Lumbergh
-
Posts
171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Lumbergh
-
-
Some of us would say that it contributed to many KO'd Arab tanks...Originally posted by redwolf:Not sure anything good ever came out of it in the last 50 years except they need less food for their tank units (only very small crewmembers).
-
Sure, but for the price of your Dell monitor you'd end up with a crappy tft that would not look as good.Originally posted by kipanderson:Could a TFT screen equal the quality of the picture?
All the best,
Kip.
Shell out for a nice LCD and you'll love it. Plus it is much easier on the eyes for reading text on the screen, a big bonus for anyone who spends large amounts of time hacking stuff into your pc, which I suspect most people do.
-
1. 15th Rifle Division? Just guessing.Originally posted by Dan5681:Hey Hey ladies and gents. Just recently somone close bought me a book I already owned, my immediate thought was to give it away on this forum to anyone in England Wales or Scotland because of shipping costs.
The first to answer these questions will win the 900 days the seige of leningrad by Harrison E Salisbury.
1. what was the 15th Guards rifle division called before it was given the status of 'Guards'?.
2. who was the commander of the Tirpitz for its first two years of commision?.
Thanks.
Dan
-
Right...rifled barrel, definitely.Originally posted by Michael emrys:The T-55??? When was this? What missile?
Michael
looks like it had a barrel-launched missile on the T-55M though:
"ATGM Launcher
Name D-10T2S gun
Launch Method Gun-launched
Guidance SACLOS, Infrared laser-beam rider
Command Link Encoded laser-beam
Launcher Dismountable No "
[ July 14, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]
-
I wouldn't be so sure. What about when it rains and you get uranium leeching into the groundwater? Then you have heavy metal contamination of someone's drinking water.Originally posted by urefinger:although sitting around in a tank that full of radioactive dust probably isnt that good for your health i doubt - unless you were in there for a long time - it would kill you, the reason the UN made such a big fuss about tanks that were shot with this ammo would probably becuase they want to be SEEN to be doing it because people have an irrational fear of radiation. a simple "kids - dont play on this tank" sign would probably do (if kids ever payed attention to those signs
) -
This is my thought too, although like you I don't have any reference to hand. Did the T-55 ever have a smoothbore gun? I simply can't recall.Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:
I believe, although I am spouting off without fully checking facts right now, that APFSDS rounds were used when the Soviets started using smoothbore tank guns, maybe with the T-62? That would put in the late 1960s early '70s.
Michael </font>
-
"Sturmmörser Tiger" in the Medium class?
Shouldn't this thing just get excluded? Or put into the "superheavy" since it has the ahistoric superman reload time?
-
Old people hobbies are great fun as a teen, especially if you get dad involved.
Nothing was better than doing R/C planes with my dad, and I assume that nothing will be better than whooping your dad at CMBB.
-
So why don't they pay you and incorporate your magic into CMAK?? Sounds like a good idea to me.....
-
Yeah, it's perfect for working on your tophat-lowski or whatever it's called. The TAC AI, as smart as it is, never seems to catch on to that one!
-
Would not a penetrating hit of DU SABOT be catastrophic? Doesn't the uranium dust ignite inside the tank or something really nasty (not to mention breathing uranium dust or contaminating the inside of a vehicle with uranium dust)?Originally posted by redwolf:Also, HEAT causes considerably more damage inside a vehicle than the ADPS dart. Especially for vehicles with lots of space inside, as opposed to be totally stuffed with hydraulic-driven mechanisms, ammo and fuel, a HEAT hit is prefferable, e.g. on APCs and scout cars.
I'd give more weight to the "it explodes" and the "it's cheap" explanations...
-
He must have been particularly angry at the facists that day...
-
Were not certain Henschels equipped with downward-firing anti-tank weaponry? A MAD detector hooked up to a cannon or somefink?
-
"519" tank kills?? Sure, I believe that....Originally posted by Warmaker:Lol! That guy did some crazy s**t with the Stukas!
