StellarRat
-
Posts
864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by StellarRat
-
-
Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of add on we could buy to give CM:BN all the new features that were added for Italy and CommonWealth? Are we waiting for a finalized set of WW II modules?
-
It's a light machinegun for all intents and purposes, but if you don't believe that have a look at the Marine qualifications for an M-60 or SAW.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c04.htm
Looks to me like at 600 m at least one round per burst hits a man sized target. It's hard to decipher, but that's how I read it.
-
I'm going to disagree with you. They are area weapons, but they are more deadly than any rifle (except perhaps a sniper rifle) when aimed carefully. Bi-pod mounted and with a good long range round they are very accurate. All my reading indicates that a MG gunner that has time to aim carefully is very deadly. I assume that the gunner in case, has time since he is not suppressed. I remember in Audie Murphy's book, "To Hell and Back" that his BAR gunner specialized in shooting Germans in the gut. That indicates to me that MG's are very accurate since he was able to pick even the body part to shoot.Furthermore MGs are area weapons and are supposed to beat the area around a designated point. -
I think John K. has a point. If artillery were so overwhelming WW I would have been over right away and Iwo Jima would just have been a mopping up operation for the Marines. It seems to me that the big casualties caused by artillery are caused when the enemy is retreating or they're caught by surprise in the open (assembling, on the march, etc...) One also has to keep in mind that during WW II and even now artillery is not exactly safe to be calling in when the enemy is within small arms range. Errors of hundreds of yards are possible.
-
My car is electric. I don't cuss. I just figure I've moved into the 21st century."Why I hate action spots" is like saying "Why I hate the internal combustion engine". There may be a hundred completely valid reasons to cuss and swear at it but without one your car is just a large lawn ornament.
-
CM: Space Marines
-
Make sure to use the least number of troops possible to find the enemy. Once you've found them set MGs and any other heavy weapons as far back as you while maintaining LOF then open up with everything and try to pin them while flanking other other troops. Taking a woods is very bloody. Its like a continuous house to house battle. One to one casualties probably is doing pretty well. If you have any mortars even 60mm they will be greatly helpful.
-
Far bolder and less planned operations have succeeded in the past. The Trojan Horse and the crossing of the Delaware come to mind. As always there is LUCK and SKILL in all military campaigns. So, YES, it did have a chance to succeed IMO.
-
They had very good intel about what was going on in the Arnhem area but chose to ignore it.They knew there was Armour in the vacinity.Monty wanted a narrow front strat in Europe,Ike was all for a broadfront one this was Montys plan to get his own way.
I think they thought XXX Corps would take care of the armour when it got there.When infact it was one of these very panzer divisions that blocked the way after Nijmegen,10th SS,and anyway by Nijmegen Ist Para in Arnhem was doomed by then.After finishing with Frost at Arnhem 10th SS moved over the Arnhem bridge to take on XXX Corps and blocked the way completely.Game over.
Looking forward to the module whenever it comes,should be epic.
I always thought of analysis and deciding what to do with raw intelligence as part of "Intel". But perhaps you could also think if it as poor command decision making. Choosing what intel to ignore or believe has ruined many a plan and in some cases even started wars.
-
Getting back to Market Garden. It had a chance, but bad intel about what was in the Arhem area and as others pointed out the lack of speed by southern force doomed it. Had either of these worked out it could have succeeded. Very unMonty like to have proposed such a bold and risky operation.
-
WTF! How long has this been in the works? I knew nothing about this!
-
They're pretty useless on the offense. The only time that's ever worked for me is when enemy was far away and I managed to drag some 57mms just far enough over a slope to engage some tanks that were already under air attack. Five guns survived long enough to knock two tanks.
-
The best way to "hide" an AT gun is to keyhole it so the LOF is very narrow. If you position it so it has wide field of fire you are also making vulnerable to spotting/counterfire from all over the map. The only time I'd do That is when the gun has a such substantial accuracy advantage like an 88 on a hilltop way back fromthe battlefield.
-
Maybe my "readings" took that into account in their numbers. Admittedly its been a very long time since I've read a lot about WW II.
