[Greatest Submachine Gun of WWII]

Prevented mounting of a scope too didn't it?

No

[Could Russia have won alone?]

And they never had any realistic way of dealing with the Americans, in the long run. Making all of the above rather moot.

They didn't think they'd have to. The Germans figured that even if the US did enter the war they'd be powerless to do anything in Europe unless they could get supplies across the Atlantic to the UK. At that time the battle of the Atlantic was still going in Germany's favour and the U-boats were having a field day, so it was logical at the time to think that the US would be powerless to intervene in Europe; particularly as the US navy was also busy fighting Japan.

Of course the Germans didn't anticipate that the battle of the Atlantic would turn so heavily in favour of the allies in such a relatively short space of time.

[Best of the best in the second world war]

Otto Skorzeny (June 12, 1908 - July 5, 1975) was a colonel in the German Waffen-SS during World War II and is considered by many as the best commando in the history of modern warfare.

I'm sure there was a discussion on this forum about this guy a wee while back.

As far as I remember he was greatly over-rated and had very little active role in the rescuing of Mussolini. He was more or less just along for the ride as a passenger but greatly exaggerated his own role.

At least that's what I remember a few of the grogs saying

[problematic PIATs]

Interesting site, thanks.

One thing I did pick up on though:

but in 1941 rocket technology was still in it's infancy.

Yeah, we'd only been using rockets since the battle of Waterloo in 1815

[problematic PIATs]

I have read accounts of Soviets using captured panzerfausts in the manner described, ie. to produce makeshift doors in buildings during house to house fighting. So such tactics aren't entirely unknown.

[problematic PIATs]

but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing

He's talking about blowing holes in walls, so I'm assuming that he must mean the backblast from the shell actually hitting the wall and exploding, rather than the backblast of the weapon itself.

[problematic PIATs]

but an Allied officer in BF's new book The CMAK Companion mentions how hazardous it was to launch a PIAT in a building, due to the backblast.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Are you sure he was talking about the PIAT? One of the advantages was that it could be fired from confined spaces because it didn't have a backblast.

In fact it would be impossible for it to have a backblast as the rear was enclosed. It did, however, have quite a fearsome recoil. In fact the recoil was supposed to recock the firing spring, unfortunately if the firer didn't brace himself properly this didn't happen and a very awkward manual recock was required.

[What games are you playing beside CM?]

RPGs of Course being, in this instance, Role Playing Games and not Rocket Propelled Grenades

I should have known better than to use that term on a wargaming forum

[What games are you playing beside CM?]

Originally posted by Beer:

Baldur's Gate 2 is absolutely fantastic. Never have I been more engrossed in a game. Dont let the nerdy D&D stuff fool you, this game rocks.

I'm a big fan of the Baldur's Gate series, and RPGs in general.

Have you tried 'Planescape Torment'? Made by the same company who did BG2 and regarded by many as the best RPG ever.

[problematic PIATs]

Yes. It was actually developed from a mortar design.

[problematic PIATs]

the piat is propelled by a spring.

Well that's not strictly true. The projectile had a propellant in the tail, the spring firing pin was there to provide ignition.

[How do I get my units to move?]

If you're playing on a PC then you need to left click the unit to get a box round it, then right click to bring up the orders menu.

As far as I remember if you look in the folder in which the demo is installed there should be a readme file which lists all the commands.

[Why WW2?]

Another good reason for keeping to WW2 is to keep your fan base. I would assume that everybody here is interested in WW2 otherwise we wouldn't be here. Taking the CM series in to another war or time frame might lose a lot of customers and not necessarily gain any new ones.

I for one would not buy CMX2 if it portrayed the ACW and maybe not if it portrayed Korea or vietnam either. I definitely would buy it if it was Napoleonic but then many other people wouldn't.

Stick to what the majority of CM fans like, and that is WW2.

[Italian tank hunters]

Originally posted by yacinator:

really nice,long and informative post koening. u have a very good point molotov's coctails should be made availible to italians. and to the americans and germans and brits and every other army in the game. i didn't do any research and i don't know if the use of molotov's coctails by allied armies is documented but i'm sure that some soldier used it. also the italian seem to be using german hand grenades.