-
I would venture to say that the difference between walking uphill and downhill in terms of tiring you out is small enough it can be left out.Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:Walking or skiing downhill will tire your troops as much as going uphill..
Will this be addressed for CMX2?
As for skiing, I guess it depends on the equipment. If they used telemark skis then going downhill is pretty tiring as well. Old skis are big and heavy and tiring in general!
-
-
Assault Boat Grogs.
-
I think it's 60% luck and 40% skill in CMBB, no matter what side you play. If you pick your own units, maybe then the side matters, but otherwise, no difference.
Each side has its pluses and weaknesses depending on date, terrain and muddiness.
-
Downloaded. Looks cool...nice website, very well done.
-
You know, I don't necessarially buy the "put ourselves out of business" argument. Steve and Charles could make just CMBO every 2 years with updated graphics and do just fine.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:wow, so with one game, you get every modern war ever fought.
How would BFC make money again?
A search on the subject on this forum should yield you some interesting reading.
I do buy the "insanely too much work to do" argument though.
-
I recently read "Ajax, the Dutch, the War" by Simon "Times and FT footy writer" Kuper. I thought I was getting a football book, but it was actually all about how the Dutch managed to kill off a whopping 75% of their Jewish population in WWII. You have to try really hard to do that--even Germany could not achieve such a high "success" rate!Originally posted by Andreas:AIUI the Dutch constabulary worked with the Germans in rounding up Jews, and securing the despatch camp. Been a long time that I read about it though.
The Danes, by contrast, managed to ship most of the Danish Jews off to Sweden (aided by the German embassy and elements of the Navy, IIRC) in an evacuation across the sea.
-
Hello, Willie Mays???????Originally posted by rexford:Mickey Mantle, the greatest centerfielder ever, was also number 7, that no zero's in front.
-
Sorry, that would be Denmark . You must have confused the Danes with the country that managed to exterminate the highest percentage of its Jewish population in Western Europe...Originally posted by Richie:The Dutch did the best they could without bringing the full wrath of the Nazis upon the population.
-
Stepping in here at a late point...
Let's summarize...Logically, we all agree that the stug44 is superior to the K-98. If it were not, then why does every infantry rifle now look like the stug44 rather than the K-98? Assuming that the current direction of infantry weaponry is correct, then the stug44 represents an improvement in armorment.
Given that it is an improvement, there remains 2 questions. 1, what are the downsides, and do they outweigh the benefits, and 2, would the aforementioned benefits prove to be significant.
For 1, the downsides I see mentioned seem to boil down to two. First, carrying more ammo for the semi-auto rifle would reduce the available carrying capacity for the LMG by a significant amount. However, it appears the rate of fire of a bolt-action, as quoted in this thread, is closer to that of an assault rifle than would immediately be apparent. Second, the additional ammo consumption could stretch the German logistical system even further. Obviously, it would add an additional strain, but a significant one? I would venture that many, many other war materials were much more logistically challenging than rifle bullets.
With regards towards 2, would the new weapon prolong the war? The only positive argument for this is that the assault rifle adds additional suppresive power and flexibility to the standard squad. This is significant, but, as is pointed out above, depends on the fighting situation. Given the (many times cited) situation at the front, with massive allied reliance on artillery and (in the East) direct-fire HE, how much extra would the stug44 really add to the squad? Something, but not much.
In short, it seems rather pedantic to argue that a better weapon would somehow have no effect on the battlefield at all. On the other hand, it also appears that any extension of the war from the change in weaponry would be very minor.
We could give the Germans M-16s with grenade launchers and it would still not do much good against a tank army's worth of T-34s.
Panzerschreck vs. late war soviet armor
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
A question. Does a HEAT/HC round produce its lethality through a mechanism that would not be evident in your above table? Or does the mass of metal flying about after a penetrating hit pretty much sum up the round lethality?
cheers,
Dave