Little_Black_Devil
-
Posts
218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Little_Black_Devil
-
-
So I take it by this threads inactivity that nobody in Canada has yet recieved their copy yet eh?
I guess those damned customs people are too busy still "investigating" them at the border.
Hmmmm, perhaps I should change my line of work so I can "investigate" the next version of CM as it hits the border.
-
(jumping up and down frantically, waving his arms)
Oooo!! Oooo!!! Oooo!!!!
Does the Pak36 have access to the stick bomb (Stielgranate-41)?
-
I've also got "The Atlas of Eastern Front Battles" by Will Fowler.
While I admit that I have not actually read it yet, I have skimmed through it. From a cursory glance, the book does appear to be written for the casual reader, or those new to the history of the Eastern Front.
Its very colourful, and there are a fair amount of maps.
I'm hoping to have some time in the near future to read this book, so I can provide a substantially more informative overview of what its all about.
-
I would highly reccomend Professor John Erickson's two volume set on the Eastern Front;
"The Road to Stalingrad"
and
"The Road to Berlin".
An absolute wealth of information. Some heavy reading to be sure, but your grasp of events on the Eastern Front would be better for it. At least - that was my experience
-
Rubbing alchohol.
This way I won't actually see the AI beat me.
-
Thanks again for the responses guys, some good food for thought.
There are some pretty convincing arguments and sound information which does lead me to begin doubting the real usefullness of firing the gun whilst still limbered - at least on the Eastern Front. I would imagine that this feature would likely prove more useful in North Africa.
What I still can't agree with though, is the idea of permenent placement of the heavier guns once deployed (either at setup or after the one and only de-barkation/deployment). I don't understand what this "permanent" placement is supposed to signify or abstract, because the gun [in reality] was indeed capeable of being deployed and re-deployed within a relatively timely manner.
On average, this gun took about 4 minutes to deploy (in its conventional deployment), off of its wheel limbers, pegged into the ground and then putting its first rounds downrange. It took roughly the same amount of time for the gun to pack up and be prepared to move.
As each turn in CM, is representative of one minute, that collectively adds up to 8 minutes, or 8 turns. Surely, within 10 turns, the gun could concieveably unhook from the prime mover, deploy, possibly fire a few rounds, pack up, hook up to the prime mover and be mobile again.
Assuming an average scenario is about 30 turns, there is ample time (or turns) to bring the gun into action in at least two different locations - IF the situation calls for and allows for it.
So - if your initial deployment, has allowed you to make the best possible use of the gun, and clear a given area of enemy (within your initial LOS) then it makes sense to pack up the gun, and move it to yet another position, where it can continue to contribute its firepower to the rest of the battle making use of a new LOS.
In some ways, the current inability for the heavier guns to re-deploy, makes them defacto "disposeable guns", when clearly - the '88 in particular, was more than a one use weapon.
Perhaps I just suck at placing my guns.
Or perhaps, it makes sense to make at least some provision which allows me to move my gun and theorectically re-deploy it multiple times, limited only by the guns continued existence (obviously)
and the length of the scenario.I think that the time required to limber/unlimber - and vulnerability while limbering/unlimbering are sufficient safeguards to prevent the '88's hypothetical ability to re-deploy, from being abused through "gamey" tactics.
Comments?
-
It might have moved back a little, but not a great deal, as both of its boggie wheels were equipt with both foot-pedal brakes (located blow a seat on top of each wheel limber respectively) and hand-brakes (which operated the same braking mechanism as the foot-pedal brakes).
With these brakes applied - they would obviously impede the recoil of the gun, while it was mounted on the wheel limbers. Of course - this is specifically in reference to the Flak36/37.
The Flak18, had a different wheel limber system which also had brakes, though to be honest I'am not exactly sure what kind they were, but would bet that there were no foot pedals on the Flak18, just hand-brakes. I could be wrong.
Hope that helped
-
Ya, you may well be right Jons.
My motivation for voicing this, is that it is difficult to "properly" sight in the heavier guns, within CMBO. (perhaps this will be different in CMBB?)
Unlike the smaller anti-tank guns, or the tanks (now with the move to hull down command) the heavier guns are forced to be deployed in the open (when dropped off of their prime mover in mid-scenario). They can't adjust themselves into position, and also have no means of knowing (or directly moving) into a field guns equivilent of a hull down position. Thus, if you want to see your gun in action, then you overcompensate (to make sure its not trapped in dead ground), and put it in the open.
