Brian
-
Posts
680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Brian
-
-
Why? I'd be surprised actually, if they did, considering different manufacturers made each weapon.Originally posted by Juju:Okay, I've updated the preview pics on page 1.
The most notable difference are the Thompsons who have their wooden parts match the M1 rifle more.
Much better! Very nice, indeed. Now its looking like a real Vickers should!And, Brian, a sleeve for the Vickers, plus that darker tripod.
Now, lets see you get to work on the Bren, then.
[ March 20, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]
-
[asked in all innocence]Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:And I keep getting you confused with that other "Charl Theron":
Is a wine cork from you anything like getting underwear in the mail from her???
Do you have experience of recieving her underwear in the mail, Michael, to compare the experience?
[/asked in all innocence]
-
Has been suggested. Has been refused.
I too, would be more than willing to put some money down on a "black box" system, with the basic engine designed to take assorted configuration files (at least some, preferrably in plain text).
I can see the system being expandable to cover from about 1900 (2nd Boer War) through to say, 1973 (Yom Kippur War). Beyond that, would require significant changes, because of the range/complexity of weapon systems.
-
My understanding was that it was, to start with M24s, then M4s (of various marques, including e8's but not exclusively so) and then later, towards the end, some M26s and M46/45s. There were also Churchills, Cromwells and Centurions for the Commonwealth Brigade. On the otherside it was mainly Su-76s, some T34/85s and the rumour of a few JS-II's (never confirmed but claimed by the Russians in a recent book I got on the JS-II's development/employment).Originally posted by Gyrene:Brian, Chosin, Inchon or Seoul would do, or any of the "fire brigade" actions around the Pusan Perimeter.
US equipment in Korea was virtually identical to late WWII stuff, with Easy 8's, M26's & M24's being very common.
The Axis would work very well for US/CW/UN forces IMO. You'd have to perhaps use mid-war to represent the lower overall firepower available to them compared to the latewar Germans though. While the Russians, with their human wave attacks would be excellent for the NKPA and Chi-Com forces.German forces could *maybe* work for US and CW units, while PPsh toting Russians are a great stand-in for NKPA & Chinese troops.
Would look good IMO. Will have to look good but an Italian helmet might be a better pick.Michael - I wonder how weird "duck hunter" camo pattern would look on a German helmet
Gyrene
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
-
I suspect CMBB will be perfect for Korea, Gyrene.Originally posted by Gyrene:A Korean War CM would be great, but would probably never fly.
Not enough German tanks in Korea to hold most wargamers' interest.
Gyrene
Russian and American vehicles. I'd use Russians for the DPRK/Chinese and Germans and Axis allies for the US/ROK/UN forces. As its supposed to be possible for each side to use captured vehicles, the "Axis" Americans/UN forces can use what were originally Russian lend-lease AFV's. Won't be too many M26's though, just M4's.
So, if anybody is interested in doing uniform mods for Korea, they'd better get cracking.
I presume you'd want to recreated Chosin?
-
Originally posted by Juju:
Originally posted by Brian:
Another thing I noticed with the Vickers, it looks like you've taken the image of a cutaway instructional model, not a real one. There appears to be a cutout section in the cooling jacket, showing the barrel, painted red and the water jacket itself, in its natural metal (aluminium?) colour.
Yes, you should remove the cutout section. If you want the cooling jacket's lines "broken", then I'd suggest either the ribbed version and/or the canvas cover. If you tried to fire a gun with such a cutout, it would malfunction on the first round, in all likelihood.Originally posted by Brian:
Also, the tripod mounting would not be high-polished bronze in operational use (except perhaps in a Guards battalion?
). It would have been painted or anodised. Which again makes me believe that, again, you've used an instructional model, rather than a service weapon.
I suspect you'll find the reason he's got it, is because it was an instructional model. I've seen similar instructional weapons when I was in the Army. They take a weapon, give it to some craftsman to work on and he basically cuts away parts of the body, etc. so the students can see the inner workings. They are usually a masterpiece in themselves. I remember a Bren, on which it was possible to see all the working parts and yet it still worked (and held together whats more), despite having most of its body cut away. It had been beautifully done.Originally posted by Brian:
Finally, most service weapons had the ribbed jacket and/or the canvas cover over the jacket, to enable it to be gripped when changing barrels/carrying the weapon.
Why ever not? You've shown you're a master at this, just look upon this as the finishing touch.Originally posted by Brian:
Apart from these sorts of minor quibbles, excellent work.
Anytime, credit where credit is due. -
The .50 can be set up to feed from either side.[/QB]</font>Originally posted by Splinty:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Now, a question, doesn't the .50 cal feed from the left, not the right?[/QB]
-
Originally posted by Juju:
Originally posted by Brian:
Again, why two?
Fair enough. Another thing I noticed with the Vickers, it looks like you've taken the image of a cutaway instructional model, not a real one. There appears to be a cutout section in the cooling jacket, showing the barrel, painted red and the water jacket itself, in its natural metal (aluminium?) colour.Basically cos I did two, I like them both. I'm not even sure which one I like best, and I'm not prepared to drop either one. Besides, people just love options.Also, the tripod mounting would not be high-polished bronze in operational use (except perhaps in a Guards battalion?
