Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YankeeDog

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/19/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    New York, NY
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Correct; it's an M10 Tank destroyer with a 76mm/L50 M7 main gun. This is what the "M7" you're seeing in the UI is designating.
  2. To build on what Wart 'n' all said, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea there was an "M7 Tank Destroyer". The only U.S. Army combat vehicle with the nomenclature "M7" that was widely deployed in WWII was the M7 "Priest", which was a 105mm Self-Propelled Artillery vehicle, not a tank destroyer. On a few occasions, M7 Priests were employed as ersatz tank destroyers, but this definitely wasn't the M7's primary role. At any rate, in its "out of the factory" configuration, the .50 BMG mounted on the M10 tank destroyer was located on a pintle mount at the rear of the (open) turret lip.
  3. During setup, don't worry about whether the HMG team is exactly in front of a window or not; the visuals aren't 100% WYSIWYG. Rather, DEPLOY the HMG team into the building, and then check what areas they can target using the TARGET command. Blue line = they can see and target the point where the cursor is. Bear in mind that the TARGET line is intentionally somewhat conservative; units will sometimes be able to spot and shoot at enemy units beyond what the target line shows, especially in areas where you get the "Reverse Slope No Aim Point" alert. If the MG's field of fire isn't to yo
  4. Ya... if you aren't getting your $ worth out of your sniper team, the problem is the commander at the keyboard, not the sniper team modeling. Their good spotting and high stealth can sometimes mean the best use of sniper teams is simply to put them in a spot with good concealment and observation, slap on a short cover arc, and see what they see. But if you do decide to engage, with intelligent placement it's quite possible to have a single sniper team take out a half dozen or more enemy without ever being spotted, and often valuable enemy (e.g., TCs, Infantry HQs, HW team members) at that
  5. Bear in mind that the attack profiles the Ju-87G is capable of while carrying the 37mm cannons are not particularly steep, so it can't achieve very "flat" hits against the top armor of an AFV except in special circumstances such as when the AFV is on a steep incline. When carrying the 37mm gun pods, the Ju-87G is actually not a dive bomber -- to improve performance and reduce weight, the dive brakes were removed when the 37mm gun pods were carried, and the weight of the gun pods also dramatically reduced the ability of the aircraft to pull out of a steep dive quickly -- each gun pod weighe
  6. Beyond the question of just how effective the Ju-87's 37mm cannon pods were at knocking out tanks, the other big problem with the Ju-87G was that it was, by late war standards, slow, not very maneuverable, not particularly well protected (either in the sense of its armor plating or in the sense of its defensive armament), and also difficult to fly due to the the weight of the gun pods slung relatively far out, away from the centerline under the wings. In the late war, Ju-87 pilots (of any variant) did not have a long life expectancy. My personal belief is the Rudel was an exceptional pilot
  7. Only if they share the same immediate parent HQ (usually, the same Platoon HQ, but sometimes a Section HQ); if so, the "Share Ammo" function will work as it does for all other types of ammo. Otherwise, no.
  8. ... and there you have a squad that will completely suck at MOUT. Clearing buildings and back-alleys is arguably one of infantry's most important jobs these days. The long-range, open terrain fight tends to be dominated by AFVs and FOs, but once the enemy gets in "under the floorboards" in a populated area, the only thing that can completely clear them out is infantry. For building clearing and other fights in constrained terrain, you want most of your infantry equipped with a short, lightweight, fully automatic weapon; something that's easy to quickly change engagement axis with and work
  9. And I recall that several of the units involved in the so-called "Blackhawk Down" incident went black on ammo before the ground convoy forced their way through and rescued them. If they had been carrying a 7.62mm weapon rather than a 5.56mm, they probably would have run out of ammo much sooner. So... which would you prefer, not being certain whether your last shot dropped some Ethiopian tribesman hopped up on khat, or running out of ammo entirely?
  10. Yep. Even in good conditions with soft ground, digging foxholes would only be applicable to the longest CM battles, and raises all sorts of modeling issues that make it not worth the time and effort (e.g.: What's the situational awareness of a unit that's busy digging? What about signature (e.g., how easily is a digging unit spotted)? How much fatigue is incurred? How long does it take to dig foxholes in various types of terrain? How much additional cover is a half-dug foxhole worth, if any? I could go on...) But for BotB specifically, digging new foxholes during a battle is WAY out of
  11. I don't as much about other NATO member TOEs, but for U.S. Army this simply isn't true. It varies from force type to force type (e.g., Light Infantry, vs. Stryker Infantry vs. Airborne infantry), but most U.S. Army rifle platoon TOEs include two M240 GPMG teams in the Weapons Squad. The Squad DMs also have the option of carrying a scoped 7.62mm semi-auto rifle (typically a modernized M14), rather than a 5.56 weapon, something that's fairly common practice. So by TOE, the most common U.S. Army rifle platoon formations have at least two 7.62mm MGs that are more than capable of engaging at
  12. I don't think this is correct; AFAIK the Javelin is autonomous fire-and-forget only; there is no SACLOS mode. There is "Fastball" attack option, which uses a flatter trajectory and is intended for very short range targets and also certain targets such as bunkers or buildings where a frontal hit rather than a top hit may be more desirable. But it is still automatic fire-and-forget in this mode. Since the Javelin's guidance system is completely passive (it emits no laser or radio waves or similar that the target can and so "know" it's "on the rails"), and the missile also doesn't fly dire
  13. Actually, in the U.S. Military, as far as I am aware currently the most significant development activity in a caseless ammo weapon is in the Army's LMG project, which is 5.56mm. I'm sure the technology could easily be scaled up to 7.62mm, but this does nevertheless give you an idea of what Army's current thinking is regarding the whole 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm debate. If they're spending money and development time trying to make 5.56mm even lighter, then I really doubt they're very hot on the idea of adding more 7.62mm weapons to the rifle platoon's basic loadout, caseless or not.
  14. 5.56 will kill you quite easily; it has excellent cavitation characteristics which lead to a large wound channel. But regardless, yes; 7.62 is a larger, heavier round. It flies further, causes more damage, and penetrates cover more effectively. The essential problem with the idea of "retrograding" back to a 7.62mm weapon for the basic rifleman its that the modern infantryman's combat load is pretty much as heavy as it can get. If you want to swap the 5.56mm weapon out for a larger, heavier 7.62mm weapon with heavier 7.62mm ammo, to compensate, you have to do some combination of (a) carry
  15. Eh... not exactly. What they realized is that a thin-walled shell with a higher HE load produces a large number of small, but very high velocity fragments. The velocity makes up for the small size and these fragments still have more than enough energy to incapacitate. In contrast, a thick-walled shell with less HE produces fewer, large fragments with a lower velocity. These large fragments are quite deadly but since there's fewer of them they don't cover the area of effect as thoroughly. Regardless, the primary wounding mechanism is still from the shell fragments, not the "blast." E
  • Create New...