Despite all of that - as has been pointed out, perhaps it is indeed just too much work for so little in return. It is after all - a minor point, just a thought.
Michael emrys, what I had said above, was based off of the book "21st Panzer Division: Rommel's Afrika Korps Spearhead".
I'll try and give you a few excerpts, so you can see for yourself what I was getting at;
Pp.45 - caption to a picture of an '88 firing from on top of its wheel limbers;
"The 88 was at its most effecive when fired direct from its wheeled chassis, a technique developed by 21st Panzer Division in the desert fighting."
Pp.46;
"During the summer months Rommel moved both 21st and 15th Panzer Divisions to the area between Tobruk and the frontier, and ordered extensive excersises to perfect tank attack, support and anti-tank techniques. Most important of these was the idea of firing the 88 direct from its cruciform towing platform without stopping to emplace it. At Halfaya and other defence points, the 88's had been emplaced conventionally, on the ground and off their mobile towing trolleys, though well concealed in sangars. One battery had remained with the tank battalions, however, for possible deployment elsewhere. But in the famous running firefight with 7th Armoured Division in the Sidi Omar area on 16 June, these mobile 88's had been fired straight from their wheeled towing trailers without being conventionally emplaced. This was done as an extemporised act in the heat of battle, simply because there just wasn't time to emplace the gun first in a running fight. The idea worked, however, and now it became the normal operational technique for using the 88 in the anti-tank role. It gave immense extra firepower and flexability to the armoured units, particularly at the time when the most powerful tank-mounted gun with DAK was the 50mm in the PzKpfw III.
With its ability to fire straight from its trailer safely proven, the 88 batteries could now move mixed in among the tanks, a facility made posible by the reliable Sdkfz.7 semi-track tractor, which also carried the crew and ammunition. The excersises tried various ways of deploying the towed 88 with tanks. They could travel inside the group and move to the front, sides or rear as requierd of a moving formation. If the tanks stopped to exchange fire, the 88's could be moved out to protect the flanks, or they could move out to the front of the formation take well aimed long range shots at the enemy and swiftly retire again into the heart of the formation."
My guess is - that firing the 88 with the gun perpendicular to the wheel limbers - while still mounted on them, somehow helped alleviate some of the shock from the recoil.
Thats a guess, and also assumes that firing the gun broadside while still mounted would not be as effective. Again - its a guess, so as to explain why it would be more "accurate" still mounted on its wheel limbers as opposed to its conventional deployment which saw it pegged into the ground.
Anyone else care to speculate?
What I see as to the two most important features needed for the gun, is the ability to deploy and re-deploy AND for the gun to chose to deploy either into its "hasty" role, or its "sustained" role, each with their own respective strengths and weaknesses - which I believe need further confirmation and elaboration.
The crew having the ability to manhandle the gun - while a nice feature, isn't exactly a "need" feature at the moment.
Thanks again for all of the feedback guys.
-
Well, you may have a point.
As one who has served in the Artillery (though never on '88's)
, I know from experience that field pieces like these, can be and were moved around - though never far, never fast and NEVER with a minimal effort. The Flak36/37's usually had 10 man crews - thats alot of man power to roll the gun along on its wheel limbers. Of course - this assumes that a given gun always has a complete crew, which I suspect was less and less the case as the war progressed. I do think, that if such a feature were made available - that it should be limited, so as to prevent the "gamey" use of 88's, moving about the battlefield and traversing any reasonable distance under the power of its crew alone. 5-10m might be a reasonable distance to expect the crew to move the gun before deploying it - especially if they are trying to push/pull it up even the most gentle of inclines.
Where I can certainly forsee such a human effort running into trouble, is up substantial inclines or in deep snow; where the speed at which the gun can be manouvered into position, would be severely limited, and the crew quite tuckered out after the effort. This might slow the unlimbering time even further, and perhaps even initially affect the rate of fire. Depending on the proximity of the prime mover, it might even determine the availability of ammunition.
However, I do believe that it was possible for the crews to manhandle these guns into position (within limited distances). Really, they are simply adjusting their position by a few metres for an optimal arc of fire. Hopefully, they would not betray the presence of either the prime mover or their gun to the enemy in such a manor at range - which unto its self might entail more options we as players can entertain within the game.
All of that being said, perhaps enabling the '88 to move under its own (limited) power, might prompt more problems that it solves. You've certainly given me a few things to think about.
