Jump to content

offtaskagain

Members
  • Posts

    1,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by offtaskagain

  1. Originally posted by flamingknives:

    More than cool, I think this would be necessary in future versions, as the abstraction doesn't really work. Rifles and MGs have a common ammo type, but you can't exactly load belt into a rifle or clips into an MG.

    Actually this is possible in the U.S. Army right now. The M249 SAW can accept 30 round box magazines from an M-16 without modification but obviously that would be in an emergency only.
  2. Originally posted by flamingknives:

    The layered plates (50mm base with 30mm bolted on) are supposedly effective against the Soviet 76.2mm shell, as the shock of the impact of the first plate sets off the fuse, so the HE charge goes off inbetween the two plate, thus forestalling any further penetration. Doesn't work as well on AP shot :D .

    In addition, after a few hits, the external plate is ripped off, frequently messing up the bolts, making attaching a fresh plate a major engineering job.

    Partially correct. The 50+30 or 50+20 hull plates on most up-armored vehicles were NOT spaced, only the 50+20 on the turret front of Pz IIIs was spaced. This caused AP rounds with a burster to detonate after penetrating the first plate and fail to penetrate the 2nd plate. This included big rounds like 122mm APHE from an IS-2. The reasons for going to a single plate were easier construction and maintenance. Making one FH or RHA plate is easier than making 2 and bolting them together. In combat the bolts holding the top plate on tended to break when shells impacted and let the plate fall off. I haven't seen any myself, but apparently some pics from the desert show late model Pz IIIs with their applique armor broken off.
  3. Early war tanks likely were more vulnerable to them. Their engine grills were fairly open from what i've seen. Even still unless there was a fuel leak, which early Panthers in particular were known to suffer from quite badly, it would be difficult to actually destroy a tank with one. Barring the fuel leak, at best it could burn up a belt in the engine immobilizing the tank. In many circumstances a mobility kill is almost as good as a catastrophic kill so that might be good enough.

    I've made molotovs and found them to be spectacularly useless. I'm not sure what the Russians filled theirs with but I suspect it was similar to napalm to make it stick to the target. Homemade gasoline ones don't do a damned thing. The flames go out in at most 10 seconds and don't burn especially hot. I threw 5 of them against a stack of card board in my fire pit and couldn't get it to stay light. These were the burning rag top gasoline filled types. (yes I'm well aware of the foolishness of such behavior) Mine weren't nearly as advanced as factory made Russian ones but they have the same effect.

    In short, molotovs are more of a morale boost to the guy carrying it than a danger to the enemy. I wouldn't trust them to stop a kid on a mo-ped.

  4. Molotovs are actually a pretty useless weapon against anything. Including personnel. The only way they could possibly destroy a vehicle is if they were to ignite a leaky fuel line or maybe some exposed propellant on an artillery vehicle. Otherwise some burning gasoline splashed on a tank won't do much. Grenades can break stuff. They also simulate the crew jumping on the deck and dropping one down the hatch.

  5. Originally posted by OZ77:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarmo:

    if 37mm can penetrate T-34. :confused:

    They could if they were using ONLY tungsten ammo, but each 37mm ATG crew had ONLY 1-3 tungsten shells in 1941. And it was quite hard to damage T-34 with such a light (0.368 kg) shell, so ability of german infantry to stop T-34 was very low in 41.

    </font>

  6. Originally posted by Ant:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by leakyD:

    Well, as hindsight *is* 20/20...

    Aren't experience levels acting as one "level" lower in CMBB compared to CMBO?

    so:

    Green = Conscript

    Regular = Green

    Veteran = Regular

    and so on.

    So, in CMBO terms, you had a Green shreck team out of command trying to nail a tank. In my experience, Green AT teams are almost worthless.

    Poor little fellers were prolly too busy crapping their pants to aim worth a damn!

    AFAIK that only relates to early/mid-war Russian units. </font>
  7. Stielgranate_loaded~.jpg

    This is a Stielgranate 41. It was an attempt enable PAK 36s to be able to take on heavier tanks like the KVs and T-34s. It was a muzzle loaded hollow charge round, basically the same thing as a rifle grenade. It was certainly capable of killing them but took longer to load and required a crew member to run out in front of the gun to load it.

    More info here .

  8. Originally posted by Bruce70:

    My biggest wish is for some kind of grand campaign. And don't tell me its not realistic because a) I don't particularly care, and B) following the career of one officer throughout the war is perfectly realistic

    I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it not realistic. It's just difficult to implement and would come at the expense of many other features. It could happen for the re-write I suppose.
  9. The IS-2 shell break up is likely due to over penetration. You can search for it, look for any postings by Rexford. Also, the Russians themselves noted the superiority of Tigers in frontal engagements. I don't have a location of one but there are several documents that relate an order to IS-2 crews to avoid engaging Tigers frontally. Conversly, Tiger crews were ordered to avoid IS-2s unless the Tigers were in platoon strength or greater.

    [ April 08, 2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

  10. They aren't snipers in the Hollywood sense of the word. They're basically just a guy with above average shooting ability for that unit who was given a scoped rifle. They are best used at mid-range like 400m. They're great for shooting at unbuttoned tank commanders. If you take out the TC the tank has much slower reaction time and a whole lot less spotting ability. This is useful for springing an ambush on tanks. Plink the TCs with sharpshooters and the let the AT guns have at 'em. They can increase sucess quite well if you use this method. Another use is for pinning an enemy AT gun. They can ocasionally cause the crew to abandon the gun entirely. That's mostly what I use mine for. Don't waste them on recon, tank hunter teams and half squads are better at that.

×
×
  • Create New...