dieseltaylor

Noob - you are so wrong about tanks firing whilst moving its embarrassing. There have been numerous threads over the years on tanks firing whilst moving. It is a rare event and unlikely to score a hit. Obviously two tanks moving along a street head to head at short range will probably manage something but other than very tight circumstances like this it is going to be a high degree of luck. I do have a get out clause if you area moving tank driving and blowing up likely ambush places like houses, mountains, towns where you consder enemy may be lurking and you are heel bent on driving through. In this case you are popping HE and possibly smoke. Apart from the oft-repeated video and possibly a handful of anecdotes firing on the move to hit small point targets died with the loss of the small guns like the 2pdr which had a Mk1 human adjusting - or trying to- for the bumps in a moving vehicle. You will note the incredibly short barrel length in comparison to an 88mm L/71. BF seem to have a design problem in this area and whether it is because of RT and the AI I have no idea.

http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4402983/Design-hindsight-from-the-tail-gunner-position-of-a-WWII-bomber-Part-one?page=1 nteresting for some of us : )

Well as nobody else will .... I have generated a quick test with mud/light rain and warm. My disparate quintet has the Bedford truck managing around 2.2 kilometres, over three times as far as the Wolverine, and the universal carrier is slightly ahead of the truck. A DaimlerII is just less than the Wolverine and the remaining one is still trying to complete the course and is currently at 2.4km. The Bedford truck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_QLD Daimler MkII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car I have spoken to a family member who with a club does driving on difficult terrain including deep mud - which on a Landrover he reckons means over the wheelhub. Difficult to drive in and might involve winching. As to tanks his theory is if it is too deep they will belly pretty darn soon or probably not at all. There are historical accounts of bellied Shermans watching Tigers skate over the mud so perhaps some consideration needs to be given to this aspect. In game terms I am not a fan at all of breakdowns unless someone is behaving stupidly with there use such as driving into buildings etc.

Given the screenshot shows , apparently, ploughed fields I cannot see the point of discussing rebar and tree stumps which are not routinely found in European fields. The dangers of rebar and tree stumps, gullies etc we would agree on. I put forward the suggestion of wheeled vehicles [and the Universal] so that if they do not move much or at all we will know whether it is light or heavy mud. Until that happens it remains a moot point.

A very fine distinction to make. I help myself by viewing immobilisation as a running gear related problem and breakdown to cover this and all other events also which may have the effect of immobilsing such as engine overheating, clutches and gearboxes breaking down. The sum of these should be considered. So taking into account we are talking of tanks driving in a straight line and running through what is probably light mud in European terms the breakdown rate is way too high in the game. If someone wishes to establish how muddy this is then perhaps a test with other vehicles like Dingos , Universal carriers, and Greyhounds might be interesting. PS Perhaps more tests at slower speeds would be helpful. But in any event fast surely is a relative term according to the terrain circumstances. And of course relative to each tank with Churchills being notoriously slow. Fast therefore being less than 15 mph for most tanks across country I guess.

RT North Dakota/VAB Don't you find it a little odd that the breakdown rate is as high as it is. I mean they are travelling in a straight line in moderately difficult conditions but no shrubs/trees etc. I have several books on tanks, regiments, and autobiographies and breakdowns did occur but not AFAIK at the rate in this test. There are of course many accounts where there are multiple breakdowns of Tigers but generally you find that this is from doing stupid things like towing or poor driving. IMO the game should reflect higher risk for behaviours .. as it does and dispense with this sort of apparently random breakdown.

JasonC There are elements of chicken and egg in the statement. It is true but obscures the point that movement is what gets your men into position to be able to fire on the desired ground. And to move on for the next area you want. It is important to be realistic about the terrain you fight on. I always want the largest maps because then I can use movement to gain local superiority where I want. Transport can be important. If you play on small maps ,of which there are so many, then movement is very much reduced to a plodding means of grinding out a result. The designer of the scenario has already committed the forces and defined it as "fair".

Good foundations to the observations VAB * mmp - Nice to see that at least one aspect of the Greyhound's sterling cross-country ability is shown : )

Read my tagline for some help.

Very moving video Wicky

I must have missed this ealier in the year. Mindboggling stuff. Article from Euronews And what is on Wikipedia is a bit drier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerographite

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/21/lego_quad_copter_drone/ And now Lego drones : )

The single hit at 30 metres on a file of soldiers is impressive. Not. Was it PBEM or RT? And this sort of adds insult to injury that the game AI/BF thinks firing a SMG at 280metres is a valid use.

four wheel steering system that proved troublesome!!! Art imitating history : ) Wikipedia

The MoH citations are probably more likely to be "iffy" on detail I would have thought!. Remeber the Fact & Fiction threads?

M240 Technical! Suppression effective out to 1800 metres! I assume it means enemy troops are ducking and diving if advancing .... does this not contradict the PoolTable effect? Giving the effective range as 1100m also suggests, at least to me, is this is where they anticipate being able to cause casualties. Sure you can nail people using suppressive fire further than 1100m but it would require the targets to remain upright or run into bullets. Not an impossibility if there is plenty of distractions going on.

The War Office specifically left out STens when evaluating how much firepower was required to suppress at ranges 100-200metres. Was this a mad whim or was it recognised that the bullets were effectively wasted. I do think that the current BF model is way too bolshy with SMG's. Possibly US practice differs from the Commonwealth on ammo usage. Can there be different AI for SMG ranges and usage?

