dieseltaylor
-
Posts
5,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dieseltaylor
-
-
Interesting. In CMx1 the TD was a difficult kill for the IV - and should be more so as firing uphill should increase the angle of the armour. An interesting risk but judging how you feel you may duke it out as nailing them would be fun and might throw a spanner into the attack.
PS 60mm smoke for the ridge traverse?Its getting more fun by as the action unfolds.!
-
Ron- I am confused as to the C2 relevance as if GAJ goes through all his units each turn does that not tell him what they have seen?
Regarding defence. In game terms from my experience with CMx1 its not solely the points but the terrain that makes the difference. The idea that the points ratio remains the same though the terrain changes I find illogical. RL shows that some terrain is very defensible whereas others is not. This is is also shows up where some weapon systems excel and others suck.
This particular battle may reveal the map is too large for a reasonable defence rather than any major screw-ups. With hindsight as to how the game engine works and the enemy force mix I am sure GAJ would do it differently - we all would.
In general terms I am not averse to the offering up piecemeal units while in defence. This normally involves calculating disruption value on the attack and the time to get to the objectives. Obviously this is dependent on the battlefield size, timing, weather and force available.
However I am sure most players can envisage a situation where you may hold an outlier not on the main advance where later in the game you may be able to crossfire on the assault and disrupt it. I may also put a unit forward that is an irritant on the advance but has the added value of being a TRP trap.
In CMx2 V2 I simply do not have the knowledge to be confident on tactics that work. Given the time V2 has been out for the public I suspect most are stilling feeling their way.
-
I can't remember where I read it now, but I read an account by a German assault gun crewman where he indicated that although the German vehicles could use neutral steering they were strongly discouraged from doing so. I think it even says that in their training manuals. The reason being that the suspension elements weren't strong enough to make using neutral steering reliable enough to use without worrying about the vehicle becoming immobilized in the process. So while in theory it would be possible to whip a German AFV around in seconds in practice it probably wasn't used very much except perhaps in situation where the crew felt that the risk of becoming immobilized was outweighed by the need to pivot quickly. Apparently the suspension and steering system was more advanced than the materials or parts design could effectively handle.
My reading was that pivoting was OK provided you had the right type of ground - that is hard and flat. Possibly hard but slightly muddy even easier. However as a general rule it was quite possible to do damage and therefore I am sure training was designed as far as possible to stop this pivoting becoming a default behaviour. On the battlefield a rut or or ditch etc could ruin your day.
In towns it may have been a necessary part of navigating given the size of vehicle and the narrowness of some roads. Presumably done gently : )
-
Looking at the photo it seems to me that it is heaps of spoil, and stored coal which is being piled up and being dug into. A quick check reveals:
-
I've seen a German soldier killed by a US 57mm HVAP round that landed 40-50 meters away. It was a single event and it may have been a fluke, but it was a sufficiently odd fluke that I have considered testing the anti-personnel lethality of armor piercing rounds in the game
Was the victim in line with travel, side on, or in front of impact point? It does seem so unlikely that to have it factored in as a possible result seems bizarre.
-
What is the feeling about banning Bazooka and Panzerschrek from firing from buildings? Apparently the big firing signature of the Panzerschrek made it unpopular with German troops and it had a much more dangerous effect to the rear of the weapon.
Or is that too complex? The Panzerfausts were massively more common than the PzSchrek - 8 million to sub-300,00. Pzschrek ammo 2.2 million.
"The Panzerschrecks were initially less successful than Panzerfausts because Panzerschreck gunners - trusting in the impressive size of the Panzerschreck - tended to open fire at larger ranges of around 100m (330 ft.), which was also necessified by the relative cumbersomeness of the large Panzerschreck which was a hindrance when retreating into cover after the shot. Panzerfausts were easier to handle and usually shot from a distance of 30m (100 ft.) after which the soldier quite easily could get under cover again. At early trials, out of 12 Panzerschreck rounds fired at a static T-34 at a range of 100m only 3 hit the target.
In the same trial all of the five Panzerfausts fired at a range of 30m hit the tank - however one should keep in mind that this was a static target that did not shoot back!"
-
US Army Tactical and Technical Trends, October 1944.
The grenade may be launched from standing, kneeling, or prone positions. The operator must always wear a steel helmet, and immediately after firing must take cover to avoid being hit by splinters. Since a 6-foot jet of flame shoots from the rear of the tube on firing, a firing position must be so chosen that there will be no walls or other obstructions to this stream.Incidentally is it possible that the bazooka and Panzerschrek are far less room friendly than the faustpatrone?
