civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
8 minutes ago, Probus said:
I agree, I don't think anything they did would have won them the war. It is interesting to speculate on what would have turned out better for them. Not that anyone would have wanted them to win.
Having said that, should they have built sooo many PZ I & II chassis. Seemed like they were converting the heck out of them.
I think they built a number of useful variants off the Pz I and II chassis. Does anyone have an opposing argument to the claim that Luchs, Marder I and II, Wespe, Strumpanzer, Flakpanzer I, and Jagdpanzer I were useful?
-
In my opinion, the Germans lost a lot of resources and time tinkering away at stupid ‘pet projects’ in terms of tanks. Sure, a lot of this was driven by Hitler who wanted ever bigger dumb stuff, and defying him could lead to a dirt nap. And is anyone aware of any analysis as to what positive benefits (likely in terms of increased numbers of vehicles) this would have allowed? Yes, their was the E-series but it was too late and just stupid at the upper end of the series.
So off the top of my head, the vehicles they should never have considered were; Tiger I, Tiger II, Maus, Lowe, Jagtiger, Nashorn, Sturmtiger and Elephant. Plus all the design work done on a couple of others like Panzer IX and X for example, or the E-series.
I am sort of on-the-fence about the Jagdpanther and the Panther II. Should they have built the Panther II or just fixed the Panther? Should they have skipped Panther because it required too much time to build?
Now, in terms of not building (or designing) Tiger I and Tiger II, they were over engineered, over weight, and unreliable. They already had the unreliable Panther, they probably should have fixed it first. And for the Tigers they were the wrong tank by that time of the war. Germany was on the defense at the time so throwing in heavy, mechanically unreliable ‘breakthrough’ tanks was the exact wrong decision. In ‘Sledgehammers: Strengths and flaws of the Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II”, Mr Wilbeck states that around 90% of total Tiger tank losses during WWII were destroyed by their crews while retreating because of breakdowns or running out of fuel, or bogging. Another huge mistake is the Germans never provided a Tiger recovery vehicle. The Tiger battalions on the Western front frequently used captured Shermans for that.
So my two basic questions are;
- What tank designs should the Germans have skipped to save time and resources?
- What would have been the positive effects in terms of increased numbers of tanks they actually should have produced?
So flame away, I am thick skinned and I know Battlefront well!
-
1 hour ago, domfluff said:
Again, both circumstances are the same weapon, firing directly at the soldier - so both are the AI aiming and firing at a man-sized target.
The end result is that the shots that are targeting the tank commander/gunner are significantly more accurate that those on a target on foot.Your post that I responded to said it was an unbuttoned APC gunner compared to the buttoned vehicle itself.
-
On 1/3/2022 at 10:36 PM, The_Capt said:
No it doesn't...what do they teach you kids in school these days? Pointing out obvious biased and subjectivity does not automatically make one bias and subjective...what kind of logic is that?
You keep coming back to the nukes, which is a totally separate discussion but let's have it. You own numbers demonstrate that the USSR was not content with a defensive set of options. Nuclear deterrence is not a question of one-for-one. All one needs to do is demonstrate that you have enough second strike capability to destroy an opponent and you have successful deterrence. The USSR had 600 nuclear weapons in 1960 and almost 10k in 1985..why? Well the West had exactly one card to play. Based on conventional capability (remember all those Soviet tanks, guns and divisions) the West was very concerned that it was going to lose and had to have second/survivable strike capability to keep nuclear deterrence in play. The Soviet Union which already had the conventional superiority was chasing strategically offensive options not defensive ones. Of course the whole thing got farcical towards the end as both sides had enough to wipe each other out several times over.
So no, not "defensive only" by a long shot. We had an aggressive empire which had actively tried to expand on the periphery for years, that already had conventional superiority in Europe chasing nuclear parity, if not superiority. How does any of this smack of "defensive in nature"? I argue the "brainwashing" is occurring at your end because I am willing to fully admit the West and US were doing the same thing globally. The West was very offensive strategically, plenty of evidence to prove that one particularly in other dimensions of power; diplomacy, economic, information and definitely culture. In the Europe, however, they were militarily defensive only because that was all they could afford to be.
In short from the western perspective the only thing keeping the Soviets at bay was the nuclear equation, which is a very precarious position to be in. What is demonstrating your obvious bias (and agenda) is the fact that I will argue both sides, while you stick to Soviet "lambs and doves" armed with more tanks than god almighty as the victims here based solely on the fact that the USSR could not get its act together with respect to nuclear weapons...and it sure tried.
Remember that Russia invading the Ukraine is defensive in nature. It must be true, Vlad said it.
-
4 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:
If the soviets ran into a defensive position that they couldn't bull through with the FSE or Advance Guard then I don't see why it would be unrealistic to assume they would call in a full artillery barrage which would allow them to do a breakthrough with acceptable casualties and continue to advance.
Yes, as others have said, point enough tubes at it and it will be erased.
