Brian
-
Posts
680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Brian
-
-
[i know I am about to regret what I am about to do but it is a boring day at the office and I am feeling slightly suicidal...]Originally posted by AussieJeff:....and just to whet your appetite for those heavily armoured DALEK MkIV AFV's that MIGHT appear in CMv23, check this out:
Now don't tell me you didn't get just a leetle bit excited at the sight of the deadly Suction Cap Raygun (effective suck range 1.2m), 2.5mm Head Mounted Spit Ball Cannon (5rpm) and not least, the Sonic Cap Gun (15dB) all protected by inpenetrable .005mm silverpainted cardboard armourplating???
What WOULDN'T you do for a platoon or two of awesome UberDaleks in YOUR next CM conflagration? Hmmmm???
As two incarnations of the Doctor pointed out, to said uberDaleks, upon seperate occasions (Incarnation III and IV) "Ha! If you're the masters of the universe, lets see you climb those!" Running up a set of stairs. Rather destroys the myth of invincibility that, now doesn't it?
BTW, did I win anything in the betting?
[ April 24, 2002, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]
-
I'd be very interested to know what the sources are that give those hit probability numbers, please.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by K_Tiger:
[snips]
On the net or other resurces, you will find statistics in gun accuracy in testing and battle conditions. The better guns like the 75mmL/70 and the 88`s have mostly up to 100% hit chances up to 1000m (17Pounder is also a nice piece) in a battle it drops down to not worser than 80%.
The following numbers are from PRO document WO 291/180, "Accuracy of anti-tank gunnery." They give the probability (%) of a static anti-tank gun hitting a static hull-up tank target with first round.
Range (yards)___6-pdr____17-pdr
500_____________87_______98
1000____________33_______46
1500____________12_______20
2000____________03_______10
2500_____________________05
All the best,
John.</font>
-
It was in one of the Iron Chef's threads IIRC.Originally posted by Doug Beman:Short answer: No, not in plans now, not being considered as an addition to future plans.
For an explanation, I'd have to point you toward the Search engine, as I don't know the exact thread where BTS talked about this.
DjB
Personally, I'd rather see a WWI game - it wouldn't take too much to modify the engine to handle that period IMO.
-
Won't AP and HE (in most cases) have different trajectories? Or is this tactic meant to be used on short distances where this shouldn't be that much of a problem?</font>Originally posted by Kurtz:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
First round is a ranging shot, effectively and once "on", second round follows immediately.
-
Both right! Award yourselves a coveted Gold Star or would one of you like a Hippo stamp?
Its a shame this tactic is not available in CM. I'd like to be able to nominate what round to fire if I want. I definitly want to be able to stop my tanks from wasting inappropriate ammunition against the wrong targets. I've often had a tank run out of HE and keep firing AP at infantry targets in the open.
-
I wasn't going to mention this but I've fired Brens (.303in and 7.62mm), M60 GPMGs, L2a1s, L1a1s, F1 SMGs and F88s from the prone, hip and shoulder. All were quite easy to use and control. Admittedly, accurracy was a bit of a bitch beyond 25-100 metres from the hip but it was achievable, particularly with the fully-automatic weapons (as long as you're prepared to waste rounds "walking" them into the target).Originally posted by Roborat:Yeah, I've fired the C9 from the hip too, it's great fun, much more so than argueing about bren gun tripods
. Unfortunately for some reason they wouldn't let me wear the Rambo bandana, I had to keep my helmet on, nattered something about safety....Part of our SOPs was to fire our rifles/MGs from the hip upon first contact as that was where we carried them when patrolling (not at the shoulder as the Poms do). We're also taught to turn the body, keeping the muzzle aligned with the eyes as we scan our alloted arcs as we walk.
-
Should it be obvious why this is an effective tactic? I'm missing something... :confused: </font>Originally posted by Offwhite:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
Yes, except that your teeny little commander will not use real-world™ tactics, such as "pick and shovel" (one AP followed by one HE) against dug in troops.
-
Maybe - do yours look like this?Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
The Canadian C9 (Minimi) you mean? That's a bit of a surprising reference coming from you, which makes me think we are talking about different things.
A recruit fires the C9 Light support Weapon during Regular Force Basic Recruit Course 311 Exercise Final Chance.
Regards
JonS</font>
-
And I thought I was the only one with that problem. Must be the corrolis force or reversal of the magnetic field or something.Originally posted by JonS:In general, however, I find that the oppositions tanks always shoot better than mine - be it the AI, or a human in PBEM. Doesn't matter whether I'm playing the Germans or the Allies, my gunners always suck
-
Originally posted by John D Salt:
Mmmm, dare I mention EM-2 versus L1a1, John but I agree that was a political decision forced upon Whitehall by people in another white building which they once burnt, for having the temerity to try and dispute UK military decisions.
Apart from that, I concur wholeheartedly with the rest.
Now, wheres my turn?
-
Can I take the part of Caligula? I promise to wear a toga every time I enter the forum.Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:Originally posted by Seanachai:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How long before the Board must suffer Nero? Caligula?
