dieseltaylor
-
Posts
5,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dieseltaylor
-
-
Hmmm. Without clarification I am more inclined to think it may be the way you used them. Always worked well for me.Mortars may enjoy excessive flexibility in CM2 but in CM1 they were wimps, nerfed to the point of being present in a cameo role at best.I too agree with JasonC. IMO BF made some bad design decisions and have been wrestling with the fallout. I hate to harp on a subject but the very treatment of vehicle speed/ movement which should be surely one of the simplest concepts to engineer/model stopped with forward motion and never seemed to consider reverse. I still find it completely inexplicable.
An interesting thing is that when you read battle accounts the number of times tanks ditch themselves reversing or back into a house and immobilise is common. In games I can reverse at three times real speed for miles whilst buttoned up. Realism?
I agree totally that its the feel of the game has to be right and though scenery is lovely if you cannot believe in the "feel" then what is the point?
I await CMBN 2 to hear if the huge disparity in spotting times has changed. In my previous tests a Sherman under fire for two whole minutes failed to spot a MkIV at the other end of a 1600m firing lane. Now despite hits on the Sherman [two on the glacis] the commander stayed up looking .... balls of steel but blind! I mention the disparity because arguably it is quite realistic not to spot quickly - however I also record Shermans spotting on the same range after 1 second. Which may also be possible but probably not common.
But this leads to a problem in game play terms for me. I can have no "feel" for the likelihood of something happening so if I advance a tank up a road and it sees nothing is that because I have the blind TC or because there is nothing there? Now if I knew that my TC would routinely spot in a time window of 10 seconds - 1:30 a hull up MkIV firing at it at 1600 metres I would have a degree on confidence in my ordering.
The other side is that from a club tournament point of view the lack of uniformity in results makes it a very unreliable if everyone playes the same battle. Now I realise that BF has consistently said that PBEM is a minority section so from that point of view no problem. I have suggested, and I do not know if it is possible, that they really tighten up the spotting time as an option for players. The idea that players can dial it would make it arguably less realistic but at least more playable.
Incidentally the spotting does have anther problem revealed in another players test where a Tiger was surrounded by about 50 squads each on their own action point. It managed to spot them all within a minute or so. Remarkable as you would think with enemy infantry surrounding it the crew would be busy targetting and shooting at what they could see immediately to the front.
My suggestion would be that BF have to consider fuzzying up or restricting the amount of information that a crew/commander can deal with. Most people have quite a low threshold on number of ideas they can juggle - around 6 AFAIR.
-
Given the 180 degrees + of non-wall I would think the balcony would enable an angle of fire. There must also be a presumption that the target would be lower : )
-
I agree very much as well.
However that is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a 5 man team to fix.
Just restricting the range would do wonders. Surely that is an easy fix?
PS here is what real men do : )
http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics171.html
-
I agree very much as well.
However that is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a 5 man team to fix.
Just restricting the range would do wonders. Surely that is an easy fix?
PS here is what real men do : )
http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics171.html
-
I was curious as to the buildings of easy perforation whether anyone had ever tried shooting out through the wall. Or is it a one way process?
We have all been in the situation that we know someone is working around the blindside of a house ......
-
The crew were very brave then! Most crews did not take kindly to hits as there is always a possibility of an unfortunate result taking out the gun. optics, or deflecting from the turret front into the hull in the case of Panthers.
The number of hits seems excellent. Was that from an ATG or a tank? And whay was the Panther not retaliating ??!! : )
-
It would be helpful to mention how many shots it takes to get a hit and also the kill.
-
MikeyD has one view of the ease at which buildings are penetrated and others hold that the CM model is too bullish on effects.
If you read this thread you will find a discussion quoting figures [and opinions] that show that brick and stone are effective. It is important when viewing the US Marine film to remeber that old European houses have much thicker walls than the ones in the demonstration. Also that the ammunition used is improved significantly since WW2.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107118
It is also true that you also have wattle and daub, single brick structures, and wooden houses in Europe, depending on the area, and these would not be as robust.
However from the game side you have to play with what is provided so advice on tricks is important.