LOL. There's currently a thread in the CMBB forum complaining about molotovs being so useless that they actually want them removed. From what's been said there I think molotovs would actually diminish the italian AT capability

It's not just Italians that suffer from this in CMAK. There was a discussion a wee while back about British/commonwealth forces being handicapped by lack of squad AT weapons too.

[My disappointment with CMBB]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

I agree with Manstein22:

AT-guns are sometimes way too easily spotted (i hope the new engine will allow to give AT-guns extra camouflage-levels).

Especially the fantastic 88 is almost useless in close engagements, although they were used that way, too. They were even moved on the HKL during the battle.

In general i'm missing the brave behaviour of German and Russian gun-crews. They take cover, although in reality they kept shooting as fast as possible. The rules for taking cover of AT-crews should be modeled different from those to infantry.

I thought that during WW2 AT guns were very easily spotted once they'd fired (no smokeless ammo, dust kicked up etc.)

From my experience I find that AT guns are pretty good at remaining hidden until they actually fire.

[Armour. How has it progressed???]

I could try but she wasn't saying much about it last time we met up.

[Armour. How has it progressed???]

Armour grogs might be interested in the latest British idea in armour protection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

I've actually got a friend who's working on this.

[engineers vs. pioneers]

can somebody tell me which bmps r palm trees i'm trying to make a coconut mod

Are you doing a pacific theatre mod? Because I'm sure some botany grog will be along soon to tell you that there aren't any coconuts in North Africa

[Low visibility on projectiles in the desert]

The question of why they appear so slow on TV remains though.

If something is travelling directly toward, or away, from you then it appears stationary. So it all depends on its velocity in relation to your viewing angle.

I remember an interview with an old Battle of Britain Hurricane pilot in which he describes being shot at by gunners on German bombers.

He said that the tracers would arc outwards very slowly, almost away from you; and you thought they'd missed you by miles. Then all of a sudden they'd alarmingly arc back in again toward you and speed up.

[Low visibility on projectiles in the desert]

Originally posted by Juju:

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

This may not be quite what you want, but I believe there are some high-visibility tracer mods at http://www.cmmods.com I'm not sure though if they'd work in CMAK - perhaps one of the hard-core modders can say.

They work. furthermore, there's different colors to choose from. </font>

[Pz Gdrs not SPW hotrodders - US MTO experience]

That is all. If you want to attack, get out and sneak.

The problem I have, and it may be one more of perception than reality, is that I get the impression that an average CM scenario doesn't give me enough time for the luxury of sneaking about everywhere. Infantry sneaking goes nowhere fast. I often look at the turn counter and think 'god, I've got to hurry this up'

Maybe that's why some people like the idea of HTs getting infantry to places quickly.

[Pz Gdrs not SPW hotrodders - US MTO experience]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Yes, but in Real Life, tanks provide cover for infantry. In CM, they don't. I think I'll stick with "gamey" until my infantry can cower behind advancing tanks.

I remember reading somewhere that infantry advancing behind tanks..using them for cover..is a bit of a hollywood myth.

It may seem sensible initially but it's not a great idea in reality. Infantry bunched up behind tanks can make a better target than infantry spread out. Tanks also tend to attract a lot of fire, all of which will be lethal to infantry. In fact I remember reading a historical military document that specifically told infantry not to do this (it was ETO though)

This was discussed on these forums..either the CMBB or CMBO ones.

[Corpse/casualty figure for dead vehicle crew?]

Side note : When a AFV is killed on a bridge, and the AFV falls into the water,

LOL. I've never seen that before. I'm going to spend my time now placing all my vehicles on bridges precariously close to the edge

[Corpse/casualty figure for dead vehicle crew?]

I got an armoured car hit with the whole crew killed only yesterday, and there weren't any bodies.

[Fallschirmjägergewehr 42]

After Crete, the Germans recognized the flaw in using the weapons containers to drop the personal weapons.

They should have realised that before Crete. There was an incident during the invasion of Holland where the paratroops captured a bridge using pistols as they'd got separated from their weapons containers.