gunnergoz
-
Posts
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnergoz
-
-
Now that I've seen it first hand, I can only say Wow, you guys have outdone yourselves!
All this work and attention to detail only goes to prove (1) how CM has a robust and flexible engine that we've really only begun to tap, and (2)how dedicated and rabid CM players are!
Excellent work and thanks very much!
Now, get your lazy butts
to work on an Italian theatre mod! Forza ragazzi! In bocca al'lupo! -
I'm embarrassed for all of us over this cavalier treatment of a newbie.
-
Ya gotta love this site that the photos came from! Pressing on a bit I came accross this page: http://www.geipelnet.com/war_albums/otto/ow_19.html where the site says with straight face "Shocking pictures following one of the numerous attacks by the Soviets"
Clearly, the author is dismayed at the heartless, unprovoked Russian terrorist attacks upon innocent German tourists from Tyrol, who were after all only seeking a little fun in the sun. BAAAAD RUSSSSIANS!
Boy, it sure is interestin what you can run accross on the web...
-
The fact is, the Tiger II was a myth. The cagey Huns made thousands of cardboard boxes artfully painted them and wired them to civilian cars. Equipped with smoke mortars and sound projectors, these cars overran Europe. Relics abound in junkyards, commonly called "beetles."
The only thing saving the Huns from humiliation was the ubiquitous "88." A pocket cannon issued to every Jerry infantryman, the 88 fired a rocket-assisted projectile to a range of 100km and destroyed city blocks by converting them to parking garages for the notorious "beetles."
Postwar Europe is littered with the result of this devastating weapon system.
-
Very nice indeed, Tiger! Bravo!
You may send me these files along with everything else on your hard drive, in nicely sorted zip files. Tomorrow would be nice.
Oh yes, my ISP will not accept files larger than 50K so you must break them down to a suitable size.
Not too much to ask, eh?
(Just thought I'd join the crowd of gimmie sendme emailme monsters!)
-
Clearly, "Puma" means "coma" in some German dialect.
Either that or they'd been smoking their tow ropes...
-
Welcome, Vitalis!
We greet you warmly!
Don't forget time-honored and most mandatory newbie rite of sending $20 to each person whose username has the magic word "member" under it. We all had to do it, now it's your turn....besides, it'll give you something to do while you await the mailperson.
Relax and enjoy...you have been Assimilated.
-
I'd like a command like "don't get your ass pulverized."
-
Artillery wasn't usually assigned at the platoon or company level.
The batallion or regiment would have some alloted to fire in support for attack or in defensive situations, and it could be either pre-planned or on-call.
How much they got depended upon the situation and how much ammo was available.
Recall that the standard US infantry division, for instance, had 9 infantry battalions containing 27 line companies and 9 heavy weapons companies. Supporting this and organic to the division were 3 battalions of 105 howitzers and 1 battalion of 155's. Corps could throw in an equal or greater number of battalions if the case dictated it, usually of higher power like 155 gun, 4.5in gun and 8 in howitzer.
Complicating this is the fact that the infantry also had organic mortars and frequently had direct fire guns (pack howitzers) for their own use. Often the US Army units used the regimental cannon companies of short-barrel 105's as supplements to the division artillery. These guns did not often get direct fire missions unless the situation was dire.
If you want to fiddle with approximations, I'd say a battery of 105's (6 guns) for each infantry battalion equivalent engaged in standard combat operations would be a fair idea of what could be expected. Increase this for assaults and decrease it for mobile operations as the artillery couldn't always keep up.
Armored formations had slightly different ratios in the US Army. The armored divisions, with two exceptions, fielded 3 tank battalions, 3 armored infantry battalions and 3 armored artillery battalions, often organized into 3 combat commands whose strengths varied by mission. Armored divisions could expect artillery attachments as well.
That's my two bits worth, anyway, hope it helps. Any other takers?
-
Gordon,
I have a couple of copies of FM5-20B in good shape, unfortunately not for sale
but I'll be happy to tell you what's in them.Also have the one on camouflage of fortifications and buildings (forget the number).
Wish I had the artillery one, I've never seen it.
Seem to recall a third title from that series that I have somewhere, I'll have to check.
Try ebay or similar site, I've found all sorts of stuff there and a lot of second-hand and surplus dealers run accross this sort of thing all the time.
-
Nice work, Pud!
I really like the graininess and details. The color palette is a bit off for my taste but that's easily adjusted. Where did you find the texture?
