dieseltaylor
-
Posts
5,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dieseltaylor
-
-
Hmm 104 posts since 2001. Hardly seem much of a fan to the CMx1 series!!! : )
I fing CMAK the most playable game that BF made. And for playable also read enjoyable.
All the effort in making a better scenario AI and all the guff for solo play seems monumentally wasted for those players who play humans. Perhaps BF will one day realise that providing two different games optimised for the two sorts of play is/was actually the better move.
-
-
Are you in favour of experimental weapons being cheaply available in an anchronistic way?
-
The book is revealing. Three experimental systems with lousy reliability and back to the Ordnance workshop as often as firing.
And the overall comment indicates only that firing rockets into a large enemy area it would be probably hit something. Hardly the tactical weapon on a small battlefield. The Regiment that was operating them had a 4 mile frontage which gives a good idea of the size of the target area fired into.
When initially deployed even at 1000 yards they revealed serious problems in hitting a target. A weapon system that realistically is underpriced and probably overpowerful as a battlefield weapon.
I agree with JK apart for Landing Craft this is too early .... and perhaps just plain wrong in damage per point spent.
-
I don't think so. He said that mortars could only conduct high angle missions (which is true) and distinguished that from Hows (and iGs, etc) which were able to conduct high angle, but could and usually would (in the specific case of the German guns, which are the only ones relevant to CM) conduct low angle direct fire missions.
I was unaware of this and had assumed the Italian Brixia and the 2" mortar could be fired flat aswell as high angle. Otherwise presumably they would have a minimum fire range.
It seems to me that there would be little harm and potentially a lot of good if BF actually made available the design constraints/fudges that the game enjoys. Knowing tanks do not have any problems with elevation/declination but other arms might is not a game breaker but it is irritating to find out through experience that a realistic WW2 tactic simply does not work as intended.
The same point regarding what is an expected set up time for an HMG in a house and why it is that way.
Waiting for players to discover what some already know seems to be more likely as an irritant than a realistic wartime learning moment. If you claim realism - as far as possible, then also be open about what is currently not possible or a fudge. Letting the world know that the game cannot reproduce the minimum firing howitzer range of an IG18 is no big deal but having reams of unnecessary discussion highlights the fact that other fudges/design considerations exist but may be unknown to the players.
-
You do not give any range for these instances which makes it hard to answer short of loading up the scenario and making some guesses. Also you do not say whether the tanks were moving or had been stationery - if not moving the superior optics would be helping and also the height advantage.
I am not saying BF have it right and in general tankers bemoaned the lack of visibility when buttoned. Thats why a lot of TC's died with their heads out of the turret.
-
Redwolf and dieseltaylor,
Here's a nice distillation of Tiger 1 info with very good data on the armor, armor hardness, resistance vs various Western and Russian tank guns, with a good discussion of how the relationship between armor thickness and projectile diameter factored in, plus some combat examples and pics of pounded, but still functioning, Tiger 1s. As a bonus, the exchange ratio is given for the various Tiger 1 battalions.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
Regards,
John Kettler
Thanks for the link JK. I note the German penetration figures derive from, at the side, firing at 30 degrees. Not a very helpful figure then as I am sure any attacking Sherman would want to go for nearer 90!
I have two books on Tiger 's in Action with daily logs for each unit and what, if known, knocked them out and their kills. I think I will have to collate it for the computer once I get my teeth into it. It is noteworthy that some die to Shermans and one day they record 5 lost to Firefly. : )
As for truck performance cross-country I suspect there are very few details avialble about travelling through mud heavy enough to stop tracked vehicles. You would not try it apart from very short distance. My f-i-l has plenty of tales of bogged Army vehicles in post-war Germany.
-
I was just musing how many people would know how long/difficult it is to set-up an HMG inside a house. On the basis that the vast majority of players know nothing would it be in BF's interest to give par times and reasons for variance?
It would make understanding the game a lot more understandable and lessen frustration.
-
My "forgot to remove the lens cap" mod will be available from the Repository soon.
Very funny and much appreciated - well at least by me.
PS Later Panthers came with a an ability to add filters to their gunsight for sun and for dust. I doubt the Allies were as advanced.
