Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

gunnergoz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,933

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by gunnergoz

    Nashorn

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I suspect that the German man-portable rangefinders (the hand-helds were about 1 meter long, like a metal shipping tube held horizontal to the eyes) would be too delicate to hard-mount to a vehicle. Postwar ones were enormous and required big armored housings on either side of the turret (remember the M-48 and M-60 tanks). The wider the base, the greater the accuracy, but they are still fairly delicate items and may have limitations under limited light conditions. I'd love to have one but they are not cheap even on Ebay when one turns up.

    Here's a photo of one from a current ebay auction: rangefinde.jpg

    [ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

    0

    Are the Russians finally getting the credit due them for winning WW2 ?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    The East (USSR) and the West (the Allies less USSR, mainly US and UK) each contributed n a complementary fashion to the victory in WW2. The Russians donated blood, lives and land (wasted cities) in exchange for which the Allies donated (1) an aerial campaign that strangled the German economy; (2) a strategic second front to batter the Germans from the rear; (3) material support without which the Russians could not have maintained the offensive very well without prohibitive loss of life (there were after all a finite number of Russians).

    I can't place a percentage on the efforts but I'm glad to my heart for what each contributed, at the individual and the national level.

    The West's particularly outstanding contribution was simultaneously snuffing out the Japanese war machine while helping the Russians as they bled the Whermacht dry.

    0

    Allied Tank Gun Development.

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    The main reason the 76mm gun wasn't deployed on Shermans sooner was the reluctance of the US Army Ground Forces HQ to accept the need for tanks to be adequate tank-killers. AGF was enamored on the tank destroyer concept and felt the 3 inch gun of the M-10 was good enough for killing German tanks. The Sherman was still seen as a weapon for exploiting breakthroughs and supporting infantry. When the tankers themselves clamored for greater parity with the German tanks they opposed the Army finally listened and the upgrade process to 76mm began. The 76mm and the 3 inch were different guns but had fairly similar characteristics.

    0

    why cant morters fire without line of sight?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    My 25cents worth:

    CMBO basically models mortars in two flavors: (1) the mortar team with weapon and (2) the FO for a remote mortar team.

    The idea seems to be that the team with weapon present on the battlefield is ususally representative of front-line direct-fire use of mortars in direct support. The remote team represented by the FO is better prepared for sustained fire, perhaps from an improved position with access to more ammo.

    It makes sense to me to represent mortars this way. The smaller 50 and 60mm mortars and 2" jobs basically are front-line, platoon and company support by direct fire weapons. The 81mm/3" and larger mortars were typically controlled at battalion level farther back and had a larger issue of ammo stocked than mortars being carried into the front line.

    I'm no mortarman, but it seems reasonable to me that for a man-packed team to set up a mortar in the field, lay out the reference lines and then fire for effect blindly (i.e. by map or radioed coordinates) is a bit too much to expect within the time span of a 30-minute scenario.

    If CMBO were designed to portray 1-3 hour battles, then I'd agree that there was more that could be done to represent this indirect fire capability, because even man-packed teams would have time to prepare for indirect fire in such a time span.

    0

    Allied Tank Gun Development.

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I'm not an engineer, but other common-sense considerations in gun upgrades include:

    - maximum turret diameter (which impacted recoil length and trunnion placement)

    - cartridge case propellant capacity (larger cases for more velocity)

    - complete round physical dimensions (impacted stowage, handling and loading)

    When the cannon could be upgraded by a simple barrel lengthening, they usually took advantage of this. There were severe limitations as noted prevously, having to do with maintaining gun balance at the trunnions.

    For instance, early Grants and the first Sherman prototypes had the short-barreled 75mm gun (they were designed for the longer barrel but none were available at first) and thus required a bulky counterwieght on the end of the barrel in order to balance to gun.

    Gun design was a finely-balanced science and there was not too much room for improving a given design once the "system" (breech, chamber, barrel, round) was set. Altering one part of the system basically involved a complete redesign of the other components, making phased improvements less efficient than a complete re-design from the ground-up.

    0

    Gunnergoz's Darkfield Grass

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stingray:

    Just finished installing gunnergoz's Darkfield Grass... what a beauty !!!

    Not only is the grass very realistic it also clearly highlights the subtle differnces in elevation.

    Thanks gunnergoz. You have made my day.

    Cheers !!!

    Stingray ;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    AAWWWW, Shucks (blushes, shuffling feet), thanks fellers! :D

    Now how about a fall version? I'll get right on it on my next weekend and we'll see what turns up.

    0

    Grass?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

    snip... I just tired your hi-res tree bases. And on my system, they come out looking on the yellowish side, and not at all like the pics. Wondering what in my system might cause that? Are they subdued?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are they the bases from der Kessel? My bases are basically imitating shadows, very dark for thick woods and lighter shades for sparse woods. There isn't much yellow in them at all. Any chance of a screen snap?

    0

    HBO "Band of Brothers Series"

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    snip...What I'd like to find out is what is the basic premise of the show. Is it SPR extended or is it going to be more realistic than just Sam Pechinpah directs Combat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The series is based on Stephen Ambrose book of the same name, basically describing the real-life experiences of members of Easy Company, 506 Airborne Inf. Rgt. Real people, real stories. Spielberg overall producer with various directors, including Tom Hanks (did the 5th show IIRC).

    I got HBO partly for the series, partly for the new digital clarity (finally, my XBR Sony set struts it's stuff!)

    BTW, read the book, it shouldn't spoil anything and is a helluva read. :D

    0

    What do you consider "gamey"

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I would consider something gamey that lies outside the parameters of reasonable conduct set between the opontents.

    Heaven forbid my opponent do anything which might surprise me! Real oppontents don't do that!

    :D

    Actually, the better two oppontents know one another, the less likely I suspect they'll be to accuse one another of gameyness.

    It comes down to what one considers fair, I think, seasoned perhaps in many people's minds as to what is realistic (i.e. historical.)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...