-
It's the opposite of what I would expect too based on your documentation. There might still be a problem. Everything I've read says WWII APDS was very inaccurate. I am relieved to see misses though.
-
I just realized that Vanir's 100% hits test was done at 500m not 1000m. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he got 100% hits. I'm pretty sure I could hit something that big with a scoped rifle 100% of the time at the same range. Tests would have to be conducted on a smaller target at a longer range to be worthwhile (matching the test range parameters as closely has possible.)
-
Seems like a fair question.
-
Couldn't we reasonably expect that 14% hits @ 1000m are the best case scenario? Like I said, I think this all comes down to target size. A Tiger II is far larger than 6' x 6'. So, the only way to really do a good test is fire at similar sized target (6' x 6') as the test range or try to compensate by moving the Tiger back so it has the same relative cross section, but as Jon pointed out that isn't the best option. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that if the accuracy remains above 14% @ 1000m there is VERY likely a problem. I imagine that nearly every other factor that BF uses LOWERS accuracy. Even super crew is unlikely to fire better under battle conditons of any kind than a gun at test range against a stationary target with 23 rounds to work with.It all depends on what the expected or "true" accuracy is in that situation.If there is a 50% chance to hit that result is spectacularly unlikely.
-
Good points. I forgot that you have to deal the AI ammo selection. That does complicate the testing substantially. :-(I haven't tried that because it was my assumption that any target that small would not have enough armor protection to make the TacAI feel the need to use APDS.My first attempt at testing was at 1000m. But I abandoned that effort early on after only 4 of the first 20 first shots were APDS. It seems that when the first round hit % is low the AI will most often use AP for a ranging round and then switch to APDS. That's smart, but it makes testing APDS at that range prohibitive.
-
True, but range is only truly important when the round is far enough out to drop significantly or you are firing low velocity weapons. The 17 lb. gun with APDS has muzzle velocity of 3,950 feet per second and good aerodynamics. The resulting drop at 1000 meters (less than one second of flight time) is not very significant on a 6' x 6' target. Battlesight is usually good enough at ranges less than >= 1500 m for most hyper velocity rounds (assuming the ground is flat, your not moving, not much wind, etc...) Obviously, good optics properly aligned with the gun are extremely important under all conditions even battlesight. In theory it should be a VERY accurate round compared to a standard round due to the higher velocity, but if it's unstable, has a tendency to hit something coming out of the gun, or doesn't discard the sabot properly then all kinds of bad crap can happen.That'd be a really bad idea since range estimation errors are usually the single largest element of the error budget. -
Vanir, you might be on to something. To make your test a lot more valid you need to have them fire at a vehicle/target that is 6' x 6' cross section as viewed from the shooter. If they are still hitting 100% of the time then you will have a case. The Tiger II is much larger then the 6' x 6' test target in your documentation so dispersion isn't as a big a factor. Alternately, you could increase the range enough to account for the difference in sizes, but that wouldn't be as good a test. If you still get 41 out 41 hits the odds of that happening are roughly 400,000,000,000 to 1 and I'd say you have a very good case for a bug especially since your "14% @ 1000m" documents are the UPPER bound on accuracy.
-
There aren't a lot opportunties to shoot 1000+ meter shots in European settings. In ROTC all the manuals said that tank combat would take place at 1000 or LESS even in the 80's (when I was in college) . I think a 500 meter test is probably more realistic. Now in Russia steppe 1000+ is very valid.
-
Maybe the wrong set of textures was included in release by accident. Looks to me like those were wrong resolution, so they appear less "sharp". Could have been a simple mistake.
-
OK, now you got me started...here are some doodads for the next module to aspire to:
Oh, plastic terrain, you blokes had it easy! When I was a kid we only had green plastic army men. I had to get up one hour before I went to bed to clean my room in the wet paper bag we lived in in the middle of the road then I had to create me own sand by grinding down part of the curb with a used file before I could even start building my sand fortifications for my green plastic army men. Tell that to the gamers today and they won't believe you!
CM WW II Series code upgrade expansion
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Any idea what they're going to call said upgrade?? I really don't like "code thingy". :-)