Tigrii
-
Posts
326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tigrii
-
-
-
1. You can't call it in, the planes are independent.Originally posted by KwK43 L/71:Call in some air support.
2. Great idea! Attack ANTI-AIRCRAFT guns with aircraft!
-
In your opinion, what is the best (i.e. works most of time, relatively safe, not expensive in time, forces) way to kill tanks? And I would appreciate thoughtful responses, not things like "get a bigger tank," or "sneak up on it with a flamethrower, which is conveniently invisble to it's supporting infantry." My personal favorite is cathing tanks in a crossfire between ATGs delivering flanking fire from opposite sides, so that if it does nothing, both get flank shots, and if it turns to engage one, the other gets uncontested rear shots. And also what someone's Wittman quote says about Pzs vs. ATGs.
-
The crews are really freaked out by a steady stream of explosions about a foot away from them coming from an unknown source, and then add immobilization in a fixed-superstructure-vehicle, and you can tell why they bail out eventually.
P.S. You forgot to mention it was from the front, which could be important.
-
Does anyone have any ideas on how this type of strategy could be effectively implemented? I think I heard something about guerilla tactics in some recon thread. Could you have something where you scatter TH's ATRs, light ATGs and other light AT weapons, as well as MGs in cover at the front of your setup zone, and let enemy units pass by, and snipe from the rear, then retreat towards the enemy side, away from their assualt forces. They could either continue with their attack and be subjected to fire from the rear, or waste a lot of time and forces attacking backwards. The problem, of course, is when the enemy first penetrates your harrassment line. But since accepted CMBB doctrine seems to call for a concentrated, narrow-front advance, they'd kill some units, but only at a certain locality and the rest could either deliver flanking fire right then, or wait and shoot to the rear.
-
It's too bad that there is nothing in CMBB like CMBO's Ram Kangaroo, which held a squad and had decent armor, which could stop almost all light and even some medium anti-tank fire. Also, there is nothing to compare to the M5A1, which was armed with a .30 and the mighty .50. The russian M5 has only a .30, and the SPW 251/1 has the equivilant of a MG42 LMG.
P.S. It would be nice if they'de include a HT's firepower on the detailed info screen.
-
Halftracks (HTs) are great for attacking, fall-back defenses, and raiding. The battlefield is ruled by the limitations of infantry: Relatively slow, tires out, pins easily, not much firepower except at point blank. Most attacks in open terrain wind up either looking like WWI, with the attacker occupying the last bit of cover before the open field swept with MG fire, or the attacker attacks and gets routed. With even just one platoon, you can totally bypass the MLR, and zoom unhindered into their rear, attacking the dominant heavy weapons and being dropped off right next to flag-controlling cover. The two limitaions: the main one is that your armor must rule the battlefield, so that no tanks, ATGs, ATRs, etc. pop your HTs. Second, they're not much use in built-up terrain, because they can be ambushed at close range, there isn't good enough LOS to establish armor supremacy, and the "legs" can do OK on their own with lots of cover. But in the open, with enemy AT assets suppressed, they free infantry from their primary limitations: lack of longe-range firepower, lack of freedom of manuever, and lack of protection from small-arms, especially MGs.
-
And they might have infringed on the T-34's patenting!Originally posted by Jack Carr:All you have to read is Gaylord's response. Right on the money!
As for German tank production favoring one over another? As most of you probably already know, the Tiger was introduced in 1942 in North Africa. Panther was introduced in summer of 43 at Kursk. Panther was a logical answer to T-34. It was arguably the best tank that was produced in WWII after it got over its early model teething troubles. The Germans considered Panther a medium tank and Tiger a heavy. I think the Allies considered both to be in the heavy category. I think at one point the Germans considered making a direct copy of T-34 but decided against it due to the possibility of mistaken identity issues.
-
Halftracks! Just lay down some smoke, and/or covering fire with all available assets, park the HTs next to the infantry, and embark using ASSUALT, in case they take fire btwn the foxhole and the HT. It works great, if you have either killed all enemy AT assets or blinded them with smoke. What might work even better is having them be able to ASSUALT down a trench to the HT, even though it's only about 10m.
-
In a typical QB, the AI gets a platoon of T-70s and 3-4 BA-64s (which everyone knows is the the terror of the Ostfront
) while I get 2-3 Tigers. The result is predictable. Why does the AI get a swarm of useless vehicles? -
I know, I rarely try this unless it ahs perfect terrain, but the time it worked best was in CMBO. I had 2 hellcats that snuck around the flank and got hull-down firing positions on a hill behind a valley in which a ton of german armor was advancing. The 2 hellcats then killed 5 Stugs, 7 Pz IVs, and 2 Tigers between them, without being scratched. Of course, it doesn't usually work this well.
-
Has anyone seen the BA-64! It rules, except for it's lack of a radio, armor, armament, platoon-availability, or any non-expenable-scout use. WOW!
