Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Webs

  1. I noticed that too, here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113294
  2. It was a flat grass field with no cover for hundreds of meters. It may be easy to test, but not with the demo.
  3. I've been playing the CMFI demo and I've been stymied (relatively) by the "Elephants and Tigers" scenario because that FlaK halftrack seems to be magical. My observations are anecdotal, yes, but I've run the scenario three times now and the issues continue to happen. Now, this thing is a 37mm FlaK 36 on the bed of the halftrack, exposed to the world with a gun shield but no armour cover from the vehicle. You'd think the gun crew would be vulnerable. But: - My Vickers crews have had the SdKfz 7/2 in full sight about 500-600 m away, but they will not fire at the targeted halftrack until the FlaK gun itself starts firing. The Vickers will fire at an area target next to the vehicle. It just won't fire at the half-track itself, which is a pity because that exposed gun crew could use a shower of .303. - 81mm and two-inch mortar fire can barely scratch the SdKfz 7/2. I have never scored a direct hit, but the most damage a close bomb ever did was to take out the commander. Such bombs against infantry would be devastating, but they barely inconvenience the halftrack. - My sniper will fire at the half-track but has not injured a single SdKfz 7/2 crew member in three games despite taking out numerous other infantry. I get a lot of hull armour hits, which is weird because the SdKfz 7/2 has no hull armour. Well, the cab does, and there are little skirts of armour around the bed that the 3-d model shows as opened in deployed mode. But the gun crew is completely exposed whether or not the skirts are up and should be vulnerable. In order to kill that beast, I need to use infantry or a Humber AC Mk IV, both of which are normally torn to bits by the halftrack's FlaK gun. I use a lot of smoke. I only managed it in one of the three times I played. What's up with this? (There is another little bug in the bowels of the scenario/demo. The one time one of my Humbers knocked out the SdKfz 7/2, the end-of-game kill was awarded to my other Humber, which had been destroyed by a recoilless 75mm much earlier in the game.)
  4. The submarine in "Das Boot" was the same submarine used in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
  5. I think the key issue is the time limits. When you have, say, only an hour to scout enemy positions, ford a river, and overrun some AT guns, you're going to suffer a lot more than you would if you had hours to conduct proper recon and probes.
  6. Ah, good old WW2OL. I wrote/edited the equipment manual that came with the original game. The original stuff and updates went into a wiki eventually, but it no longer seems to be online. It was at http://wiki.wwiionline.com.
  7. The LOS/targeting line is straight. The path of the shell is an arc.
  8. The Matilda I was a pillbox. The Matilda II had a coax MG. Unless the infantry had a 75 or 88 to call on, it couldn't do squat to either Matilda. Nor could the German armour. Slow, yes - but damn near invincible.
  9. And that edge would not be apparent in this game other than perhaps rate of fire - but the B1 is essentially invulnerable to the Panzer III and the S 35 isn't far behind while possessing high single-shot-kill probability with their 47-mm gun. Besides, if you don't have a radio, that's one fewer person you need in the turret.
  10. Hrm. I'd like to see the whining that happens when the French/BEF player uses his armour as it should be used. The Germans would suffer terribly. Give me a handful of SOMUA S 35s and I'll beat them all the way back to Munich. Throw some B1s in there and make it Berlin (although it would take a really long time to drive there). The French had some fantastic albeit stupid-looking tanks, thrown away by doctrine.
  11. Waclaw, These sound great, but I have some advice for you: always put your name and a URL in your release notes, even the updates.
