Oddball_E8
-
Posts
2,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oddball_E8
-
-
What stretched lines... *looks at picture* OH MY GOD!
-
Wow... someone really likes massive maneuvers...
Usually, you won't see me moving more than a squad at the time, and using the rest to cover said squad...
-
Yeah, come on BFC... we like bundles!
-
Nah, lanyard for his pistol. Some guys did that to ensure that if they dropped the pistol they could pull it back quickly. You saw that in just about all armies, but I think the vast majority of pistol-armed soldiers just saw it as a quick way to throttle yourself and eschewed the practice.
Michael
Yes... I was joking.
-
Oh, that is quite a responsibility to place on poor Aris´ shoulders.
Better to say: "the day Aris stops modding CM, is the day I learn to mod"
Naaah, I'm way too lazy for that...
Besides, it's just me leaving, nobody cares if I leave
-
Saferight, great picture.
Yeah, but first thought: 2nd guy from the right... is he wearing iPod earplugs?
-
Oddball - a scoped K98 is made out of an accurate K98 and a scope (with mount, naturally, which is a simple bit of metal). It is not like the scope is made with the rifle. You get to pick which rifle you use the scope with. The G43 may be scarce, the K98s are not, and the expense of the scope (and a trained person, to be sure) is the limiter on how many scoped rifles you get to field.
Actually, no.
First off, the sniper variants of the Kar98k were picked out at the factory, not in the field.
And secondly, it wasn't as easy as just mounting a scope on it.
It actually required a skilled armourer to modify it to accept the scope mounting (which was different with different models of scope).
This is not something that was done in the field or even in the rear echelons.
So again, it is not up to the individual what rifle he gets when it comes to scoped versions.
On the flipside tho, the G43 came equipped to take a scope without any modifications, so if the G43 that a sniper had got damaged somehow, he could actually just use any 'ol G43 lying around without much work at all.
-
Yeah, the day Aris stops modding CM, is the day I stop playing
-
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we couldn't talk about the G43's real life characteristics here. I'll be sure to check with you next time before posting such utterly off-topic info.
Just saying that the topic is derailing...
-
Oddball - the rear echelon proposes, the men dispose. If an experienced sniper wants an accurate K98 he will get one, and hand off the G43 to some squadie or other. And the brass won't do anything about it because they will never know it happened.
Yes, because scoped Kar98's were just lying around willy-nilly.
Not being in dire need by snipers in general or anything...
-
You may well be right, I don't know. It isn't mentioned in any documentation that I am aware of.
Knocking out a tank at the tactical level is a big deal, whatever does the job. A close assault, by it's very nature, is a really big deal. So surely any information pertaining to what weapons can be used to carry out that task needs to be documented?
A lot of posters are espousing on how close assaults work but I have yet to see any link or reference as to where this 'information' is coming from. I'm not trying to be a doubting Thomas but it's not unknown for some posters on these forums to get their 'this is how it all works' facts befuddled.
Mainly because this information comes from posts made by the devs on the forums in casual discussions, often in threads not specifically about AT-grenades or even infantry assaulting tanks, and nobody can be bothered to go through 2-3 years of forum threads to find snippets of information stated by them...
(as an example of how threads tend to derail here, I could point to my thread on how I had trouble finding FG42 rifles in FJ units, which derailed and became about the possibility of upgrading CMSF to 2.0, which has absolutely nothing to do with the FG42 in MG)
-
Seems the consensus is that the 'close assault' abstraction involves ordnance not listed in the inventory, which may include various AT grenades, mines, cans of petrol, crowbars or whatever, with 'grenades' arbitrarily representing any or all of those things.
So, if a squad or section has 8 grenades listed, each of those could, in theory, be one of those aforementioned items.
The problem with that abstraction is that it gives an infantry section far more AT capability than it ever had in reality. I essence the eight grenades become dual purpose; all eight could be used as AT grenades or all as anti infantry; or any combination thereof. While there almost certainly was odd AT grenades and the like assigned to some units, it is unrealistic for a any section to have potential access to so many.
The Paras in the battle for Arnhem certainly had some Gammon bombs - there is an account in Martin Middlebrooks book where one is thrown out of a window but it hits a railing instead of an SP - but, as far as I can see, no record of one actually killing an AFV there. Lots of recorded PIAT and 6 lb'er action but almost no mention of close assault type kills. And there were was plenty of opportunity!
