Jump to content

Brightblade

Members
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Brightblade

  1. Best thing is to pin the opposing infantry/guns when you have to cross open terrain. Or use smoke (by cheap artillery or vehicles) to cover your advance.

    Sneaking seems to be cancelled sometimes when your infantry is taking fire. I´m not sure if that was intended with that order, but it seems to work a bit like the "Hunt" order for vehicles with guns or the "Move to Contact" order in CMBB.

    It can be useful if you expect enemy in some woods or something, but quite annoying when your infantry stops on open ground.

    However, it won´t work every time and I don´t know why...

  2. It´s pretty unlikely that they kill tanks, yes, but they are hard to spot and they force the tanks to remain buttoned, so your ATG is less likely to be detected or your assaulting infantry has a better chance to succeed.

    Besides that there is a low chance that the target may become immobile or recieves a gun damage.

    So, if you have some ATR, use them. But I wouldn´t waste any points on buying them.

  3. Jäger were/are light infantry.

    Their name translates as "hunter" in English, and that´s what they were originally recruited from in the early 19th century.

    They are more or less equivalent to the US army´s rangers.

    "Gebirgsjäger" (= mountain troops) and "Fallschirmjäger" (= airborne) were further specializations of the original Jäger.

    But don´t mix it up with "Feldjäger", because they are Military Police.

  4. Originally posted by Andreas:

    Err, both the lFH18, the US 105mm M2A1 howitzer and the British 25-pdr have shields. Shields were used on many guns/howitzers (standard artillery pieces) that could expect to see direct combat, even if this was not necessarily their primary purpose. They are usually not present on the heavy guns, but with the lighter field pieces they are quite normal.
    Ok then, I´m beaten.

    I still have the strong feeling that the IGs, be they light or heavy, were used to fire over open sights, but unfortunately I found no reference to sustain that feeling.

    And please read closely - I did not say the regiment would by addition of a cannon company be able to act 'independently'. I said it would be able to act 'more independently'. I am perfectly well aware that the Division was the smallest unit capable of independent sustained action.
    You´re right here of course. But I never doubted that. In an earlier posting I assumed that the IGs had that high elevation to allow their use as artillery, e.g. when division artillery wasn´t available.

    Still, that says nothing about the primary use of the IG33, direct fire or indirect fire or both in equal shares.

  5. If you look at the IG33 you will notice a steel plate to protect the crew - from direct fire (it´s more or less useless against indirect fire). Standard artillery pieces do not have such a shield.

    So it seems to me that the sIG was designed for direct fire (fire over open sights), same as the high elevation suggests that it could be used in a indirect mode.

    I doubt that a regiment was supposed to act independently. The smallest independent unit in WW2 was a division.

    [ August 18, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

  6. Oh, and what Stalin and the Soviet forces did was all OK, yes? Just like killing several thousand Polish officers and blaming the Germans for it after the war, although it was the Germans who discovered this atrocity.

    Almost every country has some very dark spots in its history, but almost everyone seems only to think of Germany in that fatal twelve years when it´s about atrocities.

    Admittedly, the annihilation of people was industrialized in the KZs, but that doesn´t help the millions of people who died in Siberia by Stalin´s orders.

    Most people seem to forget or ignore that. But then, the Soviet Union didn´t lose the war, Germany did. And the victor writes history...

  7. Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com

    Excuse me, but I'm from a German-language country where a site like Eichenbaum's is definitely illegal. Please, please, Matt, forgive me for having concerns about Neonazism. I start to wonder if Dutch law enforcement (I think I read somewhere that Eichenbaum is from the Netherlands, correct me if I'm wrong) has as liberal views on this issue as you do and also wonder if I should ask them to check my concerns about the website in question.

    AFAIK the law in Germany (which is the country with the most restrictive laws on Third Reich symbols (again AFAIK)) permits the even usage swastikas - in a historical context. Which includes for example plastic models of aircrafts, tanks etc.

    However, I have to admit that some stupid idiots use this as an excuse to cover their (IMO very strange) political opinion.

    Anyway, the Iron Cross is NOT a Third Reich symbol. That medal was founded in the Liberation Wars (1814 IIRC) and therefor is much older than the idea of Nazism and it has been in use in every German army (or Prussian before 1871) since then.

    So why not use it on a military homepage?

  8. Originally posted by Bastables:

    ...but the 3d penetrations were part of the big deal in creating a 3d battle field in the first place.

    I was just wondering because I lost some JPz IV/70 (in CMBO) in Hull Down position on the top of a hill against some 76mm guns (Hellcats) in a valley below, about 500m away. Front upper hull penetrations, no weak point. That was really strange, because the Hellcats shouldn´t have managed that even if the IV/70´s armor had been "only" as sloped as it is, much less if sloped positions and hight differences were taken into account.
  9. Originally posted by MikeyD:

    If that Hetzer was also hull-down like your tanks -- on the back side of a hill -- the angle of the ground is included with the vehicle's bow angle. On a 10 degree slope the Hetzer's armor is 10 degrees greater, on a 20 degree slope it's 20 degrees greater. I recall holding off the entire British army with a single hull-down Jpz IV on a slope back in CMBO days. At angles like that there's precious little that could get a reliable penetration!
    Are you sure? I knew side angles are calculated but I never knew that slopes would make a difference. Though that would be realistic, of course.

    What happens if the target is lower than the gun? Is the armor angle reduced as it would be in RL?

×
×
  • Create New...