-
Seems a really good idea Ithi
-
Ron. Working within limitations of the game system is a given but surely the whole ethos of BF games has been improvement of what is on offer.
As design philosophy I think what makes a game easier to play is generally good. For instance early computer wargaming crushed war boardgaming as it did all the calculations, die rolling, and provided hidden forces. Not impossible in boardgaming but tedious to set-up and run.
Now a common tedious job is getting columns of vehicles to follow along roads. Nobody likes doing it and I defy you to say it is a good use of players time. I would hope that eventually shells exploding very much closer to the gun than the nominated target area might force a logic check and get the AI to cease firing - whether this is possible .........
-
On the question as to whether the game engine or the player should be responsible for aborting stupid firing I side with the player. The game engine if played RT is not really going to allow players time to observe all the activities of all the units and even in PBEM if you are rushing a return file I do not wish to cycle through every unit.
BF obviously have more urgent priorities which is fair enough. The concept that the unit AI is so dumb as to continually fire and hit intervening terrain without stopping is not very encouraging and it would be good that it is fixed.
-
"Statement" ?
Rather a grandiose term for name-calling. And I assume that also means that you feel you are free of forum guidelines.
-
I was also offended by MikeyD's post but refrained from posting my written response. It was an unhelpful aspersion on the community.
And Sublime should be familiar with forum rules about name calling and abuse and abide by them.
-
Rheinmetall demos laser that can shoot down drones
A laser weapons system that can shoot down two drones at a distance of over a mile has been demonstrated by Rheinmetall Defence. The German defence firm used the high-energy laser equipment to shoot fast-moving drones at a distance.
The system, which uses two laser weapons, was also used to cut through a steel girder a kilometre away.The company plans to make the laser weapons system mobile and to integrate automatic cannon.
The 50kW laser weapons system used radar and optical systems to detect and track two incoming drones, the company said. The nose-diving drones were flying at 50 metres per second, and were shot down when they reached a programmed fire sector.
The weapons system locked onto the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by using radar for a rough approximation of the location of the targets, then fine-tuned the tracking using an optical system.
The high-energy laser system was used to cut through a 15mm-thick steel girder, and to shoot out of the air a steel ball designed to mimic a mortar round. The company has tested the laser system in a variety of weather conditions, including snow, sunlight, and rain.Rheinmetall plans to test its laser weapons mounted on different vehicles and to integrate a 35mm revolver cannon into it.
A number of governments and defence firms are in the process of developing weapons that use or incorporate lasers. For example, Raytheon unveiled a 50kW anti-aircraft laser at the Farnborough Airshow in 2010, and in June 2012 the US Army released details of a weapon that can fire a laser-guided lightning-bolt at a target.
-
Tell that to the girls being mutilated for attempting to attend school.
You don't seem to be able to see this is a discussion on semantics. Just to make it clear I doubt anyones ability to identify a stateless terrorist from a native.
-
The Hague Convention only covers warfighting, not actions against individuals. Bank robbers rarely bother to get through the red tape, so police forces are free to use frangible or expanding ammunition against them for good and pragmatic reasons of incapacitation and prevention of overpenetration. The same applies to the COIN operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and any other operations against stateless terrorists.
Did you mean indigenous freedom fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan? The concept of being able to identify stateless terrorists from the natives I think beyond reasonable possibilities.
-
Well that quote is useless since it doesn't even take into account that the Tiger has bulletproof armor at the sides and the Panther does not. Also, the total length of the shell might not be the perfect indicator of performance (think ADPS etc).
Bulletproof huh : )
Actually most tanks got upset when taking fire front and side[or rear] and would try and remove themselves from a vulnerable position. Whilst Shermans might not penetrate 80mm at a sensible range there was always track and other hits that would ruin the day.
Keeping the Tiger alive, and incidentally the crew, was usually more important than nailing one or two extra tanks in exchange. A fleet in being - as per WW1- is always a threat.
-
MikeyD
I recall Tiger I commanders in the Med. were specifically ordered NOT to engage in long range tank duels, to close with the enemy to ensure first round kills due to a scarcity of ammo.Anecdote!
