Username

Ive fired both AK47s (very similar to MP44) and the M1 carbine. As Fishu correctly pointed out, the M1 carbine is not the same as the M2 carbine. The Topic is then wrong from the beggining. It should be M2 carbine, the American MP44. In any case. I wouldnt compare them at all. The M1 might have been better than the Japanese rifles with their small calibers/bolt action. The M2 might have been handy against PPSh equipped North Koreans or Chinese. Its pistol bullet being better than their pistol bullet. The full auto evening things up when they got close. But just plinking with the AK and carbine makes me feel that I have a battle rifle and a daisy rifle, respectively, in comparison. I wouldnt want to be in anything but a street battle (or perhaps dense jungle) with the carbine. It would still have limited penetration against walls, etc. I have fired at alot of different materials with the AK (bullets being cheap) and it can punch holes in alot of different materials (the AR15 drills holes). You can damn near "full-auto" by just using semi-auto with the AK. This gets very erratic with the slight M1. Just my impressions. Dont distill everything from books and articles. Shooting is believing. Lewis PS I would take the M16 over anything anyday.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: So you saying you are not impressed with BTS then? They do seem to like it (they defended their position in other threads concerning LOS) and as far as I can tell no change has been scheduled for CMBB so you are not impressed with them. Good to know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I am seeing the trend. You like to try to put words into other peoples mouths. Whether I am impressed with anyone, respect anything, believe in the bogeyman, has no bearing on the thread. Your insistance on trying to make trouble is palpable and I suspect you have some sort of personality disorder (but seeing you are from CA, thats understandable). How about I just ignore you and you go on with your meandering rabble rousing? Its funny that you went on to say in the next thread: "Understanding others and their ideas can only enhance the community." So please undersand me. I don't want anything to do with you. If you can't concentrate on the subjects in the thread that have bearing on the game, then fine. Please dont fixate on me because its coming off a little strange. Good luck. Lewis [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: More importantly I find it disturbing that Lewis stated that he has no repect for those of us who agree with how it is now, so Lewis do you not respect BTS? Hmm but then again you will not answer. Again too bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no 'repect'? When did I say that? I said: "Just my opinions. Dont really care all that much what people think about them. cant say I am impressed with people that like things the way they are." I again ask that you concentrate on your reading comprehension. Notice that there are no people here complaining in threads "I want things to go back they were in 1.04!". Kind of makes you think doesnt it? Seems like change is good. Lewis Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: [QB] I agree with Germanboy and Username; being able to plunk a marker down and calculate LOS from it is an unrealistic decision. [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Weelllll I didnt say that either. oohboy. Heres my position: During setup, yes, check LOS to your hearts content FROM YOUR SETUP AREA! If there was a tool that would highlight all areas seen DURING setup, yep, I am all for it During play, I dont think the tero or Priest is correct. I dont see the point of doing LOS from places that YOU ARENT AT OR HAVENT COMMITED TO. If you read what I wrote, I think that you should have to designate a move that you cant take back BEFORE DOING REMOTE-LOS checks from the end of that move. I dont think that squatting down to mook about during play is any different than having a LOS tool that is remote. If anything, tero and Priest are in cahoots. Just my opinions. Dont really care all that much what people think about them. cant say I am inpressed with people that like things the way they are. Lewis

The US also issued german ATG to towed tank destroyer units. These werent just ad hoc but issued equipment that was supplied with ammo and carried on the TOE.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kugelblitz: This originally a desert field mod. The stuff installed onsite wasn't RHA either, it was softer. After the factory caught up, rha kits were shipped to tank fitters. The reason it sin't around later is that there weren't many MKIIIs made later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kind of lose me here Kug. Many later MKIIIs have additional turret spaced armor. The kit shown in the link is for a MKIV. What seems funny is that the turret front of the MKIII is better protected than the MKIV.

How would the Garand compare to the russian semi (Tokarov?). I have fired 7mm mag. Has anyone fired a 7mm mag and a garand and can comapre the kick? The 7mm would be a bitch to fast fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Following tank areas were face-hardened: PzKpfw III and IV frontal armor, Panther D hull front and side, Panther A hull side, StuG III front, early Tiger II turret side. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Late PIV dropped the face hardened didnt they? At least the J's? http://panzertracts1.tripod.com/images/pztr4-2.jpg [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: [QB] Finally and probably most hilarously is that you state that one should not be able to issue orders outside of LOSQB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look. I didnt even finish reading the rest of your post after this. You know what is funny? Nothing. Its dull. This whole Tit-fer-tat discourse with people like you. Its actually worse. Its a bore. I never said never. I said limit. Theres such a big difference that I can't get into it. You might misconstrue that I would want further discourse with you. You want to speak for a group? Put some effort into reading before you write. I am dropping from this thread unless someone with reading comprehension jumps in. Lewis