). It would have been painted or anodised. Which again makes me believe that, again, you've used an instructional model, rather than a service weapon. Finally, most service weapons had the ribbed jacket and/or the canvas cover over the jacket, to enable it to be gripped when changing barrels/carrying the weapon.
Apart from these sorts of minor quibbles, excellent work.
-
I'm reminded of a story an old digger I used to work with, who'd served in Korea liked to tell. Was the winter of 1950-51 and bitterly cold. Colder than anything any of the diggers had ever experienced. While their clothing was adequate, they obviously wanted to be warm. Out in no-man's land was a listening post, protected by wire on which tin cans were hung as an alarm.
Apparently, they would observe occasionally a sole Chinese soldier, in a fur coat, who'd approach the wire at night and grab it and rattle it. They'd tried to kill him but never seemed to hit him and he'd scurry back to his lines everytime.
One night, this happened and the digger on duty in the listening post decided it was decidely unfair that this Chinese fellow had a fur coat and he didn't. So he jumped out of the listening post and tried to wrestle the coat off the Chinese soldier.
Problem was, the Chinese soldier turned out to be a large, angry, bear! The intrepid digger found his courage deserted him and he flew up the slope to the main position very quickly, indeed, screaming at the top of his lungs.
The bear once more escaped back to the Chinese lines. It seems they'd trained this bear to shake the wire in an effort to get the Australians to reveal their positions! Finally the bear was bagged after it got its leg caught in a specially prepared trap of cat wire (low lying barbed wire entaglement which is about 6 inches off the ground) and was dispatched when it became light enough to shoot it.
So, one wonders how BTS will model that, in CMPYRB (Combat Mission: Pusan to the Yellow River and Back)?
-
Originally posted by Juju:
Originally posted by Brian:
[q]Now, a question, doesn't the .50 cal feed from the left, not the right?
I suspected as much. Bit of a cheat for BTS to save on bitmaps like that.
Michael has already mentioned (incorrectly IMO ) that its the .303in rifle. Again, why two? -
Bad, Brian! BAD!Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Very pretty. Why two SMLEs?
Those are No. 4s, which were not known as SMLE in civilized countries.
</font>
-
Very pretty. Why two SMLEs?
As to weathering, be very careful. No soldier worth his salt lets his weapon remain dirty for long! If do you, do weathering, limit it I'd suggest to removal of blueing from cocking handles and other areas where the weapon would be handled.
Now, a question, doesn't the .50 cal feed from the left, not the right?
-
I think I'd much rather see events taken into account in scenario planning (ie, unless point x is taken by turn y, then Reinforcement 2 will not appear or if x occurs, y will happen).
I think that would be much more useful than the differences in a few seconds being shaved off response times as to whether or not troops determine if the smoke is thick enough to prevent LOS.
-
The PIAT's fuse was notoriously unreliable, resulting in a large number of blinds. This was acceptable in wartime but not in peacetime. That, plus the adoption of the 3.5in Bazooka, because of NATO standardisation meant that it was basically declared absolete soon after the war, by about 1948 IIRC.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:PIATs biggest drawback was faulty fuses, which required a square hit on the target in order to detonate. This fault was rectified after Sicily, but user confidence remained low for a period thereafter until it was demonstrated in action that the new fuses were better.
Perhaps this is what your memory is trying to recall, Markus? I haven't heard of "pre-detonation" of ammunition before - I assume you mean while still in the weapon? Perhaps your meaning is predetonation just prior to the target? Which might be the same thing as I've just described?
According to my sources, the PIAT had a better penetration than the Bazooka, which is one factor which must be taken into consideration IMO. Neither of course matched the Panzerfaust (200mm @ 0 degrees) or the Panzerschreck's (206mm @ 0 degrees).
-
No pig-boat is exactly what would be called comfortable, I think. The major difference between the US and RN boats as far as the crew were concerned would have been the presence of bunks in the US ones and hammocks in the RN's.Originally posted by Michael emrys:And just think, American subs were probably the most comfortable of any navy at that time.
Pity it was discontinued in 1968....Although the RN's grog ration had much to be said for it.
Michael
Interestingly, I know from personal experience that the Australian Army still has a grog ration on its ration entitlements for a "cold weather supplement". Lovely!
-
Mmmm, I was under the impression that there was no backblast from the Puppchen, as it fired its rocket from a closed breech, as did the 38cm Rocket on the Sturmtiger, forcing all exhaust gases out of the muzzle. This might account for it being more easily spotted. However, I was referring more to the use of a "through" design, like the Panzerschreck, only larger (or rather longer), to allow a longer range rocket to be used. There is this gap, between the maximum effective range of the Panzerschreck (100-150 metres) and the Pak40's with its comparatively massive weight and requirement for a towing vehicle and lots of other paraphenalia.Originally posted by K_Tiger:Mr. Dorosh:
Sorry i must disagee again, the biggest reason not to build more "Püppchen" was the dislike from the crews who statet it made to mutch smoke after the first firing and were suddenly spotted by the ennemy. Also you couldn dig in with it like with normal At-weapons, if somthing is behind you the smoke that comes out of the back couldn leave the place where the gun r placed and the crew cant anymore aim at targets.
