enough. A lot of that is INSIDE the crew compartment. Spray a tank with a flamethrower and all that stuff on the outside (and very likely some on the inside) is going to catch fire and burn. And when it does, a lot of that smoke will find a way to go inside the tank - promise. And then the crew will not be able to breathe. And they will get out to try and find someplace where the CAN breathe. Quickly. Might get out, watch the flamethrower petrol burn out, realize the rest of the tank didn't catch, and then hop back in. But remember, when you are inside and recognize that the thing is on fire, you don't know necessarily if the fire is inside or outside. Smoke in tank. Can't see sh**. You don't know if it is the field jacket you left on top of the turret or the main gun ammo down in the hull about to cook off. Fire = bad. Get out, NOW.
Any one here mention the effects on open topped AFVs? Pretty much catastrophic if you actually hit it for a second or so I would imagine.
Bottom line - while not an ideal anti-tank weapon because you do NOT want to have to get real close to use it, a flamethrower is a very effective anti-tank weapon if you get a 'hit' (say more than 2-3 seconds of spray, actually onto the vehicle) and they should be modeled that way in the game. Hard to use, but deadly if actually employed.
Final word - known weakness/trade-off of US tanks is the fact that we use rubber track blocks and road wheel rims. Some other nation's tanks do too. That stuff is flammable, and I have read numerous instances of it catching fire in combat, from WWII to present day. Doesn't always result in a major problem unless the fire spreads, but it is a factor. If we retrofit flamethrowers back into CMBN or bring Shermans to Ostfront, they should be more vulnerable to this particular weapon.
Nice to hear this from an actual Tanker
Did you look at my video? Did you feel it was an accurate portrayal of what would happen to a tank in that situation?
-
What about trying flamethrowers against armoured cars, halftracks and light tanks. Maybe you will ghave more luck against these?
Of course I will.
That's not the point.
-
All I'm telling you is that it is working as designed. I'm not making a statement as to whether I agree with how it is working or if I disagree with how it is working. I am simply clarifying for those who like to play with fire that there is no bug in the way it is currently working. If someone feels that it is not working correctly, it will be necessary to show some real world evidence that indicates that the game is not working correctly as compared to reality. Showing how it works in the game will not move the discussion forward one inch.
Well I'll let you know when I find a tank and 10 flamethrowers and some volunteers :/
Listen, we know there are few documented cases of this happening, but the theories behind it should be relatively easy to figure out without real-world documented instances of it happening.
I mean, if there were no documented incidents of an 88mm cannon hitting a T-26, we wouldn't make it invulnerable to it, now would we?
We can calculate pretty easily what would happen if one was shot at by the other.
Same thing with a flamethrower using a gasoline/tar mix.
It would have the potential to damage the engine for sure.
It would have the potential to seep through openings in the tanks (pretty easy to check if tanks had some openings or not).
It would have the potential to cook and ignite fuel stored on the outside of the tank.
It would have the potential to cause smoke that blinds the tank momentarily.
It would have the potential to cause panic with the crew if any of the above instances happened.
But right now, it seems that the decision process has been this:
-Ok, can we find any documented instances of flamethrowers being used against tanks?
-Not really?
-Well then they have no effect on tanks.
It really does seem that way.
Now, if that is not the way it was, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind fire not having any noticable effect on tanks in the game.
-
ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod!!!!
I'm downloading it as soon as I can
-
I recorded another test run.
I placed one regular T-34/85 in the middle of a group of 10 Elite german flamethrower teams (all within the little dirt square on the map, so all in range).
I then ordered it to stand still for 1:30 minutes and after that move slowly in circles more or less.
While they did manage to take out the radio and damage the optics, not once did they damage anything else on the tank, the crew or even effect the morale of the crew.
They kept firing until they all ran out of ammo.
EDIT: Damnit, I put the clips in the wrong order. Oh well, you can clearly see that the tanks gets next to no damage and that the elite teams from 30 meters away (tops) are missing alot.
I noticed two things in this.
1: the tank is nearly invincible to flamethrowers.
2: the flamethrowers seem to miss this very large target at a very short range way too many times for an elite team.
Translucent Trees?
in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods
Posted
The old transparant trees mod from CMBN partly works. Some of the new trees are not affected, but overall it gives a better view of the battlefied.
I'm using it until something specific for CMRT comes out.