Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Darryl

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darryl

  1. The poor Germans, they were in such dire straits later in the war they had to skimp on everything. Propellers made of wood, cheaper uniforms, synthetic petroleum products, fewer return wheels. It's interesting though that even with critical materials in such short supply, and manufacturing methods being streamlined, even while production of many items increased, quality rarely seemed to suffer.

    The Japanese on the other hand, while in a similarly stark situation, did indeed have quite a few problems with quality control in the later stages of the war.

    It'd be interesting to hear folks speculate on why that might've been.

    ------------------

    Darryl

  2. Frankly, I think that CM's basic type of format will be widely copied. I believe we'll be seeing more, and more wargames covering varying subjects, and time periods which utilize the CM 'format'. Think about it, the possibilities are endless, The Alamo, The Zulu wars, the U.S.civil war, the Spanish-American war, etc. I for one feel that in this way CM is going to open all kinds of fun doors for us wargamers, and I'm very grateful for that. Thanks BTS!

    ------------------

    Darryl

  3. In my view, Hitler got lucky, in the beggining. He made some bold moves (ie; moving into the Sudetanland, Checkoslovakia, Etc.) which the German high command opposed. These gambits only worked because the Allies were afraid of another war, and sought to appease Hitler, instead of confront him in what would've been at the time an unpopular war (It's the same fear which prevents clinton from dealing with Saddam Hussein). Because these gambits worked, Hitler felt that it only proved that he was a great military leader, it also led him to believe that he knew better than the high command since he had proved them wrong in the beggining. I believe that is why he never took their counsel seriously throughout the rest of the war. That combined with the fact that he had no firm grasp on reality, or even any kind of cohesive long term strategy, led to Germany's ruin.

    Of course the above isn't very detailed, but hey, this is a disscussion, not a lecture. LOL I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject.

    ------------------

    Darryl

  4. Thanks for the reply Spider. I wonder if they had the same problem with oil leaking into the lower cylinders when the Sherman's powerplant was changed over to that bizzare Chrysler arrangement (the one with a number of inline six cylinder engines arrayed around a central crankshaft) What a nightmare that must've been!

    ------------------

    Darryl

  5. Steve, I figured AFVs with radials had to suffer the same oil leak problem, but wasn't sure how they dealt with it on startup. Thanks for clearing that up.

    I can relate to how that guy must've felt to see a priceless piece of history ruined.

    As a measure of the value of radial engine parts here's just one example, I was told by a Confederate Air Force B-17 pilot that cylinder assemblies for the larger radials now cost around $2,000 apiece because they're just so hard to find anymore. It's sad to realize that these warbirds, and historic AFVs might someday only be seen sitting quietly in a museum, because parts are unavailable.

    ------------------

    Darryl

  6. Hi All!

    Say, speaking of the radial engine used in some Shermans....I pressume it was mounted with the crankshaft horizontally? A major problem with aircraft radial engines is oil seeping into the bottom cylinders when the engine sits unused for as little as an hour. Since liquid cannot be compressed (unlike air), if you attempt to start a radial engine without draining any accumulated oil out, you can severely damage the engine (This is why you see movies of ground crews pulling props through on radials, to check for, "hydraulic lock" as we call it). So here's my question, how did Sherman crews clear out the oil in those lower cylinders???? The only way to do it in an aircraft is to remove a sparkplug from each of the lower cylinders to drain the oil out.

    Did Sherman crews have to do this? It would seem to be a hassle in combat. Well, just wondering.

    ------------------

    Darryl

  7. Hi All!

    Like most of you, I've been waiting for CM for close to 3 years now. I think 3 years is enough. Hell I would've been happy if the game was based on the beta demo. Come on BTS!

    Enough, is enough, if you want to make improvements do it for CM2. Finish the remaining textures. Put together a manual that covers the game well (leave out the historical contexts please), and ship this puppy. I hope I've not insulted anyone. I've read this forum most everyday for years, and even though I rarely post, I've enjoyed reading what others have to say, and I've learned a LOT (except to not write run-on sentences of course!) This is just my two cents worth, nothing more.

    ------------------

    Darryl

  8. Hi Guys,

    Don't forget probably the single most important reason the Sherman burned more easily than say the German, or Russian tanks, was because it used gasoline engines, instead of Diesel power. The Sherman powerplants were quite interesting, initially using an engine made from a series of Chrysler "L" head inline 6 cylinder engines arranged in a radial pattern around a common crankshaft.

    The later Shemans used a radial aircraft engine. Always seemed odd to me.

    ------------------

    Darryl

×
×
  • Create New...