  12. I wrote this for the tech manual of World War II Online (when it was called that): http://wiki.wwiionline.com/mediawiki/index.php/Satchel_Charge Key quotes: "Targeting the engine deck was effective as blast and/or hot gases could pass through the cooling grills and enter the engine compartment, where fuel fumes might ignite. Such a result would most likely destroy the engine and the fire could detonate on-board ammunition and brew up the tank." "Lucky hits aside, satchel charges proved most effective against tank tracks. Placed in or under the track, they would break the track and probably damage running gear. In most cases, these immobilized tanks retained their armament, becoming, in effect, pillboxes. If a satchel landed anywhere else on the tank, it would have little chance of doing serious damage – perhaps minor fittings, aerials, and the like might be destroyed. With luck, a sub-optimally placed satchel charge might produce spall inside a tank, concuss the crew, or injure someone directly opposite the detonation point." "During the Winter War, Finnish General Headquarters studied the effectiveness of its anti-tank kasapanos (piled charge). It noted in February 1940 that 1.0-2.0 kg (2.2-4.4 lb) of TNT was sufficient to sever the track of a tank if blown under or next to the track. A charge of 2.0 kg (4.4 lb) could destroy vehicles of around 6 tonnes, 3.0 kg (6.6 lb) was sufficient to destroy 12-tonne vehicles, and 4.0 kg (8.8 lb) was sufficient for 30-tonne vehicles such as the Soviet T-28 medium tank." "According to the Finns, 6.0 kg (13.2 lb) of explosives was powerful enough to knock out any Soviet tank of 1940 vintage, provided a soldier could get close enough to place it where it could do damage, on the tank’s rear deck. Destroying a tank with a satchel charge any other way was extremely difficult, as the charge could not be tamped and so much of the explosive force was lost. Some success was scored by soldiers who lay in trenches and allowed a tank to pass overhead, then secured explosives to the weaker underside armour of the tank with adhesive. When this worked, it would incapacitate the crew with over-pressurisation rather than disable the tank itself." And my all-time favourite tactic, yet to be modelled: "'Military Training Pamphlet No. 42: Tank Hunting and Destruction', a British Army publication produced in August 1940, included even more desperate measures. It suggests that a team of four can take out tanks with a length of railway track, a blanket, a bucket of petrol, and matches. The team was to hide in an alleyway or alongside a house where the tank is expected to pass. Two men hold the railway track with the blanket draped over it. As the tank passes the hiding place, these two run out and jam the railway track into the tank’s suspension. The third man throws the bucket of petrol over the blanket, now entangled in the track, and the fourth sets it on fire. Another plan from that booklet is for a single man with a hammer and hand grenade to station himself near the expected route of a tank. When the tank passes, the man is to jump onto the passing tank and pound on the turret hatch with the hammer. When the tank commander opens the hatch to find out what is going on, the attacker is to drop the hand grenade inside. There is no record of these tactics ever being attempted."
  13. Well, I'm back. Thank you for revisiting the Mac.
  14. To be fair, the Germans discovered that in May 1940, much to the consternation of the Matilda crews. P.S. That's me who just friended you on FB.
  15. Does this only apply to infantry? If so, has anybody worked up a similar chart for guns small and large? For vehicles?
  16. TECH PUBS BRIEFING CRUISER TANK MK III & IV (A13) The A13 was an immensely important step forward in British tank evolution, for it was the first British cruiser tank to incorporate a suspension system that stemmed from the designs developed by the American designer J. Walter Christie. His coil-spring suspension system was to be included in the design of all future British cruiser tanks thereafter. However, it should be noted, the most famous tank to incorporate this suspension system was the Soviet manufactured T-34, arguably the best all-round tank of the war. The man responsible for the introduction of the Christie suspension into British vehicles was a Lt. Col. Martel, who was appointed Assistant Director of Mechanisation to the War Office in the late summer of 1936. Shortly after his arrival, Martel attended the Soviet Army autumn training manoeuvres in September as an observer where he was to see the Soviet BT tank in action for the first time and he was suitably impressed. The BT tank incorporated a Chritie suspension and demonstrated good performance and speed. It was based upon the British “16-tonner” of 1929 and was available in large numbers. Upon his return to the War Office, Martel set out to instigate the design of a vehicle with vastly superior performance than had previously been seen in Britain. This was to be achieved primarily by adopting the Christie suspension along with a powerful lightweight engine. The War Office ordered two Christie demonstration vehicles from the United States and upon their arrival found that the Christie suspension incorporated compression springs along with large-diameter rubber-rimmed road wheels. The combination allowed the vehicle to run at high speed either with or without tracks. British designers saw trackless running capability as an unnecessary complication and quickly decided to dispense with it. They also undertook to widen the vehicle so that they could fit a 2-pr cannon along with associated turret. At the end of 1936, the British decided to build two prototypes and Morris Commercial Cars was asked to undertake the initial design. The prototypes were designated A13E2 and A13E3 after the original Christie demonstrator vehicles had received the designation A13E1. Nuffield Mechanisations and Aero, a subsidiary of Morris, was, at the time, licensed to manufacture a high-performance American-designed World War I