Panzer76
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Panzer76
-
-
US Marines report typical engagement range of 20-30 mOriginally posted by roqf77:plus your idea that urban areas are typical is also not true, majority of fighting in afganistan was over 200 metres. I believe at least on certain occasions engagments were made over 200 metres.
"Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only."
Some more tidbits from same web page
I can find more, but frankly, Im too lazy. Use the google foo.
Well, I don't see your point. Seems like the kind og point you try to make and stack all the scarios variables in your favour. Hardly something that reflects the real world.Originally posted by roqf77:Plus you have missed my point again.
In a situation where 2 armies are facing each other with similar numbers of troops and support and quality etc, you would be even less likely to be able to gaurentee the fire support would be availible. Or even urban fighting, what if you cannot keep the fight simply to the city?
you point is based on engagements against if not terrorist but under equiped under supplied under supported under trained troops. not against a competant western nation army. in my opinion atleast.
Like; my point is that in a scenario reflected in Iraq, where Urban combat dominates the combat, you would prefer Carabines, SMGs and pistols to a Rifle.
Further more, if two modern armies where to meet their small arms would play zero role in the conflict.
-
Its not common sense, its researched fact that you do no engange the enemy these days in the rabges you say. You call in fire support.Originally posted by roqf77:1. panzer 76.
Again this is a matter of opinion. the british army does not agree. If you can engage at 500 metres plus and the enemy cant you will win most of the time. Support weapons plus rifle fire is better than just rifle fire. This is not opinion its just common sense. Plus again recently infantry engagments now are against substandardly trained opponents who cant hit over 100 yards all that much.
Indeed, in a typical engangement range the rifles will be beaten hands down (urban).Originally posted by roqf77:Again this is because of the opposition, send people from one army with carbines against people with full rifles and you will see what i mean.
-
Small arms engagement ranges has decreesed the last 50 yrs, you are no longer expected to engange the enemy at 500 m, and the majority of inf combat is fought at between 50-150 m. At this range, it really does not matter if you have a carabine or not.
So while it would be nice to have longer reach, its usually not used.
Also, with a less stable bullet, you get a tumbling effect whice creates very nasty wounds when they hit a person.
-
You needed to think long hours to come up with this?
-
I think it's safe to say that while a nice idea, it so far has not found the optimal balance, and I think it will never do so either. That is why you see a lot of more "specialised" weapons coming back and back again with each new war.Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:Submachineguns are not versatile enough to be a modern infantryman's weapon - considering that the idea behind assault rifles was to find a combination of a bolt action rifle's range and accuracy, and the SMG's firepower.
Like in Iraq, the grunts found the standard M16 quite unsuited in the Urban insurgent environment and has picked up quite a few other weapons along the way.
-
Got a source?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Bacques book has been debunked.
-
I bought CMAK so the terrorist won't win! :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
How the stuying going Jeff? Gawd damn lazy, commie students!
-
You wanted some of the most rare and uber armour that exists in CMBB, now you pay the price. Muhhaahahah.
-
CMBB, hands down. At least for me, sick and tired of WWII western front, and the greatest battles ever fought was on the eastern front. 1941-1945 with HEAPS of units, what's not to like?!?!
-
My grandad was in the resistances after the army surrendered. One day the germans captured him, and sent him to a KZ. He survived, but he never talked about it. We could only see the scars on his body.
-
Others have said that the Nafziger books are riddled with errors, search the CMAK section.
-
Was prob a PzIV, dotcha think?
Anyways, good to hear from some rear echlon people. Seems many boasts about being soldiers in the war, when they served as cooks, clercks, etc. Though, seems the cooks in the Red Army had a hard time
-
Where is the Bren :confused:
-
Is the same deal as complaing about how Counter Strike is not realistic, give me a break, it's not meant to be, neither is these RTS.
-
Mission Accomplished!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Now, I will throw out a bone...
-
I think also sometime it will show up on the kill screen of the offending unit.Originally posted by Bannon DC:But, as stated, the only way to know for sure if you actually killed a plane is to see the stats in the post-game screen.
-
Hmm.. good point that, which, as a person with no national involvement in Iraq, didn't think of.Originally posted by Bannon DC:I agree that an Iraq setting would be a buzz-kill for me. I could not play a game where there is ongoing combat and daily casualty reports. I play games to get a detachment from reality.
I wonder if BFC have thought of it, if indeed their first game will be from Iraq.
IF it is, are there many people who feel likewise?
-
I think you may also be able to hear the plane falling down if it gets shot down.Originally posted by Der Kuenstler:I know that air power cannot be controlled but is there a way to tell if the enemy shoots your plane down or if you shoot theirs down? It would be nice to know.
-
Could be, I guess we will find out pretty soonOriginally posted by Ron:I also couldn't think of a more inappropriate setting than Iraq for the first CMx2 game - I know I wouldn't even take a look lol. Perhaps why it has expired now?
-
Just pointing out that it would be a whole different ballpark if you olayed vs a human and that the tactics used in this example could be invalid in such a context. I thought you posting your little tactical nuggets were so people could comment on them, not just praise them.Originally posted by JasonC:Start your own thread and teach your own lessons, any way you like. If it is vastly superior to everything else ever offered, the forum will beat a path to your door. It is also work.
-
Steve has mentioned that the Cmx2 will go back to the roots of CM, so to speak. With more focus on small unit action, think max one Company perhaps with some heavy weapons. (fits in nicely with 1-1 modelling)Originally posted by kipanderson:My real concern with the above settings is that I cannot see how one could build a wargame set in Iraq. The entire thing is far too one sided, in the real world a very good thing if you happen to be British or American, but a very bad thing if you are trying to build an interesting, challenging wargame.
On this scale, and in urban combat, I think you could make a balanced game of Iraq. Ofcos, if you throw in lotsa armour and firesupport, you are screwed.
-
Yes, it's completly worthless information. Let's go back to speculating wildly about CMx2 with no foundation in anything else than our imagination.Originally posted by Martyr:Why does the fact that Battlefront.com (publisher of CM) holds copyright on those names suggest anything about what Big Time Software (designer of CM) is doing?
Hey, I think it will be Space Lobsters of Doom, what do you think?
-
So sweet they gave up on them ?Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:Given the date they might just've been preemptively hogging the sweet names for GW2 sims.
1944 question
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Like some use personal handguns for close combat, or that some use the good old Blubber again instead of the mounted 40 mm luncher on the M16. Or that the M14 is back in demand. etc.