Doodlebug
-
Posts
407 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Doodlebug
-
-
Don't look that bulky to me. Granted a good deal could be dug in and not visible. The most obvious thing is the range finder and that could be in use by any gun crew.Originally posted by NG cavscout:http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html
I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me.
-
Been there. Done that. Probably one of the most appalling sorry excuses for a game I have ever had the misfortune to waste money on.Originally posted by SFJaykey:There was a decent 3-d simulation of WWII surface combat sold for a while by SSI, called "Fighting Steel." Unfortunely the game was very unstable as released, and apparently pulled from the market rather than fixed. Luckily, some talented fans of the genre have written a series of patches for Fighting Steel that not only made the game stable (ok, almost stable) but improved the accuracy of the simulation. It's real time, not turn based, but with the stately pace of warship movement real time works fine.
To check it out, go to:
and click on the "Fighting Steel Project." There give instructions for where to find the (free) patches, and last I checked they still had some of the game CDs for sale at their "store" for $10.
And no that site ain't much better. It highlights the absolute lack of quality games available.
Anyone remember playing Action Stations? A very very early game which I think I recall playing on the Commodore 64 (yes I am that old)
a considerable time ago. At least in that you made your decisions, plotted your move, could order the engine room to " give me everything you've got" run your damage control and counter flooding and then wait for the machine to crank out the results of all the firing. Ahhh. Happy memories. Matapan. Warspite. Burning Italian cruisers. Lovely. -
Ok. So explain why it's so unlikely? There ain't a decent naval simulator out there that I know of. I can imagine plotting moves and then watching the turn replay as the salvoes splash and the flak goes up against Kamikazes and just occasionally a magazine explodes and the burning wreck slips below the waves. If BFC stands for anything it's the underlying accuracy of the mathematical modelling. Trajectories, armour penetration, buoyancy and stability are all capable of mathematical calculation. I would have thought that the wireframes for ships would have been fairly straight forward compared to the difficulties of animating whole units of infantry and cavalry. There are copycats of the highly original plot-replay system of CM appearing and I would have thought that a shift to an entirely new theatre, the sea, would prove a profitable diversification for the team. Clear weather, storms or night engagements it could look spectacular. Plotting squadron manoeuvres,gunnery salvoes, torpedo attacks, air strikes, damage control of damaged ships sure is appealling. Isn't it? And just think what the modders could do. You want the Lexington in '44. You got it.
-
" .......... houses I thought were empty roared to life, gnashing at my exposed, confused troops. "
I've never seen gnashing houses roaring or otherwise.
Which mod are you using for that?
And your troops shouldn't be exposing themselves either. They'll be arrested
Love your AAR, BTW. Ever considered writing as a career?
-
How do you spell that noise Homer makes about beer cos I'm making that right now?
Thanks.
-
Question.
The manual specifically states that trucks and the like are not considered armoured vehicles for the purpose of covered arcs. The AI would therefore ignore the truck in a cover armour arc. Did you manage to test the fate of the truck and Pak in a straightforward cover arc situation? Apart from that query really excellent work and the effort is appreciated.
-
Can't muzzle brakes also cause problems with APDS rounds in that they could be damaged by the sabots as the flew off?
-
Originally posted by flamingknives:
flamingknivesdoublepost :mad: ?
-
Great looking website and I love your map page. Fantastic idea and looking forward to seeing this developed over the coming weeks and months. Keep up the great work.
-
Getting 'em into a position to actually let loose is my problem. Getting them there and then giving orders to run away. That's just too much to handle. :eek:Originally posted by MikeyD:If you give your flamethrower a run/retreat command with a short pause maybe he'll only be able to get a couple initial shots off before running back out of range! Any other suggestions?
-
I'd say thanks but I'm drooling too much. Much appreciated.
-
Bugler. Sound the charge. Woohoo.
-
I haven't got a clue on this line of reasoning but I hope someone will be along shortly to let us know. I can only guess that the less you rotate into the threat so as to leave the front plate angled to the shot the greater the chance of being struck in the thinner flank armour and risking a penetration there. Plus the fact that tanks have a smaller front profile than side so the danger is increased still further.Originally posted by massimorocca:This is something I focused only after so many years of CMBO and CMBB. When a tank is targeted it rotate to have a 90 degree front against the menace. But is a "full frontal" the best angle? An 80° , i.e., don't improve the chance to get a ricochet? (exactly like happens with the vertical angled plate) and don't increase the "real" thickness, without exposing to much the flank?
Any hint?
Thanks
-
Good story. Thanks for that. I must admit that when I started to read I figured on a desert connection. I thought it would be about ex Soviet equipment used against the Israeli's. It does make you wonder what information and stories are going unrecorded and being lost to future historians.
-
All credit to Offwhite for the map link and Valera for highlighting it and offering to assist illiterates like me with translation problems.
Many thanks.
-
That might be what I'm thinking of. It's not the gun but the ammunition that was banned and frankly if you're firing a solid round out of a shotgun then you might as well have a rifle.Originally posted by Ant:I don't think that shotguns themselves were banned by the Geneva convention, the home guard utilised them in Britain during the war, AFAIK the Geneva convention mainly applies to ammunition types. ie. no soft lead or dum dums.
-
I sort of had the feeling that they were banned before then but that never stopped the Doughboys from using them in the trenches.Originally posted by Bengal6:Weren't they banned by the Geneva Convention after WW1?
-
From one Limey to another.
Jolly well done old man. And the mods aren't bad either.