aircraft engine called the Liberty. With the Liberty engine, the A13E2 prototype chassis in October 1937 attained a top speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). Certain mechanical problems, due mainly to the high speed of the vehicle, were soon highlighted and overcome. Designers added a governor to restrict the speed of the vehicle to 30 mph (48 km/h), altered the clutch and transmission, and added shorter, pitched tracks. In early 1938, the War Office awarded Nuffield a production order for 65 vehicles. Deliveries to the army began in early 1939 and by September of that year, all 65 had been delivered. These vehicles were officially known as Cruiser Tank Mark III (A13 Mk I). In early 1939, the War Office had decided to increase the armour thickness of all British cruiser tanks to a standard 30 mm (1.18 in). One Cruiser Tank Mark III was modified to these specifications as a pilot model. Extra armour plate was placed upon the nose, glacis, and turret. Two additional armor plates reinforced each turret wall, configured so that one plate sloped out and down from the turret’s top edge while a second attached to the bottom edge sloped out and up. The two plates met and with the original turret wall enclosed a triangular hollow that gave the turret a distinctive angled look. German designers would later use this spaced armour effect to defeat hollow-charge projectiles such as the Piat and Bazooka infantry anti-tank weapons. Amazingly, testing showed that the weight of the extra armor did not appreciably degrade the tank’s performance, and all Mark IIIs were so modified. These vehicles, officially designated Cruiser Tank Mark IV (A13 Mk II), were used almost exclusively by the 1st Armoured Division in France the following year. Nuffield undertook main production of Cruiser Tank Mark IVs. The Cruiser Tank Mark IVA (A13 Mk II) was a later production vehicle with a coaxial Besa machine gun in place of the original Vickers. These vehicles were also used by 1st Armoured Division in France, where they took part in the Allied counterattacks against the Somme River bridgeheads, May 23-24, 1940. Falling back with the rest of the BEF, they fought to defend Calais and Dunkirk. A13s were also issued to 7th Armoured Division during the North Africa campaign. Total production of the Cruiser Tank Mk IV series amounted to some 655 examples but production ceased in 1941 as it became apparent that the vehicle was totally outclassed by the heavier and more powerful German tanks.
  17. Combat Mission: Syria's ****ed You got better?
  18. I'm disappointed. I haven't played CM since I moved to OS X. It's a great game, but it's not worth a reboot into OS 9. Now I have to wait even longer for a decent WWII wargame. Some the sting will lift if I can at least play Israelis in CMSF, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen. I secretly suspected that the new game was going to be Arab-Israeli wars....
  19. Things are OK. Don't do much Usenet anymore. I'm blogging, though. I can't stand myself. http://101squadron.com/blog.html
  20. WW2OL is still alive and well. It has its faults, but it is still an amazing WWII FPS. The equipment lists extend to mid-war now. Sherman, Pz IV G, Crusader III, P-38, FW 190, Spitfire Mk IX. Tnext upgrade will introduce Tigers and Churchills, but not, alas, the Churchill Crocodile.
  21. This is as good a thread as any to post this story. My family went to a friend's dinner party for last night's Rosh HaShanah dinner. On one side of me sat John Franken, who was a POW in Japan for 3.5 years and who was saved from the Nagasaki A-bomb because he had been sent from the harbour to a coal mine. On the other side of me sat Miguel, a Spaniard who had fought with the Maquis. Once the Allies invaded France, he became a Sherman driver, and drove his tank as far as Munich. I told Miguel that my five-year-old was a big tank nut, so Miguel asked him what his favourite tank was. Jacob, my boy, thought a second, and said, "Mmm, a Panzer IV." LOL
  22. What does Toronto have that Montreal doesn't? Black-and-white footage of their last Stanley Cup.
  23. It's probably too late to set something like this into CM2, but I might as well bring it up. What if there were two frames of reference - one at unit level and another at, say, battalion or division level? Call it Rear HQ. Unit level would work pretty much as we have it now. Say we have an infantry squad. When we select it, we would only see those enemy units that that squad can see. If the squad is in command of its platoon HQ, then it can get markers for all enemy units that the platoon can see. (And, possibly, markers for information relayed from higher levels of command.) The change would come into the Rear HQ perspective. In CM now, we have an overall view of the battlefield taht we can fly through like a hyperdragonfly. We can check out anything and everything any squad spots. I would remove this completely. The only way to view the actual terrain and spotted units would be from the perspective of your soldiers on the ground. You would not get the freedom to flit about the terrain. Instead, Rear HQ would get a separate screen of its own. This would have the terrain mapped, literally, on a 2-D top-down map. It could have terrain contours and terrain type mapped on it, but it would be a abstraction of the battlefield, like any other map you've ever used. This map would be the only comprehensive perspective of the battle. All units that you are in contac with and all enemy units that your units can tell you about would appear in abstract for on this Rear HQ map - it would look a lot like a wargame board, in fact. You could select units on this map and be taken to them on the battlefield. You could even give orders through this map, as in "run to that hill." (Of course, you could give orders at unit level as well.) What a scheme like this would accomplish is to divorce front line action and threats from master plans, the interlocking of which is I think the primary complaint when you boil down whines about borg spotting.
  • Create New...