White Phosphorus
-
Posts
194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by White Phosphorus
-
-
I was taking out the garbage on the 4th of July, somebody threw a whistler, and I thought. "NO it can't be. How could they call in heavy artillery in under a minute."
-
Soviet misidentification.
Tank = Tiger/Panther
Stug = Artshturm
Non-stug assault gun = Ferdinand.
How could they manage to misidentify an assault gun as a panther?
Also, has anybody actually seen any concrete numbers on the literacy rate of the red army?
-
IIRC, they have a nominal blast rating of 1. Most bursting AP rounds had a delay fuse (or base fuse) to give the shell time to penetrate. When fired into a soft target (like mud), this delay would usually mean the round has buried itself too deeply in the ground to provide a useful blast. Of course, solid shot is even worse. Basically, you'd have to hit someone (or hit something that sprays splinters around) to do anything besides get their attention. [/QB]</font>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
[QBDo AP shells have their own blast rating? I managed to put an 82mm (blast 26 as much as a 57mm HE) mortar shell into a marder, and only got it to button up.
-
Do AP shells have their own blast rating? I managed to put an 82mm (blast 26 as much as a 57mm HE) mortar shell into a marder, and only got it to button up.Originally posted by Amedeo:Is AP rounds effect against intantry in CMBB affected by the presence (or absence) of the HE filler and by its size? I presume that a solid AP shot should be times less effective than an AP round with filler that, in turn sould be marginally less effective than an AP round with a large HE filler. (All other things bein equal, of course).
-
Does infantry's exposure go up when they are in wired woods? Wouldn't reduced exposure imply that the woods have been cleared somewhat to lay the wire, or to provide the defenders with better observation of the attackers entangled in the obstacle.
-
Well didn't the USSR buy most of it's tech from the west anyways? The Lend-lease was just a continuation of the process, but instead of confiscated gold the USSR was paying in blood.Originally posted by John Kettler:Even disregarding the nuclear stuff, what do you figure the technological value of Lend-Lease was to the Soviets, given their relatively weak technology base compared to the U.S.?
Regards,
John Kettler
-
This is modern russian newspaper, it could be with definite anti-communistic bias.</font>Originally posted by Keke:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rum:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:
From Pravda (which is a Russian newspaper):
-
What is significant? Could you post some numbers.Originally posted by Keke:I'd like to remind you that it was not only trucks. Significant amounts of tanks, aircrafts, canned food, boots etc. etc. belonged to the lend-lease material.
-
"Battle stations" on the T-34: "The T-34 had sloped armor and an 85 millimeter gun". That's as far as the discussion of the armament went.
-
There definitely needs to be a air TRP kind of like aerial are fire at least for scenario purposes. I mean, if you are assaulting a BIG hill, and the pilots are ordered to bomb a BIG hill then they should attack that hill and not waste their time on crap near the hill. Now if you take the hill before the aircraft arrive they would still bomb that hill. Also aircraft formation would be really nice. Why does each airplane show up whenever it feels like it. Shouldn't they do it en masse?
The above would allow some really cool operations. I.E. during battle 5 reinforcement will include five IL-2s, and they all bomb an enemy strong point at the same time. If you push too hard, and try to get things done before battle five, the strongpoint would generate murderous Long range AT fire. The player would be forced to pace the operation in such a way as to make most use of the preplanned bombing run.
Or maybe when buying the air unit you could select it's mode of attack, preplanned vs free roam.
Also, where are napalm and cluster bombs???
-
You could also say pli пли. I think it was outdated by the time of WWII.
If you want the wav number, do a search for my name on the CMBB forum, I posted a list of russian wavs while back.
-
I think large armored battles are calculated much slower than the infantry ones. The armor hits take quite a bit of processing to figure out. In fact I can actually predict what will happen in the replay just by looking at the loading bar. Try killing a Ferdinand with a battalion of AT rifles, the turns turn will take forever to process.Originally posted by MikeyD:As for game speed, I believe the current version may be about 6-7% faster at processing. Processing speed depends on scenario. If you're manhandling an infantry battalion on each side that'll of course process slower than an all-armor quickbattle with a half dozen tanks each.
