Rifle1860

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Maybe I could get something going for the "Not-Newbies But Really Suck" Tournament...<hr></blockquote> I hope you were not just teasing when you put this out ST. I certainly fit the description and would love to play. Please keep me in mind. Over

16 kms. (When you have just a little knowledge, you use it as often as possible ) [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

The 5th largest City in North America ... that's right. Toronto, Ontario! [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

Please send me a copy as well. Just so you know, it may take me a while to get back to you with comments (I actually have to work this week!) tony_welsh@tnld-inc.com Thanks

Me too please! tony_welsh@tnld-inc.com Thanks in advance. Over

Hey Chad Thanks for the effort. Great game and v-2.0 is a great improvement. MUST....STOP...PLAYING ... AND WORK!

Hey, sounds great. I'd love a copy

Hey, sounds great. I'd love a copy

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Like Oddball said : the only way to kill a Tiger is to shoot it in the ass.<hr></blockquote> You know, I have recently been struck by the pure genius of Oddballs approach to tank fighting. The paint round was the right answer for Sherman/Tiger combat. If you hit the Tiger with a paint round, you could cover the vision blocks and blind it. If you blind it, you can do what ever you want with it. If the crew gets out to whipe the paint off ... bingo. Wow [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

My $2.00 on this issue (Cdn currency, you know). I love the ideas except for the last. I think it is entirely realistic that platoons do not need to always have the command influence of their company commander. As long as you are only suggesting an additional command delay on the platoons, I think that is fine. If you are thinking of a more rigid enforcement system then I think that the game will not reflect the inherent flexibility of the Battle Procedure and Grouping Systems of the time. Lets take the example of a platoon that is tasked away from their parent companys within the context of an operation. This would happen if the platoon was to secure the start line for an operation, provide local protection for something or be detached to the command of a diferent company for a specific phase of an operation. The platoon commander would have specific orders and would not need the added support of being colocated with his OC. Another thing to think about is that the game does not currently model the 2nd in Command of any unit size. Lets look at a situation where a Battalion was going into an attack with one company in a fire base and two or three in the assult force. Usually, the CO would travel with and directly command the assult group. The fire base company would be commanded by the company commander but would also have either the RSM or the Battalion 2ic with him to coord indirect fire etc. Currently this situation (which is the common one) is not modeled in the game. One way to replicate this additional command influence is to run the game exactly as it is now where platoons do not need to be near company HQs. This system "infers" that the detached platoon is properly commanded and controlled from above. Over

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cathedral: You're plagued by questions regarding open roofed TDs? Relax, really. It isn't a question that should plague you. <hr></blockquote> OK, so I don't have much of a life and am easily "plagued". In recent days, I have played 2 or 3 QBs with a friend of mine. I select Armd ME as the type. Each time, the US gets a bunch of M18s and the Ger get a bunch of Hetzers. So, the Hetzers move and blow up real good (they are great if left static) and the M18s get some arty on them - same effect. This triggered the question. Obviously, US and German had diffrent doctrine that drove the veh design. This is assuming the perfect state where it is not the vehicle availability that drove the doctrine. The more I think about it, it seems that US TD design was driven by the characteristics of Speed (veh and turret speed), Firepower and Manouvre. Germany seems to have embraced Protection (low profile, thick front, closed top) and Firepower. In fact, it appears to me that the US saw TD's as offensive weapons and the Germans more in a static or defensive role. Just a rambling thought. Over

I am plagued by the question and I would love to get the real answer. Most of the German Tank Destroyers have no turret. I understand that this was done because - they were cheaper to produce and used less metal; - they are easier to maintain (no turret ring etc.) - They were faster to produce - They have a lower profile (harder to see and hit) - they took advantage of thicker frontal armour The list goes on. But why did the US take the M10/M18 approach? In several games recently, I have lost M18s to mortar fire. This must have been a real issue. My initial thoughts are: - There may have been an "overpressure" problem with an enclosed turret with the larger guns; - The crews may have been able to see and hear more from an open turret; - The US had a different doctrinal approach to Tank Destroyers (most likely case) The US certainly did not have some of the indistrial and material limitations the Germans did. Any thoughts?

Dear Nabla Sorry, I have been hiding for a bit. Still want some input on this?

Gyrene Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that any IR sight or devise needed an active illumination source. Sounds like the SEP is quite the tank. Maybe you guys will let your friends from the Great White North come down and slobber over it for a while. Out [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: The next generation M1 is the M1A2 SEP with numerous improvements - a more fuel efficent and powerful turbine (also less maintenance intensive), a FLIR instead of thermals, armor upgrades, and numerous electronics upgrades. I believe the engine is to be retrofitted on M1A1/A2 designs other than the SEP over a period of time. CPT Niel Smith, US Armor Officer [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Cavguy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of shear interest, anyone got any ideas about the use of FLIR vs. thermal sights. Part 2 - Isn't FLIR an active-source devise? Over