Regards
Jim R.</font>
-
No, he's been out drinking, or so an informant tells me. It is obvious that alcohol has an interesting effect upon this lad.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.
Michael
</font>
-
No, he's been out drinking, or so an informant tells me. It is obvious that alcohol has an interesting effect upon this lad.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.
Michael
-
Originally posted by BloodyBucket:
IMHO, the BAR and the Bren are so similar as to be the same thing.
Mmmm, not quite. There is one major and significant difference - the removable barrel. This allows the Bren to have a higher sustained rate of fire than the BAR. Something which should not IMO be quite so easily dismissed. While the magazine capacity is slightly larger, what is clearly superior in the Bren is its location (IMO top mounted magazines on LMGs are the only sensible location, if you're going to utilise a magazine that is).
The MG34 beats them both by a mile, and the allies almost forced the Germans to think the MG-34 up by forbiding heavy machine guns in Germany post WWI. Another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Not quite. What they did force the Germans to do was figure out how to make an LMG do the same job as an MMG. However, they weren't alone in coming up with the solution they did. The Czechs were there as well, and dare I mention it, from that lineage, so were the British. The German ideas on the LMG were formed in WWI, where they used primarily captured Lewis guns, simply 'cause it seems they couldn't produce anything themselves.
As recently as the 1980's the US was using fireteams that had an M-16 as the SAW, and the belt fed guns were a platoon or company, not a squad, asset. The idea of basing the squad around a belt fed machine gun, proven so effective by the Germans, has been slow to gain favor in the US. If I had to guess why, I would say that excellent outside fire support, a tradition of teaching aimed fire and plain old inertia from on high are the main reasons.
Did you say, "slow"? I'd suggest it crept with the speed of a glacier if it took to the '90s to get through to them.
As to the Johnson family of weapons, I think the main hit against them was reliability. Johnson was a former Marine, and got the Marine Corps to look at them, but the Garand and the BAR were too firmly entrenched for any advantage the Johnson guns offered to oust them.
I've heard this criticism of the Johnson weapons before but I've recently read a book on 1 Special Service Brigade (I won't call them 1 SS Brig., what was their abbreviation?
where it seems they preferred the Johnson Model 41 over the Bren. While this web page suggests that the primary reason that the Johnson lost out to the M1 Garand and the BAR was because of the large installed base, rather than necessarily any technical problems associated with either design. Of the LMG designs, perhaps the Model 44 would have been the one which was most comparable to the Bren, albeit with a smaller magazine at least it had a removable barrel. Interestingly, the nascent Israeli Defence Force adopted the Model 44 LMG and manufactured it in small numbers as the "Dror" LMG.The Americans never suffered badly (on a operational level) from the lack of a squad level LMG during WWII because of outside firepower, but during the Korean war, they got trounced a few times when support wasn't available and they found they didn't have the organic infantry firepower needed to stop the North Koreans and Chinese infantry.
So, in otherwords, US doctrine compensated for the lack of firepower by providing it through other means?
Well, speaking from the British viewpoint, yes, the section did operate with the Bren as its centrepiece. I have no idea whether it was used to "more effect" but suspect it was.It is my impression that the Brits were more aware of the importance of the Bren as the "center" of the squad than the GIs were with the BAR. I freely admit that my knowledge of Brit infantry tactics, training and usage are limited. I am guessing that the Brits used the Bren to better effect than the Americans used the BAR, mainly because of doctrine and training, and had the weapons been reversed, the results would be the same. Any more informed opinions on this?
-
I always felt that it was an unusual choice both for the book and the movie - the Kuban bridgehead. Interesting to see something different. I felt that perhaps the best performance was always James Mason's character, attempting to show leadership, right to the end. Coburn was quite good.
I am surprised that you felt that Enemy at the Gates was "Hollywoodised".
Out of a matter of interest, was Cross of Iron filmed in Jugoslavia like Kelley's Heroes (and interestingly, Waterloo)?
-
In short, it wasn't the perfect weapon, but, it was--as someone said above, "good enough" for its job. It was good enough to be requested in ever greater numbers by the troops who used it, not because it was perfect, but because it was the best weapon available to them for the task. And, despite its drawbacks, it was good enough for good soldiers to achieve victory with. In general we can sometimes obsess about the fine points of advantage a given weapon has over others, but ultimately, in CM, as in RL, we have to find a way to make the weapons we're given good enough to win with.[/QB]</font>Originally posted by CombinedArms:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:
"Actually, I believe our fondness for the BAR was more concerned with the type of fire than with the weapon itself. We would have been equally pleased with the Bren gun -- perhaps more so. What we yearned for was a good gun to throw a lot of lead, faster and harder than the Tommy gun. This the Browning did, moderately well.
"I say "moderately" because...etc..[/QB]
-
Thanks. Now we have cleared that up, we can go on. I was afraid you were making the same mistakes someone else had.
-
Errr, are you claiming that the USA won WWI and it was the BAR which facilitated that victory?</font>Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BloodyBucket:
The Americans probably figured, in the low budget, post WWI years that the BAR was what they won the last war with and let it go at that.
