Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Ant

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    404

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Ant

    New Combat Mission game Announced. Combat Mission: Afrika Korps!!!

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Determinant:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:

    Will we get those very cool LRDG & SAS dessert trucks

    Are those the ones that carry trifles, spotted dick, bread and butter pudding, and sticky toffee pudding? With custard in the radiators?

    Sorry, the image was too arresting not to run with it... ;)

    But it would be excellent to have the units to model rear-area raids. </font>

    0

    Men-to-men and house-to-house fighting in WW2

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Well I can confirm the bit about the commandos is true. There was a TV series on in the UK last year about the commandos in WW2 and a couple of the old ex commandos definitely said that it was easy to break a German sentry's neck from behind because of the shape of the helmet.

    I agree that the helmets didn't change though. Probably not very cost effective to change the helmets of your entire army on the off chance that a commando might sneak up behind a few soldiers

    0

    20mm or MG against infantry?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com:

    This is actually a little weakness of the game engine. 20mm machine-cannons are the single most deadly guns that can be used on infantry.

    Why?

    Answer: More suppression and shrapnel per time interval than any tank or field direct-fire-gun.

    Didn't 20mm come in both HE and AP? I don't know just curious. Maybe if it's AP 20mm then it wouldn't have as much effect on infantry.
    0

    Historical Article at www.wargamer.com

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    As a wargamer everyone should know, what's the difference between classical attack constellations and how defensive positions need to look like (especially with 100+ divisions in such a huge country).
    Yes we should. The problem is that we, and some historians who postulate this theory, are looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight. We know how blitzkrieg works, we know all about modern armoured warfare, we know about fluid defence and attack. The problem is that in 1941 they didn't have that hindsight. Strategists were still trying to analyse and digest what had happened in western europe. A lot of the military thinking at the time still had one eye on the first world war. The soviets had been major innovators in mobile warfare in the 30s but thanks to Stalins purges the red army had gone backwards since then. We know now from history that the Soviet dispositions in 1941 weren't very good for defence.........but did the soviets know that in 1941? especially considering that their best officers were gone and in many cases whole divisions were commanded by men who should only really have been commanding brigades. As far as those inexperienced men were concerned putting as many men on your borders as possible was a perfectly valid defence strategy, we know different now but the point is they didn't at the time, and even if they had who would have voiced his opinion in the climate that prevailed in the red army?
    0

    Historical Article at www.wargamer.com

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    1. how can it be explained, that over 100 soviet divisions were concentrated on the german border?

    2. how was it possible to destroy 2000 soviet fighters placed that close to the german border, within the first 24 hours?

    Because the soviets believed in trying to defend their borders just like everybody else did :rolleyes:

    When I first read about this theory of the pre-emptive German strike on a red army that was poised to attack anyway I was quite intrigued. I like different perspectives on history. It's true that the victors write the history books and you sometimes need to read a lot of stuff to try and get past the 'propaganda' However, after poking around in libraries and reading the theories and counter theories on this I deduced (and this is only my opinion on what I've read about it) That the Soviets may well have intended to attack Germany at some point, but they weren't ready to do so for at least a further year or more. Also the German attack on the Soviet Union had nothing to do with a pre-empive 'defensive attack' As has been mentioned Hitler always planned to use Russia for 'Lebensraum'(sp?) and the German attack was nothing less than an agressive invasion, nothing to do with defence at all.

    0

    Hand to Hand Combat

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Bayonets were not really originally intended to be used against infantry anyway. Their conception came about in the old musket and powder days as a means to defend against a cavalry charge. Their use in modern warfare is largely a holdover from the past and I think the main reason for their continued existence is the thought that it's better to have one than not, and, as has been mentioned, for morale purposes.

    0

    Diesel vs. Gas

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by flamingknives:

    Jet aircraft do not need filters. If they did, then a supersonic aircraft would be impossible, rather than the other way around.

    You could argue that the previous photo of the 737 engine rather demonstrates that they do. It's just that their need for filters is far far outweighed by the impracticalities of actually having them
    0

    Diesel vs. Gas

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by sGTGoody:

    Yes you can put filters on jet engines. If you wanted to have huge intakes to provide needed airflow then designing the ducts to provide the proper shockwave is the least of your worries. Civilian aircraft don't even need the ducting because of the different characteristics of their engines. While filters would be impractical in the extreem they are by no means impossible.

    Sorry, confusion of terms. I'm aware that you can put filters on jet ENGINES. As previosly mentioned about helicopters, and no doubt Abrams tanks. My point was that I was under the impression you couldn't put them on jet AIRCRAFT that fly at 600mph. I was trying to make the point (rather badly unfortunately :( ) that the reason jet AIRCRAFT don't have filters is not because the engines don't need them but because they are totally impractical.
    0

    Diesel vs. Gas

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Well you could but you would have to have an intake that was gigantic in order to get enough air flow
    No you can't. A jet aircraft intake is far more complex than most people realise. It's not just a case of funnelling enough air into the engine. It needs to produce a correct shockwave (or several for military a/c) in order to slow the air enough so that the engine can handle it. A gas turbine engine cannot handle an airflow that is as fast as modern jet aircraft can fly.
    0
×
×
  • Create New...