-
And I thought from the title that it was advocating throwing Germans into peat bogs for a millenium or twoOriginally posted by Seanachai:From the topic line I thought I'd come in here and find something like Dorosh going on in an orgiastic frenzy about a new uniform colour mod, but instead it's simply a bunch of Puritan Supremacists discussing whether Germans are, in fact, white people.
-
Yep. That's a great start to what I hope is a long modding career. Well done.
-
There is a fantastic site out there somwhere with extracts from the Admiralty inquiry, eye witness evidence blue prints-the works. I'll try and track down the link. Of course it's contemporary and draws the conclusion from the facts avauilable at the time.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Doodlebug
Thanks for the Great Info.
I was aware of a little of the Bismarck's underwater examination but had no knowledge they'd even located the Hood.
Glad you gave so much info on the Hood, hadn't known about the double magazine explosion but it would make sense because many eyewitnesses described her as just vanishing. One of the survivors, don't remember his name but he's the last of them, did recall seeing part of the ship sliding under but he had only a hazy recollection of the explosion itself -- understandable.
Regarding the Bismarck, glad they've ruled out the scuttling theory as the primary cause of it's sinking. After the battering she took and the torpedoes it would be a scary thing to visualize the half sunk wreck still floating till destroyed from within.
I guess the final verdict on Hood is that her inadequate deck armor, combined with poorly conceived alterations during the 20's and 30's, made her a disasster waiting to happen. Her two assets beign speed and a hard punch, but she was far too vulnerable to plunging fire. Wonder if the Admiralty shared that opinion in 1941?
To clarify one fact you need to distinguish between the shell room and the magazine. It seems that the 15" shells in the shell rooms were not the primary cause of detonation so much as the propellant charges in the magazine. The combustion of several hundred tons of cordite when detonated produced such an overpressure that the flames and gasses could not vent through the available exit routes upwards fast enough to prevent the explosion travelling forward through the hull. That's not to say that the shells didn't go up too but the eye witnesses did say at the time that the midship deck bulged up and flames shot out around the bases of the gun turrets before complete destruction followed.
The survivor you're thinking of is Ted Briggs. Last one alive now. He was a signalman and only just got clear. He certainly saw the bows going down very near to him.
Here's the Admiralty hearing in full
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm116/adm116-4351_intro.html
They make no conclusion as far as I can see as to whether the deck armour or main belt was penetrated but discuss all the options.
-
The recent dives on both Bismarck and Hood have answered a good many questions on the demise of these two vessels.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:John & Liam
There's still debate as to whether or not Bismarck finally went down due to torpedo hits from a cruiser or from her own crew setting off internal detonations.
In hood's case it's thought the fatal shell plunged through the deck and into the stored torpedo area next to the main powder magazine. It was the torpedoes jumping from the shell blast that struck and ignited the Hood's own ammunition stores. This idea is the basis of the 8" inch cruiser shell idea; the torpedos would have been striking the magazine while Bismarck's 15" inch shells hit the water.
The Royal Navy in their keenness to finish Bismarck closed the range to an absolute minimum and thereby ensured that although the majority of the big gun shells hit they did so in a flat trajectory and caused mostly above the waterline damage. Having said that the Bismarck, by the end, was listing sufficiently that the torpedoes fired at her by the British cruisers actually exploded above the main belt armour on the deck which was down to the waterline at that time. The claim that she was scuttled frankly now appears to be disproven and she was indeed done for by the Royal Navy.
In the case of Hood the wreck has now been found and filmed for the first time. The only significant intact portions of the wreck are the extreme stern including the props and rudders, the bows back as far as the breakwater in front of A turret, the control tower and a central section of the hull. The remainder of the vessel lies in an enormous debris field. As has been stated the Hood was vulnerable to long range plunging fire penetrating her deck armour. Admiral Holland was aware of this weakness and was attempting to close the range as the action opened by steaming towards the Bismarck. This limited the British to firing only the forward turrets whereas the Germans could fire full broadsides. Examination of the rudders has now shown that she was in the process of commencing the turn to port that would have presented the main belt armour to Bismarck and allowed her to commence full broad side salvoes. Tragically she never completed that turn as a plunging shell hit and penetrated to the after magazine. In a matter of moments she would have swung far enough round to prevent that occurance. It was blind chance and bad timing that lead to her end.
Amongst the debris field was found a torpedo which appears to rule out the detonation of the torpedo store and leads to the analysis that it was indeed the after magazine that detonated. Significantly, and terrifyingly the control tower was blown off and was found at a distance from the other wreckage. This is a 600 ton chunk of debris and it's discovery has lead to a new conclusion. It would appear that both the after magazine and shortly later the forward magazine detonated. The hypothesis is that the explosion of the aft magazine vented forward through the engine and boiler rooms in a massive fireball which reached and ignited the forward magazines. No ship can frankly survive one explosion like this let alone two such blasts and it is because of this that there were so few survivors. Truthfully it was a miracle that any survived!
-
Hey. Who's grass mod is that?
-
I keep an eye out too. Thanks for posting this useful snippet. Like you say I'll need to dig about to identify a likely action.Originally posted by Iron Cross:I am always searching for "free" useful detailed maps with contour lines for use with CMBO and CMBB on the internet. There are excellent maps of SE Poland on this website. Take a look:
With these quality maps I am going to have to find battles to fit them. Maybe you can too.
I Can "Knock Out" A Gun. Why Not An MG?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Well even light mortars can be knocked out and I would have thought they were more durable than a HMG. None of the moving parts, feed mechanism, sights and so forth that could get damaged on an HMG. Let's face it the simplest mortars were just a barrel and base plate and the rest was done by hand, eye and experience. Perhaps someone can explain why HMG's should be considered differently to mortars when they would seem intrinsically more complicated and fragile.