MoatnGator

Gunner, I think troops in the open get too much credit. I know that I could have blasted people with my M-60 but in this game I am left with suppressive fire with few kills. Close in though it seems they are more lethal.

Gunner, I think troops in the open get too much credit. I know that I could have blasted people with my M-60 but in this game I am left with suppressive fire with few kills. Close in though it seems they are more lethal.

I am holding off my urges to invest in the full version..... valiently as I may...I am doomed to fall. This only goes to my interest in this game and willingness to supportg their cause. New releases are delayed for long periods of time and this shoud easily take the place of close combat and sudden strike on my Hard Drive. Frankly, it says a lot about the game when it can hold value for such a long period of time. This is furthered by all of the freebies that mods are offering.

Ok.... those bunkers are going down... Tonight, the heavens shall rain fire.

Holy cow!! Man, now I have something to read at work. Thanks.......

Ok. I know what I saw but I need some support. Heavy indirect fire can cause a concrete bunker to abandon. Is this true? Or are my eyes faling me. Last night I had two tganks kills and a concrete bunker kill with my 105mm offscreen fire. My FO had direct sight each time and the pummeling was intense. Any feedback?

I hate to say it, but it was a concrete bunker. A wooden bunker would not even be an issue. Those guys were getting rattled hard and then bailed... only to be slaughtered by the incoming rounds. Concrete bunkers are almost invincible but firing slit shots with tanks and artillery can still take them out. I will try the scenario again tonight but my FO had line of sight and literally pummeled that target. Have you ever been close to artillery rounds? There is no hell greater on earth. Those guys could have been green and just failed a morale check.

Boy, you guys crack me up. I have problems with Gamey as well. First of all don't cry. Infantry rushes are the norm, especially through cover. NO wait, I think I will let the machine gun crew blast me as long as he can. Really. You ever hear of the term "over running a position?" That is when a position that is superior in fire power and placement is taken by surprise and sometimes sheer numbers. No using tank crews... well boys stay under that bush for the rest of the firefight. Me an my other men will attempt this on our own. I am sorry, in real war there are more kills with knifes, pistols and entrenching tools (shovels) then many other weapons. No bounding.... Upon contact the first element lays fire while the trail element bounds way off to one side. They literally break contact, only to rejoin elsewhere with an element of suprise on a flank I agree about sending out sacrificial lambs but the rest has to go.

Thanks...Mike Mike 105mm rounds... I remember reading how tank crews would commit suicide under heavy barrages of artillery. They rather eat their gun then take the thundersous pounding rattling their skulls. Anyone know why radio operators don't like it when you say "repeat, over"?

Well as an old M-60 gunner I can only relate modern day tactics. I think the life span of a m-60 gunner was relatively short in chance encounters as fire was directed at them. In fixed positions we would map out a range card and would have avenues and elevations set on our wheels for plunging fire but this was only on exception. The 60 liked to open with an attitude and liked targets in infilade(sp?) to mamimize the kill zone. Plunging fire would require firing at a distance with minimal effect while giving away the fixed implacement. (fixed as on tripod...we could always move.) Anyway, plunging fire would negate opening for effect, revealing the position and offer opportunites for bounding to the flank early on. M203s covered covered and concealed routes and claymores were often used as well. In WWII, I do not know what would have replaced the m203s.

I saw i na different thread that somone had scored direct hits on gun positions and bunkers with smoke, causing the crews to bail for fresh air. Any such sitings?

Just my two cents worth... The bigger shells can beat up on concrete bunkers, a quick fix for an AT gun, and even take out a well entrenched tank or two. I like the soft targets but when you need to rain fire...go with the big stuff.

I suppose this would be true. Either they cannot breath or fear what is coming at them through the smoke. As a side note, when I was in the military and we were doing city clearing, we were always warned about not popping smoke in tunnels since it would provde to be disastrous for all involved. I will have to try this. The best thing for tank guns and pillboxes is some 105 mike mike. No exposure for your tanks and it takes only a couple turns worth. This usually leaves some rounds for softer targets. I then catch the softer targets with your tanks.

Having served with a Ranger battalion and an Airborne Battalion... blowing up anything was the norm. It doesn't have to be difficult. I hate seeing all those satchel charges going to waste. The computer should not figure it for you. It might take some attempts but finally I'd know three charges should do the trick. What about tanks? Blindspots last spot last ditch efforts would be great. Bunker clearing... no problem. Boom!!