BadgerDog
-
Posts
1,451 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BadgerDog
-
-
Edit: wrong forum.. sorry ..
-
I notice that the Mac version creates a chat file in the shared dropbox of an opponent, even if he isn't using CM Helper? It prompts emails from opponents asking what it is...
As a result, the CM Helper main screen shows a Chat icon indicating one can chat with that opponent, even though it's impossible to do so since they aren't using CM Helper..
The old HtH program never did this .. :confused:
Regards,
Doug
-
If you guys don't want Decals, I can suggest we remove them.
... and, what are you smoking?
Regards,
Doug
-
Milsurps Knowledge Library - Russia (click here)
(Mfg. by the Izhevsk Arms Factory)
1909 M91/38 Mosin Nagant Carbine
(Mfg by the Imperial Tula Arms Factory)
(Mfg. by the Tula Arms Factory)
(Mfg by Tula)
1944 Mosin-Nagant M91-30 Sniper Rifle
(Mfg by Ishevsk Arsenal)
... these are just a few of the models ...
All the specs for each rifle are there, including length, weight etc etc ... plus extensive photo montages...
Also, this is some fun range video of one of the MILSURPS.COM members Scott at the Milcun training facility, zeroing his Russian 1941 Russian 14.5 mm PTRD anti-tank rifle, then engaging targets at 100 and 400 meters.
1941 Russian 14.5 mm PTRD Anti-tank Rifle (Range Video)
Regards,
Doug
-
What exactly are you using that drum for?
Perhaps a little too metaphoric ...
For those that have never been packed into the driver's compartment of an M4 for endless hours, I was trying to create a visualization for them, as to what it feels like ...
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Anyway, I apologize folks (again)..
I'm afraid I've lost my own focus (again) and I really don't want to get back into this endless loop of trying to make the point that it's just a game, no more, no less.
There's simply no current ability to program for the processing power available on any PC platform, what real life was like working with these old M4’s. So, there are trade-offs....
I’m out of this thread and back to enjoying the game….
Regards,
Doug
-
You have strong opinions on this topic, BD. And you may be right. But we need to see some credentials.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night..
Regards,
Doug
-
You have an interesting idea of "fun".
Fun .. wow !!
Well, I was earning a huge $7.50/day (1964) and I spent 15 hour days for 2 months sitting in an M4 driving compartment under those type of circumstances.
The I got promoted and I got to sit upstairs in the gunner's seat ...
Regards,
Doug
-
Here's a fun way of finding out...
Spend $40 (or less) and get one of these ...
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Go out to a target range in the middle of the summer at noon that has 4 footers at distances out to 1,000 yards.
Sit in a 45 gallon empty drum wearing coveralls, turned down naked to the waste .... make sure the temperature inside warms up to 100 degrees plus, put on head phones and play "noisy" radio type chatter (or hip hop.. same thing) loudly though them, while simultaneously having someone beat on the outside of the drum rhythmically with a rubber mallet.
While that's going on, stick the M6 peri up so you can see down range and scan using two hands, left and right, then up and down. If you can see much of anything past 200-300 yards sitting in the open (let alone attempting to be hidden), or virtual anything past that range, I'll buy you dinner at the best place in town.
Regards,
Doug
-
Even more importantly, someone like a buttoned driver of a tank has 0% chance of spotting anything to the rear and probably no chance of spotting something to the sides either.
... and, probably very very little to the front as well, except if they passed in front of his peri at 50 yards...
Edit: sorry, didn't realize where I was posting ...
Regards,
Doug
-
From the locked thread.
I'm not sure I can provide a definitive answer. Here are my test results.
Thank you partner.... very gracious of you and I really appreciate the effort you've put in to address my question ...
To be honest, regardless of how bad my little virtual electronic units are in this game at spotting opponents tanks, it's nothing as compared to how bad I was in real life, sitting in the cupola of an M4 Sherman trying to spot other Shermans "hull down", or AT guns (even worse) at any distances over 500 yards....
Most of the time I didn't see them until their turrets moved to direct fire on me, or the there was a puff of smoke from the AT gun as it laid the lumber to me. :eek:
So, I should be thrilled I've got better with age, even if it is a virtual battlefield...
Regards,
Doug
-
I have done BFC as customer a flavor. I was treated bad by their beta tester.
They owe me an apology.
Hey partner...
I'm just an old veteran (literally), who's really enjoyed this game over the last 10 years (or more).
I've developed a lot of terrific on-line friendships and had hundreds of hours of fun entertainment for very little money.
