Hanns

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: And I thought my mom interfered in my life...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But unlike a signifigant other your mom can't make your sex life miserable. No, wait, you might be from Alabama so I shouldn't presume to speak for you. WHAT!?! Ohh... sorry I thought this was the 'Pool for a minute. All this talk about DC got me confused. Isn't the 'Pool located in a trans-dimensional warp under DC and eagerly feeding off the pain, suffering, greed, sex, lies and videotape that DC is overflowing with?

Sweet!!!!! I've finally found a decent .sig

When I was in the Army I made it a practice of being able to identify vehicles by their sounds. Granted it was only US vehicles but I could tell the differance between a M35A2 Deuce and a half and a 5 ton truck or a M113A2 or the newer M113A3s. It's also like learning what different weapons sound like. You can learn a lot about what's going on by listening to the weapons. "Hey, they've got a machinegun and probably a couple of SAWs" is valuable battlefield intel.

Defensive battle when you get a Regular 44 pattern Heer infantry platoon, four roadblocks, 3 daisychain anti-tank mines, some barbwire and a single SdKfz 251/1 as your support element! Needless to say the Germans packed their gear into the 251 and went home

In which case the German can hand the Brit a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and say "see, we have beaten you at your own game" while the Brit is still wondering how to achieve the Socialist worker's utopia that Marx envisioned

Whoops Need to pay better attention to the thread I guess........ Anyway, does anyone have a good link to German WWII weapons? Looking for full stats, pics of weapon broken down, weight, MV and all that good stuff. Most sites just have a general overview of the weapon not the grog info that I'm interesting in Thanks, Hanns

I've worked with some diesel engines both in the military and civilian world. Diesels produce much more torque than gas engines but are much more limited in max RPMs thus less Horsepower. In cold weather a mixture of 20:1 diesel/gas or kerosene thins out the fuel enough so that it doesn't gel and won't damage the injectors. In the Army the Deuce and a halfs used a pretty anemic inline six that was multifuel capable. It had an electric tank mounted primer pump and an engine driven injector pump. A primary, secondary and final fuel filter and two oil filters. It could and would run on anything that was burnable but really seemed to like JP-8 fuel! Seemed to have about twice the grunt when running jetfuel. The Bradleys had a nice Cummins VTA-903T600 diesel. 903 cubic inche V-8 with 600 HP. Too bad the governor was set to a max speed of 42 mph. The newer M113A3s we started getting when I got out had a V-6 Detroit Diesel with a turbo and supercharger. Talk about get up and go on a light vehicle! Plus they had a steering yoke instead of the lateral sticks which was nice. Point being that the US military learned at least one lesson in WWII and most if not all of the vehicles are diesel now. Thanks Rudolph

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Letsbe Ave.: Shame, shame! We NEED this in order to do proper medal awards ceremonies, and also to properly simulate Patton addressing the troops...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sweet! Can I also sneak my elite sharpshooters into range while Ol' Blood and Guts prattles on? How many points is a General worth........

I've got an M-60 manual at home that has descriptions on plunging or indirect fire in it. It also has illustrations on the shape of the fire area cone and some other misc. information. I'll have to try and dig it out when I get home.

Germany lost?!?!? Which country in Europe has the best economy, best weapons, best cars, best music and best porn? Liechtenstein baby!

Exactly...... I believe the Davey Crockett was designed as a "Fulda Gap" weapon for when the Reds came streaming through. The idea behind it as I understand it is a pair of soldiers in a Jeep would crest over the top of a hill, fire one of these lunchbox nukes off and then reverse behind the crown of the hill. When you're aiming at an entire Russian tank column, pinpoint accuracy is not really necessary. Remember close only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades and NUKES!!!!!! :eek: Also to keep this marginally in the WWII time period, did the US mount any RR to Jeeps in the ETO? I've seen pictures of them in Korea but none for Europe. 57mm RR would make a nice bunker buster.

I've found the .50cal armed Jeeps make a nice addition to supporting an infantry assault. The are way faster to get into position than a .50cal crew served weapon and can kill quite a number of thin skinned German vehicles. Their survivability is lower than the crew served .50cal but the speed and flexibilty make up for it. In a QB playing the Germans agaist the AI one time, I had a Jeep kill 2 PSW251/1s, wipe out a mortar team and wreak havoc on my troops until my sniper was able to cap his @ss

Don't forget the Davey Crockett warhead for the 90mm recoilless rifle. Nominal yield of .01-.02 kt nuclear warhead that could be fired from a Jeep