-
Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:
83% of the Russian light tank fleet had 45mm guns. 17% had 20mm, the T-60s, used as scouts for T-34s and KV-1s, in exactly the same doctrinal role as the German Pz IIs, at the same time period.
Fine, Jason, but I'd love to see your sources and how you came up with those percentages. And, I'd like to pose a question or two of my own:
- Are you counting the T-26 as a medium or light tank?
- Are you assuming that there were different doctrines for the use units armed with 45mm vs 20mm gunned lights?
- Are you assuming that all of these tanks were in existance at the same moment?
Just wondering...
BTW, I'll make a point of not referring to your reply -if any- as "silly" no matter how I think about it.
-
Bump.
BUmp.
BUMp.
BUMP! doggoneit, BUMP!
Magua, you big tease, get with it!
-
Better put on your favorite helmet, Guy w/gun, because you'll probably be bombarded with tank stats momentarily by our resident data experts...(runs for bunker where his own favorite data sources are stowed.)
-
Jason, not every Russian light tank had a 45mm gun, correct? And those that did not were often employed where they were in the midst of German tanks that outclassed them. This was forced upon the Soviets by circumstance and fortune as much as deliberate decision and doctrine.
Yes, some Russian light tanks like the T-70 could take on a Pz-III with some equivalence. But there were thousands of 20mm armed T-60's and amphibious light tanks that had to be pressed into tasks outside of their originally intended recon and screening functions. They were common sights on the battlefields until they were blown up or eventually replaced by more modern and battleworty equipment.
One source, Zaloga's Red Army Handbook, 1939-45 indicates that 20mm armed T-60's were produced in significant numbers through 1942, in fact 1800 in '41 and 4400 in '42. In 1942 the 45mm armed T-70's appeared, some 4800 that year and 3300 the next. After this, light tank production facilities shifted their efforts to build in quantity the SU-76 assault gun, finally fielding a unit that had some chance of getting in some licks against the current generations of German tanks.
Again, the Soviet leadership kept such light tanks in production (longer, perhaps than we think we would have done so) because they were better than nothing. The factories produced them were best used making tanks than autos or trucks, at least at this point in the war. It was an intelligent tradeoff relative to the realities of the day.
My point is only that hindsight is 20-20.
We are only armchair generals and peacetime scholars. It is another thing altogether to be in the middle of a war, whether one is a common soldier or a leader in a position of influence.
Sorry about the double posting guys, pushed the wrong darn button evidently!
[This message has been edited by gunnergoz (edited 03-21-2001).]
-
Jason, not every Russian light tank had a 45mm gun, correct? And those that did not were often employed where they were in the midst of German tanks that outclassed them. This was forced upon the Soviets by circumstance and fortune as much as deliberate decision and doctrine.
Yes, some Russian light tanks like the T-70 could take on a Pz-III with some equivalence. But there were thousands of 20mm armed T-60's and amphibious light tanks that had to be pressed into tasks outside of their originally intended recon and screening functions. They were common sights on the battlefields until they were blown up or eventually replaced by more modern and battleworty equipment.
Again, the Soviet leadership kept such tanks in production (longer, perhaps than we think we would have done so) because they were better than nothing. The factories produced them were best used making tanks than autos or trucks, at least at this point in the war. It was an intelligent tradeoff relative to the realities of the day.
My point is only that hindsight is 20-20.
We are only armchair generals and peacetime scholars. It is another thing altogether to be in the middle of a war, whether one is a common soldier or a leader in a position of influence.
-
Machineman's comments about the "dumbness" of Soviet military leaders in persisting in the fielding of AT rifles has merit, but the facts must be judged in the light of historic limitations that those leaders were working within.
By the time that these rifles were issued in quantity, Russians had already lost a great deal of their industrial and economic base. The nation was barely held together. Soviet leaders had to make do and in matters from tanks to artillery, frequently opted to sacrifice technological advancement in order to improve their ability to produce workable weapons in massive quantity. Remember the old saw that "the best is enemy of good enough?"
These AT rifles, like the woefully inadequate light tanks the Soviets kept in production (they could be made in automotive factories, which gave those factors something useful to produce), were a stop-gap measure that was intended only to retain some measure of effectiveness on the battlefield while the country bought time for its armies to build up again.
Now with the comfort of hindsight we can endlessly debate and decry these types of decisions by wartime leaders. Many decisions were foolhardy, make no mistake, and have been well discussed in other threads. But other decisions, like the one to mass produce AT rifles, had merit at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 of course and we now know that there were viable alternatives soon to become prevalent on the battlefield.