The Garand could be fired easier/more accurately on the move (yeah, I know there was a trick to working the bolt of the brit rifle to kind of do this). The whole US infantry squad was based on single man weapons being used very effectively when moving to objectives. The base of fire came from the belted MGs outside the squad. It was more a platoon philosophy. Since the brits did not have a belted MG that didn't require a mule to move, they were somewhat lacking. They relied on the clip fed LMG Bren. The Vickers, great as it was, is not a weapon of movement. Its a weapon that is "brought up". The US air cooled MGs, remedied the lack of true LMG. The garand, even with the 8 round limit, was the battle rifle of WWII. The Devil Brigade (US and canadians in some hybrid unit), what did they use? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Did folks string out colored rope before they moved in WWII? Hmm did not know that. Well I guess you learn something everyday! (note sarcasm!) And your reality setting is fine if it can be implemented without hurting the rest of the game and/or impacting BTS's goals for system requirements but I would put it down very low on the "things to do" list. While it may be unrealistic what really do you gain from doing it. Also as long as you can "fly" all over the map I can tell contour and such from level 4 most of the time so big deal. Heck if you use certain grass textures you can tell contours in even the top down views so do not give me a speech on how not using view 1 has anything to do with "scouting" a maps "sweet spots" because it does not. So to achieve your non-gamey totally realistic LOS rule we would have to program an entire system, not allow a free roaming camera, and lock the mod community out of terrain features. Yeah sounds like a well thought out super idea. (again note sarcasm) Sorry Username but your idea does not wash. Too many other factors can achieve what you are trying to change and you are targeting the wrong culprit as view one is a "fun" view for watching explosions and taking screenshots (all I really use it for) and the LOS tool which is simple and easy and wonderfully informative. Now I agree using the LOS tool anywhere is ludicrous you need to have a unit there to use it. So Username let me clear up one last thing. CMBO is not your game, it is not my game, it is BTS's game (as I stated in my post) and my only concern is that Steve and Charles do not listen to such ignorant posts and comments from folks such as....well lets not start a flame war!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Notice the royal "we". "We" would have to program..". Then he chides on about how its not my game or his game..yeah, its a worn out record at this point. Speaking for the group and then telling others not too. Troops in WWII would instruct people to follow a path. The colored line is a very good abstraction of that. People use LOS to see things. The LOS tool is a very good model of that. So your sarcasm is maybe making you feel all good and smirky but its based on nothing. Its actually kind of funny because it makes you come off as someone that wants to start a flame war. Not me. As I have said in other posts, giving orders to areas out of the LOS should be limited. My reality setting is, again let me repeat, an option. Lets repeat that. Optional. Use at the discretion of the agreeing players who feel they have a certain skill level. There is always a pontificating flamey guy like yourself missing that point. Players viewing movies can go down and take pictures and watch 'splosions. Thats not during the orders phase is it? Kind of missed that distinction in your rush to be so sarcastic and flamey didnt you? Sure you play the game much? Maybe you just like watching explosions a little too many times Quaker. So let me clear up one thing. CM is anyones game that buys it. BTS has already said that they value and use the customers input. As any good company would. You dont speak for the company. Your posts doesnt count for anyone but yourself. Anyway, nice to see that that you missed the point of the detached LOS from the committed move. Or does that get your sarcastic flamey tendancies in a bunch too? Have a nice day flamey. Lewis

Ive seen PIV with tracks added onto these turret front areas but nothing like this. Its strange that this would not have been commonly used. It was on most PIII.

Priest Looks like you play way too many games as it is. I think that the player, flying about the field of battle, squatting down onto areas he doesnt have troops in and looking around appeals to people that play games like you mention. I am saying that as a FOW OPTION,the player can only be level 1 over an area that has a friendly unit in it. Literally, select unit, hit TAB and then be able to go down to level 1. Its a reality setting. Now go back to your unreality and dont you mind my game. Lewis

I dunno. Having Modmatt make an appearence is like having baba-booey signing your Howard Stern autograph.

US units in ETO used german arty too. There was a severe 105mm shortage after the bulge. I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.

works fer me. Man are you ever missing out Mr Organ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: There is also a review at http://www.wargamer.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These reviews arent exactly glowing. Ones lukewarm and the other is a little degrading. I think the cover art could be stepped up a little. It is actually wrong if the projectile is low velocity. Anyone know why? But I wish ya luck rexfurd. I suggested you get a proof reader but you didnt want to listen did you? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Here is an idea.... Leave it the same. It works. It is handy and takes some amount of skill. Really the graphical engine is good enough that by simply going to a position and going to view one is more than realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a bad idea. Good ideas deal with change. In my idea, the use of level one "squattin on the target" is not going to be allowed anymore. Squattin on one of your units is what you can do. Level one limitations. I like it. Lewis PS I am supporting tero here because..well.. he told off Snapdragon and it was cool.

http://panzertracts1.tripod.com/images/pztr4-1.jpg Ive never read about one of these jobbers before. Seems to make sense. Anyone have any other info? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: What a pompous statement, but then I guess it suits your style Maxipad. IMHO that's reason enough to not go there. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you were an old time CM-ur you would know that Maxipuss' real name is Old Blunderin Butt. He's an OK guy. He has an old hippy caretaker clean up after him (hes a plegic). Sometimes the hippy sneaks into 'B'Butts room and trys out that old hippy free love on him. Kind of sad really.. Lewis PS Just kiddin max