The 105mm RCL which someone else suggested, is more a replacement for the conventional AT gun, rather than an infantry anti-tank rocket projector. It, or rather the 57mm or 75mm RCL might be a good weapon to fill the gap I'm talking about but it suffers from weight and the excessive cost per round in propellant.
-
I'm actually interested why they didn't continue with the Puppchen. I know they believed the Panzerschreck was tactically better but comparing the performance between the various German AT weapons, it appears the Puppchen fills the niche between the Panzerschreck and the Pak40 quite well.Originally posted by Mattias:The Puppchen was produced in some numbers but discontinued as it was found to be both uneconomical and tactically inferior in comparison with the Panzerschreck.
--
M.
I wonder if there any efforts to either extend the range of the Panzerschreck or lighten the Puppchen? Both would appear logical. Perhaps producing a tripod mounted Panzerschreck with an extended barrel, allowing a longer burn for the rocket?
-
*SIGH*, there are just so many interesting landing craft that its a shame they aren't in the game. LCAs, LCMs, LCTs, LCIs and so on and so on.
Perhaps the best way I've thought of simulating this is through the use of wooden bridges. Place your bridges, perpidecular to the beach and have them go out three or four squares. At the other end, place a single square island. This will then simulate the sort of restricted approach that landing craft exits forced on forces landing. If you place your reinforcement markers on the small islands, then the only way to the beach is along the "landing craft".
Its not that satisfactory but its adequate IMO.
-
Hmm... I could bet CM had a different modifier for the gyrostabilizer factor, other then "slow ROF"... "gyrostabilizer" maybeOriginally posted by Tanaka:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
...American tanks had gyrostabilisers. American gunners were trained to use them. While many misused them and they often burned out, they supposedly conferred a superior ability to fire and hit the target (there is some doubt on that one).
British tanks often had the gyrostabilisers removed and British doctrine was not to use them anyway. Lack of a stabiliser would decrease the rate of fire...
So, what you are basically saying is:
In CM, tanks with "gyrostabilizer" get a positive accuracy bonus, while tanks without it on top of not getting this bonus, also get a negative "slow ROF" bonus. I wonder what a German tank commander of the 2nd WW with the "fire only when stop" doctrine would have to say ?!</font>
-
Nope. Flat or nearly so, ground. It just seems that I've reached the limit on the number of buildings, thats all. I was just wondering if there was one or could it be a function of how much RAM I have or perhaps a limitation in the program.Originally posted by SuperTed:Brian,
You are most likely trying to place buildings on a slope that can't support them.
-
No one seems to have considered the most obvious difference - doctrine.
American tanks had gyrostabilisers. American gunners were trained to use them. While many misused them and they often burned out, they supposedly conferred a superior ability to fire and hit the target (there is some doubt on that one).
British tanks often had the gyrostabilisers removed and British doctrine was not to use them anyway. Lack of a stabiliser would decrease the rate of fire.
Instead of looking in books about American tanks and how they were designed and built (ie Hunnicutt, which is BTW an excellent source for most things), you should IMO be looking in British books about how the tanks were employed and how the British Armoured Corps/Cavalry Regts were trained and fought.
BTW, speaking of Hunnicutt, I'd suggest his 30 rounds a minute was in a stationary vehicle on a range with a well trained crew. No way that rate of fire could be maintained in a vehicle moving at speed over rough ground, in the middle of an engagement IMO.
-
I'm not sure if this the right place but here goes.
Is there a theoretical limit on the numbers of buildings that a given map can display?
I'm presently working on a scenario which involves a regional city. I've completed that part of the map and it contains a very large number of buildings, of all kinds. However, when I save the scenario and come back to it later, I keep finding some buildings missing. This afternoon, while working on it again, I placed a two extra buildings and then when went to look at them in the preview, only one of the two buildings was displayed. I went back to the map view and checked, and yes, both buildings appear there but again, in the preview, only one appears.
Is this a known limitation/bug/problem/"feature" a'la Micro$oft?
? -
They'll charge you if you lose any of your gear issue like harnesses and ammo pouches. There's always a surplus store near a Marine base selling all that crap to departing Marines. I hated dealing with MCP (Marine Corps Property, or supply), biggest d*ck heads in the planet next to MP's.Originally posted by Gyrene:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By Brian I wonder Gyrene, do they expect you to pay for your own weapons and ammunition as well?
BTW, you didn't actually mention was the scales of pay were. How much would a Private earn, for example?
I can't remember what the pay scale was, but I think I made a little under $1000 a month as a L/Cpl (E3) with over 3 years.
You can get a pdf file with the current pay scale here.
The only way a Marine got to save money was going on ship or on a tactical deployment where we had no place to spend our money.
Gyrene</font>
ModSlut special: Small arms preview! Hot Pix Inside!!
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Oh, and the quad mount on an M16 (although it is a little harder to see).</font>