These weapons existed, were made to work as intenden and need to be reflected accurately in the next CM simulation.
-
Originally posted by Jasper:
(sigh)
Ok people try this one:
What's to prevent the discouraged soldiers from firing *back* at the NKVD units?
And how many actually believe that Polish cavalry lowered lances and charged tanks?
"Yea but it'd be so cool if they did!"
[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-21-2001).]
Well, actually, at least some Polish cavalry did charge a panzer unit. I don't have the quote at hand, but I recall reading that the Poles had been fed propaganda that the German "tanks" were actually automobiles and trucks with fake wood superstructures. Obviously, they weren't.
And not to forget that these people had a very proud unit history and tradition inculcated in them that dicated fearlessness in the face of the enemy. This was very early in WW2 and many hard lessons were yet to be learned. These unfortunate Poles, fighting for their country and people's very existance, might well have charged on horseback even if they knew they faced real tanks.
Truth is usually stranger than anything we can make up.
-
Maximus, you are correct in that batch files are really no sweat to master.
What I have found personally more efficient is to use a graphics viewer like CompuPic (there are many others, shareware and freeware) and copy files into the BMP folder from dedicated, exclusive folders that hold the mod files.
This has the advantage of letting me view the .bmp files that are being transferred before I copy them.
Probably this habit developed because I'm constantly tinkering with .bmp files while doing little mods. I then test them by booting up a CM scenario to see how the modded files will work out. While this process is happening, I have CompuPic running all the time in the background as my file/image manager.
It may work for someone else, so I mention it.
-
I must protest vigorously! This thread defames the memory of my dearly departed relative who succumbed in battle to this inhumane and depraved form of combat! My step-uncle-twice-removed fell bravely before the onslought of a so-called "Herman" Tank's loudspeakers. My poor uncle was shaking with laughter when his pants fell off and the tank overran him. It was owful.
I will take my complaint to the United Nations High Commission as soon as they Come Down.
-
That's not a mod, Kitty. Tiger doesn't like to advertise it but he has a time machine and routinely goes back to WWII and takes color snapshots of stuff, then shamelessly passes them off as his mods.
-
Originally posted by Simon Fox:
...I would suggest there were a few more planning cockups involved than just the absence of a few heavy tanks.
Actually, Simon, you are correct, there were a number of errors made in the Somalian episonde.
This does not alter the fact that US commanders on the ground requested the deployment of a platoon of Abrams to Somalia, but were turned down by a politically sensitized Secretary of Defense. As I recall this unhappy episode, this same SecDef later resigned over the scandal when Rangers died unnecessarily in Somalia because they had no organic heavy armor backup.
Like the debacle at Desert One, the abortive attempt to rescue US embassy hostages in Iran, these are lousy decisions made by politicians miles away that cost soldiers their lives for no good reason or result.
Again, the issue here is whether the Army leadership is pursuing a wise course of action. The Army's leadership has not always shined and has shown periodic propensities to choose the wrong doctrine, strategy or weapons for a particular task. This seems the result of a promotion system that rewards "school solutions" and stifles the career progress of battle-wise officers. Thus we see politicized decisions driven by budget constraints, special interests, industry inside deals and beltway expediency. These decisions seldom seem to reflect the actual experience, desires and interests of the soldier who has to be at the pointy end.
-
Dirtweasle is right on. I've experienced numerous problems in my modding madness. Mostly they relate to corrupted .bmp files.
Once I had to laboriously backtrack over my installed mods until I found the culprit: the entire CM engine was failing to boot because the lousy Sherman track .bmp was bad. Would you believe it?
Since then I've gotten used to saving modded .bmps once or twice using different paint or graphics programs...this seems to validate or verify the file format to CM's liking and the game settles down immediately, but only after I remove, re-save and re-install the offending .bmp file.
[This message has been edited by gunnergoz (edited 03-21-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Assuming I had
a) the SPR DVD
a DVD playerYes?
Michael: you mean that you weren't there the day they issued the DVD player and disk to us CM freaks? That's too bad man, you have to read your Plan of the Day more often!
a DVD player
BTS: please come up with a unique title for CM2
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
CM2: An upgrade too far
CM2: Splendor in the patch
CM2: Spreken sie Mod?
CM2: Beyond Overload
CM2: When Hell Freezes like your Screen
CM2: Moscow and Bust
CM2: Beyond Divorce
CM2: The Joys of Monasticism
CM2: Go Away I'm in the Middle of a Move
CM2: In Steppe, No One Can Hear You Scream