Incidentally does the Med anecdote relate to the Tunisian Tigers or Italy? Also is close to the enemy a suggestion that rather than fire at 2000 metres close to 1200 metres ......
Not a very useful anecdote.
Reverting to HMG rates of fire and range surely the frequency of firing should be related to number of available targets? If I have three squads to shott at 1200 metres I will fire more often than at a single squad that bites the dirt after a few seconds. After all it is firing at range to disrupt an advance and making units hit the deck is the "aim".
-
I am not too sure you can rely on these official histories. Note what they say about stone houses and movement - surely JasonC and BF have put the lie to these canards!
: )
The fields were criss-crossed by roads connecting numerous
small villages whose thick-walled stone
houses would make splendid defensive posi-
tions for the Germans. Not the least con-
sideration was the mud created by Novem-
ber rains. Without the duckbills, the nar-
row-tracked American tanks would be road
bound and would be unable to use the
flanking tactics that were their best hope
of defeating German armor. 12
During the First Army breakthrough
battles in July and August, the 2d Armored
Division tankers had learned how to fight
German Panther and Tiger tanks with
their M4 Shermans. They knew that the
ammunition of the 75-mm. gun with which
most of the M4's were armed (a low-
velocity shell about 13 inches long, as
compared with the 28- to 30-inch high-
velocity 75-mm. shell of the Panthers)
would not penetrate at any range the thick
frontal armor of the Panthers and Tigers,
but could damage the sides and rear.
Therefore the tankers had used wide en-
circling movements, engaging the enemy's
attention with one platoon of tanks while
another platoon attacked from the rear.
Stone buildings as defensive points , and flanking movement!!
-
Hmmph!
Is there not a crossing of answers relating to tanks with infinite ability to shoot up and down with a problem of artillery being unable to do so. Leaving the aside whether the application of no rule for tanks but rules for guns is the same argument that the quotations were about I am surprised that the ability of mortars to fire high is not translated to howitzers also. Is this another case where the AI would have a problem so it is not considered?
Still I would give my eye-teeth to know what BF consider flaws worth working on and those which will never ever be addressed. And I don't mean for someone to tell me that if I read all the comments ever posted by BF I would know the answer. I see a simple list saving everyone a lot of grief.
-
-
Old-timers who played CMx1 should be familiar with the term 'abstracted'. CMBN's firing on the move is somewhat abstracted, you're likely to have roughly the same hit chance as if you had actually stopped short, squeezed off a round, then acelerated again. Not a great change of a hit but better than if you were really charging over open ground. And CM does factor is gyrostabilizers. Stuart's much more likely to hit his target while moving than Panther.
Oh come on. That is so not true. German practice was for crews to qualify they had to drive stop and shoot and go on .... and get hits on each target. I am sure that was a obvious training for any nationality. So this "lets pretend you stop and quickly fire without much chance of hitting" is bogus. Lets just admit that this part of the game is not correct. Particularly so in the case of assault guns.
And I am very familiar with CMX1 but I was under the illusion that CMX2 was meant to be more realistic so one hoped for some improvement in armour behaviour. Move to Contact was surely a clever order from CMX1 where one could choose an armour cover arc so that you were not distracted by random infantry in the distance. On finding enemy armour the tank or assault gun would stop to engage - exactly as per training.
Comparing a Stuart's 37mm popgun to a major weapon ..... we have already pointed to the difference between major weapons and the sub-40mm genre ... so it is just plain silly. Any small barrel gun would be quicker to aim to target than a 21ft barrel if you are move and shoot gyro-stabiliser or not.
As for not running out of AP - womble is that due to lack of targets? Do you run out of HE?
-
What about the Allied use of gyro stabilizers to help them shoot on the move?
Search the threads using my name and gyrostabilisers and you will get plenty of info on their limitations and why tankers rarely used them. Basically great propaganda, and yes they did work provided you were prepared to go through all the rigamorole of daily servicing and adjusting for ammo type.
Manufacturers laud them up and troops find the shortcomings in field use.
PS As for Soviet use I think you confirm the use of HE shell as an area weapon not AP at targets that can really hurt you.
Moving artillery pieces
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
And note from the JK video the minimal amount of shells.
This is informative