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_faustpatrone/index.html
ASLVeteranConsequence free firing of these weapons from buildings considering all the abstractions and known dangers of using these weapons doesn't seem like a valid position to me.The point is that whilst you consider the blast effects as very problematic most of the community disagree with you. Obviously it will be nice when we discover more information however one will not be pleased to be told anecdote does not count!
If BF feel gamewise it makes for too many problems and degrades the gaming pleasure then lets hear it. I can live with it as gameplay should outrank attempted fidelity to history. Perhaps a fudge is in order that makes going near enemy buildings without unsuppressed infantry friends a more dangerous event. Perhaps within 50 metres of a non-friendly building degrades spotting severely as crew keep an eye on that and associated clutter... and this is cumulative to a certain level.
-
I think the Heffalump is probably proof against the 57mm (at least for total kill purposes) from everywhere except the rear, and Bil would probably have to accidentally plot a reverse waypoint towards you for that shot to ever happen... But the other heavies might be vulnerable from the flank, and the hiding ability of the smaller gun makes, as you say, those shots more doable. Against the PzIVs, they're fully adequate, I reckon, from any angle.
I'm not convinced they're a better option, but I think those are the "pros".
Ian Hogg has the US 57mm ATG doing around 73mm at 20degree slope at 1000 yards. Therefore I would suggest at right angles and at closer range the Elefant is vulnerable. After all 80mm of armour is barely more than the Matilda II. : )
The other point is that if the small 57mm can be hidden then firing to upset the commanders nerves would be fun.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1
answers your query
Essentially you need also a different shell to take advantage of the different gun length and all that is a function of making an ATG specific weapon.
-
womble - There are a number of threads on gun accuracy and John D Salt's War Office research figures are available. In all the research AFAIK the basis is a fixed gun firing at a fixed target. This is a good shot at 1200 metres.
The nub of the point is the ability for the SP to get into a position and nail first shot. The minimum standard in training for Tiger crews was AFAIR 3 shots to nail a target at 800m -1200m. So certainly training would agree with the feasibility of it with a tank.
I suppose the SP not having to consider elevation/declination may make it functionally a bit more useful than in RL. I am curious if the cross-country speed of 8-10kph is modeled.
-
Everyone seemed a bit stunned by the loss of the TAME M10, but really, it was up against an Elephant with an 88! I believe the game designs-in 'superior optic' (M10 would only be mediocre). Bills been remarkably conservative with Elephant's use to date....
It is the first shot kill aspect that is interesting. Certainly possible but generally long range first shot kills happen when tanks are already set prepared in position. Here we have a SP drive up into the position that allows a shot and fires and hits.
Now if it jiggered about to get the correct position [and was not spotted despite its bulk] then that would seem more probable. The other alternative is that Bill was firing blind - is that feasible? Tree burst effects?
Or there is infantry in advance spotting the correct position.
PS thanks to ian and slysniper for replying : )
-
If you don't like/want to get involved in pregame negotiation, that's fair enough I suppose.
But if you acknowledge that a game can be won and lost at that point, you've certainly put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage.
You might as well choose your force without looking at the map beforehand too, because you don't want to get tied up in pregame planning.
I'd have thought the fact that it's DAR would have been even more reason to have good pregame stipulations.
Anyway, that's hindsight now, I hope you have a chance to give as good as you get as things progress. I'll read on with interest.
GAJ comes from WeBoB where friendly gaming is seen as more important than winning at all costs. Another advantage is that if 10 club players played with the original set forces, or even the original set-ups we could still assess who did well.
And the chances for freak results can be seen. In this situation you may see a seven out of ten Axis win but every player will get some fun. This " I win or lose" as a single result does not prove whether the battle is unbalanced or not.
The art of negotiation occurred in CMx1 and really was not very clever if you just wanted to play a game. I suspect I have played over 400+ CMx1 games and have 200+ recorded so feel familiar with all the tweaks for achieving "fairness".
CMx1 also suffered from the proportions chosen by BF were flawed as the ratio of units for purchase did not change during the entire war. The Western allied artillery was very handicapped.
I have no idea as to the costs for purchase in FI and in GL but the strongest Allied ground force was the artillery and if this is too expensive then recreating what happened in RL would be difficult.
ATG's do seem busted but that might be a function of the tree density and not a lesson to translate to other battlefields. I was debating about popping smoke about the battle field to give the impression of screening something - on a large battlefield distraction and wasting his units time and stressing the player seems a good idea.
