gunnergoz
-
Posts
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnergoz
-
-
if ure not a gud speller then whie post at all?
At least you got the profanity spelled right, I'll grant you that...
-
Zuday, der CM Forum!
Zumorrow, der VORLT!
-
I'm just guessing, but I'd say it has something to do with the fact that the single-barrel 20mm weapon had an extremely low in-action height. The gun's trunnions were set low as I recall and the profile was quite near the ground if it were taken of it's little trailer. It shouldn't be too much higher off the ground than a heavy machinegun, making the 20mm quite low for a crew-served cannon.
-
My Russian-born wife is happy when I'm playing CM as long as I tell her I'm "killing lots of Germans."
Heaven forbid I ever get caught PLAYING their side...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mad Gunman:
The FAQ answered my question, thanks for the help. I love this board, in any other such a question would get flamed to oblivion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some on this forum (present company excepted of course) have the wherewithal to grant you that outcome as well! Maybe you got lucky!
Seriously, that's why I stay on this forum, I appreciate the general level of civility on it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
Hunnicutt indicates M4(75mm versions and 76mm versions) were capable of a main gun ROF of 20 rounds per minute. This represents "hog-wild" firing...quick as loader can pull rounds from the ready rack, shuv in breech and gunner depressing firing petal. Accuracy is obviously in the ****ter at this rate.
Will dig for info on MkIV this weekend. Point of interest however, French Army testing of Panther (post-War) came up with a max firing rate of 20 rounds per minute.
Hope this helps...your welcome for info.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously the loader is working like a madman, but with three seconds between rounds, the gunner may have sufficient time to keep the gun layed on the target.
Anyway, if any single target required 20% of my ammo loadout in one minute, I should be seriously in reverse gear!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StugIII:
Kunstler,
I can tell you for certain that even up until 1989 it hadn't changed much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you're welcome as usual to your opinion, but I think you may be overlooking the enormous changes that the Russian military went through in the years between 1939 to 1989. It went from being fair, to fairly hopless, to fairly unbeatable and then, most recently, to fairly incredibly incompetent (mostly thanks to politics than to the soldiers).
To equate the army of 1939 with that of 1989 is one thing, but to equate the army of 1945 with that of the last days of the USSR, or the first years of the CIS, is to me, unsupportable.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
They didn't really give tanks indirect fire ability. All cannons have some indirect fire ability, by virtue of being able to point up, and let gravity do the rest.
-snip-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree on this one. It was clearly doctrine and training in the WW2 US Army mechanized forces for tanks and TD's to be equipped and trained for artillery-type indirect fire. They had the artillery quadrants and similar tools to do the job and they did so with some frequency. There was no "random lobbing" of rounds as implied by this post, rather the use of tanks in this fashion was only permitted because the troops were adequately trained and equipped for the task. If they weren't so prepared, the act would be folly, a waste of ammo and probably as dangerous to nearby friendly troops as to the enemy.
-
My impression is that indirect fire missions by tank units was usually most common under two circumstances:
-during "all-out" offensives when every shooting tube counted to suppress or destroy the enemy in the target zones, and
-during phases of battle when the tanks could not function effectively on the front lines, usually due to mud, snow, or especially terrain.
If the tanks could use their mobility and firepower on the battlefield to good effect in support of operations, they seem to have been much less likely to be called upon for indirect fire missions.
BTW, TD's could and did provide similar indirect support but the 76mm HE round was not quite as effective as the 75mm round, perhaps because it had a thicker case and less bursting charge.
The upshot for CM is, I think, that if the tanks can't be well used on the CM battlefield, we'll not see many of them and you may as well load up on artillery (which might in fact include tank tubes). It sort of works out like real life did.
-
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but has anyone considered the effect of approach angle between the moving tank and its target? This "angle off" would in my thinking be a major element in any equation attempting to simulate to-hit probabilities.
Simply put, the closer the target is to dead ahead of the firing tank, the less turret traverse has to be factored in as a variable. And the more that the target approaches a 90 degree angle off, the faster the turret has to be slewed to keep up with the target.
So my question is...how are all our little simulations factoring this issue in? If we are using different approach angles for these tests, then the results are difficult to equate to one another.
One suggestion...run the test with the approach angle being 90 degrees off the target, i.e. the firing tank is forced to display maximum variation of turret traverse throughout the exercise.
Alternately, run the test with the tank having a constant angle on the target (i.e. "circling the target" like movie injuns circling the wagons, and firing all the while.)
I'll bet the circling tank gets a lot more hits, or should in my admittedly fuzzy understanding of this sort of thing.
Any of this make sense? If it doesn't, have another glass of wine or a beer and it will.
(You math/geometry/trig/calculus wizzes out there will have to help me out if my logic is faulty here and explain just how it is...)
