gorilla

One thing I noticed about CM is how realistic it was. Not the top of the line graphics, but good enough to freak me out when getting ambushed. One thing its missing tho, is the smells. I like armor. So I figgered I'd try sitting a cup o gasoline next to my monitor... you know... for the smell... added a lot to the game... but it wasn't as strong as I had hoped... so I drenched an old towel in the gas and huffed away the evening... I haven't lost a battle since... I think... Wait... when was the last time I played?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg: Im sad to say we dont really celebrate Halloween here in sweden, it would be pretty fun with something special to light up the darkness of this time of year<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have an idea.... cut the top off of a bunch of big orange pumpkins.... fill them with gasoline and soap, light them on fire, and throw them around at the local paint factory.... that should light up the darkness of ANY time of year.

Weird big thread.

Yes, modern day grenades do not have any knobbies on the outside of the grenade, cause they learned that it didn't work too well. Just like any other military device, grenades have become improved/more refined. For example: One of the US rifles.. M44 I think... used a VERY big round. 7.62mm x 88 I think. The actual bullet is about the same size of the modern day nato 7.62, but the casing is much larger. Holds more bang. And trust me (a friend has one) it realy does have more bang! The ideas behind the weapons were different. Not as well tested. They thought the bigger round was needed... for whatever reason. But look at the changes to todays M16A2. it's a 5.56mm bullet... not much bigger than a .22. They chose it cause it's smaller, lighter, and it does the same job, maybe even a better job, than a larger bullet. I think the idea was the same behind the grenade shape in the past. You need larger fragments to make a difference. So they made them with lil-knobbies on them. The germans initially thought that it was the blast that killed, not the fragments (to some extent it will...), so they didn't make their grenades with much on the way of fragmented material. I don't doubt that it helped in grip, but I really do think that the primary purpose was to help create a specific sized fragment. Modern day grenades are able to be modern day grenades, cause they use modern day stuff to build them. New construction materials, new designs, new manufacturing methods, better battlefield data.... Look at how the tank or airplane changed, just from 1940-1945. By the way... Is this horse dead yet, or should I still be beating it?

Thanks for your help... sorry bout posting here... I'm kinda new to forums... I didn't know bout the tech forum. I didn't add any specifics cause I just wanted to hear general stuff. Seems like the same stuff I've run into, so it looks like I've done everything I can at this point. It works, but I have to switch drivers for certian aplications... guess I'll just have to wait on the new drivers.... thanks again.

Anybody use an elsa gladiac geforce gts card, or a card that uses the nvidia gts chips. I'm having trouble with mine, and was wondering if anyone could give me some advice.

Thought this was an interesting thread, so's here's my thoughts: I think it's true (although I haven't seen the source code) that it's impossible to make a mod for CM right now, or make it mod-able. I Don't think mods would improve the game as it is now at all. I do, however, think that mods have a value in a game like this. As a mod, we aren't talking about changing CM, but adding to it. The half-life example is the same I will use here: There have been/are many many mods for half-life, but only a few have survived, or are any good. The rest suck, and nobody plays them. Mods are not cross-mod-able ie: you can't play a CS game on a Team Fortress server. I think that this is what people are talking about when they talk about a CM mod. I think it would be fun to make a modern day mod. Some Abrams and T-80's goin at it would be neat... to me. If it sucked tho, I wouldn't play it, and if you didn't like it, you wouldn't play it. It all boils down to personal preferences... mods (if done right) are there to meet our own personal preferences. I think that would be neat.

Oi!! I missed the M34! It's hard to see, but your right... it does have that serrated outside (why I missed it I think). Thanks for pointing it out tho. (never thrown a WP grenade, but seen WP 155mm arty go off... I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it!)