My point is we do not know the composition of the target that was basically made combat ineffective by this barrage. Was it a company on a 100 meter frontage or a battalion on a 1km frontage? If it was a company then you just used your entire Brigade’s dedicated artillery ammo for the day to inflict 50% casualties on a company.
I think we can agree if it was a battalion it might make sense; if was a company, then less so.
And we haven’t even considered an artillery battalion firing for two hours w/o changing locations is kind of a bad idea.
-
The original article that OP posted lacks scale. In the last test we have 24 155 tubes firing 108 rounds per gun (2,600 total rounds) against ‘an infantry team’ with vehicles, including armor in support.
How big was this team, how many vehicles, dispersed over what area?
Now throw in the fact that it is going to take almost two hours to fire those rounds, so very much against doctrine. Maybe in the opening salvo of the war but that is about it.
I am sure the actual test cited had the missing data; curious as to why it isn’t in the article.
-
On 1/17/2022 at 5:12 AM, MikeyD said:
Having a Russian squad shooting, you need to narrow down what exactly is doing the damage. AKM is listed in the manual as having an effective rage of 350m, AK-74 has an effective range of 500m, while RPK-74 and SVD both have effective ranges of 800m. Any of those weapons may be part of a Russian Squad. Casually observing Ruskies from camera level 3, its easy to mistake an RPK for an AK and be surprised by how your men are falling like ten pins.
Those ranges you are quoting are for an area target, I.e.; not some dude’s head.
-
On 1/11/2022 at 7:12 PM, domfluff said:
So there have been tests. The first clue was some forum posts from here years ago that showed SMG tracers firing at the unbuttoned tank commander, or at the vehicle. The vehicle had tracer fire going all over the action spot, and the unbuttoned one had a focused, tight cone going straight for the TC. The same weapon firing at the same range, but suddenly much more accurate?
Wouldn’t that be the product of aiming at something the size of a soldiers head as opposed to the entire width of the vehicle?
In regards to the one shot kill at 215 and 3 shot kill at 400+, it could happen but it is very unlikely. If it happens 1 in 100 chances, probably good to go. If happens even 1 in 10 then no, it’s broken.
-
I just ordered a copy. I will report back (as if anybody cares about my feedback).
-
On 1/9/2022 at 5:47 AM, John Kettler said:
Something which may or may not be relevant is that in 1972 TOW ER first rolled out. Thanks to some very smart engineers, a way was found to add 750 meters more of guidance wire to the spool, increasing TOW range from the baseline 3000 to 3750 meters, but without otherwise changing the missile at all. Initially, this was only for helicopters, desperately in need of staying as far away from the ZSU-23/4 in particular and SU/WP AD in general, and I don't know whether or not this was subsequently also done for ground units. Have so far found nothing online (cursory search) that goes into this specific issue. This useful chronicle of the TOW doesn't say.
https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2009/3_JulAugSep/articles/31_The_TOW_Missile--Precise_and_Powerful_200907.pdf
Regards,
John KettlerWhen I was ATTACHED to a Counter Mech unit (so ground launched TOW) the given range for a TOW was 3,750. This was circa ‘93.
-
On 7/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, slysniper said:
Interesting original post, since you have imput from someone that actually used the system.
I was only able to watch such guys use the system.
I do agree, he has some valid points as to accuracy of the weapon.
But I would like to point out, some of the failure problem is during training, they are using old munitions, getting rid of the stuff that has been sitting around the longest.
So that is a factor in some of the failure rate.
Personnally, as for firing problems, I would say it was 1 in 5. from what I saw. As for missing the target, he likely has some good points for short range.
But I do recall long range targets being missed a lot. Normally something failed with the communication by them. Wire issues. So not sure his high percentage at the longest ranges would be correct.
I would tend to agree with the age of the munitions. When I was attached to a Counter Mech unit, all of the TOW failures in training were from stocks that were decades old. The one exception was when a gunner forgot to hyper elevate for a berm and the TOW hit like five meters from me. Luckily it did not explode.
-
On 12/8/2021 at 9:05 PM, Erwin said:
Yes, this is the most important advantage of CM. However, CM1 was released in (IIRC) 1999, and superseded after 8 years by CM2 in 2007. CM2 has been grinding along now for almost 15 years(!) That's a very successful run considering how little of the fundamentals has changed. However, CM2 has been showing its age for some time, and many of us old-timers are just hanging in there in the hope that a CM3 will soon be released (in our lifetime).
That’s why I will not buy anything until the new engine comes out.
-
On 12/12/2021 at 5:32 PM, DougPhresh said:
I can’t speak to WWII, but for at least the last 30 years the above isn’t entirely accurate. And the devil is in the details.
So you have organic artillery (usually mortars), Direct Support (DS) artillery, and General Support (GS) artillery. DS artillery is dedicated to your unit, and thus almost always has a Liaison Element with the infantry Bn HQ. So the Company Cmdr could call Bn and have the artillery shut off because the Liaison Element is on the right nets. It would be fairly quick
For GS artillery, it can work a couple of different ways, depending on what unit the FO is with. An FO from a DS artillery unit can get GS fires but it will take longer. This call, say a juicy target like an infantry battalion in the open, will go from the FO, to the artillery battery, then to the artillery Bn HQ, and then to the GS artillery unit. So it can still be turned off by the infantry company Cmdr calling the Infantry Bn HQ. But shutting the fire mission off will take longer.
