civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
So serious question here. Why did the Sherman not ever receive (to my knowledge) sloped side armor. Is there a real reason why this never happened? I mean six inches of slope (30 degrees) would have resulted in an armor benefit of around 30%.
-
If the source said ‘pushing a bag out just before the jumper jumped’ it’s not a source to be trusted. You have to jump with that stuff attached to you and then release a quick release to extend the rope. Let me break it down for you further. Take a 45 or 55 pound bumper plate, attach it to your belt, stand on your roof and throw it off with six feet of rope attached to you. Now throw in a slipstream of 150 mph.
Paratroopers were very regimented from what I have read. But I can also see a company or battalion saying ‘screw that’ and carrying more ammo (I doubt less). I spent a good bit of time in the military and I frequently carried more than the SOP. And I know folks who also carried less.
-
Interesting scene in this video at 7:15 where a US soldier preps and uses a captured Panzerfaust 60 on a knocked out (is that a Panther, it looks weird?).
There is also this delightful scene at like 9:15 where they find an ice cream maker and using a Jeep they make ice cream for the troops.
-
A nice array of Brit armor in this one right at the beginning. A Cromwell then a Stuart, then a Cromwell then a OP tank or Stuart command tank? Then a Firefly and another bunch of Cromwells.
-
Plus you have to get the 20+ hits with your 76mm Sherman in roughly the same spot on the bunker w/o getting zeroed by an ATG. I know it isn’t just one Sherman pounding away but pillboxes are usually mutually supported.
-
Umlaut, I don’t know how to quote but obviously the date is wrong.
i find this video fascinating. I assume it is very recent to post-D-day. But it shows the construction of a fighter airfield and then a convoy of supplies to the beachhead and the offloading. This is why the allies won WW2; because they could do stuff like this.
-
This video is mostly non-combat but there is an abandoned Panzer Mk 4 that appears several times. I like that all the scenes in each video of this series are shot in close proximity in terms of time so you can sort of determine the story.
So for the crowd, I am guessing Panzer Mk IVJ, what do you think?
-
I found this to be a rather interesting video (same series). The parts I would like to point out are 6:06 where you see a British tank crew posing inside their tank for the video camera. And then in unison they all duck back into their tank (artillery?). Then the very next scene is a British trooper holding a STG-44 and looking at it like it’s a ufo.
-
-
Forgive me if this has been posted before.
Villers-Bocage Vidéo on YouTube
A couple of questions;
1. In the beginning, the couple of impacts around the British artillery piece. I think that’s indirect fire; thoughts?
2. Towards the end, the scene with the knocked out Tiger I in an urban setting. That hole in the back of the turret; is that an armor penetration? And what probably made that big a hole?
-
Did this ever get fixed as I am having the same issue. I just reinstalled CMBFN 3.0 and I have the same malady. I am running an MSI GS65 Stealth with a GeForce GTX-1070. The laptop is new to me but I cannot find anywhere to 'force' the computer to use the GeForce card for CMBFN in either the MSI Dragon Center or in the NVidia Experience program.
Cheers!
-
Figured I'd start a new thread specific to this topic, and I am interested in what the gang says about this.
Been reading 'Panther, Germany's Quest For Combat Dominance' by Michael and Gladys Green. About halfway through the book (I cannot give you a page number since I am reading it on my Kindle) it mentions rumors of the lowering of the quality of Panther armor as the war progressed. It then goes on to say that these rumors are based on a 12th Army test against 3 captured/abandoned Pz V Ausf A tanks conducted beginning 19 Aug 1944 in Isigny, France. It quotes the original test;
'Wide variation was found in the quality plate on the three tanks. Tank No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'best plate') sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks 1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as 'average plate') cracked after relatively few hits.'
Then the Greens go on to say;
'Researcher Carey Erickson performed a detailed analysis on the original test photographs supplied with the Isigny report. He concluded that the Panther Ausf. A tank labelled as No 1 and listed as having only average plate had in fact face-hardened glacis plate. This can be observed by the characteristic flaking that occurs only when face-hardened armor is penetrated by an AP projectile. Erickson explains that encountering a face-hardened glacis plate on a Panther Ausf A tank was not impossible because it could have come from leftover stocks to meet production quotas as German tank production was under greater and greater pressure to put weapons in thew hands of the Panzer Divisions by 1944.