PS. Re-issuing M14's is nothing to do with shooting through walls as a glance at Wikipedia reveals:
" A 2009 study conducted by the U.S. Army claimed that half of the engagements in Afghanistan occurred from beyond 300 meters (330 yd).[21] America’s 5.56x45 mm NATO service rifles are ineffective at these ranges; this has prompted the reissue of thousands of M14s."
-
Just browing on penetration figures for 0.5" and this from 2008 by JasonC appears authoritive. I was never into CMSF so this is new to me. I do know that the 1980's saw a lot of development of better penetrating ammo for the Ma Deuce.
JasonC03-08-2008, 07:57 PM
From the Marine corps "machineguns in urban terrain" guide
"b. At 50 meters, the 7.62mm ball round cannot penetrate a double layer of sandbags. It can penetrate a single layer at 200 meters, but not a double layer. The .50 caliber armor piercing round does only slightly better against sandbags. It cannot penetrate a double layer but can penetrate up to 10 inches at 600 meters.
c. The penetration capability of the 7.62mm round is best at 600 meters. However, most urban targets are at the 200 meter or less range.
d. The penetration capability of the .50 caliber round is best at 800 meters. For hard targets, the .50 caliber’s penetration is also affected if the gun is fired from an oblique position at the target. Both .50 caliber armor piercing and ball ammunition can penetrate 14 inches of sand or 28 inches of packed earth at 200 meters if the round impact perpendicular to the flat face of the target."
Note the best penetration ranges are quite long, not point blank. This is a typical shatter issue. At the point blank ranges, the bullets are failing. At longer ones, they may retain integrity longer through the penetration process and thus get through more material before being stopped.
But all are well below theoretical distances you'd get from e.g. the energy of a 50 cal vs. a 5.56 or 7.62. In fact the 50 cal doesn't even double the penetration ability of the 7.62 vs. something as tough on the bullet as sand.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-76341.html
-
womble - I have done a tad more research.
Stone seems always to have been the main building material in Sicily. Its curious that to note that Sicily is slightly over 25% of the UK in size, or half the size of England, but has used mainly one building material. Very probably because rock is plentiful.
I have browsed the Web and there are some interesting mentions of wood - such as the pine pretty much disappeared under the Spanish. Olive wood is appreciated but is ornamental building/roofing rather than a primary house building material.
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art262.htm
Wattle and daub I think possibly likely as with a lack of trees the laths would be fiddly to obtain. I also think that stone built properties would remain cooler in summer. It is also possible that there are insects or temites that find stone more unpleasant than any other material.
As to the variety of rocks this article gives a breakdown of the main types. As suspected the volacanic rock is quite soft - ten times less compressive strength than the marbles.
http://www.envegypt.com/EJEC/uploads/29.pdf
The flipside of this is how much thicker would one build with less compressive strength .... but then a Ma Deuce could probably penetrate any thickness. Building with lava apparently was common until the last few centuries. The harder stones may be a different case.
Thiese are the details of a substantial house built around 1800 which by the 20th century was being used as a farm and storage.
"The analysis of recorded studies has revealed that the material used in the
foundations of the villa was a hard limestone quarried in the same Maeggio area
together with lime mortar and river sand. The documentation shows that the
foundation has a depth of “five palms” (traditional unit of measure) and rests
directly on a live rock. Further, it shows that previous to laying the foundations,
preventative levelling works has been taken. The external brick work which
creates the supporting structure of the building, presents different level of
thickness: the inner walls have consistent dimensions while the external ones
narrow down on the floor above, having respectively measures of four “palms”
(approximately mm. 1000) and three “palms” (approximately mm. 750)."
from
The knowledge system of Sicilian fortified dwelling-places: materials and building techniques related to Villa-Castle Maeggio in Siracusa countryside
I would guess the internal walls would be 2 to 3 palms as they would be structural.
The stone weighed about 2.7 tonnes per cubic metre. Stone walls are always thicker than brick walls.