The logic behind the 5.56mm round winning wars due to not killing the enemy soldier and thus tying up more resources sounds good to a Pentagon paper-pusher but is demonstrated to get grunts on the ground killed. I had some buddies who were in Somalia in 1993 when the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco happened. Matter of fact my unit (3rd BDE, 24th ID) had just been ordered to stand down as we had orders to go and some pencil neck in Washington decided there was no need for heavy armored troops in Somalia as it was a "humanitarian peace keeping" mission. Guys were putting 10, 20 even 30 rounds of 5.56mm SS109 steel penetrator ammo into hostiles and not having them die. One guy said it was like a bad movie, a hostile would get shot, and either ignore the wound or get back up seeming unharmed! A nice .22 calible hole punched through someone will rarely cause immediate death unless it hits the spine, heart or brain. All this and they could still fire back with the much more lethal 7.62mm Soviet round from their AKs. While I was in the US Army I always hated the M-16. Cheapest product the Pentagon could buy. Piece of junk if you ask me. First off, I've never seen a M-16 that can go over 200 rounds without starting to jam. They have to be kept meticulously clean or they will malfunction. Compare this to a Ak-47 or my favorite the G3. Also the old non steel penetrator 5.56mm round is only effective at ranges under 100 meters. Past that range the bullet lacks the velocity to fragment causing the vaunted and highly misunderstood "tumbling" effect. In most US states it's illegal to hunt deer with a 5.56mm weapon because they can't reliably cause a clean kill. IIRC the German Bundewehr has a 7.62 NATO round that has a steel jacketed lead core bullet that fragments similiar to the 5.56mm but has a much longer range, better penetrating power and if it fails to fragment still produces a larger wound channel. If anyone is interested I highly suggest the work of Martin Fackler. He was a combat surgeon in Vietnam and had extensive first hand knowledge of what different types of bullets do to the human body. His work on ballistics is much more believable than the "magic bullet" 99% one shot stop theories of Marshall and Sanow. On an interesting side note has anyone seen the new OICWS that is supposed to eventually replace the M-16. It's a polymer framed rifle (HK G36k) that fires 5.56mm rounds and overslung is a 20mm semi-auto grenade launcher with a passive night vision/IR laser range finder topping it all off. Looks like something from Star Wars and the current models are damn heavy due to all the electronics but it may be workable in a few years. The base rifle has already proved to be extremely light, tough, reliable and most of all cheap. There was a G36 that was tested in Yuma, AZ that went over 24,000 rounds without cleaning, without a failure to feed, fire or extract! Can anyone make claims like that about a M-16? Didn't think so Just don't get me started on how much a piece of junk the M249 SAWs were........... Hanns

Having problems with the same .bmp Can you send me the replacement? wiechman@bitstream.net Also would it be possible to just post the fullsize .bmp picture to the message board and just have people copy it from there? Not sure if there's any related distortion involved.

My grandfather used a .30 carbine in the PTO as a Marine. He preferred it to the M1 Garand and other weapons because of it's light weight and large magazine capacity. This is a man who saw action at Iowa Jima, Guadacanal, Midway and a bunch of other hellholes. He got field promoted from Lance Cpl. to 2nd Lt. during the war due to the casualties his company suffered. Had a lot of his friends die next to him and was reported as dead twice. He also has quite a respect for the Bristish mercenary Gurkhas that were employee in the jungles. Apparently they used to sneak out at night and collect the heads of Japanese soldiers with their Kukuris. They'd cut the bootlaces of the ones they didn't kill. They'd get a reward for each head brought back. My grandfather has a picture of a 10 ft pile of Japanese skulls in varying states of decay. Doesn't like to talk about it much though. I don't wonder why. The .30 carbine had it's place in close quarters combat especially in jungle environments. US troops also used 12 gauge shotguns with bucksot and flechette rounds to clear Japanese snipers out of the trees. Is the .30 carbine round good at long ranges? No, but a larger, more powerful round is worthless if the weapon is too unwieldy to get off a quick shot in tight quarters. Granted, I wouldn't use a round that not's legal to shoot deer with to shoot at an armed aggressor but this is in a civilian context. Anything under .45 or 7.62 NATO is too small for me