On the same tack, and given dust is raised, I would be looking for a non-viewed area to run vehicles on dust and then back on grass. An honest commander would perhaps think there is more units in reserve and plan accordingly. All adds to the fun : )
-
It's worth pointing out that if you stand in my front room, with a 10 foot clearance from the back of a Shreck tube sticking over your shoulder to the back wall, you're standing in the bay window with the front of the Tube sticking out of the window. Not a posture conducive to remaining unseen (and therefore alive long enough to discharge the thing). In the normandy house I stayed in during the summer, you'd have been leaning over the "balcony" (I think some realtors call them "Juliet balconies"; they're just a handspan deep) rail. And the Shreck manual says stuff flies Thirty Metre out the back end.
10 foot of clearance can be difficult to find in european houses.
womble - The UK has the smallest houses in Western Europe.
"The average home in the UK is 85 square metres compared to 115 square metres in Holland and 137 square metres in Denmark."
In a sense average size is not much help as we would expect the defender to choose the most suitable house/room for the purpose. One other point is the height of the rooms is not being considered and the 9-10'/ 3m ceiling is more common abroad than in the UK.
Strangely room heights are very difficult information to discover so I can only go by the buildings I have been in personally.
-
JK another post like that and I might be persuaded! : )
I have been dabbling but the videos I have seen from YouTube have the camera very adjacent to the weapon firing and there is no discernible wobble to the camera. And the blast does not seem excessive.
Of course this is but gnats piss to your info.
Now BF may have AI coding reasons for their stance. In any event if bazookas are not very effective when fired at angles at tanks then perhaps their lethality in street fighting is much restricted.
-
I have a game right now where a enemy armor car is firing on a 88 AA gun and a Stug tank now for 2 minutes and my units have not been able to spot him, even though he appears to be pretty much in the open at a lower elevation that should give my units pretty clear line of sight. But I am so use to this type of spotting issues that it does not phase me any more. I just expect and play expecting these type of results.
1. Just out of curiosity is this against the AI?
2. I am left wondering if we are meant to be using our ears to locate likely areas? Do people do this? Does it work?
-
BTW the effectiveness of bazooka's is called on here:
Re: WW2 Bazooka [-] Posts: 4Aug 29 03 11:29 PM
You might wish to read these volumes in the series "United States Army in World War II": "The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront"; "The Ordnance Department : Planning Munitions for War; "The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply" (Washington, D.C. : Office of the Chief of Military History, U.S. Army, 1968) . In addition, these volumes have a lot of footnote and bibliographical references to articles about the development and performance of the bazooka.
According to "The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront" book, the British did test some early model bazookas in North Africa, but found them to be unsatisfactory in performance against the more heavily armoured models of German tanks, and they thought that in the poor cover of the desert, it was unlikely that soldiers using the bazooka would get within the recommended 100 yard range needed in order to get a sure hit, and that the backblast was sure to betray their position. So for the time being, they stuck to their 6 pounder anti-tank guns as their primary battalion level anti-tank weapon, and the Boys .55 inch calibre anti-tank rifle issued to each platoon, which could penetrate only about 12 mm of armour at 100 yards range.
Later seeing the need for such a weapon, however, they adopted the Projectile Infantry Anti Tank in time for the invasion of Sicily in 1943. Normally at least one PIAT was issued to each platoon in infantry companies.
It was derived from a spigot mortar (the Blacker Bombard, invented by retired British Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Blacker, who was a prolific inventor of armaments, most notably the anti-submarine warfare weapon called the "Hedgehog", which threw a cluster of armour-penetrating missiles from a ship; he also developed the PIAT). The PIAT was a launcher with a simple spring loading and firing action. The round was held in a trough at the front of the projector; releasing the trigger of the cocked weapon set a steel spigot in motion, contacting the rear of the round, igniting the ballistic cartridge attached to the tail, which set the projectile in flight.
The PIAT had to be cocked manually the first time, but theoretically afterwards, the recoil of the weapon would recock the spring. The spring was however, very difficult to co-ck (or recock). (Sorry about the misspelling-- for some reason the forum's interface won't let me write the "c" word!) The trigger was stiff, requiring a two finger pull, and the brief lapse between pull of trigger and ejection of round often caused soldiers to release their grip too early, resulting in a failure to recock that took a great deal of strength to reset. The manual says: "...although the weapon is fired from the shoulder, the action on firing is very different from that of a rifle or machine gun. When the trigger action has released the spigot, a total weight of about 12 pounds travels forward for one-tenth of a second before the round is fired.The backward thrust on the shoulder is increased and the balance of the weapon changes slightly. The aim has to be kept steady against these effects..."