I do think that being able to deploy the '88, in either its primary deployment role or its hasty (on wheels) role would add some flavour to the gun. It only took about 4 minutes to bring into action, off its prime mover, and about the same to bring out of action before the prime mover could start towing it again. Since many, if not most battles last longer than 8 turns within the game - I would at least like to have the option of fighting battles with an 88 that I can take with me.
Current '88's through the virtue of their immobility, can not be (in my opinion) an active part of a fighting withdrawl or a mechanized advance over any substantial distance. In some respects, its like a "Get out of Jail Free Card" - once you use it - its done.
I just think the Flak18/36/37 was more versatile than the current abstraction lets on.
On a different note;
The ability for the gun to fire an air-burst would be an interesting addition as well. I imagine such a feature to be quite the "broom" for "motivating" enemy Infantry out of wooded areas.
That could certainly lead to some interesting employment of this gun.
I wonder if giving it use of its anti-aircraft rounds (and applicable fuzes) to do that, effectively makes it "capeable" of taking on aircraft as well?
Perhaps that too is an option which needs to be looked at - though I find it hard to visualize the '88 being employed against fast moving low flying aircraft (which is what I'am assuming we will be limited to in the full version for air-support).
In any event, food for thought I guess.
Thanks for the input.
-
I have been wondering lately, as to whether or not the German Flak18/36/37's will still be limited to just two single deployments as in CMBO.
I'm specifically making reference to the players choice (when using the Flak36/37 in CMBO) to either embark it upon its prime mover (the Sdkfz.7) and deploy it where its needed as a battle progresses (where it will then remain for the duration of the battle/scenario) - OR, to begin the scenario with the gun already deployed, and for all intents and purposes - static - in its position, as it can not be embarked and moved to a better position or pulled out of the line altogether.
So what I'am I getting at?
Well, two things really.
First of all;
I would like to see the Flak18/36/37 capeable of deploying and undeploying as many times as it wants (within it the time it takes during its limbering/unlimbering process).
It should be capeable of moving under its own power (manhandling) at extremely slow speeds, for extremely short durations (and therefore distances), further affected by the terrain.
It would be nice to have the ability to move the gun potentially multiple times during a scenario (if it actually needed to be), either under the power of its prime mover for more extensive distances, or under its own power - to move into that ideal position just below a crest (since field guns don't have a "move to hull down" command).
Secondly;
In addition - the Flak18/36's in particular - were used in the anti-tank role quite commonly, while still mounted ontop their wheel limbers. What I'm saying is, that the gun [in the game] should be capeable of firing while both fully deployed, and whilst still sitting on top the wheel limbers.
This would inevitably bring about more historical use of the Flak18/36/37, as it could be employed against tanks in particular, and also as part of a mobile formation accross vast stretches of terrain. Currently - the Flak36/37 in CMBO is an awkward tool to use in a fluid battle; particularly as wherever or however it is deployed, it is "permanent" stuck for the battle/scenario. I don't think this is either realistic or very representative of how the gun was used historically, 1941 onwards.
I just finished reading a book on the 21st Panzer Division (P.45,46,47 - "21st Panzer Division: Rommel's Afrika Korps Spearhead" by Chris Ellis, ISBN:0-7110-2853-2), which went into some detail, concerning the employment of the Flak18/36/37 in the anti-tank role from on top of its wheel limbers. Some of the main points being, that 21st Panzer had really pioneered and "perfected" this practice in North Africa (in '41) and that the gun was "more accurate" when fired this way. Currently, we are forced to fully deploy the weapon or leave it embarked, and then drop it off in a permenent position.
I simply want more options.
I would rather not see my 88's forced into one and ONLY one deployed position, and at that - a fully deployed position (as opposed to as hasty deployed position - with the gun still on top of its wheel limbers).
While enabeling the gun to be towed from both ends (in the Flak36/37 models) would be an additional bonus, I don't think its currently an absolute necessity.
So - 'am I the only one that wants to see this additional functionality, realism and historical accuracy insofar as the 88 is concerned? :confused:
I think I would likely be foolish to assume that this kind of functionality could make it into the full version which we are all soon to see in a few (hopefully short) weeks.
It would however, make a welcome addition to a patch though; assuming I'm not the only one who would like to see the Flak18/36/37 get a little extra attention.
Thoughts anyone??
-
In Tom Clancy's book "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", Gen.Fred Franks Jr.(ret.) mentions the value of "options" to the commander.
The more options the commander has, or can create for himself, the more opportunity is created or can be created to defeat the enemy.
Now - I don't think that the AI has necessarily been beefed up, tweaked or otherwise made "smarter".