I'd like to add a few comments to the discussion. My father owns a .303 Enfield Mk4 and I used to own a 1940 K98k in 8mm Mauser. We both used them as deer rifles and when we went to the target range my Mauser always printed better groups at 100 yards. Mind you I fired both weapons and got the same result even though the Enfield had better sights for long range accuracy. I've fired a lot of different weapons in my life and found the Mauser to be one of the easiest to operate. The manual of arms is incredibly simple which was one of it's strong points. You can train someone to use one in a matter of minutes and they can accurately shoot it with little or no training. The Enfield (and Springfield) being copies of the Mauser are similiar in their ease of use. The only problem is after each shot you must reacquire your target. There is a lot of moving around, especially when prone to chamber a new round. On the other hand with a semi-auto you squeeze the trigger, make minor adjustments to your target and fire again. It's a Hell of a lot simpler than using a bolt-action and the more simple things are in combat the more attention you can pay to what's going on around you. The comment about the Americans and Canadians trading everything except for weapons in Korea is a flawed example of the superiority of the Enfield. The main reason is that the two weapons used different ammuniton. Imagine you're Joe Canuck who's managed to get a spanking new Garand rifle from some American. The horde of Chinese comes rolling over the hill and you're happily pegging away. Next thing you know you're out of ammo and all the rounds your mates have is .303 Brit. Plus all the ammo you're issued is .303 Brit and you have to scrounge ammo for your Garand by trading more of your pantyhose to those dirty Americans Granted in Korea there were a lot of problems with weapons freezing up due to the extreme cold but this effected semi's as well as bolt actions well. It's a little hard to use a bolt action when the bolt is frozen closed! Happened to me my first year hunting with the Mauser. I used a standard weight lubricating oil and brought my rifle from inside the nice warm Jeep to the -20°F outside. In a matter of minutes the moisture and thickened oil froze my bolt to the receiver. I had to pound on that sucker to break it free. Ended up wiping all the oil from the bolt and it worked okay after that. The main point is that if the Enfield was as good as the Garand, then why did both the Germans and the British attempt to copy it during the war? Another interesting note is that the Americans had racks of Garands sitting in armories during WWI but considered it too much of a risk to let fall into enemy hands so they kept them in the US.

I'll definitely be downloading these buildings when you're done. The only thing I dislike is the white flag. It's cool on that building but the problem is on a large scale map with many buildings you end up with 20% or so of them with white flags. Looks a little stange to me is all. Are the roof tiles simulating slate? Looks very nice. Hanns

An interesting question for the people who want the LOS "circle" which shows all blind spots, dips and keyholes: have you ever set up a range card for a machinegun or other weapon? It's a lot more difficult and time consuming than just sitting in your foxhole and making a quick sketch of what you can or cannot see. In the Army (US) we would set up the zones of fire, range stakes and then have someone tromp around downrange and try and determine where the blindspots were. It's amazing the amount of places where a grown man can hide when standing up and walking around. This doesn't even include all the areas where it would be impossible to see or shoot at them if they were prone or crawling. How tall is a prone soldier even with a rucksack on? 18 inches? Maybe 24" at the max? You mean to tell me that looking out over a piece of terrain, even with fieldglasses you could tell which areas are automatically visible with just a glance? Oh... you've got a WWII era topo map. What's the scale? 1:50,000 or maybe less? You might be able to determine if that big hill over there would block site from a postion but not if every saddle, slope or ridge is visible. Anyone that's gone hunting can attest to having a deer hide in a small dip and be completely invisible even 10 feet away. I've almost tripped on deer I've gotten so close to them. I think the "god" LOS is totally unrealistic and would be used as a crutch by people who can't figure out lines of sight, hull down positions or dead zones for themselves. JMHO, Hanns

Thanks for the advise folks. I'll have to try a few handpicked QBs with TRPs and see how much better it works. I swear whenever I've used rockets in the past I can almost hear my HQ unit muttering "Sie kann mit V-1 und V-2 London schlaggen, so was ist die Probleme hier?"

Title should say it all. I've played a few QBs and ended up with nigh worthless rocket FOs. Even with a direct line of sight to a target, under command of a HQ unit and Veteran status the buggers can't hit the broad side of a barn! I know, I've tried Their ammo load is so low that after firing for a turn, they're usually out. What I have been doing lately with them is to start off at the beginning of the battle and target an area that is likely to have enemy troop concentrations and then let'em rip. Since the scatter rate is so high I figure that even if not aimed directed on a group it might hit a few, maybe knock out a light vehicle or mortar unit and probably causes some confusion. Does anyone have a better use for them other than "spray and pray" weapons? BTW I tried the search engine and it locked up as always Thanks, Hanns

I've got a varient on the thread. If I'm using a vehicle that has a large load out of HE but very little MG ammo to level buidlings, it always seems like the vehicle will waste MG ammo firing at the buidling. I believe it only happens with tanks with a remote flexible MG (e.g. StuH42). Is there any way to keep my trigger happy Krauts from wasting valuable MG ammo?

Actually the German tanks performed an operation called pivot steering. Most modern tracked vehicles can do this (at least US ones can, that's where my direct experience is). On hard ground or roads it's a very quick way to pivot the vehicle inside it's own length. The problem is when on soft dirt, mud or sand the material will pack up under the road wheels and cause the vehicle to throw track. I'm sure those bogey wheels on early American tanks were really susceptible to this. I've broken down and replaced tracks on M2A2s and M113s more often than I wanted to count. On some of our older M113A2 APCs the pivot steer mechanism was disconnected due to this problem. If you were in a combat situation you'd have that nice "Vehicle Immobilized" sign hovering over you Does anyone know if the game increases the chances for bogging in soft or wet ground when the vehicle is pivoting?