Trooper: Thats true (about the amount of fragments), but I think the idea was that the fragments should be as big as a bullet. I don't think anyone thought that a small piece of metal (like real small) would do any harm to a soldier. IntelWeenie: Do you have any pictures for this? I would like to see them. Take a look at: http://www.pacificcoast.net/~dlynn/ Specifically, the american guide: The picts of the wwii WP grenades don't have the pineapple shape. Banshee: This is true as well. If you take a look at the submissions section from the above site, you'll see some really cool cutaways from some modern grenades. Those have small serrations on the inside of the grenade. I am unfortunately going on memory as well, and still can't find any hard data. But If you look close at some of the pictures, you will see some that hold to my theory. In the american grenades section from the link above, scroll down till you get into the rifle grenades (at least that is what my assumption of them are...) Take a look at the M17 Fragmentation. It clearly has a pineapple shape, yet it wouldn't have ever been thrown... no need for a grip. I also emailed the person that hosts that site and he had this to say: "Actually, you are both right, the pattern on the outside was believed to aid in fragmentation and was the primary reason for it. It actually didn't work very well, wheras a pattern on the inside of the body did. Sounds weird, but true. The pattern also aided in gripping the grenade. But, since you asked, I would say the primary reason was for fragmentation." So, looks like we are all right! I love it when that happens... (altho I still think it was just for fragmentation, and the grip just happened to go along with the shape.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: Gorilla.. just a pointer... It would appear that the comment about the US pineapple grenades being 'chunked' to fragment is a myth. The prime reason was to allow some form of grip to the large weapon when the user's hands were somewhat muddy or wet. ...... Admittedly also, however, that there is an internal 'fragmentation' layer of, if I recall, 276 little filaments which do nasty things to nearby people. NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is interesting, but not unbelievable. Do you have references for this? (I was only using my memory bout the pineapple shape) I was unable to uncover any hard data about that particular grenade, but I did find this: http://www.pacificcoast.net/~dlynn/main/vgd.htm There you will find info on the russian VGD rifle grenade... but the interesting quote is: "The 4 4/8 inch (117mm) long steel body is shaped like a small artillery projectile with a series of external serration to increase fragmentation." head to: http://www.axess.com/users/pete/explosive.html to take a gander at the German "potato masher" (or potatoe if yer an American pres candidate). quote: "A greater fragmentation effect could be achieved by adding 'Splitterringe', or shrapnel rings in English." and you can take a look at what those rings looked like here: http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/gr_m24.htm The pineapple thing is all speculation on my part tho, although I remember reading/hearing/seeing it somewhere. I was USMC and we used the round grenades too. Jeff: I got the game, and I like it a lot, but I got a new machine thats givin me problems... and I don't have internet access at home... so I'll send you an email once all the fiddlin is done... always a pleasure to read yer posts too [This message has been edited by gorilla (edited 10-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Hmm, what's the thickness of abrams top armor? Does anyone know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When talking about modern armor, your no longer talking WWII steele. The differences in protective ability of similar thickness armor from WWII to modern day is vast indeed. The two can't be compared. Yer also getting into the realm of composite armor. layers of different materials sandwiched together to provide much better protection. I read at: http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/abrams.htm that the armor is "similar to the Chobam armour developed by the UK Ministry of Defence. The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour."... basicaly a steele sandwich with a depleted uranium core. As far as this thread is concerned, Modern day armor and WWII armor can't be compared. If yer just curious about the thickness of an M1's top armor... I don't know if you could find it. I couldn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it was still classified.

I have always questioned the actual effectiveness of artillery in computer games. I have always felt that arty was not properly accounted for. Steele panthers/ close combat etc. Once you have seen artillery actually fired/impact, you don't quite understand how ANYTHING could stay intact in that particular impact area. Arty is nothing to play around with. I wish I could remember the exact numbers of certian statistics that I learned while I was in, but, I'll include some of these things anyway. Historicaly speaking, arty has been THE major cause for battlefield casualties. I believe that the percentage was between 60%-80%? I also know that anyone that carried a radio/ looked like an FO, had a much lower expected time of existance on this planet, than almost any other military occupational specialty (MOS). Why? Cause Arty really really really sucks if you are on the recieving end. My expected living time (Arty radar) wasn't all that high either. (Getting rid of something that can see where your arty is, is perty important, cause having arty/ not having arty WILL make/break your situation) Anyway, I want you all to take note, that I HAVEN'T played too much of this game, and I have only played the demo 3 times. (I did order it tho, so full version is on the way... )But in my honest opinion, it seems like the arty has been misrepresented (again.) But, not as bad as in other games. Maybe we should all get an idea of what we would like to see from this aspect of the game, and propose it to the fowlks at Big Time Software for an update/patch? Ok, enough negative banter from arty from me. I would like to point out the things I have seen that I do like: For one, I like the actual arty spotting. It seems perty close to the truth (fire-adjust, fire-adjust, fire-adjust, fire for effect(FFE)) I also like the need for spotters. It takes some skill to call in an arty barage. I did some training with some FO's, and I can tell ya, it takes some getting used to.