You might also have a GS FO. And once he takes his dirt nap, turning off the fire mission is harder because as you said, no one is on the right net.
it’s been a while since I did this stuff so please correct the above as appropriate.
-
What about folks seeing ‘RTS’ and thinking Red Alert and then getting slapped in the face once they hit ‘go’?
-
I have seen some complaints about performance on the Steam version versus purchases direct from BF. I suggest BF checks that out and either quash or fix that early.
-
Cool war movie. Has nothing to do with what actually happened (your usual Russian eff-up in Chechnya), but good fiction.
-
Thanks for the quick replies!
-
Forgive me if this has been discussed, I did a quick search.
For a target in front of you, does angling your tank slightly to the left or right increase the effective thickness of your armor based on increasing the angle?
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Pantsir had a horrible time (possibly something to do with the example that the UAE supplied to the US for evaluation), but TOR-M2 did better.....Expensive way to kill drones though.
I think Pantsir, at least the export model, has significantly underperformed. I think at one point they rushed out some upgrades.
-
On 11/12/2021 at 10:51 AM, semmes said:
0+0=0. Giving the AI a hand in no wasting ammo?, maybe even the players?
Too forward to wear ties, too far back to get shot. B. Mauldin.
I don’t understand what you are arguing here but then you likely don’t either.
Are you complaining that the mission might get ended? Yeah, that is realistic because another, higher priority call for fire might have been received or they just don’t want to wasted anymore ammo or they need to displace, etc.
Having been an artillery FO myself, I might call for another adjustment, but the battery might say no.
-
On 11/11/2021 at 4:15 PM, Commanderski said:
If people want realism they should join an army as that's the only place they will find it. No game is perfect as somebody will always find something to complain about.
Actually, most of us bitched even after we joined the military, just about different things.
I haven’t read this whole thread yet, but I would point out that the most unrealistic aspect of this game series is the Borg spotting; once one unit can see something, everyone then can see it (as in YOU are everyone because you have control over everyone). So your scout spots the Panther, and your Sherman knows where it is and moves to find a keyhole to engage. And it is close to instantaneous. And it is also an unavoidable mechanic.
Then there is luck, which is also present on the real battlefield, combined sometimes with skill, or the lack there of. You might want to rage quit when the M8 kills your Tiger from behind, but you let it get behind you based on lack of skill or lack of luck. And we know it MIGHT have happened once in real life. Or the burst of 40mm flak that missed my half-track going long, but slaughtered a hidden FO team that the Germans could not see.
CM gets it right better than anything else I have seen out there but it is far from perfect. But that is inherent in a game/simulation.
-
I have only recently returned to the forum after only checking in intermittently. But is it possible that English is not Semmes native language and might be a contributor to him being both too direct and not really being able to explain his point of view/complaint?
And in regards to billions being spent on military truck design, how can you even argue this point? Military vehicles are designed to be able to operate off road. Yes, there have doubtless been many cases where non-military vehicles were used, but that was due to necessity, not choice. And being designed for off road movement makes them more expensive than their civilian counterparts. I mean, look at the HMMWV; it has ‘high mobility’ right in its name.
-
17 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Meh, agree to disagree. Maybe with CMx3. The role of the GFC could be modeled very well in a tactical wargame like CM but your point is valid for the current engine. It would be very nice for the player to be able to plan insertion/extraction and effectively manage a SOF campaign, manage resources and C4ISR, all the stuff that really matters.
GFC? Ground Force Commander?
You would have to add tons of new mechanics to get even close. I assume there could be some work arounds and some stuff could be ‘fudged’ but it doesn’t sound very compelling. The assault force gets dropped off in the middle of the night and then walks six kilometers to the target. And then three fireteams enter a building and shoot people! Rinse, repeat.
And if you lose an assaulter it is a mission fail unless you killed/captured someone along the lines of Sauron.
-
On 8/6/2020 at 11:42 AM, Lethaface said:
I understand your challenge. In your example the 'team' or the 'mg42' are neither feminine or masculine: 'it was discovered' (it = the machinegun). 'They were cut down' (they = the team).
For me the challenge is the other way around, I can never remember all the different rules for je/tu/il/elle/ils/on/nous on verbs in present and past tense, feminine/masculine.
Mais c'est bien de pratiquer!
Even if I had French 4 years in high school.
I do not understand why they do not take gender out of French. But then I am not French, just a French speaker who lives in a Francophone country.
So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I have read (I can try and find the sources) that while the Panther did not cost significantly more than the MkIV it required twice the materials and significantly more man hours to build. And it was unreliable.
And I believe the biggest shortcoming of the Panther was the final drive; was that ever fixed?