Erickson also notes that it took nine hits into the hard outer surface of the face-hardened armored Panther tank labeled No 1 to make it susceptible to penetration. Pictorial evidence also shows that the Panther tank labeled No 3 and described as having an average plate had significant prior battle damage with extensive cracking across the glacis plate. This damage should have excluded tank No 3 from even being part of the testing process. Erickson makes the valid point that the Panther tank Labeled No 2 with the best plate reflected the true quality of Panther glacis plates for most of World War II and not the face-hardened armored Panther tank or the battle damaged example used at Isigny. Erickson is not the only one who believes that Panther armor remained free of serious defects for the duration of the war in Europe. Jentz and Doyle stated in their book Germany's Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to Tiger IIL Design, Production, and Modifications that 'There is no proof that substandard German armor plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war.'
-
While I agree that from the tests done CAS seems over modeled, one thing has failed to be mentioned. Most of these 'stats' and 'data sets' being thrown about are for total sorties. The tests in the game are for 'planes that actually showed up and spotted tanks and attacked'. These historic macro stats do not reflect engine problems, bombing trains, buildings, positions vice tanks, getting 'bounced' on the way to the tgt, not finding the tgt or not being able to communicate with the supported unit leading to aircraft abort, etc. So if we are talking 'half a truck' or 'half a tank' or '5% hits with bombs' overall, historically, given the scope of the game I would say you give CAS a 'bump' to reflect they actually showed up and started attacking. Maybe that is doubling the the actual effectiveness of CAS, IDNK.
But given that this is a game I think the goal is determining how effective CAS is, as it currently is, so I know whether to buy a flight of Stukas instead of a couple of Panthers. But I do not want to spent 2000 points on CAS and have them a) frequently not show up, or
never hit anything. I want it to be semi-realistic, but if your average flight of Stukas is going to kill three guys, cause two squads to cower, and kill a truck (as they would historically) I am spending the points on AT guns or Panthers or PZ-IVs rather than something expensive that will not aid me. And then we will just plain not use CAS. In head to head matches noone will waste the points. In scenarios, results will ping pong between extremes because every once in a while the Stukas will roll snakeyes three times in a row and destroy a platoon of T-34/85s. -
Anybody think the guys bailed out of the half track a little too quickly? Not sure if it means much in terms of game play but the first looked to be out of the ht about a second or two after the ht was hit.
-
I posted this in Elvis' AAR thread because some similar questions came up. Figured I should repost here:
I want to draw some attention to this shot in particular:
1. ...This means the guy on the left could be hit from some enemy that would have ZERO chance of hitting the other 3 guys...
2. ...What an enemy can't see they can't shoot at (well, except with blind Area Fire, of course) with small arms fire. This means, again, that exposure to observation is similar to exposure to fire... it's individual.
Steve
Question here Steve, and I hope it does not appear I am needlessly splitting hairs. There is cover and then there is concealment. Now, in the above situation, the enemy sees the guy on the left, but cannot see the other guys. Lets assume the inability to see the other guys is a product of concealment, not cover. So the enemy engages the one guy they see, and the others are in the 'beaten zone'. So even if the enemy cannot see the other guys, can the fire affect them, sort of like area fire?
-
I'm already annoyed.
Show up in the Peng Thread and we'll pour glue in your ears.
Michael
Ah, so now we see your childish tactics to deal with your more able opponents, render them unable to reply to your inferior verbal jousting with a product derived from the method of perambulation you are limited to in the sticks that you call home. You shower all of us with your drivel while you munch on little crustless squares you call 'toast' smeared with some-berry substance you harvested from your yard, leaving us all covered in your faintly berry-smelling ejecta. You, sir, come to a battle of wits unarmed!
-
Can't guarantee how long I will be around, probably just long enough to annoy someone. Thanks for the welcome, just proving I am still staying at least marginally engaged.
-
Question about catastrophic damage to armor. During the WWII era, were catastrophic explosions common from AP fire? I am talking about the pictures you sometimes see where the turret is blown off, etc. Is that a product of the initial kill by fire resulting in the ammo going up all at once, or is that more of a factor of a tank that burns, and after a while the ammo goes off?
It would be cool to see some catastrophic explosions, but only if it is realistic.
