offtaskagain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doktor Zook: Ive heard many stories of U.S. Rangers and have not foung them in the allied unit list. should i be looking closer or are Ranger attacks a difftent level of combat and are not modled in Combat Mission<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe they are indeed one of the things defined as out of the scope of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: It isn't hard to imagine why they were used in the East. The question in my mind is why any were sent to Italy. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In Italy there was little room for flanking attacks on mountain roads and valleys, so a vehicle with no turret but extremely thick armor would work well in such terrain. If you want to see more about them, read the thread BTS started a few days ago asking for info on them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: If it had a no bow mg, and a six man crew, were there two loaders? a full time mechanic or electrician?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I bet at one spent most of his time looking out of the periscopes to improve the miserable spotting of the beast.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Its just so purty.. http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/3515/251/251-88.jpg [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Username ] [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That link appears not to work unless you copy paste the URL. I gather thats a Pak 43?

The Stuart is great at killings MG pillboxes and bunkers. Its also a good scout car and halftrack killer. If you see any form of AFV run for cover first then get around its flank. AFAIK it can kill any german tank from the side at close range.

Keep in mind that these guys aren't real snipers. They represent a Captain picking out the best shot in the company, not a real trained sniper which the Allies didn't really have much of during the war. You aren't going to get 1000 meter kills with these guys. I find them best for harassing TCs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: At what point did you discover that it was really a 7/1? I am thinking that it might have been a case of misidentification by your troops. Like when they mistakenly think that a Pz. Mk. IV is a Tiger. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After about 30 seconds. This was was from under 100 meters the whole time. I knew it was a 7/1 beforehand cuz I usually play the German side even though the Axis briefing says to hit Alt-A as soon as you can. But is a Marder III ever capable of fully traversing the gun? It really looks funny. I would show it but I appear to have deleted the screenshot.

I found this page with some info. http://www.miniatures.de/html/int/shellsW.html It says black was AP, yellow or dark green was HE, and light grey/green were HC. That offers a bit of explanation as to the B/W picture. Beware of the gun info on the site, some of it appears to be not quite correct.

Last night I was playing the Saving Private Ryan scenario when I encountered a rather strange looking Marder. It was driving down the street forwards while the gun was faced all the way backwards. The crew was still facing forward. The vehicle was actually a Sdkfz 7/1, with the rear facing gun mount, so I think it's a little buggy for the Marder gun to be twisted the same way as the HTs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hilltopper: Geez, I wish I had stock in these guys...the possibilities are endless!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do they actually sell stock? I would take it because you could model damn near every land war with this kind of engine. And theres alot of people not interested in WWII that would play other stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: Does anybody following this thread collect actual large ordnance ammo rounds? (Inert of course). Just curious...I do, and would like to hear from others about their collections. [ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The largest round I can claim is a 30mm from an A-10. Naturally this one is minus the depleted-uranium penetrator. Not really in the league of tank rounds but it looks really cool on top of the TV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Heres another lineup of ammo. Unfortunately its in B&W and not that clear. Its from the panzermuseum Munster website. Anyone translate German? Spreng- u. Panzergranatpatronen sowie Geschosse und Treibladungskartuschen, wie sie aus den Waffen der Panzer, Panzerjäger und Pz.-Haubitzen im Kaliber 5,0-15 cm zur Bekämpfung von Zielen aller Art bis 1945 eingesetzt wurden. In Bildmitte 12,8 cm Panzer- u. Sprenggranate mit Treibladungskartusche des "Jagdtiger". Links daneben 8,8 cm Granatpatronen der Pz.Kampfwagen Vl "Tiger I" und II "Königstiger". I would guess that the smallest ammo is a 50mm L60 AP40 dart ammo. The largest looks like a Brummbar 150mm two part round. The other two part round looks like the 128mm JagdTiger showing both types of projectiles for this weapon. [ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heres an extremely literal translation by Alta Vista. Blowing up and tank garnet cartridges as well as projectiles and propellant cartouches, as they were used from the weapons of the tanks, tank hunters and Pz. howitzers in the caliber of 5.0-15 cm for the fight against targets of all kinds until 1945. In picture fig. 12.8 cm tank and high-explosive shell with propellant cartouche " hunt tigers ". Left beside it 8.8 cm garnet cartridges of the Pz.Kampfwagen Vl " tigers I " and II " king tigers I interpret this to mean "High explosive and armor piercing shells, as well as seperate projectiles and propellant casings from 5.0 cm to 15.0 cm, that were used in WWII by tanks, tank destroyers and AT guns." The big one is indeed from a Brumbar, with HE and AP rounds above a propellant case for the Jagdtiger. To the left of that are complete shells for Tiger Is and KTs, with a Panther round in between I think [ 05-28-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: I seriously doubt fixed flak batteries would be issued with AT ammunition, or anything but fuzed burst ammo for that matter. That would suggest that someone had to believe in the first place that flak batteries in Germany would one day face tanks. I won't lose any sleep if they're not in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 105s weren't fixed that I know of. Obviously the twin 128s were. In von Lucke's book he has an account from a grenadier who mentions during a bombing attack a bomb shattering their 10.5 cm AT gun, so that got me thinking about them.