In fact there seems to be very little evidence of tank kills from close assaults in the West in 44/45. Both sides seemed to rely on their respective AT projectors, which could be very successful. The notion that tanks were vulnerable to infantry attack stems more from, I think, the danger of those types of weapon than from the notion of close assault with grenades.
Surely it would be better to, say, assign one or two 'grenades' as generic 'AT grenades' to some, but by no means all, sections. In that way there is a realistic limitation as to how much AT activity that sections can get involved in. In CMBB there was not only a variety of close range AT weapons but a 'follow' command so that tank hunter units, armed with those devices, could actually hunt tanks. That type of AT behaviour is well documented on the Eastern front in 1941-43 but I cannot recall seeing anything remotely like that level of close assault activity on the Western front from '44 onwards. It's pretty much all about piats, fausts schrecks and bazookas and, very very occasionally, satchel charges.
Yes, and not a single one might be an AT grenade too. Hence the possibility of lobbing 8 grenades right on top of the tank with no damage done at all...
It is abstracted (meaning there is a certain chance that the tank will be damaged, but by no means does it mean that every grenade is an AT one)
-
I also do not understand this whole discussion on wether or not the G43 was a poor sniper rifle.
They were issued no matter what the recipient thought of them. It's not like they could switch them out willy-nilly to a Kar98K.
The thread was about why there are so many G43 sniper rifles in the game, not if it was good or bad.
-
I'm not hung up on the use of grenades at all, just as to their AT effectiveness. And yes, I do believe that if other weapons were available they would be in the inventory; there is nothing in the manual, AFAIK, to suggest otherwise.
Assuming that you are including the PIAT in your list, I would agree. These were the weapons developed by their respective nations as viable man portable AT weapons and have a known track record of being able to do the job fairly often. They are also referenced as equipment that was issued, on a regular basis, to front line units from June 1944 onwards.
Crowbars, bits of string, sticky bombs and the sergeants dirty underwear weren't and, as such, I am discounting them.
I believe that there well may have been odd bits of kit floating around but, compared to standard issue, they would have been scarce to say the least.
If you believe that they have been abstracted into the inventory, then every single squad, section and sub-section is, by definition, equipped with them and has the ability to take out a tank. And yet, for instance, a British platoon is only be equipped with one or perhaps two PIATs.
If they were that common, I believe BFC would have put them in as inventory items (as were grenade bundles and AT mines in CMBB - and that game was, by BFC own admission, abstraction personified).
BFC have indeed stated that close assault has been abstracted but my understanding of that statement was that the necessary animations of troop climbing on vehicles would not be shown. Which is why we don't have tank riders. I cannot recall them mentioning that such an assault used any other ordinance than that listed in the inventory.
I can happily accept troops assaulting buttoned tanks with grenades provided they are actually close to the vehicle; that the vehicle is stationary or travelling very slowly and that the possible end results are immobilisation or evacuation. Anything beyond that is, IMO, not a accurate abstraction.
Well, let's see here. (just using british forces here for brevity)
Gammon bomb was used by special forces (such as airborne) througout the war and even into the early 50's.
Not seen in the game ever, so either abstracted or omitted by BFC for no good reason.
Hawkins grenade. Used by both british and US forces well into the post war time.
Not seen in the game ever, either abstracted or omitted. Again, no reason why it would be omitted.
These two grenades were made specifically as anti-tank grenades (although often used in other purposes as is often the case in war).
They were also used througout the war on the western front (and other fronts).
Yet they are not included in the game.
So either BFC abstracts them in the effectiveness of infantry close assaulting a tank with grenades, or they omitted them from the game completely (which I doubt they would do).
Now, as for why they don't index them in the game and instead chose to abstract them, who knows?
Maby because it would get too cluttered to include them as separate enteties instead of just being listed under "grenades" (just like grenades aren't separated into different models and makes with different effectiveness)?
Or maby because they don't have any exact numbers on how many were issued to each unit?
Until BFC answers, we won't know.
But it is my firm belief that infantry close assaulting a tank is abstracted to include not only AT-grenades and AT-mines, but also improvised AT weaponry like grenade bundles, Molotov Cocktails, Pouring petrol on the tank and lighting it on fire and other improvised methods of destroying an enemy tank.
