gunnergoz
-
Posts
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnergoz
-
-
70 kb/sec on cable...I don't think so. I'll wait until this is posted someplace with real bandwidth.
-
Matt, you have to get an appropriate sound effect to play when you do these interventions...lightning effects, thunder, deeeeep voice from a cave kind of thing.Originally posted by Madmatt:I will have Charles take a look at these.
Madmatt
-
Glad for the exposure, not everybody's cuppa tea obviously, but got to give them credit for doing something relatively positive.
-
In most tanks, all can be fired at once, though the main gun is not normally fired when the coaxial MG is on line.
MG's are for the most part belt fed, though the length of the belt varied. German tanks tended to have short 50-rd belts in some. Allied tanks tended to have 200 or so round cans from which they were fed. Refilling the ammo was the function of the man who was firing the gun.
Most tanks had a driver and gunner as a minimum. The additional men were usually a loader, commander and radio-man/mechanic/bow gunner. It depended upon the tank.
Some older tanks had 6 or seven men. As late as the 50's and 60's, the US M-103 heavy tank had 2 loaders (due to the separate loading rounds).
German tanks from the Pz III on had 5-man crews. This was the standard for most of the war in the US, Brit and later Russian tanks.
Post war tanks mostly dispensed with the bow gunner and simply had a driver up front, and three men in the turret.
Hope this helps.
-
You'll have better luck with this question in the tech support forum, mate.
-
Count me in the "lunatic fringe" who would like to have such a strategic/operational front end for CM.
Heavy on the lunatic part. -
Isn't it nice when a polarizing opinionizer like this can remind us all of why we stick with this game, company and forum? Thank you, Suicides, for focusing my attention on how much I appreciate informed, civil discussion of factual and reasonable issues.
BTW Suicides, when you can improve upon this game with one of your own, please let us know because I'm sure I'll want to experience the fruits of your astute research and programming.
-
Don't forget 2-man vs 3-man turret.
-
Some guys have waaaaay too much time on their hands...
But thanks! I'm interested in the results.
-
Lets all give it a rest now. The Russian tanks that we love to malign were hot in their day (which well preceeded 6/22/41) and were sadly out of date by the time the Germans caught them in their sights. Innumerable good men lost their lives in them trying to defend their native soil. A little respect is in order.
Granted, the Germans at the time had precious little respect for these tanks, either. They called the BT series "mickey mouse tanks" because the two open turret hatches looked like mouse ears when the tanks were sitting there forlornly abandoned after being wasted.
-
I have an old copy of "After the Battle" magazine around somewhere that has an article about the magazine's team doing a search of the area where Wittmann is supposed to have perished. These guys apparently did their homework. They found the field and dug up distinctive Tiger I parts like track links and the turret air blower cover and (IIRC) at least one turret hatch. They also tracked down the battlefield burial spot where 3 of Wittmann's crew were buried after being located in the wreckage. The team subscribed to the theory that Wittmann was killed by several UK Shermans that surrounded the Tiger and pumped numerous rounds into it, eventually causing a catastrophic explosion that scattered the tank all over. Wittmanns remains were supposedly never found.
I'll try to find that article and will post what I can of it sooner or later if anybody cares.
-
All this prattle about the Sturmtiger overlooks the real gem in the collection: the Brummbar. It's common, fairly cheap, and does a real number on virtually any building and fortification it can reach. Using one is a bit more historically reasonable IMHO. And they're fun to watch as well.
Now if we Russkis could only get the tracked 203mm howitzer thingie for those nasty street brawls... :cool:
-
"Rip off of 20's Vicker's technology that unfortunately for its crews was found milling about on a much more lethal battlefield than its designers ever dreampt of."
-
Ditto for me, please!
-
Once they saw the lackluster performance of the US/Brit 57mm AT gun, I wouldn't blame the Russians if they stripped them out and used the vehicle solely for transportation. They might have set their excellent Zis 57mm gun into it as well.
-
My vote is for the engine re-write, first and foremost. As long as the BFC folks are happy and the income flow is sufficient for their purposes, I could care less if the player base won't grow further just because some unenlightened folks can't get past the graphics (which are fine by me, but then, like Stalin's Organ, I was playing Nieuchess and Tactics II some 40 years ago and BOY have we come a long way since then...
) -
Steve has commented that the next engine will have graphics competitive or superior to those in the WW2 RTS game above.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that the WW2 RTS game you're looking at will only handle at most 16 teams/vehicles per side at a time.
CM may not have that breathtaking photo-realism yet, but it beats the crap out of the competition in the accuracy and detail "under the hood."
Soon it will have both.
-
Another way to look at it...with absolute or "Borg" spotting, the "spotted" data flag is kept with the spotted unit, to which ALL enemy units relate to. If you're spotted by one enemy unit, you're spotted by all, each of whom may react to you as if they know where you are even if they cannot see you in their line of sight.
With relative spotting, each spotting unit has a data set for each unit it has spotted. Thus, it is possible for friendly units that are separated by only a few dozen meters, to have spotted entirely different enemy units, and to be oblivious to the enemy units spotted by their friendly colleagues.
On the real battlefield, absolute spotting is a general's fantasy that is soon to become reality (in the US Army at least) with the advent of networked intelligence displays in all combat vehicles, aircraft and even individual soldiers equipped with the Land Warrior system equipment. I.E. You won't have to see it yourself, to know that it is there.
-
Great job! My Ukrainian wife refused to translate quite a few phrases as she was too embarassed. Now I know why...
-
You're kidding, right? :confused:Originally posted by Hans:Hmmmm what was the status on this?
-
MadMatt:
I INSIST that you release the patch now, shabby as it may be! I must have it! I don't care if it doesn't work, I just want it! Gimmie! Who needs historical accuracy, playability or complete coding? My friends playing other games all have tons of patches for their games and I don't have any! Whats wrong with you guys? What's this obsession with quality anyway? R U guys Unamericon?
And when is the Nintendo version coming out, eh?
:mad:
-
Are we forgetting that the German tanks we speak of here all had 3 man turrets with full-time gunners and loaders? The Russian T-34 commander had to double as gunner and so aquiring targets then laying the gun and firing was a complicated drill, not easy to accomplish under fire.
The 76mm gun on the T-34 was potent at close range but most who have read about it don't give it much capability beyond that.
I have the feeling that a lot of the disgruntlement and disillusionment about the T-34 that I see in the forum, especially from newer posters, may be in part due to a lack of appreciation of the historical limitations of the design, which were only overcome with great loss of manpower in crew fatalities, coupled with massive production quantities of the tank itself.
-
Good question. My thought about it is that the Soviet system held numerous separate tank assets back to be parceled out to divisions as needed, usually for offensive purposes. These tank units pretty much had the same variety of armor available. So if a division needed support, be it a parachute, mountain or whatever division, it got army or front level assets just like any other line division.
US Airborne troops didn't operate with armor much, except in some exceptional situations such as Bastogne. The little M-22 Locust air-droppable tank hardly saw any use as intended supporting the parachute units.
-
I never heard of this site before reading the "review." Nothing like the blind leading the bland.
NO bug - buttoning up when enemy in LOS
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
KV's had 3-man turrets all along.