StellarRat

Just to follow up. What I'm saying is that MGs shouldn't be the only weapons that possess the grazing fire ability. Any substantial amount of small arms fire that is coming from the flanks of a target should do the same thing. Either all small arms fire has the ability or none do. Also, if I remember right BTS has already made flanking fire more effective than frontal fire. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Okay, this post seems to be questioning the existance of 'grazing fire' or as I prefer to call it 'firelanes'. The reason you would not be able to create a 'firelane' with rifle fire is the simple fact that you can't get a volume of fire that is great enough to create the conditions to make an effective 'firelane'. Okay, you may ask, what about SMGs or Assault Rifles? Well, SMGs and Assault Rifles can put out a moderate volume of fire, but the range that the volume of fire can be put out to is extremely limited - maybe out to 100 - 150 meters. Plus, the volume of fire put out by a box fed SMG or Assault Rifle would still not match the volume of fire of an MG - not to mention the fact that you can't change the barrel of a hot SMG! This leaves you with a situation that onlythe MG can be effective at. That situation is the placement of a volume of fire that is effective enough to deny an area to the movement of enemy infantry. This area would extend from the barrel of the MG out to about 400 - 600 meters or so. This area denial does not need to be continuous, it merely needs to be sufficient to get the job done. If the gunner is taking a one to three second break between bursts - that should be volume sufficient enough to establish the 'firelane' since it would probably take your brain at least a second or two to register that the lead isn't flying followed by a second or two to get up from your hiding space.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It seems to me that 10 guys firing rifles across the line of advance would be plenty enough bullets to create the "grazing fire effect". If each guy fired twice per minute (anybody can do this even with a bolt action rifle) that would be 200 rpm which is equilivent to cyclic MG 42 numbers, plus the shots are likely to be more accurate. Also, rifles can be fired accurately to at least 200m (I think it's much higher than this, but I'll just say 200m for the sake of argument.) [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

OK, I'm missing something here. Pillar and X-00 both say that "grazing fire" is the big advantage for the MGs. They are saying that this represents continuous fire 2 feet above the ground, but they also say this is done with six round bursts. Something isn't adding up here. Six round bursts are not what I would call "continuous". Continuous would be a gun with unlimited ammo that never gets hot and doesn't need to be realigned or several MGs aimed in the same direction firing constantly. I'm sorry but I'm just not buying this argument. If the guns are just pointed in a general direction (not aimed at some specific) they are even LESS likely to hit anything unless someone were to blunder through the burst of bullets at just the right time. Also if this is the "advantage" of MGs then it is an advantage of all small arms. If you think about it a bunch of riflemen all firing across the line of advance would create "grazing fire" too, so maybe the whole small arms aiming system should be reworked.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: What should have been an easy upgrade has already consumed 16 hours of time. And we are still not done yet :mad: Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I quit thinking any software upgrades would go well years ago! HE! HE! Obviously, you haven't had the optimism beaten out of you yet! I've been in this business for 20 years now and I still can't believe some of the stuff that happens! I feel for you. I remember one time when I had to rebuild and restore a Novell server twice in the same night. It had to be up when everyone came to work in the morning. I think that was a 22 hour day! AAAHHH!

Actually, I think artillery is FAR superior for suppression vs MGs. Even the little stuff is very dangerous. I hope I never have to be in combat, but if I had to choose between being shot at by a MG or have someone dropping mortar rounds on me I'd pick the MG every time. At least with a MG you only have to worry about fire coming from one direction. [ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Once again, the MGs are plenty powerful enough if you use them correctly. I think some people are under the impression that you shouldn't be able to advance on a MG with unsupported infantry. This is obviously not true. Otherwise WW II would still be underway! As a couple posters have stated, it's hard to hit an individual with a MG. Never mind that the "targets" are shooting back and trying to use every piece of cover available. Also, the infantry isn't just running straight toward the gun! They are dodging, ducking, hiding and doing whatever they can not to be hit. If they were "running" right at the gun I imagine that they could cover at least 200 - 400 yards per turn, so even running in CM isn't really running it's just moving faster than normal. Call me whatever you want, but for the most part they seem to work just fine IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: It's extremely slow on my end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're browser may be reloading it's cache because the format of the pages have changed. Check it again. It might be a lot faster.

Well, this is definately faster than the old forum. That's a big plus in my book!

Looks like they still have quite a bit of work left to do on it. There are very few headers for things. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 04-06-2001).]

It seems to run much faster now! But, of course, I'm probably one of the first people on it, so load is low right now.