-
Next, a mod I am enjoying very much, even though it has some texture mapping ..um,...problems...Anyway, I have my tricks by now, after so many headac...er...mods..., so I hope I can jump over the hurdles. I liked modding this vehicle from the start, as the base (possibly Mickey D) is AWESOME. The 3d model is gorgeous too. (although the mapping was simplified in some parts). As it happens when I enjoy them, this mod is something I am quite happy with, even after a preliminary "Beta". Possibly one of my best vehicle mods so far...
P.S: for those of you who read "texture mapping problems" and dont understand anything,...well, check the inner side of the fenders....those stretched textured are the result of a stock texture being full green without cromatica variations at all, so, after being added some cromatic variation, logically, looks horrible.
Meh, it's ok I guess...
-
Oh, shucks, it wern't nothin' spechul
-
Only problem with G43 is that it was a mediocre weapon. The machine quality never got up to standards we normally associate with German manufacturing. Its been referred to as the German Garand. Really, its closer to being the German Tokarev SVT-40
Well with a scope on it, that doesn't matter as much anyway. It's a semi-auto weapon capable of engaging targets at longer ranges than normal.
Doesn't matter if it's not as accurate as a Kar98k, as long as it's semi-auto you get more than one chance to shoot
Besides, who's to say it isn't modeled as less accurate in-game?
-
Our dear Mr. Crowley seems to be completely hung up on the grenades point.
He does not accept that grenades are used to abstract various manufactured or improvised AT-weaponry like the gammon bomb or grenade bundles.
Why?
Well for the simple fact that he believes it would be accounted for in the inventory of the units if they were, in fact, present.
So let me ask you one thing then Mr. Crowley:
Have you ever seen a single piece of AT weaponry in the game beyond the 3 big ones? (that is Panzerfaust, Rocket Launcher (Zook or Schreck) and Demolition Charges.)
I believe the answer is no.
Now, do you also believe that there were no such weaponry present in the entire western theatre of operations during the period depicted in the game?
If the answer is that you do belive they were present, we must assume that these are also abstracted in the grenade allotment of the troops.
Especially since BFC has stated that the act of infantry throwing grenades at tanks and vehicles is an abstraction of them close assaulting the vehicles.
-
See Waclaw, you should never put FINAL in the title of your releases
-
Personally I am fine with the old ones.
Do what you feel would please you most tho
-
Not sure if they were still using these in Normandy. I certainly can't recall any reference to them in my reading.
The PIAT had become the primary infantry AT weapon by then, the other AT grenades, only ever issued in very small numbers, 73 Thermos, 74 Sticky and 75 Hawkins were largely deemed ineffective. The Hawkins was more usually deployed as a laid mine and even then was only effective against lighter AFV's.
Gammon bombs were used up until the 50's IIRC.
Mainly by special forces like the airborne, but still...
-
Yes they do. It's abstracted.
And that's the point, isn't it? We all have our own sense of what is being abstracted. It seems reasonable to me that knocking out a tank over a 20 foot built up hedge with an improvised device and little visibility of the target is an unlikely scenario IRL.
But only Battlefront actually know if this is intended behaviour.
Speaking as a software developer, I suspect it is an understandable oversight.
I honestly don't think it is an oversight, but rather an accepted extreme circumstance that is not worth the trouble of coding a solution for.
-
Unless a specific antitank weapon was used in their inventory, this seems like an over abstraction to me. I was always under the impression there is in a minimal amount of abstraction in the CMx2 series.
Minimal, yes.
Nonexistant, no.
Close assaults against tanks by infantry is abstracted. AT-mines, improvised explosives and the likes are abstracted.
That is how it works, whether you like it or not.
-
British infantry sections did not have these and they would be listed under their equipment if they did. This was not a close assault because the infantry had no direct access to the tank because of the bocage.
The only 3 things listed as extra equipment on infantry that I know of is: Panzerfausts, rocket launchers and Demolition charges.
Other equipment like AT grenades and the like are indeed abstracted it seems.
Let's talk about the Road to Nijmegen
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Let's talk about all the good things, and the bad things, that may be!
Oh... sorry... thought we were singin' here...