What I do think, is that through virtue of the number of new features in the game (like optics and types of movement for example), the computer has - at its disposal "more options". I certainly don't think that the AI is "intelligent" enough, to sit back and reflect upon doctrine or tactics, or even create a simple plan to follow. It simply moves all of its stuff towards your stuff (or flags), and slugs it out.
That having been said, I think that it is possible, that through the computers ability to use some of the new features - it may "appear" to be more intelligent, where no real increase in intelligence has been made.
The fact that the computer now has more "options" to choose from, means that when it executes actions in offence or defence against the human player - that it can do more (than in CMBO).
So far, in the demo, I have seen the computer use the "shoot & scoot" move. I have also seen, with the new addition of armoured command units, tanks function a little more like small units, rather than individual weapons platforms. Perhaps thats just my perception.
I've also seen the computer advance to hull down positions. I've also seen it perform, what I'll losely refer to as "fire and movement" with its tanks in the Citadel Scenario. I don't think this was necessarily intentional on the computer's part - but its appearence and effect were cool nonetheless. In this case, I suspect that the AI was advancing to contact, and when some individual tanks made contact, they stopped and fired (covered), while the remaining units simply continued to advance. The targets to which the computer was engaging usually - but not always were either destroyed (and therefore disapeared) or fell back (reversed behind cover, and subsequently disapeared). Perhaps the fact that I always set up my defensives in depth, explains why the enemy always seemed to have a number of his forces engaging some of my units, while others advanced, thus reinforcing the illusion that he was using fire and movement.
In any event - I knew it was not a "concious" decision or tactic which the computer was employing, but its effect was what I found to be impressive and just plain old cool to see; despite my losses.
As has been menioned above, this is a demo, so it doesn't reflect the whole game. So, perhaps there will be more to see; either "new" seemingly apparent AI advances in its fighting ability, or perhaps more evidence that while you are fighting a battle, the computer is just executing algorithms. In any event, the illusion of a somewhat capeable opponent remains.
Either way, I'm still having an absolute blast on my end, regardelss of the AI's "intelligence", as its appearence to me, is that of an "opponent" who can't entirely be written off as a threat, due to the options it has at its disposal, and the units it has at its disposal to make those options a reality.
But thats me.
-
(sigh)........
Well, I've ordered it.
I just wish that there were "better" mailing options so I didn't have to wait up to a month to get the game.
-
I have run into simillar issues.
While some of my T-34's bailed, because they were both green, and under intense fire (anti-tank, and mortar primarily) - some of them were outright killed by turret penetrations, or bailed (intact) on account of a turret penetration. Retreating, and bailing from intense fire (at this stage of the war) is historically accurate - so I don't have any quams about that.
I have also noticed, that the AI opened up with the Pak36's, while I was still on my (Russian) side of the map(400-500m), not at close range, or from the flanks.
I also noticed, that playing as the Germans, you were likely to get "favourable" shots against the T-34 ONLY if it faced you from the front or rear - which I found odd - perhaps it was merely coincidence, or something was happening which I did not see or know about.
I also found that the best place to engage the enemy was at his end of the map - about 400-500m. If the T-34's get to close, they can see the gun with greater ease - and therefore direct more accurate fire upon it, where as at 400-500m they have trouble initially spotting it, and still more trouble landing accurate shots on it. They also appear to be less generous with their coaxial machine guns at this range.
I do have to admit however, that I was surprised that the Pak36 is scoring as many turret penetrations - from the front - as it has been. I thought the door knocker was a wimply little thing.
Looking at the T-34's information chart from within the game, I can see the following stats listed for its armour penetration;
Angle 100m 500m 1000m 2000m
AP
0° .......62.....51.....40......25
30° .....51.....42.....34......22
60° .....32.....27.....22......14
HE
0° .......41.....34.....26......16
30° .....34.....29.....23......15
60° .....22.....18.....15......9
Now - what surprises me here, is that there is a penetrative number given for HE...?
Perhaps I'm reading the chart wrong, or perhaps HE was used in the anti-armour role much more frequently than I'am aware of - which I suppose is possible...
In any event, I'm also surprised to see that there is no Pzgr40 (APCR) for the Pak36 (to say nothing of my beloved Stielgranate-41). Sure German APCR rounds were "rare", particularly as the war went on, but not I would imagine - during the summer of 1941......were they?