MGs work fine. I've held off entire companies with 4 MGs! They are very effective with open fields of fire and interlocking positions. You can pin down huge numbers of squads with just a few MGs if the infantry is trying to advance over clear terrain.

Some of the newer pistols even have muzzle brakes! They do reduce the recoil by about 25%, but man the volume of the shots is incredible! In a regular pistol the sound is projected forward, but a muzzle brake sends a lot of blast and sound right back at you! Of course I always wear ear plugs and muffs, but you sure can tell the difference.

Mortars make up for inaccuracy with the high volume of rounds they put down. I think mortars are inaccurate because the base tends to move around on the ground when they fire, so each shell is fired at a slightly different angle than the last one. Mortar shells are definately the most deadly for their size because they impact at almost a 90 degree angle with the ground and they have a thin casing that is stuffed with a lot of explosive. This gives them a perfectly circular burst pattern with lots uniformly distributed fragments. Also, they have a better chance of falling into uncovered fortifications because they fall nearly straight down. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 04-02-2001).]

Mortars make up for inaccuracy with the high volume of rounds they put down. I think mortars are inaccurate because the base tends to move around on the ground when they fire, so each shell is fired at a slightly different angle than the last one. Mortar shells are definately the most deadly for their size because they impact at almost a 90 degree angle with the ground and they have a thin casing that is stuffed with a lot of explosive. This gives them a perfectly circular burst pattern with lots uniformly distributed fragments. Also, they have a better chance of falling into uncovered fortifications because they fall nearly straight down. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 04-02-2001).]

If I remember right mortars were a leading casuality causer in WW II.

If I remember right mortars were a leading casuality causer in WW II.

Sounds a business question that Big Time will answer internally. Not something us users should be concerned with.

I'll take whatever I get and try to make the best of it. I prefer battles where everything is random. I don't even care which side I'm on.

Well, I've played plenty of games where I had no tanks to start with and won. A well thought out infantry defense is very tough to beat. Even if they only have bazookas/shrecks they can make life miserable for armor. I've had infantry defenses with AT guns absolutely destroy a combined arms attack in just a couple turns. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 03-29-2001).]

The fuse is a hollow core surrounded by a plastic coated thread. The core is loaded with black powder. Black powder is a mixture of Potassium Nitrate (oxidizer), Charcoal aka Carbon (Fuel) and Sulfur (Fuel and Binder). When you light the fuse a chemical reaction begins and the potassium nitrate supplies the carbon with oxygen, therefore no outside oxygen (air) is required for the fuse to keep burning. As long as the black powder is not completely doused by water it will burn without any outside air. Because the fuse is hollow and waterproof on the outside the gas released by the burning black powder prevents water from dousing the reaction (like blowing through a straw.) Once the fuse burns into the M-80 it still explodes because the gas pressure inside the M-80 prevents water from coming into the fuse hole. A regular (small) firecracker can be easily put out by tossing in water because the fuse is not waterproof on the outside and water will douse exposed black powder. High explosives such as TNT do not depend at all on oxygen, they explode by chemical decomposition. They will detonate anywhere as long as they are not dispersed by whatever environment they are in. Since high explosives are usually organic they can be dispersed by oils and alcohols. This is why bomb squads will often put a suspected bomb in a tank of oil, it causes some organic compounds to disperse and can disable mechanical timing devices such as wrist watches and electrical relays. Typically high explosives have 3 - 5 times over-pressure (speed of the blast wave) of a black powder explosion because the decomposition occurs much more rapidly then the "burning" of black powder. While a black powder explosion will tend to push solid material out of the way a high explosive is much more likely to shatter the object. Like the difference between pushing a rock vs. hitting it with a sledge-hammer.

"you really should not give html advice when a simple anchor tag is buchered your links should be" Well, at least we know NewJazz's spelling and punctuation are superior. NewJazz 1 Dogface 0

OK, that doesn't sound like a programming nightmare. I guess that would be an OK command.

Sounds like a good idea, but a programming nightmare. You'd have to have icons for the abandoned weapons so the player could remember where he abandoned them and you'd have to check to see if the abandoned weapons or ammo was damaged by HE or fires while they were laying around. Also, you would probably need to write code so that unmanned weapons could be targeted by the enemy. If you talking about abandoning non-mounted infantry weapons that's a lot of objects to keep track of. Sounds annoying to me.

That's how I like to play too. Actually, I have won or gotten draws in a lot of games where the AI had +200 and I was defending. Although, I was usually overrun in the end I managed to inflict enough casualities that the AI lost.

This reminds me of Ferris Bueller's Day Off...