Quite an interesting exercise and all from MikeyD:
This is the sort of stuff that once you know it once you know it. Its only for the first few games that you're left guessing. Long range duels between MG42s and Thompson SMGs don't usually end well for the Thompson. You eventually learn attempting to pierce building walls with an M1 carbine from beyond 200m is futile but a .50 cal Browning will make swiss cheese of 'em from across the map.
-
Womble
I agree absolutely that not all houses are built the same and in Normandy there would be a variety of materials and strengths. However there is certainly no correlation between small buildings being easily penetratable and larger ones tougher!
On my next trip I will pay particular attention with those tile hung houses! : )The primary point was my arguing that in Sicily a 0.5" fring across a valley should not be riddling buildings which would be stone built. The RCMP research does seem to suggest that riddling a solid stone built structure at range is fanciful.
If you are arguing that in Sicily they have a similar building mix to Normandy I would disagree strongly as wood is not overly common whereas stone is plentiful. The stone may not be as massive as granite but then what we have from the US Army is always figures for 100metres without distinction as to whether it is head-on [which I am sure it is] or even what "stone" is.
If an ATR can be protected against at 100 metres by 18" of stone, or a 7.92mm MG with 12" of stone then one might think that something firing at much greater ranges and very probably not square to target would not be riddling every building as suggested by MikeyD[?]. I am not suggesting that any building could not eventually be pulverised by a 0.5" fring at it for hours its just the impression from the comment given was that Italian buildings were easy meat.
In a land prone to earthquakes overbuilding would seem to be the native choice. Whilst browing here is something for sale and also an idea of a wall thickness:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/property-38276312.html
-
JonS
I see that it is complicated so I will strip the points to a bare minimum:
1. You give examples of were firing SMG's at 250m might be a good reason. I say that the AI does not seem to operate any checklist or evaluation and just tends open fire at long range on any target.
2. I say that in WW2 troops did not waste ammo unless there were exceptional circumstances - anotherwords the firing of SMG's at long range would be very rare and not common.
3. SMG's were inaccurate at range and the troops who used them would be loath to waste ammo.
As for the thread that is about RL and CMX2 ranges and what are effective ranges. SMG's firing out to 250m is or should be very very rare.
There are loads of posters on the forums who all agree that the SMG is badly used within the game by the AI. The Kar98 was sighted to 2000metres but imagine the outcry if the German infantry opened up at that range.
-
C'mon Deez - use your noggin. This really isn't as hard or as esoteric as you're feebly trying to make it.
1) suppression (includes multiple sub-cases, cas generally not necessary to achieve aim)
2) distraction (includes multiple sub-cases, cas generally not necessary to achieve aim)
3) dense target
4) fleeting target
5) high value target
6) various combinations of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
When I first read your reply I immediately thought this sounds remarkably like an answer for fighting post WW2 "small" wars were the good guys have no worries on ammo supply or conventional warfare responses.
The answer gives vague possibilities that might apply. I think the complaint is that the AI does not even seem to have this list to check off against and opens fire simply because enemy comes within a maximum range.
A fleeting target at number 4 seems a bit suspect if the target is at an excessive range. A Sten at 10 yards and seeing something for 5 seconds travelling at 6mph would be able to fire 16shots and get 1.86 hits on average. Now that is getting on I believe for 10% of the normal Sten ammo load.
Doing the maths would show that there is enough ammo for 80 seconds of firing in anger and then the platoon would be bereft of its close quarter tool.
With time more anecdotes of use and non-use will surface but be irrelevant to the game. I will lookout for them!
-
Just yet another anecdote on SMG
Tests conducted by the U.S. military during WWII using a captured Mp40 revealed that a 9mm round would enter a standard G.I. helmet and liner and almost go out the other side, whereas the same test conducted with a Thompson showed that the bullet made a large dent in the helmet, but did not penetrate.Couple this with an incident occurring during WWII, as related in Frank Iannamico's book, "Blitzkrieg - The MP40 Maschinenpistole of WWII", whereby three G.I.'s found themselves in a ditch which turned out to be a makeshift German latrine. Two of the G.I.'s were armed with Thompson's and opened fire on a group of Germans approx. 50 yards away - other than scattering the group, no other effects were noticed. However, a lone German armed with an Mp40 was able to direct accurate and sustained fire on the group, pinning them down, until the one G.I. armed with an M1 Garand took him out with a headshot.