Perhaps we could get together, play some PBEM games and chat using GreenAsJade's excellent Head to Head program?
Maybe we can try some large purely amoured engagements?
If you're interested, send me an email to badger@milsurps.com
Regards,
Doug
-
1) The Panzer IV is at a significant spotting disadvantage vs. the Sherman.
I am in the process of testing this. Early results suggest it is probably not true.I'd be really curious about the results of this testing ...
I'm currently in a large CMBN match with nothing but PzIV's against Shermans. The map is huge and the engagement distances are very long range.
I'm getting the floor wiped by Shermans who spot my PzIV's, even sitting in wood lines and I have yet to see one of them first. In fact, I'm lost 2-3 PzIV's to one Sherman that was actually sitting out in the open picking them off. It wasn't until 2 turns later until a Jagd crew elsewhere on the map spotted it. I realize it's an anecdotal observation, but it's consistent in this particular match.
I thought the German tanks were supposed to have superior optics that shined at long ranges for spotting and accuracy... :confused:
Regards,
Doug
-
As everybody is going on about how $hitty hull down is in the game I thought I would share this anecdote, and this is just one example from the many I have seen and noted in my AARs.
Thanks Bill....
What was the range of the engagement?
Regards,
Doug
-
Wow, thanks!
You're welcome ...
An afterthought, based upon your original question ...
It would a nice thing (command) to have where one could click on a movement end point, but it was one where it meant, move to the next position near that point on the ground that places the vehicle in a "hull down" position using the LOS relative to the mid point of it's front facing arc
It would certainly save old eyes like mine a LOT of time checking each movement end point to ensure I was presenting as low a "front facing" silhouette as possible and not sitting exposed on open ground.
I do miss the real world "turret down" observation, where one pulled up behind a crest or obstacle and stood on top of the turret, scanning ground ahead for threats, before hopping back down into the CC's hatch and creeping forward into a "hull down", repeating the scanning process again, then doing the "jockey" drill mentioned above.
I'd certainly lose less tanks that way and maybe see the "bad guys" sooner than I do now.
Also, it's a great way to execute a "troop ambush" on a force moving towards you.Regards,
Doug
-
Badger Dog,
would you say it is correct, that a buttoned down tank, moving in the field, is almost blind (to see small objects farther away)? (because the shaked observer's head moves chaotically against the optics?
I imagine it's the same as when looking through binocs while driving with a car. But much worse.
In an M4A2E8 Sherman, absolutely correct and your analogy is close, but it is even worse.
We would always "stop" to scan for threats (in order .... foreground, middle ground, then distance), then resume moving to the next hull (or turret) down fire position, picking those stops out on the ground to our front, much like one clicks on movement points in the game.
I remember that a veteran long time ago told me, that therefore tanks do not move all at the same time, when a threat is expected. For example, two are standing still in overwatch position, one is moving.
I also read, that a tank in combat either moves at high speed, or is standing still. Would fit to the above thesis.
Absolutely... the principle was mutual fire support and movement. One covers (and scans) while his wingman moves. Also, you never went over a crest you were behind in a hull (or turret down) position. You always "jockeyed", which means reverse off the fire position, reverse slightly sideways, then come over the crest in a different position getting the driver to minimize "oil smoke blowing" during the process. Kind of defeats the process when the bad guys can see puffs of smoke rising up in intervals as you move laterally behind the crest. It's actually quite funny to see from the other side when you observe this "choo choo" steam train effect with an inexperienced driver pumping up and down on the accelerator with complete ignorance as to the trail he was leaving.
(An aside.. of course this effect isn't emulated in the game, but dust trails etc are.)The theory was that any AT threat that had observed you in your first fire position and "layed" their gun on you, would have to re-sight and re-lay that aim point while you were in motion coming over the crest in a different spot.
Regards,
Doug
-
BadgerDog,
Tell us...everything! It isn't every day we get someone on the Forums who's served on a Easy Eight. Okay, never that I know of. As far as I'm concerned, what you've experienced and know are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, I have no gelt to give.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thank you John.. appreciate the gracious comments...
However, I'm in my 66th year now and it was over 45 years ago that I trained on the M4 series, spending roughly 3-4 years in them before we switched over to the Centurion and after that the Leopard ...
When I comment here, it's usually because someone has said something that triggers old memories and flashbacks that I thought were long gone. With the passing of time, they may be either inaccurately remembered, or simply morphed into something completely different than the reality of the time. In old folks like me, the mind and memory recall can be "hit and miss".