Funny that you picked out that specific quote, cause thats the one that caught my eye. I didn't pay much attention to the pressure created (although I knew it was a lot) but thought that the heat created in an explosion was pretty interesting. I'm guessing here, but I do know 5000 degrees is really hot. I'm assuming that would damage a tank as well (steel has the ability to conduct heat rather well as far as I know). What I don't know is the physics behind hot metal, and the effect it has on penetration. My assumption is that heated metal is easier to penetrate. I also don't know how much heat would be transferred to the armor (the explosion is rather instantaneous.) Would this be enough to ignite powder/fuel/cloth etc? By the way Jeff Duquette, what do you do for work? Ohh yea, I liked the demo of CM, and I'm gonna order it. I hope I don't loose, what some people may consider, my version of a life. I noted when I played how closely arty (81mm mortars to be specific) landed together. I couldn't find the explosive radius of an 81mm HE round, but I did find the 40mm grenades explosive radius of 5m. So for arguments sake, lets just say that the radius for an 81mm mortar is 10m (which is, I'm sure, too small.) Anyway, I targeted an area which was dominated by a sherman. Now a sherman's (m4a2(76)) hull length is 5.92 meters. The diameter of the 81mm grouping was no more than 7 sherman lengths... so about 50m diameter. I don't know how many rounds were actually fired, but the sustained rof for a modern day 81mm mortar (m252 to be exact.) is 16 rounds per minute. I think that a battery of mortarts is 4 guns, and we'll say that they only fired for about half of a round (30 sec) so... we have 4x16/2 = 32 rounds. 32 rounds in a 25 meter radius each exploding with a 10m radius. Thats some good shootin as far as I can remember. Next time I poke at the demo, I'll make sure to measure things more exactly. Is this game to scale? And, if the bigger guns drop in a similar sized radius, no wonder why the tanks get messed up so easily. [This message has been edited by gorilla (edited 09-29-2000).]

Just thought I'd add one more thing. (thanks for the input bout the game, and the link to the other forum ) I poked around a bit, and found some interesting scientific stuff bout rounds. Check out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html but more specific to this particular topic: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets2.htm I couldn't find anything about HESH tho. Hmmm.

Forgot to ask. Is this game worth getting? I think I might like it, but would like some input if ya could. (sorry previous message so long winded...

First off, this is my first post. Not to into the discussion area thing (tho I read lots of em). This one caught my eye tho, and I read the whole thing. (I was at work... what else do you expect me to be doing?) Anyway, the ideas/facts that people have brought up point to several things. 1. It seems like the FACTS point to the ability for artillery to destroy armor. 2. The FACTS also point to the rareness of such an occurence. 3. Velocity does have something to do with armor penetration (both HE and AP). 4. Velocity doesn't count _that_ much for armor penetration.(for HE only.) Just so you know, I was in the marine corps not too long ago, and just happened to be in artillery (0842 (radar), so I wasn't a gunner) and have been interested in military things all my life (which aint that long... realy.) But I am, by no means an "expert". With that said I would like to add a couple of things to this discussion. For one, it seems VERY unlikely that velocity has anything to do with armor penetration with an HE round (namely, an artillery round). I have two reasons behind this. One was stated already, in that the power behind an HE round is it's explosives, not kinetics. Second is, the HE round was designed to explode, not penetrate. Any WWII AP round was made from a very solid dense material, meant to hold its shape as it impacted a surface. Modern day AP rounds stay true to this, as even the Sabot rounds are made from solid dense material. (and are shaped more like thin spears than a bullet.) HE rounds were meant to rupture. Take the famous WWII american grenade... the pineapple grenade. (don't know it's nomenclature). This had it's pineapple shape so that more specific chunks of it would break apart when it detonated. It was made to be easily fragmented. HE rounds aren't that much different. They were meant to blow apart too. For these reasons, I don't think that velocity has much to do with it. (although it does to some amall effect, I'm sure). With that said, we are talking about the ability for the shards of fragmented material to penetrate armor. This is not very likely either, because HE wasn't designed to destroy armor... it was designed to kill people. Armor would be useless if it couldn't stand up to HE fragments. This is true of course, until you place the explosion very close to the armor (most likely, hitting it.) At such close proximity, it is also the explosion itself that will effect the armor. This was actually put into effect in more modern times with the invention of the HESH round. HESH(High Explosive Squash Head... If my memory serves me right.) was designed as an anti-vehicle round which based its killing power on the shock value of the explosion. The warhead is actually located on the BACK of the round. When the round hits a target, it squashes itself onto the target, spreading the explosives out... like droping an egg in a frying pan. Once the rear of the round reaches the target, the round explodes. The armor isn't penetrated at all, but the shock of the explosion breaks off shards of metal from the INSIDE of the tank, and sends them bouncing around in the interior. I think you all can see why this is bad for the crew, and internal systems. This round is mainly used against personnel carriers afaik and just so you know. Now, HE actually impacting a tank would probably do a fair amount of damage, if not destroy it and/or its crew. This, however, is HIGHLY unlikely, as it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to hit a point target, using artillery in a indirect fire role. BUT, as was mentioned earlier, when you are dealing with saturation of an area with artillery, the impossible becomes unlikely. There is still a chance. By the way, our artillery units practiced direct fire with the 155mm howitsers on point targets. So, someone with more rank than all of us seems to think artillery can take out an armored vehicle (even modern day).