Within this same book the sad tale of Major General Maurice Rose's death in 1945 is also recounted - he was mistakenly killed by a young German tank commander when the latter believed that the General was trying to resist by reaching for his sidearm. The German quickly let off a snap burst and two rounds immediately penetrated General Rose's helmet, killing him instantly.
So the Thompson may have the higher-quality finish and machine work, as well the better designed double-stack, double-feed magazines, but for accuracy & penetration the Mp40 wins.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_you_think_is_the_best_submachine_gun_the_MP40_or_the_M1A1_Thompson
Now obviously a book is not proof. There is a nice US army film showing the accuracy of US and German SMG's at 75yards where trained infantrymen conclusively show that by adopting the upright braced posture with SMG to shoulder that you can get 85% accuracy. Admittedly the targets appeared to be Siamese twins joined hip and thigh who stayed upright whilst under fire.
This did help the slower firing SMG's rack up better accuracy scores but my gut feeling is that troops under fire hit the dirt pretty darn quick and pinpoint accuracy is actually not the point. Rapidity of fire whilst enemy in range and standing was more use.
-
!!It's not hard to come up with cases where an SMG should be used at 250m,Really? I must admit apart from intentionally trying to distract the enemy I can think of no good cases to fire at 250m. For that matter bad reasoning would be a push at that range as even the most inept soldier would surely realise the futility of it.
So exampleS please.
-
My father-in-law says the Sten was great if the enemy was in the room with you. But I think he exaggerates,
It was a weapon designed for a specific purpose and given inaccuracy at anything over 50m it would seem remarkably stupid to draw attention to yourself when facing enemy with more accurate weapons and over 50m away.
Womble - As for the incidence of wooden framed buildings in Normandy I do think MikeyD was talking CMFI though and he makes no distinction as to building material.
However if you wish to discuss building methods and buildings in France and Normandy in particular I am fine with that. Perhaps if you could narrow down which part of Normandy - I am guessing the Normande Suisse.
I have stayed in a few older French properties and one cottage I particularly recall near Le Mans had a main beam in the kitchen was 2'X2' by about 5 metres , and window embrasures of at least 18', massive stone lintels over door , window and fireplace.
As for tar paper shingles are you sure they are not cut and trimmed slate? Slate being lightish and durable I would think much more likely. Wooden shingles have a lifespan of around 100 years or less so even if wood originally slate makes an excellent rain barrier replacement.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98368&highlight=bricks
which is a thread with some figures. Unfortunately the 0.5" is not mentioned but the figures are at 100m which I regards as quite close. MikeyD was suggesting firing across a map ....
-
I think you should bear in there is real life practical and theoretical ranges and CM ranges. As there have been continual up-dates it is not possible to be categoric on CM's effective ranges but a trawl of the threads will reveal things like a tanks nailed at hundreds of metres by ATG.
MikeyD refers to a Browning piercing building walls across a map in CMX2 which is a rather sad indictment of the Germans bothering to use them for defense in WW2.
This report for the RCMP would also seem to suggest that the Browning modelling may be over-hyped. These tests were at 25m using fixed guns.
http://www.claybrick.ca/pdf/cmri_bulletproof_project.pdf
My gut reaction is that BF have taken a lot of post-war verbiage, and uses against mud buildings, and light conctrete panel buildings, with probably improved ballistics and retro-fitted it to a Europe of substantial stone buildings.
Part of the problem might be this gung-ho film of what modern armaments do to what I would call a shack:
note the range of the test!
but then if we get further away say 300yds
and just for interest
-
There is a PM system on this forum and when logged on you can see if you have more messages I have 0 unread and 47 read. This appears under my name on the left handside of the screen.
-
Thanks noob that makes sense to me now. I am glad to see optics does come into the equation.
-
Wrong, look at this test i ran a while back: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/
Not quite a complete proof as it was not solely tank to tank but with an FO also.