Regardless, I can say with confidence that this is just a GAME and not a real world simulator. The M4 for sure and I assume all of the other equipment modeled, is designed (coded) to create an inexpensive commercially available product for enjoyable interactive game play, on a computer processing platform that's economically available to the masses.
It is NOT designed to be a real world simulator of an actual M4, or it's peers of the day, nor is it designed to emulate accurately the real world physics of the machine, gun platform, or the crew's capabilities (spotting as an example) in handling it.
I think far too much time is spent by grognards beating on each other here in posts with Internet research, old vehicle manuals, contemporary field reports and other sources of data, attempting to convince Battlefront they need to change this and that for more realism etc...
Several areas and functions about the game version of the M4, as I remember the real world experience with them, is so far off my recollections of how it really worked, that we'd go crazy trying to achieve a reality that's not possible with today's PC processing power. Not only that, I firmly believe the commercial audience would be so low and the product so complex with a really steep learning curve (more than it is now), that it wouldn't be worth programming for.
Steel Beasts is a good example. A great simulator brought to the masses at $100 plus per copy, and at that level of price only because it's purchased for many of the world's armies as an actual training tool for it's armored soldiers. If that subsidization didn't occur, I doubt it would be a viable publicly available commercial product and the price would have to be twice that or more, simply because of the limited market demographic of who would buy that kind of realism based product.
I think we need to maintain game playability and the fun factor!!!
Having old folks like me trying to live in the past and be too critical of something that can never achieve the appropriate reality anyway, is just a waste of time.
I've said it before, but again.... it's just a game! I love it for that and it's the only entertainment product I've stuck with for over 10 years. Battlefront is a small "lifestyle" business and they are good people making a living in a tough commercial environment for gaming. I enjoy trying to help them, or this community with that, in any way I can.
When you combine Battlefront's attempts to satisfy the realism folks along with their commercial need to maintain the playability and fun factor for the casual gamer, I think they do a pretty darn good job.
Just my opinion...
Regards,
Doug
-
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is my understanding that the Sherman gunner had 2 sights available to him.
My apologies partner ...
I thought you were purely referencing the gunners sighting telescope....
Yes, the gunner's periscope was available, but it was next to useless unless stationary. In motion, one couldn't practically use it without all kinds of "pushing and pulling" the mount to try and keep a level view.
When stationary, yes you could level it, then view through it, but like all of the optical peri's, it was a real challenge to see much, at least for my 18 year old eyes in those days ..
We all mostly relied on the CC (hatch open, or cracked slightly open with wedge support), to use his bino's (stationary was really the most useful), in order to properly scan and locate targets.
Spotting as part of a tank crew in this game is far too accurate and quick, as compared to the reality of what it was actually like for M4 type of tanks. I would assume that the same also applies to the German equipment, of course with variances in optic quality etc.
Having said that (several times in the last 10 years), if it was modeled as a perfect real world M4 simulator, it would be absolutely boring in game action and playability.
Yes I get as frustrated as any of the folks here when I see "stuff" that is either a physics impossibility on an M4, or simply wouldn't happen in real life, but..... It's just a game! .. and I love it for what it is, which is why it's held my short attention span for so many years ...
Regards,
Doug
-
Ian, you are not wrong. In fact I bet in a real tank that the loader, radio operator, and driver rarely, if ever, are actively on the look out for enemy tanks. The loader maybe more than the other two, but when the tank is actively engaging enemy armor he too should be taken out of the mix for spotting.
The main spotting assets are in the turret, that is the gunner and the TC, the loader as well when the tank isn't firing its gun.
Bil
100% correct Bill ...
The driver and the bow gunner were rarely tasked to be scanning for targets. If they were, it meant we were in really deep doo doo and sitting exposed. The primary role of the driver was to end up in a "hull down" and therefore he and the bow gunner were only seeing "grass and dirt" through their peri's.
If I was seeing open ground through my peri, I would catch sh$$ from the CC over the IC with lots of yelling until I sought out and pulled up into a position where my view was blocked. I'd usually spend hours in that kind of a position either napping or eating.
As a loader OP, you were so busy ensuring the Coax was filled with .30, the ready bins were full of the right mix of AP, HE and smoke for the mission, and the inside of the turret metal around you was wiped as clean as you get it so the "ring of fire" that went round the inside of the turret when a round went off and was ejected, didn't catch that surface, or some loose article on fire as well.
I certainly didn't have time to be freakin scanning. That was the CC's primary job, along with his gunner.