As Tony Williams pointed out, one big advantage that the PIAT had over the bazooka was that there was no backblast, and thus it could be fired from an enclosed space. (Firing a bazooka inside a room was just as deadly as being directly behind the backblast of the weapon when firing in the open.) It was recommended that the PIAT's firer take a prone position, however, as the weapon's violent recoil meant that it was virtually impossible to fire while crouching or standing, although I've seen photos of soldiers kneeling with the PIAT in firing position while up against a wall or window. Commonwealth troops also disliked the weapon's great weight (32 pounds) and length (39 inches).
Another advantage was that the PIAT's hollow charge warhead was adequate for penetrating the armour of most German armoured vehicles; it could normally defeat about 4 inches of armour at 0 degrees slope. In one famous incident, a Canadian infantryman in Italy, on the night of 21st-22nd October 1944 on the Savio River, Private Ernest "Smokey" Smith of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, knocked out a Panther in Italy in 1944 with a PIAT from a range of 10 yards.
For anti-tank purposes, however, it was recommended that the PIAT be fired from within 100 yards (it wasn't very accurate at long range) and from a flanking position.
It could also fire HE (if my memory serves me correctly, 2 inch mortar bombs were used) out to about 650 yards.
Although the American 2.36 inch M1 Launcher, Rocket, Anti-Tank (the "bazooka") could theoretically penetrate up to 5 inches of steel, it was found that its normal performance against
vertical armour was only about 3 inches. More importantly, the narrow cone of fire of the warhead (it made a hole about 1 inch wide) meant that the round was often ineffective when striking at angles other than the vertical-- the HEAT round's chemical "jet" explosion would detonate in a direction away from the target's armour plate and thus fail to penetrate-- and since the American soldiers often faced enemy vehicles with well sloped armour, if the round struck at other than a right angle, then a GI was often in trouble.
In fact, there were a lot of complaints about the weapon from American soldiers.
"Bazookas - In training tests using the regular U.S. bazookas and the German "81-mm" bazooka (my note-- the 88 mm Raketenpanzerbche 54) the following results were obtained:
German bazooka:
Firing at a Mark V tank from ranges of eighty to two hundred yards both side and front armor were penetrated each time the tank was hit. Approximately twelve rounds were fired. In each case where the target was missed, the projectile detonated upon hitting the ground.
U.S. Bazooka:
Firing at the same target at a range of eighty yards with the U.S. bazooka, out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored. In cases where the target was missed, the projectile generally did not detonate upon hitting the ground. Up to ranges of two hundred yards, the German weapons was more accurate, possessing a flatter trajectory than ours. Tests indicate the German bazooka is far superior to ours."
Lt. Col. L. W. Correll, Commanding 17th Armored Engineer Battalion, 1945
General James Gavin of the 82nd Airborne was perhaps the US army's most vociferous critic of the bazooka. (Read his book "On to Berlin".) He witnessed bazooka rounds "bounce off" the armour of Tigers and Panzer IVs "from as close as 10 yards" at Biazza Ridge in Sicily in 1943, and he was extremely bitter about being mislead into believing that the bazooka was capable of easily destroying any German tank, as the manual claimed. He was even more angered to find that one member of the bazooka's development team had resigned in protest because it was well known that the weapon could not destroy the heavier German tanks that were coming out in 1943. He caustically said that his men never received an effective man portable anti-tank weapon until they captured stocks of German Panzerfausts in late 1944.
The later models of 2.36 inch bazookas (like the M1A1, M6A1, M9, M9A1) improved in range and accuracy-- the late models could hit large stationary point targets (like a tank) out to 300 yards and hit area targets at 7-900 yards (depending on the launcher's model and ammunition used), but even in the Korean War the warhead's armour penetration problem had not been solved.
For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.
The US Army tried to blame the failures of 1950 on old ammunition, but the 2.36 inch bazooka continued to be used throughout the Korean War, and even with replacement stocks of ammunition, it was well known to be inadequate against Soviet built T34/85s, just as World War II veterans knew it was inadequate against most German tanks from 1943 on. More indicative of what the army really thought was its hurried replacement of the 2.36 inch bazooka with a much better weapon.
The real answer was the 3.5 inch "super bazooka", which ironically had been developed at the end of World War II in answer to German armour, but for some reason it was not seen as being an essential weapon to put in the hands of combat soldiers. But the T34/85's appearance in Korea induced the Ordnance Department to rush the 3.5 inch M20 and M20A1 bazookas into production. Depending on the model, this weapon could penetrate 10-11 inches of armour.