I kind of sped read through this and having been part of some of the old threads, want to pitch some ideas again. I dont feel that a player should be able to just pick a spot and start looking around from it. He should have to commit to it. That is, place a movement down that cant be canceled. This simulates a scout out scenario. Suppose I commit to a movement. Then I get to look around from that triangle or whatever is at the end of the movement line. Suppose then I see that yeah, I can see the house in the next valley (what I wanted), but I also can see the top of the hill to the north and also the hill to the east. Being possible enemy observation and gun positions, I decide that discretion is the better part of valour and put down a second movement line further back. I get to LOS from the second spot too. Note; this is a second movement order not a editted first movement order. So info comes at a price. Since the game gives unlimited map info, it would be unfair to give away LOS info without just a little movement from the player. recon with half squads, jeeps, armored cars becomes more important, etc. How you approach the top of the hill will be important (sneaking/crawling). LOS checks btw are just that, not spotting or targetting or anything. Just an idea. Hey Germanboy. Take a CHEEEELL MON. Lewis [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Thats what I am refering to Commisar, no offense, its just a bit much reading some exploits. Its always interesting when reading about one person view of things. In Brazen Chariots, the author is always deriding or condescending about the germans. He talks them down, etc, never really knowing what the full story is. Burgett does it also. Lewis

I think BTS is busy. Or just plain F**king sick of us. I am presently locking horns with JasonC (C stands for contradiction, which I am good at catching him at) in another therad and its tiresome. I can see how steve must get burnt to toast when he deals with this crap. I did come up with a good idea didnt I? The more I think about it, the more I think I like it. I am trying to make this a fundamental part of my game (C&C limitations). Its slow going but its a hobby not a business. I think the whole PAUSE at teh beginning and the ROTATE at the end might have been a political deal and its a walking on eggs subject. That means maybe someone in the BTS camp felt one way and another felt another way about it and it was decided. maybe not. Who knows. But I like my idea. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: In CM, hits mostly penetrates the tanks, and a penetration means in most cases the loss of a tank. When I now read above that - even for a PZ IV - several shots was needed to take it out, does this mean: a) the other shots don't hit the shots hit, but don't penetrate ?? My personal problem (or maybe misdunderstanding or lack of knowledge) is, it really doesn't matter which tank I use (except a few like the Panther), a hit of something equal or bigger than a 75mm usually means the end of the tank, and this appears to me a bit hard. Also when I read that the losses wasn't so extreme as most people (me included) believe. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can supply some info from the eastern front. Things to keep in mind are: 1. Range. Damage being usually greater at short ranges. CMBO experience is mostly at short range. So this backs up your experience in the game. 2. Armor vs penetration. Also very range dependant but the point is if the penetrator has just enough power to get through, then it wont have much after armor effects. thats the destructive force the shell brings into the tank. I am not so sure the game models this but like you, most CM experiences are at short range. 3. Reversing. In real life, even heavy tanks would reverse like hell if hit. Your experiences are usually tanks getting wacked on the first hit or just sitting there trying to return fire and getting killed on the next couple of hits? 4. Size of shell and HE filler. In CMBO most tanks are sporting large guns. These guns sometimes had HE filler in the back of the AP. In the confines of a tank, even a small explosion is ugly. 75mmL43 in 4 MIV tanks tanks KO 17 KV1 26 T34 1 T26 1 MkII 3MKIII 1 General Lee PnzrG39 was fired at ranges from 1200-1600 m. Every hit caused a destructive effect with the tank going up in flames. Two -three were expended per tank killed. If this report is correct, then a hit almost always meant a kill. I would consider these ranges medium-high medium. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: As for thinking the claims inflated, I think the claims of both units are inflated. I find it very amusing that anybody believes either of them. The point is both are making equal inflated claims. As for strength reductions in intense fighting periods, the 68th was reduced to "a company" as I mentioned the first time. And much of the rest of the time, its version of a company of runners was only the point company of a column involved in fighting. If you can't see equal shots fired, men lost, and enemy assets claimed, as pointing to similar combat use, then that is your problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem. I like the way you can look at anything to satisfy your "point". You cant produce any evidence that they are equal direct fire. In fact, I produced all the evidence in this thread about HE being the predominate round fired by armor, but again, that doesnt even mean that they were direct fire in the US case. I have produced evidence that TDs fired alot of indirect. I think everyone who has read this and other JasonC threads sees the trend. I can supply the actual numbers and you can mumble some excuses. Assumptions, bad math and refusal to see how wrong you are does not add much to the thread. Discussions, arguments and debates with someone like you is just pissing up a rope. You also have bad theories like your "ollow charge at range non-sense" Here I went and tried to support some of your assumptions with actual data, and what does mr charming do?, it was simple. He makes anyone that has anything to do with him feel bothered for going to the trouble. You are a real class act Jason. So. US army tank battalions experiences in the european theatre area of operation can be catorgorized. Please dont get on a pedastal and say that other tank bns in the whole realm of WWII can be described by the US experience. Lewis