Back to penetration,
When I refer to the penetration table in the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Chamberlain and Doyle (P.245) - I'am told that the penetration capability of the Pak36 is;
(at 30°)
100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
34......29......22......19........0
which ROUGHLY equates at 0° to;
100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
43......36......28.......21.......0
These are the types of numbers which I THOUGHT I was working with, which seemed to coincide with my impression of the little "door knocker"; which seemed to fit quite well. You likely would not be getting many turret penetrations through these stats.
However - the numbers which the game appears to be using - DO coincide, with both Rexfords book "World War Two Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery" AND Ian V. Hogg's "German Artillery of World War Two". I'm more inclined to believe Rexford and Mr.Hogg with regards to the correct penetraion values, than Chamberlain and Doyle.
I guess I should pay more attention, to these details. I had no idea that the Pak36 was, indeed, only using AP - such a little but kicker. I'am curious though, with stats like these - how did this gun get its reputation as the "door knocker", when as we can clearly see - its still quite effective?
My guess is - that we have to remember that we are looking at the model 1940 T-34, not its uparmoured successors, such as the Model 41, 42 or 44 for instance. The Model 1940 T-34, is not quite so daunting as its successors proved to be. Its armour was not as thick - particularly in the turret, which would explain WHY we are getting so many penetrations against this early model of the T-34.
All that having been said, I would still like to see APCR rounds - and Stielgranate-41 (stick bomb) rounds for that matter, provided for this gun. Admitadly, a demo is hardly a means to determine as to whether or not those munitions will actually be seen in the full version, but I'd like to re-afirm my desire to see these rounds just the same.
To me - the mystery of the Pak36 vs the T-34 Model 40 seems to have been solved. I was surprised, and I guess I really should not have been.
But thats me.
Anyhow - sorry for boring you guys to death.
-
Well, as has been pointed out, reloading the Stielgranate-41 was a cumbersome process to begin with, I'm sure it would have been far too much of a hastle for the Half-Track mounted Pak36's to try and use them.
Whats more, is the range - I just can't see a HT crew willing to put its self at such unecessary risk, in order to use this munition; which by virtue of the way that it loads, might as well be a one shot weapon. I would imagine that this is not a particularly attractive scenario to find one's self in, especially if you missed with the first (and likely only) shot.
I'm sure, that the conventional Pak36 would have been able to conceal its self more readily than its HT mounted counterpart while attempting to ambush, thus possibly providing the crew with enough time to make good on a second (and hopefully effective) shot. Hard to say.
On a related note, I was reading over my copy of Ian V. Hogg's "German Artillery of World War Two", in reference to the Stielgranate-41, and on page 189, Mr. Hogg talks about the Pak36 and its stick bomb, saying;
Sure, this means that they were used, and that this munition likely came into service in (late) 1941. It also suggests, that it was widespread - or at least intended to be widespread (to give the existing 2,000 Pak36's a new lease on life). Hopefully, someone else has some specific figures regarding this - or even better, BTS already has the answer, and this munition has made it into CMBB.In the later years, when it was outmatched by newer tanks, the Pak36's useful life was extended by the provision of an unusual spigot bomb; over 2,000 guns had been issued by the middle of 1941, and so it was essential to find a way of utilizing them.What I found additionally interesting in Mr. Hogg's book, was that the Pak38 too, had a stick bomb - the Stielgranate-42, which was capeable of the same penetration as the Stielgranate-41 (180mm/30°).
Here is a picture of the Stielgranate-42 from the same book;
The Stielgranate-42, functioned exactly as the Stielgranate-41 did, and its tail was made large enough so as to fit over the muzzle break - hence the rather "large" and awkward appearence. The reommended range for this weapon however, was 150m. I doubt, that the Stielgranate-42 was made in the same numbers that the Stielgranate-41 was likely produced in, though I'am speculating.
Still, its interesting to note that such a munition existed for this gun too, though its not quite as clear as to whether or not it was developed to increase the Pak38's effective lifespan or not - as was clearly the case with the Pak36. In any event, it would seem that muzzle loaded stick bombs were not quite so obscure as one might initially think, though without a more specific source, this is difficult to verfiy.
In any event - I certainly think that this munition warrants more investigation, which might better conclude whether or not its really "worthy" of implementation or not.
-
Wow, thanks for the info guys.
-
Now that I've got your attention,
I was wondering, if there was a comprehensive book - simillar to the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks fo World War II" by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, which dealt with Soviet Armour.
While the "Encyclopedia of Germans Tanks..." contains its share of errors, it is overall not a bad source to refer to with regards to German armour. I'm just hoping that there is a Soviet counterpart, which in all likelyhood would not have been written by the same authors or part of their series on tanks.