The small 2.36 inch bazooka continued to soldier on in Korea, since its light weight and portability made it a good weapon for bunker busting in the mountainous terrain of Korea.
Cheers,
Andy
http://forumonwar.yuku.com/topic/554
I note the comment on rooms though this assertion is not backed up by any proviso on room size, open windows and doors etc.
-
Which one of the three possibilities? All are, in isolation, potential explanations.
I thought it worth leaving it hanging. : )
Lets face it warfare is a life and death matter. On that basis given a chance to nail a tank would you or I , or perhaps more to the point a fanatical German, risk a modest danger and NOT fire? So I think it unlikely that the Germans did not fire from rooms at targets of opportunity.
However at the end of day perhaps BF have decided the game plays better the way they have it. I do not play urban scenarios so have no idea whether this is a correct view or not. Just ahistorical.
-
I've read the manuals. There's nothing about firing in confined spaces. No mention, nothing against, nothing for it. There are security warnings about the flame coming out the back.
So they forgot it or never thought anyone would fire one inside or didn't deem it dangerous/noteworthy.
Rather a telling point in that last sentence.
-
Tanks and the drive train are interesting. In WW2 the British Churchill and the German tanks with very different ideas on heavy tank design. The Germans certainly hit the spot with the agility of the Cats on the battleground . Incidentally most people do not realise the Churchill in length exceeds German tanks as it was designed to traverse difficult terrain. Hence the very large number of bogies.
However with the gun forward the Cats had the barrel projecting between 6 and 10ft which could and was a tactical drawback. However the greater lethality of the gun was perhaps a most useful attribute.
PS - I see that modern tanks to increase their agility, for instance the reworked T-55AGM originally with 6kph, have sufficient reverse gears [4] to reach 31kph. AFAIK in tanks WW2 only the Tigers had multiple reverse gears.
-
And if you are on your own after being dumped and celebrating this months festival you can also get in some more shooting in ....
Target manufacturer ZMB Industries is selling a bra-clad “zombie ex-girlfriend tactical mannequin target” that bleeds when you shoot it. How do you know it’s a “zombie” and not just a bleeding woman wearing a half-torn shirt?Because ZMB Industries says so, that’s how.
-
Mind you perhaps that only applies when the market is transparent and price differences can be seen.
The numbers paint a picture of a very nonsensical US healthcare system, where prices for the same exact treatments vary wildly, and at random, at hospitals sometime just a few city blocks from each other.Let’s look at hospital costs in and around New York City.
The Huffington Post compiled data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report to make a map of hospital costs for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, in the New York City metropolitan area, and the range of costs to treat the same exact disease is mind-boggling.
At the Bayonne Hospital Center just over the Hudson River in New Jersey, treatment of COPD costs a staggering $99,690. Right across the river, back in New York City and at a hospital on the tip of Manhattan, the cost for treating COPD is just over $11,000.
Looking at the entire New York City metropolitan area, the cost of COPD treatment ranges from $7,044 at a hospital in the Bronx, to the $99,690 charged at the Bayonne Hospital Center. And it’s all the same treatment!
http://www.alternet.org/one-hospital-charges-8000-another-charges-38000-same-treatment
-
Huh. A special day for what Congress is doing all the time.
I thought you knew why it was called Congress!
Its the 5th meaning : )
con·gress (k
ng
gr
s)n.1. A formal assembly of representatives, as of various nations, to discuss problems.2. The national legislative body of a nation, especially a republic.
3. Congressa. The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
b. The two-year session of this legislature between elections of the House of Representatives.
4. a. The act of coming together or meeting.
b. A single meeting, as of a political party or other group.
5. Sexual intercourse.
BTW the celebration is a month not a day so plenty of time. : )
-
A bigger example of misdirection or probably lack of comprehension is mind-boggling. I thought the comments on the Italian WW2 performance so far had been fairly unanimous in saying how poorly overall it had fought. Perhaps more usefully Rickusty has provided reasons and insights other than "blows chunks".
It has also been noted that parts of the Italian forces performed very well. How this equates to " Hint, it starts with N and ends with ism..." requires a huge and tortuous stretch.
-
Please - it's 'Leibstandarte' not 'Liebstandarte'. The latter would translate to 'love pennant'...
Now that sounds like a proud thrusting formation! : )
A plea for Michael Emrys' sig lines
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Noticeably the first and last contributors have 93 and 279 posts and are in favour. Those who have read his sig and scrolled past thousands of times do not find them quite as worth keeping .... other than as an historical relic : )