-
This involves keeping static forces (MGs, mortars, some inf, guns, etc.) to form a conventional MLR, while sending tanks (preferably T-34/85s) and M5-mounted pioneers through a covered route along flank. What happens is that the enemy gets held up by my MLR, then they get slaughtered by my T-34/85s from the rear. The pioneers then descend on the enemy inf, supported by static heavy weapons, armor, and M5-mounted MGs. The remaining inf. also attacks, squashing the enemy inf. btwn the two. The only problems with this are: 1) It needs a covered advance route, and 2) the weakened MLR needs to hold. Any thoughts on this, and does anyone have similar strategies?
-
Mine are an MG team complainig, when low on ammo, "my rifle's empty," and a 1-man sharpshooter team giving orders to itself.
What are yours? -
I've heard that sharpshooters are good b/c they have binoculars, only 1 man, etc., but 25 pts for 1 man? No way. Tank hunters only cost 11-13, have 72-100 FP, and can pay off if they scout out a tank at close range.
Do you think they would be useful? If not, what else? -
Conscript 300mm rocket spotters used en masse can transform a QB board into a large crater. Nothing survives except well-armored vehicles once you five or so doing preplanned barraging. But my favorite unit is probably the Jagdpanther late model. It's virtually invulnerable when hull-down, b/c the armor slope is so great, and the 88mm gun can open any russian tin can.
-
yes, but it would deflect the shell.Originally posted by StellarRat:I think mortar shells have to travel a certain distance before they arm themselves anyway, so they might not go off if they something right after they left the tube.
-
Originally posted by StellarRat:
I think mortar shells have to travel a certain distance before they arm themselves anyway, so they might not go off if they something right after they left the tube.
-
I am trying out a strategy where I hide large-gunned, thinly armored TDs like Nashorns in scattered trees with selcted and limited LOS. I then give it a Hide and cover vehicle command. It is quite effective at medium/long range against virtually anything. Has anyone else been using anything similar?
-
Enemy friendly fire (haha): I have an 88mm Pak 43. It is dueling a T-34/85 and being charged by a clumped-up platoon. The 88 fires, a sure shot and misses. I think, "oh no, the T-34 is gonna get my ATG now (it was my last AT asset). The T-34 fires...
...and the HE shell lands smack dab in the middle of the charging platoon, causing 50% casualties and routing them. The 88 fires agin and kills the tank.
-
Cool movie! It was sort of grainy but I could still see OK. How do you make movies, anyway? :confused:
-
The situation was this: My infantry was being held up by a "Gun?", so I brought up the only avaliable AFV, a Hummel, to deal with it. It was just behind a hill, which was the only LOS obstacle btwn it and the gun. I wanted a hull-down firing position, since a Hummel can't even stop an ATR. So I gave it a "Seek Hull-Down" order to the gun's position. It found the hull down spot and stopped. It didn't see the gun before the gun saw it and got toasted. I then brought up my second Hummel, which had just been released from its little duel at the other side of the board, to try again. This time I used hunt. It hunted forward but didn't see the gun, stop and engage until it was no longer Hull-Down. The gun toasted this one, too. What order should I use for this type of situation? I wish that there was some order that combined seek hull-down and hunt.
-
In a QB that I just played, a grenade killed a Panther. I know that it was a normal grenade b/c the squad that threw it only had normal grenades. It probably simulates the grenade hitting a weak point, such as the engine grating or vision blocks, in a way similar to "penetration at weak point."
P.S. Why do I never see this Graemlin? :cool:
-
I know that they're supposed to be used against TCs, but can they kill infantry effectively too? In BO I had a sharpshooter kill two members of a squad with 1 shot! :confused: Does this ever happen in BB? And are they useful suppresive units?
Do you think they would be useful? If not, what else?
More fluid warfare in CM?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
It seems to me (of course, I may be wrong) that most CM battles that most people (including myself) play go like this: Setup: Attacker concentrates at one point. Defender does some tricky thing with reverse slopes, MGs, TRPs, etc. Game: Attacker attacks at the chosen point. Defender springs traps, battle fought out linearly (sp?) head to head. What I think is much more interesting, and effective, are battles where it's more fluid, characterized by mechanized penetrations deep into the defenders rear by attacking tanks and halftracks, and an active defender. An example of an active defender is me (occasionaly). I just played a defensive QB where I had 1 platoon in SPW 251/1s, which zoomed around the attackers' flank, at a point other than their schwerpunkt, and "landed" in a large patch of woods. They ran to the front of the woods, which overlooked my MLR and was in use by the enemy as a firebase and jumping-off point. My 1 platoon reached the MLR, chock full of unsuspecting support weaponry, and massacred 4 MGs and 2 Mortars, the same platoon then wiped out 2 companies from the rear, as they were attacking away from the woods. Not that I'm trying to boast, but I think this type of manuever makes battles a lot funner, as opposed to classic firefights.