Also, I would assume a burning tank is something to stay away from. Can a burning wreck have secondary explosions that result is damage to units in close proximity? I seem to remember this happening to me once in CMSF.
-
Hey BF buddies, keep up the good work. I am now limited to being a 'lurker', but just bought the Brit and USMC modules and love what I see. Make the Marines indestructible and omnipresent and you will have it. One shot one kill means a 100 round box o' 5.56 for a SAW gunner means at least 100 dead 'Ts', and then you will have proper modelling.
Ok, 95, given a 5 round burst for proper function of the weapon, maybe 2 dead 'Ts' for that, but I will give you a pass.
For CM:N, figure 100 rounds for like .0002 Germans. I mean we are talking semi-trained Army pukes, right?
-
A bit off topic but I read somewhere that some country (Iran?) has a Merkava (probably an older model) on display that they claimed to have captured. You can't get anywhere near the tank as supposedly it is made out of plywood.
-
I want to see this face in the game;
-
Video (Not only cool but great music);
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=72f_1187606545
At about the 3 minute mark you see what a SAW (5.56) does to a cinderblock wall.
-
I don't know how to do that with others pics.
-
I tried to post this several times but was having an issue with a hijacked browser that went to different web page twice after I had posted copious link and pictures, but managed to schwack the thing finally.
Anyways, in regards to some of the earlier posts and the video on cover, here are some thoughts. Talking about the ability for an individual 5.56 or 7.62 round to punch through a given material is irrelevent unless the single round has zero affect. When you are talking about the affects of a PLAUSIBLE large number of rounds the affects have some merit. The 5.56 and 7.62 rounds had some affect on brick and cinder blocks, that much is obvious. And keep in mind the standards for these materials in Iraq (Closer to Syria probably than Afghanistan) are much lower than in the US. Bricks are usually mud/clay and not nearly as tough as US bricks. The same goes for cement and cinder blocks (which are made of cement). The easiest way to save construction costs is to dilute the cement, and that is frequently done in Iraq. They tend to use straight dirt, perhaps sifted, rather than sand, which is why their cement is darker than that found in the US. I don't know what the relative strengths are but if Iraqi (or Syrian) cement were 30-50% less resilant than their US equivelents I would be very suprised.
The types of construction we are going to encounter in Syria are basic mud bricks, or mud bricks with mortar over them, or in the case of multi-story buildings cement with rare instances of rebar. I would assume this is probably mud brick and mortar;
Plain brick;
Here's an example of an interior wall, same thing;
One thing very different about these building methods is that unlike the cover video, once the outer wall is penetrated the interior walls continue to provide cover. There is no sheetrock in Syria, or very little. Interior walls are made of the same thing the exterior is except maybe thinner. In Iraq the exterior walls tend to be thicker than the interior. In Afghanistan, IIRC, the interior walls might be the same thickness as they do the same thing; support load. Not sure how the interior walls would be modelled regardless of how thick they are as they aren't sheetrock and need to be simulated.
In terms of the thickness of exterior walls they would be handled the same was as in CMx1. There are no wooden buildings in Syria, or very few. The different types of buildings would be represented the same way only what would be a wooden building would be, say, a single layer of brick. And then a different model for multiple layers of bricks, and maybe a third for reinforced or unreinforced concrete.
Brick and mortar;
Looks like maybe a double-brick exterior wall?
This looks like cement bricks and plain mud;
Now once you throw in .50 cals and Mk-19s, the majority of the existing buildings are toast. Either will punch through the vast majority of buildings, especially Mk-19s w/ HEDP.
And keep in mind casualties are not just from getting hit by bullets; secondary fragments are almost as deadly.
never hit anything. I want it to be semi-realistic, but if your average flight of Stukas is going to kill three guys, cause two squads to cower, and kill a truck (as they would historically) I am spending the points on AT guns or Panthers or PZ-IVs rather than something expensive that will not aid me. And then we will just plain not use CAS. In head to head matches noone will waste the points. In scenarios, results will ping pong between extremes because every once in a while the Stukas will roll snakeyes three times in a row and destroy a platoon of T-34/85s.
Show up in the Peng Thread and we'll pour glue in your ears.
Looking for good second hand bookshop in New York
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Is Argosy still around?