-
Errr, are you claiming that the USA won WWI and it was the BAR which facilitated that victory?Originally posted by BloodyBucket:The Americans probably figured, in the low budget, post WWI years that the BAR was what they won the last war with and let it go at that.
-
Double post. Oops.
[ April 17, 2002, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]
-
are you saying you would usually count million, milliard?, billion, billiard? ?Originally posted by M Hofbauer:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Another is numeracy. Somewhere along the line, it appears we have adopted the American billion instead of a proper billion as a measurement of monies. No one appears to have announced it and its hard to figure out whether a Journo is talking about real billions or not. Its such a creeping disease that we have even politicians up to and including the Treasurer muddying the waters using the two values interchangeably at times.
IOW, what do you really call a fake billion?</font>
-
</font>Originally posted by PondScum:More on the Oslo report from "The Oxford Companion to World War II":
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The identity of the report's author, a German physicist called Hans Ferdinand Mayer who worked for the electronic firm Siemens, remained unknown until 1989 when Jones revelaed it in his book Reflections on Intelligence, which contains the complete report. Because of his anti-Nazi stance Mayer was imprisoned in Dachau in 1943 but survived the war to become professor of astrophysics at Cornell University in the USA
-
Production of the 81mm round was discontinued in 1942 due to unsatisfactory reliability. Stocks were used as long as they lasted after that.Originally posted by Mattias:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
One has to wonder though, what ever happened to the German 81mm and 120mm "Bouncing Betty" fuse?
No info on 120mm round.
M.</font>
-
Interesting comment from this web page:
"Timed Fuzes
Mechanical or Powder-Train Timer Fuze
The shell goes off some time after it is fired. Usually, this is intended to give an air burst, which is most effective at about 20 yards above the target. However, setting the fuze correctly was tricky business. The US mechanical fuze seemed very unreliable and was only used to give a high-altitude registration burst for spotting. Wesely [2] says German fuzes were much better, about as reliable as the US VT fuze.[my emphasis]
VT (Proximity) Fuze
The VT fuze emits a radio signal and goes off when it detects enough of this signal is being reflected back from a hard object. The height of burst will increase if over dense foliage, swamp, water, or wet terrain; and it will decrease with high-angle fire.
1940's era VT fuzes had a minimum arming time of five seconds, so the VT fuze cannot be used for close-in defense. With the VT fuze, The minimum
ranges in yards for several guns is shown below:
Weapon Minimum Range (yards)
75mm Howitzer 2,200
105mm Howitzer 2,700
155mm Howitzer 4,000
8" Howitzer 6,000
240mm Howitzer 9,000"
[ April 15, 2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]
. Unfortunately for some reason they wouldn't let me wear the Rambo bandana, I had to keep my helmet on, nattered something about safety....
ANZAC Day
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
[Normally I'd post this in the General forum but being unable to, it can go here as I note a rash of similar posts]
Gentlepeople, today is ANZAC day, 25 April (our time). It is upon this day, the one day of the year, that Australians and New Zealanders have especially set aside to remember and honour our war dead. It was this day, in 1915 that our
troops, stormed ashore upon the Gallipoli peninsular in what was ultimately a doomed adventure. It was this event, which we as nations consider set ourselves amongst other nations more than any other.
At this time, a special poem has great significance for our veterans, it is Ode to the Fallen by O.L. Binyon and from it is extracted what is known as The Ode of Rememberance which runs:
"They shall grow not old. As we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them".
They shall not grow old..."
Here is the full text of the Ode to the Fallen:
With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children
England mourns her dead across the sea
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit
Fallen in the cause of the free.
Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.
They went with songs to the battle, they were young
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall grow not old. As we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
They mingle not with their laughing comrades again
They sit no more at familiar tables at home
They have not lot in our labour of the daytime
They sleep beyond England's foam.
But where our desires are our hopes profound
Felt as a well spring that is hidden from sight
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night.
As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness
To the end, to the end, they remain.
The Ode is usually recited as a toast, facing the west and is followed by a minute's silence. So, if possible, I ask you to please raise a glass and spare a thought for the thousands of our dead, who have sacrificed themselves in the many wars we have fought in, sometimes with your nations, sometimes apart, but always so that they gave their tomorrows, if necessary, in order that we might enjoy our's, free from tyranny, free from injustice and free from oppression.
Interest in ANZAC day has waned and is now waxing again within Australia, as more people come, with the passing of the old diggers, to understand the debt that we as a nation owe to them. Each year, upon this day, a service is held at dawn, where ever Australians are and we honour their sacrifice. This year, one will be held in East Timor, Bouganville and now Afghanistan. At Gallipoli itself, many young Australians will gather, undertaking what is now considered a pilgrimage to remember their grandfathers and reat-grandfathers. There too, a dawn service will be held. I, personally will be at a dawn service. Hopefully, as I have observed over the last two decades, numbers will again be up on last year's. More Australians, young and old, joined together observing and honouring the ultimate sacrifice that 102,626 Australians have made.
If any of you are interested in knowing more about the traditions of ANZAC day then please, consult this web page for more information. If any of wish to know about the Australia's Military History, please consult site, there you will find the most salient points.
Lest we forget.
[ April 24, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]