-
http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Weapons/flamethrowers/backpack_flamethrowers.htm
At least according to this website, the Soviet Flamethrower weighed only one kilogram more than the German one.
They have a very small fuel capacity (only 4 compared to 9 shots in game) compared to the American models which explains their lighter weight, despite of longer range (bigger air tank?).
So... educate me please, why do the German flamers move faster while carrying 2.5 times as much fuel.
More allied flamers http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14386&highlight
[ July 07, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: White Phosphorus ]
-
Which one do you have? I personally like oddball's original autocanon sounds (very similar to the ones in Steel Panthers). The 20mm sounds like ksh ksh ksh. While the 37 goes like poof poof poof. They are available on the www.cmmods.com
-
I think the problem with molotovs is that they do not carry much fuel at all. And that the fuel has to leak into the vehicle. While a flamer forcebly pumps it inside.Originally posted by Other Means:you're in a giant pressure cooker surrounded by loose clothes, oil, grease, cordite, fuel & high explosive shells. if the whole lot starts to go on fire the chances are you're not going to stop it. getting out might be a smart move.
especially if the igniter is some kind of burning material that is designed to carry on burning & be difficult to put out.
thinking about it molotovs may be under modelled in the game. does anybody have any proof one way or another?
cheers.
-
They developed SMGs as early as 1927 (PPD M34-38), they just didn't mass produce them.Originally posted by Nippy:I also thought that they had developed their own SMG's only after recieving the short end of the stick from the SMG equipped Germans. So it appears they had them first then?
The Russians developed SMG squads after thier experence in Finnland in 39/40 after running into SMG heavy Sissi squads (X2 Rifle X7 SMG)
-
http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm
This site has pictures and specs of mordern as well as WWII firearms. Soviet stuff is on there.
-
One time I nailed a Panther in the butt with two 76.2mm large HE AP rounds. And the damned thing still had enough morale to turn the turret and kill one of the 34s. The third round finally put it out of action though.
-
What would be even better, is to be able to switch only one side's voices. That way you could have the Russians talking Russian, and the Germans talking English, and vice versa. That way you'd understand what your troops are saying, and have only a general idea of what the enemy troops are screaming about (since you are not really supposed to know precisely what they are saying).
-
Heavily armed units above green should not be allowed to move if they have a round in the chamber.
-
Just because your troops get show doesn't necessarily mean that they get killed. Most of them will get a nice vacation to the rear.
-
This site has plenty of maps. It's in Russian though. You'll have to look at the dates to get the general idea.
-
The LMG SMG deal could be a translation error of some sort. David Glantz in his book on Soviet operations in Manchuria lists 4 infantry support weapons at one point. HMGs MMGs LMGs and HandMGs. Which I'm assuming are Maxims Goryunovs Degtyaryevs and .... In Russian the squad "LMGs" are called hand machineguns. So something is obviously being misidentified here. And given the sloppy way the Soviets name their guns, it is not surprising. Both assault riffles/automatic riffles and sub-machineguns are usually called avtomat, the term light machinegun pops up too along with the hand machinegun.
-
I liked Steel Panther's damage system. You could have main gun/bow/coax damage which caused the weapon to disappear from the weapons rack. You could also have damaged optics, damaged suspension, damaged engine. Then there were also critical hits that halfed the armor at a particular point.
Disappointing Stuka G-1
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Tiger I too has 20mm top armor and can withstand even direct hits from IL-2's rockets. Non-uber pazers have very thin armor 15 and even 10mm.
Stukas were not deadly against tanks they sucked against tanks, just like every other aircraft. If anything I think the airpower is overmoddeled. Try setting up a somewhat realistic air-raid scenario with dozens of tanks being pounded by a group of about 30-40 IL-2s, only Tigers will drive (probably not) off the battlefield 30 turns later. And that's without the anti-tank cluster bombs proper approaches and formation flying.