I suspect, that a Soviet counterpart, equally as comprehensive (and written in English) has not likely been produced (yet) - but would really appreciate it is someone could prove me wrong.
Any takers?
-
Anyone else wanna see this round - or should I just let this die?
-
I JUST recieved "The Atlas of Eastern Front Battles", by Will Fowler
ISBN: 0-7394-2607-9
Unfortunately, I haven't had to get into it at all yet, other than a cursory glance. Too busy watching these forums I guess.
In any event, it contains 6 deveoted Chapters to a few of the most pivotal battles on the Eastern Front.
They are;
Leningrad
German Attack/Soviet Counterattack of Moscow
Sevastopol
Stalingrad
Kursk
Battle of Berlin
While the book contains a LOT of colourful pictures, maps and frequent sidenotes about specific vehicles and equipment; it does have the appearence of being written for the novice to intermidiate student of Eastern Front History. It doesn't appear to be the type of book I was after, but since I haven't read it yet - I might yet be surprised.
The next time this, or any other thread on Eastern Front books crops up hopefully I will have had a chance to read this book, and I'll pass on my comments regarding it.
-
Well in any event - it'd be a nice tough to whats already shapping up to be an outstanding game.
I just want the bragging rights to tell my opponent that I whacked his KV with a Pak36.
Of course, watching that slow moving projectile pass through the air would likely make for some pretty tense moments too - kinda like watching Piat bombs, Panzershreks and Bazzokas lobbing rounds all about in CMBO. :eek:
-
Well, I haven't seen BoB yet, so I for one could not tell you unfortunately.
This might make it easier to see what I'm talking about;
It was muzzle loaded, and was propelled by an associated casing, which contained only propellent.
Obviously, reloading it, was a little cumbersome - particularly under combat conditions. :eek:
-
In the immortal words of Stimpson J. Cat (Stimpy from "Ren and Stimpy");
"Ohhhhhh JOY!!!!!"
Thanks ASL Veteran
-
I'm just wondering if my little "Door Knocker" will have access not only to; AP, APCR and HE rounds but also (when applicable), its muzzle loaded stick (spigot) bomb - Stielgranate-41.
Sure its only good up to roughly 300m, but it could penetrate 180mm of armour with its oversized hollow charge warhead. :eek:
The German Army had an awfull lot of Pak36's still kicking around in 1941 that desperately needed to be made effective against Russian Armour. The Stielgranate-41 seemed to provide the solution to extend the service life of the Pak36 just a little further.
I'm not sure exactly how numerous it ended up being, or when specifically it entered service.
Yes....I admit......I've been watching "Men against Tanks" again.
I would assume, that this specialized munition, by virtue of the way it was loaded, would not likely have been used when mounted on vehicles such as the Skdfz.251/10 and Sdkfz.250/10; but I could be wrong.
Anyone know about this stuff?
-
I was wondering, if particularly in the early part of the war in the east - if close assaults might be more viable tactics to employ in CMBB, largely through the virtue of the weaponry available and perhaps partially related to a given "target" vehicles vision facilities - and its associated field(s) of view.
Specifically - will Infantry (sections/squads), or other specialized Infantry units be equipt with weaponry like the Haft-Hohlladung (magnetic anti-tank mine), grenade bundles, molotov cocktails, sachel charges and even anti-tank mines to use in "melee" against armoured targets in a close assault? Sure sure, later in the war we'll see the Panzerfaust.....I just want to know if we'll have anything in the interim until the Panzerfaust became available.
I have no doubt we will see anti-tank rifles, as employed by both sides. Its the close range stuff that "unseen Infantry" MIGHT be able to use against unaware enemy tanks in a close assault that I want to know about.
-
After a little bit of looking around, I believe I found out what Notek lighting is/was.
Indeed, it appears you were correct, in that the Notek LIghting system was the special lamp, mounted on the mudguards usually, which was used for night driving, compareable to modern day "blackout drive".
Not sure how I confused an optical lighting kit and this. :confused:
In any event, I'll have to take another look one of these days to see what it was I read about in relation to lighting kits for guns - and what the REAL name is for them.
Thanks for pointing that out Mr.Kettler.
CMBB in Canada yet??
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Well, I do believe that there is indeed an area in Ottawa called Orleans - officially refered to as "Ottawa-Orleans".
So - this is indeed encouraging news.
I guess the Customs guys took their happy pills.