Doodlebug

Conversely my experience is one of moderate success. I actually bought a Quad 50 HT for the first time which saw off my opponents aircraft quite nicely. I placed it on a hillside with a good field of fire overlooking my armoured assets which I figured would be the prime target for any attack. Lo and behold the Luftwaffe duly appeared and commenced an attack run taking a few bursts of fire as he made one pass and vanished pronto. My gunners managed to get a good long look at the plane and engage it into and away from the target.

Wow. Looks great. I do hope you keep going now that you have the hang of it. Well done and thanks.

No.No. Your original post has merely been redirected to the Tech forum where you will find folk only too ready to offer advice and guidance.

Good source material there but not beyond the possibility that it is "pushing" a certain line. Can you clarify the NKVD sniper description which has me intrigued? In my mind at least NKVD and Red Army are pretty much two separate organisations. Does the article make any reference or differentiation to army snipers? My quotes are pulled from what is essentially a statistic-less memoir and therefore completely unsustainable in a number driven discussion. Given the huge numbers of kills claimed by Soviet snipers and given also the relative anonymity of other nations snipers are we arguing from a level piece of ground? Is there an element of over and under estimation going on? The link given by Bastables gives some details of kill confirmation procedures for the German snipers. Are details available for the Russians? Perhaps by examining the frameworks to which each nation worked then a comparison can be made of the other factors involved - numbers of snipers, equipment, tactics, natural ability and any other factors that interested parties can dig up and throw into the mix? So perhaps we could start by asking the question. "How were Soviet kills confirmed? Is the procedure equivalent to that of the Germans?

I hardly consider a couple of quotes taken directly from a book published by a trained sniper and serving officer from the period as "political ideology". The fact that the press and propaganda machines fasten onto individuals is also a fact and not an ideology. Perhaps you could enlighten us to the source of your figures? I can heartily recommend the book I quoted from should you care to read it which looks at weapons, training, tactics and a few personal reminiscences. Written as it was, immediately after the officer's demobilisation, it is a useful period piece based upon his perceptions and experiences. I genuinely hope that your comments are based upon your inability to understand quotation marks and your consequent mis-reading of my original post and nothing more unpleasant than that.

Most interesting link there. Thanks Bastables. Note the comments about the use of AT rifles and their inaccuracy for sniping compared to the usual snipers rifles used but clearly they were used occasionally. To return to the original subject. ".........I do not think there was any subject about which there was so much balderdash printed and published during the whole course of world War II than Russian sniping." "............I think that the printed Russian figures of sniper casualties should be divided by a hundred and the result taken as something like the number of Germans accounted for by russian snipers." Capt. C. Shore. (With British Snipers to the Reich. 1948.) It has always been my view that the kill figures quoted were greatly exaggerated as the Russian snipers were raised to the status of icons by the Press to divert the public from grimmer news in much the same way that air aces were likewise treated in WW1.

I agree with you there. I'd go so far as to predict that we're actually looking at a picture of a GI in Korea.

Thank you very much.

Well they're better than nothing. Using them in the rear or safe areas works out for me. If I need to move up an AT gun to consolidate my advance then they are a must IMO. Half tracks are just too pricey for such a mundane job when they can be more use supporting the infantry or on recon.

I thank you. My stupidity may go un-noticed for a little while more

What's the correct spelling? Is it fallsch-irm-jager or fallsch-rim-jager? Both spellings seem equally common in usage and I wondered which is accurate.

I've always understood that the origins of national styles of helmet shape lies a lot farther back than you imagine - in fact centuries. The German helmet is styled after a 15th century sallet and the British helmet after a kettle hat of similar antiquity. The practicalities of war caused the development of more specialised forms like the Fallschirmjager helmet. As the previous poster said in that situation you do not want protruding rims that, if caught on an obstacle as you landed, risked snapping the neck.

I am shocked. I am shocked and appalled. I am shocked and appalled and dismayed. One of the camo blotches is an inch out of position! If you're going to this sort of thing you at least ought to be accurate. Why are you releasing such mods? I'll tell you why. 'Cos you're good people. Thanks for another excellent one

Those are just extraordinary. I can't get over those pavements. I'd swear they were 3D and not flat. Thank you once again for your modding efforts

Fantastic work. Now what about the lightweights? Pretty please

Hmmm. Don't remember much maths from school. I wonder if Pythagoras would help? Pythagoras! Run and fetch my calculator

Most excellent photos and thanks for taking the trouble to post them.

Ahhh. Lovely. They have something of the watercolour about them. Soft focus lens perhaps? A career in glamour photography beckons

Sounds like it's out there but I'm having trouble finding the site. Can some kind person post a link? </font>

I'm waiting to see how long it takes for you to run out of material

This link may help. I use it myself and it works well enough for me. I don't recall the rocky patches being visible at the highest views but I could be wrong. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006085#000006 Then off to the usual place for you.

Woohoo

Yep. That's the place to go. A great site for every type of scenario or op. Doesn't get the high profile the way mod sites do but really worth bulling up and supporting.

No actually not. I have never encountered this situation personally. My only observation on the problem (and it has the potential to be a problem) is that once a certain weapon system and terrain/fortification combination is recognised as being particularily favourable or over strong and thereby having the potential to be abused then it ain't long before it is being abused. (For the diplomatic amongst us substitute the word "deployed" for abused). I would be immensely disappointed to think that games would be skewed by the overuse of such match-ups. There has been comment made to the effect that if you allow HMG's to be KO'ed then why not squad MG's and then logically extend the arguement to individual rifles. Where do you draw the line? To answer the last question first I would have expected there to be the possibility of retrieving a personal weapon from the dead and wounded in the event of your own equipment becoming damaged or jammed. This is surely so obvious a reaction that it can be considered as happening automatically and does not need to enter the discussion. As for squad LMG's these are more akin to an individual weapon than to a HMG team in my opinion. They were a WW1 innovation included into squads to boost firepower locally during assaults or defences. I believe that the game already assumes that another squad member is likely to pick it up in the event that the gunner is incapacitated and it therefore remains in action for longer. Could not the situation where the LMG is KO'ed early represent the fact that it is damaged and therefore unusable rather than the fact that no-one has bothered to grab it? HMG's are a very different beast to a LMG. They were conceived and deployed originally as artillery pieces. To a large extent they continued to be so used in the direct fire mode. If you consider the sophistication of the mount, the sights they were fitted with and the tactical use to lay down continuous suppressive fire then the case remains that they must be more akin to an artillery piece than a squad weapon. On that basis, then, the argument stands that they should be capable of being KO'ed and abandoned by their crews rather than rendered inoperative by the death of the crew alone. It is necessary (vital one may say) for HMG teams to be re-examined and recoded in CMAK to be treated in a fashion similar to gun crews or mortar teams and to permit abandonment rather than remain as they are now - an infantry unit.

So mortar crews are not treated as infantry? They are different how? I cannot see the logic in that at all. It's clear that guns and mortars can be KO'ed so why not an MG? The KO you talk about must be by the total elimination of the crew and not by the wrecking of the equipment. That makes the MG a very unique bit of equipment. Everything else from truck to tank and gun to mortar can be damaged or destroyed. Any crew casualties are incidental to the event. Through out all the carnage and destruction the MG stands inviolate. No harm may befall it! When the guns fall silent there it stands with a dead crew around it but not a scratch or dent. Hell! On that basis you only need make a dozen or two and keep recycling them for the duration. " Nip over there lads and retrieve that MG. Don't mind the bodies. You'll find it in perfect working order. Only one careless owner!"