-
Maximus hit the nail on the head. Do some reading about Stalingrad in particular and you'll begin to appreciate the tenacity and capacity for suffering that Russian soldiers displayed. They were in a class by themselves and I hope the new morale system can indeed do them justice.
True, theirs was a mixed lot, sometimes easily routed and at other times (often on the same battlefield) they could be found tenaciously fighting to the last bullet and Molotov cocktail. They are very difficult to classify at times and scenario designers will have to be very careful to give them their due.
No they're not the slick, stunning and shiny Whermacht, but by and large, I think that the Red Army's good qualities shine in ways that will give CM2 players a great thrill when they do overcome the feldgrau invaders.
As to their army "sucking" well again I have to agree that there were downsides to their organization and equipment at times, but that this was overcome as the war went on, and we see the Red Army climbing towards its apex at the same time that most of the German one was in decline.
What CM gamers will have to get used to is the great variability that they will see in Red Army combat capability at different times during the war. And while the gamer can attempt to throw masses of troops and tanks at the Germans, the greater challenge -- and fun -- will lie in making the best of what one is dealt. Russian commanders at all levels had to deal with the deficiencies of their system, their troops, their equipment and their doctrine. That they persisted and prevailed is one of the most awesome accomplishments of the entire war.
Go on and put down the Russians if you choose, but I think that many discriminating CM veterans will end up enjoying the Russian side of the coming game a great deal.
Sorry if this rambled on a bit, I'm beat from work...
-
Mensch-
My thanks to you for hosting the files!
To those who waited patiently-
I appreciate your patience and hope that you're pleased with the mods!
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
Were there any Nisei or Afro-American Tank Destroyer units Slappy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For what it's worth, all the Nisei units I've found were strictly infantry (one separate battalion and one separate regiment).
-
Fieldmarshall,
Do you mean like this?
or this?
If it suits you, it and the rest of my most recent terrain mods will be available with at der Kessell quite soon, stay posted for an announcement on the forum.
[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]
-
From my recollection of numerous WW2 readings, I feel safe in saying that firing from the move was done in WW2 but it was not expected to hit much except at very close range. It was much more common to shoot at a moving target, however, and most if not all tank sight reticules have provision for leading a target at different ranges.
The gyrostabilizer on the Sherman series was often disconnected by the users as it didn't seem to accomplish much for them. It was stabilized in elevation only and so would only be useful if one was advancing on a target which was directly in front of the tank.
Sorry to see all the flamewar going on here... :confused:
-
Speak for yourself...I long to wallop the whermacht. You know the poem "Tiger, tiger burning bright..."? That's what I mean.
-
Those workshop boys had entirely too much free time on their hands!
-
The issue of KIA bitmaps is actually a wimpy solution for the jaded CM player looking to add a more authentic feel to the gaming experience.
If one wants to "spiff up" the suspension of disbelief with CM, all one need do is as follows, prior to and during play:
-put a dead animal behind the desk and let it ripen for a few days
-urinate in the other corner
-fail to shower for a week
-pick fleas and ticks off of neighborhood animals and let them loose into a close-knit woolen shirt which one then wears
-go without food and sleep for several days in a row
-stand in the middle of the freeway and run willy-nilly in front of the moving traffic (this gets the adrenaline into the appropriate level)
-invite a serial killer to live in the home, leave the doors unlocked and wait around unarmed to see what he'll do next (builds up tension and fear)
-Turn the air conditioner on to freezing for several days, then full heat for several more, being sure to leave the oven and stove lit and burning and all windows shut
-back a diesel bus into the garage and leave it running with the exhaust piped into the home
Once the above "mods" have been installed into your lifestyle, you'll care less about little blood splatters on your deceased digital troops.
-
IIRC, the most common included Russian terms "for the motherland", "for Stalin" and the likes of "death to facists."
-
Hmm, someone's been playing Myth too long, methinks...
-
I wouldn't want Steve and Charles to devote more than 10 minutes on programming something of such limited utility...
-
Greyhounds and M=20 utility cars were very well liked ny the GI's but less so by the Generals who wrote doctrine. They were very common during the war in US service but postwar were largely issued to MP or constabulary occupation troops. The US Army has a marked preference for full-track recon vehicles.
-
Hello, guys!
I want to continue to offer my terrain mods and grasses but the site I've been using to try to hold the .zip files keeps taking them offline (it's 7host.com) and the hapless fellows who try to download the files are getting mighty tired of the wait.
Can anybody offer RELIABLE file hosting site suggestions? A site that doesn't mess with the account holders like this piece of dog poop I tried?
-
I think my hosting site deletes the files on purpose...boo, hiss!
Want them emailed?
definition of gun/howitzer
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Didn't someone once write that you can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar?
We can sling BS with the best on this board but you'll seldom be applauded for doing so.
Hope you get your questions answered but your attitude is sorta sucky so you get what you ask for...