However very interesting work and again reveals the huge range of spotting results - 3 seconds to 133 seconds in a repeated test is quite a range.
What is interesting here is that it is a MkIV that does not spot Sherman who fires at it for over a minute. One of the great benefits for the Germans, unlike the Allies, they had a more smokeless propellant which meant spotting a distant gun firing was much more difficult.
The not spotting at all figures are interesting also with 11 German and 15 US never seeing the enemy tank before the test ended though being under fire - I am not quite sure how long it ran for and the difference between 4 and 4+ shots.
Can you help me on that noob? : )
Shermans had to get relatively close, due to both the armor and low-flash powder of the Panther which made it harder to spot. Sherman crews also had issues with firing from range as the Sherman's high flash powder made their shots easy to spot. Their gun sights were fixed magnification compared to the German's multiple magnification settings with added anti-glare filter. In Summer 1944, after breaking out of the bocage and moving into open country, U.S. tank units who were engaged at range from German defensive positions sometimes took 50% casualties before spotting where the fire was coming from.[35] -
I am not asking for anything from you. I am not sure why you think I am.
I was suggesting that if there is a BF hoard of relevant information then people who do make maps, scenarios could save valuable time. If you are implying you are holder of BF's behind the fence information stash then don't worry I am not likely to want it as I do not make maps.
I take your point about different sources etc but generally speaking towns and countryside of the 1940's are not very contentious. I have a nice collection of modern French maps and a mini-library here at home but always think that the wider knowledge is spread the better.
You only have to look at the case of stabilised 75mm to see how not having the whole story has lead to a generation or two who religiously spout the line that the Sherman had a stabilised gun and this was a really big advantage. A truth with no caveats is as effectives as lying sometimes.
-
Okay well it looks like this is one of those moments where some brave soul has got to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I'll do it. Yes damn it I said I will do it. If you guys will put together the fund I will visit every damn village, hamlet and crossroads in Normandy and document every 5 story I find assuming I am sober enough and not blinded from an overly long baguette poking me in the eye as my hand slips on the brie I was lathering on it.
And if you so desire I will also go to Sicily and find folks to talk about old wooden fences from the 1940's. I will sacrifice my time for the good of the game. No need to thank me.
So umm when is my flight getting booked?
I admire the offer and I was going to say I would match whatever JonS puts up. Then I realised that perhaps as I live closer and often spend long holidays touring France it would be easier for me to do. Not quite the difficult sacrifice you are offering but a a small offering.
BTW my information on current field demarcation in Sicily comes from my brother travelling around there. He is prepared to go back but not this year. India beckons again.
-
Whining!? Tsk very emotive.
I was suggesting that BF help people who design maps to have access, in an easy manner, to resources that may help them make more believable maps. Apparently BF actually have this sort of resource hidden somewhere behind a wall.
I am pleased to learn this. I also wonder if it could be made more available.
You have taken the trouble to list these sources
Internets.
Libraries.
Books.
Magazines.
Journals.
and this of course is very helpful but some people have only a limited time and probably would appreciate being steered towards actual sources.
-
: )
JonSAre you saying there are no 5-story buildings in Normandy?Why would I say anything stupid like that. The larger towns of Normandy would have dozens of taller buildings. A small town possibly not with the Hotel de Ville normally being the biggest building and that would be unlikely to be more than three or four floors.
Believe me a 5 storey building in a hamlet was never ever going to happen in Normandy in the 1940's. As far as I can see there is no strict definition by the French of a hameau other than an isolated building or group of buildings.
I have not been to every French village and hamlet in Normandy but I think I would recall if I have ever seen one with a mini skyscraper. Now if you are telling me that got blown up by the Allies during the fighting .....
: )
accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Apocal is testing in 1943 so late war platoon is possibly immaterial.
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/UnitedStates/Infantry/united_states_infantry_battalion%20mid%201943%20to%201945.htm
WikipediaIt would seem that the fancier weapons are aimed for closer ranges than the test. For 1944 aparently they had three launchers per platoon which in Normandy would be very much.