Regards,
Doug
-
Hey Badgerdog, did the Shermans you use have the original sights? My understanding is that the gunner could use his periscope to scan around independent of where the gun was pointing. Is that correct and what were the limits as to how far it could be turned?
I don't know what "original" means in the context of the M4A2E8 version of the Sherman I trained on...
Sighting telescope was zeroed at 10x10 foot target at 1,000 yards (exactly measured), using “thread” taped in a cross pattern to front of barrel and sighting down the bore physically. Once done, it and the the Coaxial Browning .30 MG is aligned with wrenches to the same sight picture to master weapon (76mm).
The sighting telescope in all our Shermans I trained on was "fixed" to that zeroing technique and the only way I (as a gunner) could scan, was to move the turret laterally with my hand wheel (power traverse wasn't granular enough for small movements) or elevate and depress the gun (and coax) with manual hand wheel.
Regards,
Doug
-
No wonder I'm getting the crap kicked out of me by an opponent using M4's against nothing but my PzIV's ...
On a huge map, I'm getting clobbered at long distance and I have yet to see the M4's doing it...
The rounds are coming out of nowhere on the map and I can't even get a partial location of where they're coming from..
Heck, he even sees me when I'm in a wood line partially obscured...
Regards,
Doug
-
Real life...
In tank to tank training exercises, we engaged M4A2E8's with our own M4A2E8's ...
From experience, scanning ground with binos from a cupola, or standing on top of turret behind a reverse slope (turret down which is not modeled in game), spotting another "hull down" Sherman at 500 yards plus is a real challenge.
You were trained to look for "shape, surface, shadow, silhouette and movement" when looking for enemy vehicles. It was often the turret shape, or glint of optics you'd see first in a wide area scan, that brought you back into a narrow focus scan to check what you thought you'd saw. If the enemy Sherman CC had camo'd up his turret to break up the silhouette, then it was almost freakin impossible to spot a "quiet" hull down Sherman unless he moved his turret, or the driver leaned on an idling engine and blew some errant smoke (oil burn) out the back that rose up into the air.
Camo'ing the turret wasn't often done because those freakin tree pieces dried out and tended to droop, getting in the way of the optics. periscopes and cupola glass. What we did do was fasten spare track pads and other gear around the turret, which broke up silhouettes somewhat, but also would act as additional dampening of a hit in the turret by incoming rounds.
Just my two cents for what it's worth ...
Regards,
Doug
-
I find the dynamic between Sherman tanks and german 20 mm AA guns a bit strange. When my tank encounters one of these guns, I usually find out be hearing the 20 mm shells bounce off the front of the tank, which results in the crew popping smoke, and the tank retreating.
Getting hit in the turret while closed down by .30 cal Browning MG rounds was enough for me to leave a "puddle" on the floor of the turret...
I can't imagine what 20mm rounds would be like, except I'm sure if I were the CC, I'd be hollering over the intercom "driver reverse.. driver reverse.. driver reverse ...now!!!!" ....
For sure, 20 mm rounds would rip the hell out of anything attached to the turret and probably screw up the periscopes with any kind of a hit....
Regards,
Doug
-
I carried (crew served weapon) and qualified several times on the Sten Gun in 1964/65, before it was replaced with the Sterling SMG...
Although rated out to 200 yards, the qualification range was 35 yards and it was always short 3 round bursts, if you could hold her to that. Very inexpensively made weapon ....
IMHO, past 50 yards or so, you'd be lucky to hit anything deliberately, but you'd probably scare the daylights out of the other side...
Just my opinion ..
Regards,
Doug
ps: here is a link to one in my collection ..
-
Follow up...
In thinking about the LOS issue, in my opinion, it would be more realistic if they added 6 foot additional height to viewing LOS of tanks that are unbuttoned ...
It would represent the crew commander's ability to be "turret down" and stand on top of the turret to view over obstacles, just like we used to do in real life..
The one thing that's very poorly modeled here is the distance and accuracy a CC can see when closed up. It's very unrealistic, at least in the Sherman. You can't see squat through the armored glass and viewing any distances is impossible.
I've never seen any substantial change in viewing accuracy, speed or distance whether a Sherman CC is closed up or unbuttoned, except unbuttoned he gets whacked a lot by small arms fire.
Regards,
Doug
CMH Vehicle Pack detection
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
It's working today fine....
It wasn't working yesterday, so I assume some form of auto update for 1.4.2 addressed the issue?
Thanks ...
Regards,
Doug