From those stats I would say the 105 Flak should be included in CM2 as around 5000 were produced. I still haven't gotten any answers about AT capability though.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: There is a good picture of one in Cornelius Ryan's The Last Battle. The thing was huge!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The one in the Tiergarten was something like 100 yards on each side and 5 stories tall. I think it had 4 twin 128s at the corners. Those probably couldn't have depressed enough to hit armor, though there were more guns scatterd around the sides that may have. I've heard it contained a bomb shelter for 5000 people.

I often wish for a Pacific CM. I would love to see a Battle of Sugar Loaf Hill on Okinawa, cuz I used to live a couple hundred yards from the thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike: Not sure that there were many Hurricanes in use by 1945!! IIRC not many dual mounts were made, adn they were all emplyed on FLAK towers, so aren't likely to have been much use in ground battles. But I have seen photos of a F-105 hit in the wing by a 100+mm shell over Vietnam - IIRC there was a guy standing in the hole!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there was ever a place where Flak towers existed, it was Berlin. Also, Nuremberg had a ton of flak batteries that raised hell when we finally took it. 128s were responsible for alot more AA kills than 88s. I saw a picture of the 105 and it looks identical to a Flak 88. I'm assuming it was a scaled up version like Pak38 to Pak40.

Does anybody know if either of these guns were AT capable? I know about the Pak 44 but I wanna know if the flak versions could do it. I'm drooling over the thought of a twin 128 mount in a Berlin battle :eek: .

What the hell are those rounds on the left? Are they 50mm and 37mm?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zero the hero: that one was supposed to be a reply to panzerwerfer42's cryptic suggestion that the pak 43's look alike<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoopsy, I made a scenario that had both once and thought I stuck the two different ones next to each other to compare. I guess I made both Pak43/1s.

I don't suggest putting the Pz IV in hull-down, as that makes it's extremely weak front turret armor the only thing the enemy can hit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther G: What is the difference between a Pak 43 and a Pak 43/41? Thanks, Panther G [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Panther G ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The actual difference is the Pak 43 is built on a pivot mounted on a base, similar to the Flak guns, while the Pak 43/41 was an 88 L/71 barrel mounted on an artillery carriage. It was reffered to as the "Scheunentur", if I spelled it right, which means barn door. They actually look rather different, but CM uses the same graphics for both. It also should have a traverse similar to the 150mm IG. [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GreenGriffon: If you were part of the crew of a pillbox, and a shell came flying through the slit and exploded next to you, regardless of whether or not you were hurt, can you say for sure that YOU would hang around? I call that the "screw this" factor in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shouldn't it be listed as abandoned then? Not destroyed. That way you could be able to reman it in operations.

Squad leaders almost always disregarded TOE and carried an SMG, either Thompson, M3, or occasionally captured MP40s.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Isn't it true that an on-board mortar needs a direct LOS to fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it's not under command thats true. If it's under control of an HQ, the mortar can fire anywhere the HQ can see. That way you can stick a leader on top of a ridge while keeping your mortars below the crest and put fire on the advancing troops without exposure.