StellarRat

All my gaming experience has taught me how dangerous and uncertain war is (assuming the games are even close to accurate). Any CM player knows that even the best tactics and equipment will sometimes not prevent heavy losses or failure. It should be the last choice in any disagreement between nations.

No one in their right mind would fire one from inside a building unless the wall behind them was gone. There is way too much back blast. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

I read an account of the fighting in Okinawa where a totally untrained infantryman called in 155 fire and destroyed a whole Japanese company. This only took a few minutes. Basically the arty commander fired about 1 mile long at first just to make sure he didn't hit friendlies then they walked it back based on the infantryman's radio direction until it was right on target. I guess I'm saying that at least for American units it should be possible to call in fire with someone other than an FO (with substantial time and accuracy penalties at first.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Favorable can mean above 1:1, and I would certainly agree. Or favorable can mean 4:1, and the numbers just can't support it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was thinking around 2:1 in tank vs. tank, so I guess we agree on this pretty much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: If you only read kill claims from one side, you would always think the other's whole fleet was dead several times over, because kill claims are systematically inflated for reasons already discussed. They are inflated when made by P-47 and Typhoon pilots; when made by Hellcat drivers; when made by Soviet SU gunners; when made by StuG drivers - and when made by Tiger commanders. It is just the nature of the beast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, the big problem there is that usually multiple crews will claim kills on the same vehicle or airplane because they shot at it and it died even though 10 other crews were doing the same thing. Impossible to tell whose shots actually killed the target. I still think German tanks had a favorable kill ratio throughout the war (although I don't feel like doing a big stat study to prove it.) I guess the main reason I believe this is because they produced way less armor than the Allies, but the Allies lost a lot of tanks. But, I will definately grant you that many of the losses had to have been from causes other than tank fire. The fact that the Allies were so fearful of any German tanks that showed up on the battlefield is a testament to their deadliness. [ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

I read a book a long time ago by some German tank platoon commander and I seem to remember him saying that they were getting 5:1 kills with their PZ III's at the start of Russian Campaign. He said that even though the Russians had better guns and armor his platoon was more organized and their gunnery was much more accurate and rapid. Most of the time they were able to out maneuver the Russian tanks and take them from the flanks or rear. Don't ask me to give you the title of the book because I don't remember it.

Find 'em, blast'em, move forward, repeat as needed...

Well, this one's going to be locked soon. It started a little off color now it's gone completely perverted.

A "Jabo" I think is a P-47 Thunderbolt. I don't how they came up with Jabo, but it's definitely an American ground attack fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stixx: I also believe that troops in CMBB will be alot more vulnerable to MG fire while on the run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's my understanding. In fact, the only time I've ever been able to see enemy troops in real war footage is when they are running and those cases everyone and their dog was shooting at them. That should give all the "my MGs can't hit anything" people something to think about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stixx: I also believe that troops in CMBB will be alot more vulnerable to MG fire while on the run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's my understanding. In fact, the only time I've ever been able to see enemy troops in real war footage is when they are running and those cases everyone and their dog was shooting at them. That should give all the "my MGs can't hit anything" people something to think about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tools4fools: [QBBut I don't know which version (Flug-, Flugzeug- or Flieger-) was actually used in "Flak"... ****[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My mother was in Germany in WW II and she uses "Flieger", so I'm assuming that's correct.

I think you should buy an armadillo.

Gee, I don't think too much has happened softwarewise. They are working on CM2. There was a large thread about grazing fire and MG effectiveness. Ummm, hmm...no new patches to CM1. Deanco was named to work on the interface graphics for CM2. There have been a couple interviews with BTS about CM2 and a few screen shots and that's about it. Oh, yeah, Rexford released their comprehensive study of WW II AP and armor effectiveness (about three weeks ago.) [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Yes indeed. A tank with only the turret exposed, camo and possibly earth to the sides to protect the turret from flanking fire would be a nasty position to assault (at least in WW II.) Today's precision weapons would probably make it a bad idea though. I'd rather shoot and scoot from a hull down position than take my chances on someone's aim being poor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuckd: So, exactly how does one go about using Flamethrowers correctly? Every single time I use them they just get smoked. Are they strictly a defensive ambush weapon or what? Any tips, grogs? Chuckd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like to hide them in stone buildings. When the enemy prepares to move in whoosh! They are also effective on the offense, but you need to have smoke screens and suppressive fire to allow them to close. Caught in the open with no help they're toast.

I like flamethrowers. They are incredibly effective if you know how to use them. Well worth the price.

Looks at we do not all agree on this. jwxspoon and I are both thinking the fragmentation effects of the shells themselves have improved. I thought that grenades have been greatly improved since WW II (some kind of special fragmentation wire inside I think) wouldn't shells have had the same changes? Hmm...

I think they fell out of favor in the mid-sixties. The main problem is that they stand out like a sore thumb as soon as they fire due to the large amount of dust and smoke from the backblast. The backblast is also dangerous for the crew. Also, the muzzle velocities are low compared with regular guns, so their armor-piecing abilities aren't as good. They do have a squash-head round that is supposed to pierce armor, but I have no idea how effective it is compared to a Sabot round. OOPS! I totally missed the point of your question! Sorry. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Well, all my all time favorites are on the list. I have to say that the X-Com series was probably the best I ever played. Combat Mission, Falcon 4, Pacific Airwar and the Baldur's Gate Series coming in close seconds. Falcon 4 is still my favorite combat flight sim. The user groups have added a bunch of cool stuff to Falcon 4 since it's release. I didn't see Railroad Tycoon on the list. That surprises me. (Maybe I'm blind too.)

Well, all my all time favorites are on the list. I have to say that the X-Com series was probably the best I ever played. Combat Mission, Falcon 4, Pacific Airwar and the Baldur's Gate Series coming in close seconds. Falcon 4 is still my favorite combat flight sim. The user groups have added a bunch of cool stuff to Falcon 4 since it's release. I didn't see Railroad Tycoon on the list. That surprises me. (Maybe I'm blind too.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jwxspoon: Modern artillery is much more effective than the World War II equivalents, notwithstanding the special munitions that are available now as well (ICM, SADARM, MLRS, etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I thought. I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks jwxspoon. Do you have military experience with artillery?

This question came up in a previous thread. Maybe someone with in-depth knowledge can answer it. Are modern artillery shells more lethal than their WW II counterparts? If I remember my ROTC training correctly. The modern shells are far more lethal because they fragment very uniformly instead of breaking into large pieces. So, anyone caught in the area is a lot more likely to be hit by something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Let me guess, you also believe you use the palm of the hand to push the bolt of a rifle home when chambering a round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have fired both types of weapons. I was trying to fire a bolt action .220 Swift rapidly and unless you work the bolt very smoothly and slowly it doesn't stay on target. The fact that I had to take one hand off the rifle grab the bolt and move it just made it impossible for me to fire rapidly and accurately. Granted it was extremely accurate when I had time to aim (I was hitting 2 liter bottles at 200 yards with 2 out of 3 shots.) I can't imagine that anyone under extreme pressure would be able the work the action without some shaking and slamming. I think it would be very difficult to get more than one aimed shot off against someone hopping from cover to cover. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: That far? That's quite near 2/3 of a mile. If that's correct, my impression of artillery was WAY undercutting the reality. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds right to me. Danger and lethal are two different things. Rifle bullets are deadly for miles (assuming you are unlucky enough to be hit by a stray bullet), so 2/3's of a mile for artillery fragments (not aerodynamic) seems reasonable. I have a feeling that if you are prone the danger radius is probably greatly reduced (assuming no VT.)