Seems rather extreme action Wicky!. Cars are pretty darn useful. And of course are registered and constrained by roads and barriers. Apart from security the privacy concerns would be paramount in most peoples minds. Seems curious in a world where preventing hackers and perverts we would countenance the ability for people to fly over their neighbours gardens, beaches, schools taking film or pictures. The benefits to society are seemingly concentrated to a very narrow area yet in theory everyone will be allowed to have their own. Incidentally the other thing will be flying cars with at least one model certified to fly. In a counry of vast open spaces it may appear not to be a problem but in Europe there are some very densely populated areas intrusive noise and outright loss of privacy would be a major concern. The downsides hugely outweigh the upside for general use. The use by specialist services is certainly more hopeful. PS good article Wicky thanks http://blogs.computerworld.com/cybercrime-and-hacking/20867/remote-attacks-hack-and-self-destruct-cars

Hmm quality argument. I suppose allowing that early research on anthrax was by talented amateurs we take that lesson forward from history. : ) BTW But no worries they will be able to install anti-spoofing devices which will of course be uncrackable. What I am not clear on is with a hoped for 30,000 floating around by 2020 who is to spot the interloping enemy drone. Why not use your own after all its a hobby up until 55lbs - though who is going to weigh them .....

I am very glad that the machine guns are being looked at or even fixed?. Just for information purposes what the UK War Office thought about the matter and how they pulled their case together. The way it is presented takes some getting used to when it comes to the figures however if I give an example in written form it might help decipher the rest. The first group of figures. On a frontage of 100 yards [at a range of 100-200 yards] the number of bullets to neutralise per minute would be 1000 and this on infantry in slit trenches. From the second group. A section is sufficient to do heavy neutralisation on a frontage of 20 yards on enemy in slit trenches. This is roughly 200 rounds per minute. WO 291/471 Weight of small-arms fire needed for various targets. "These figures are exceedingly tentative, and it should be realised that even if correct, they may have little value in the Infantry battle, where the weight of fire needed is in general decided more by what is available, and then corrected empirically." Targets are considered to be in slit trenches, exposing an area of ½ sq ft to fire, or pillboxes, exposing an area of ¼ sq ft to fire from an embrasure. Two levels of neutralisation are recognised. "Light neutralisation" is defined as the minimum weight of fire to appreciably effect the accuracy of enemy fire. The enemy will suffer casualties at a rate of 2½% per minute, or one man per platoon per minute, if they stay in a firing position for more than a third of the time they are fired on. "Heavy neutralisation" is defined as the weight of fire needed effectively to stop any retaliatory measures on the part of the enemy, with a casualty rate of 10% per minute, or one man per section per minute. It is estimated that a bullet passing within 3 yards sounded near enough to be dangerous. Sections are assumed to be at full strength, 1+9, with Bren, Sten and 8 rifles, although it is acknowledged that rarely in battle will section strength exceed 1+6. Brens are assumed to fire 120 rds/min, rifles 18 rds/min. The range of engagement is assumed to be 100 to 200 yards. The effect of 2-in mortars is neglected. Rounds per minute required to achieve neutralisation on target frontages in yards are: Cover ..................Slit trenches ......................................Pillboxes Frontage .............100....... 20........ 4 .............................100...... 20...... .4 Light neut ............250 ......50 .......10 .............................500.... 100 ......20 Heavy neut......... 1000 ....200 .......40 ............................2000... 400 ......80 Force required to give covering fire: Cover........................Slit trenches................................... Pillboxes Frontage ....100.......... 20................. 4 ...........|100.......... 20.................... 4 Light neut ..1 sect ...1 Bren gp/......1 rifleman ... | 2 sects.... Bren gp/......Bren gp or .............................or rifle gp........................................or rifle gp.......2 riflemen Heavy neut.. 1 pl ....... 1 sect ....1 Bren gp/........1 coy........ 2 sect. ......... 1Bren grp ...................+ 1 sec...................3 riflemen ............................................or rifle gp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are some points that are raised by reading this. 1] The rate of fire is very heavy so the implication seems to be that the focus is on suppressing the enemy for an assault. The amount of ammo being a consideration. 2] The Sten is ignored I assume because of inaccuracy at the range specified means they would be worthless. 3] Is the amount of fire to suppress the same at 200 metres as at 1000metres and the casualty rate anywhere near right. In any event this was the thinking in the War Office in WW2 so despite all the caveats it seems useful. I still hope that the US, German and Russians did similar, and if possible better documented work at the time. Thanks to Mr. Salt for extracting the info.

Lancasters definitely prop aircraft. I am not surprised on a land warfare groggy forum that there is confusion. : )

Lovely entrenched interest groups and business put through a bill manadating that drones will be free to fly and expect the FAA to sort it out in a short time frame. Dollar signs at the end so why worry. And an exemption for hobbyists and academics ..... well thats OK then. Who could possibly create trouble at under 55lbs. Lets see chaff dropped over power lines ..... : ) P.S. http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequality/washington Is it possible Washington politicians are being influenced?

: ) paaaaaadddddinnngg

O?T slightly New Spitfire restored takes to the air http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250667/Rebuilt-Spitfire-flies-Filton-aerodrome-BAE-closes-home-Concorde.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

It is a ridiculous idea to allow drones to be flown. For a country prepared to put its citizens through hoops to travel on planes the idea of an unfettered use of the sky by drones is absurd. I never ceased to be astonished at "peoples" willingness not to look into the future effects. This is especially true when lots of money can be made out of the new technology. A Government ought to be the mechanism for looking at new techs and deciding if they are suitable or carry too much downside. Once they are numerous legal drones the opportunity to infiltrate a terrorist weapon with GPS guidance to a target is trivially easy. There is also the concept of privacy which may not be as important as safety but it does affect everyone.