Jump to content

warspite

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by warspite

  1. LOL. I'll chime in and say that PIATs are my favorite infantry AT weapon, I like them better than bazookas, schrecks or fausts. It depends on the terrain of course, but a PIAT leaves no smoke trail, makes little sound and can often fire off his entire supply of ammo without being spotted. The downside is that a smart player will take the time delay and bring a screen of infantry with his tanks into areas where he suspects PIATs may be operating. Unlike a schreck or bazooka, the PIAT doesn't have the range to engage the panzers before the infantry spot him.
  2. Is there any primary source on the typical ammo split in a Sherman?
  3. What AP/HE/smoke split did it historically have? Did it ever have any special ammunition types?
  4. Hardly curious, were you? I fail to see how telling me to stop posting is a sign of curiosity. And obviously, if I'd KNOWN I was incorrect, or if I'd had reason to doubt my claim before this, I wouldn't have posted with such authority, would I? It's not like I was a dick to you and argued your counter-claim, was I? So why were you a dick to me? Like I said, we obviously can't all be the omniscient Michael Dorosh. You'll just have to live with that fact.
  5. Wow, Dorosh, that'll leave few people here who can post. My MISTAKE. We're allowed to make those, aren't we? I assume we can't all be omniscient gods like you.
  6. It's the spring launches the charge. It's a ~200lb pull pressing on a 3lb warhead. There's no chemical propellant of any kind. As someone else said, it's probably the best infantry AT weapon in the game due to the lack of noise and smoke trail. In some respects it feels a little overmodeled (using it repeatedly should tire out infantry rather quickly, and I think reload times could be longer - but this is merely opinion and not sourced), but other advantages, like the ability to fire from an enclosed space, are not modeled, so it all balances out IMO.
  7. It's a bit of a problem but nothing you can't handle, given some luck. It all depends on your opponent's dispositions. If he picked an infantry/ATG force, he's ROYALLY screwed. If he picked tanks, you're pretty safe from most with 6pdrs/75mm, but 17pdrs will, as always, chew you to pieces. Your 150mm HE is going to be less effective than AP might be, but not useless. It can easily immobilize a tank and damage a gun. Crewers under veteran status are also prone to being shook up by the explosions and may bail outright despite the lack of damage to their vehicle. Any open-top or thin-skinned hardware is going to be mincemeat - provided you can hit. Don't forget that Brummbars have very strong armor. Your opponent likely has some 17pdrs, but on-map mortars can pin them while the Brummbars deliver the killing blow.
  8. Thanks guys! I'll give the post office a little longer and email again.
  9. It's missing a "t" because I didn't want to type out the whole address. Spambot spiders are keyed in to scan websites and forums for email addresses I don't know Madmatt's email?
  10. I ordered it over 3 weeks ago, I emailed Battlefront 3 days ago about it not arriving and I haven't even gotten a reply about this, never mind the game itself.
  11. So consensus is "no, there's no f'in way a rifle grenade will knock out a tank", unless some freak of nature occurs.
  12. Approximately how likely was a rifle grenade in the early-mid war to damage (field repairable) disable or destroy a Pz III, Pz IV, early Sherman or Stuart? Would it have to be some exceptionally lucky shot (exhaust, driver's slit, right between road wheel and tracks) or would a more generic shot, like under the tank, be able to take the tank out?
  13. I don't know any quick shortcuts, but what you discovered is a pretty common convention in editor programs. Shift and Ctrl, and very rarely Alt will often induce multipliers. Shift may be x10 and ctrl x100. Other items include the use of PageUp/PageDown to maximize/zero out values (or Home and End), holding down the mouse button rather than constantly clicking, right-clicking, etc.
  14. Well, Moscow is a lot colder for sure, and the more inland you get, the worse it is. I wouldn't be surprised if Stalingrad wasn't colder than St. Petersburg, despite being far South.
  15. StuG IIIF/8. Small, powerful, accurate, nigh-on indestructible from range. Its accuracy is sickening. On the Soviet front, definitely the T-34/85. On the western Allies front, it's hard to argue with the Churchill but I will. Matilda II. You might call it the original Churchill VII. Overarmored, undergunned, and nothing but an 88 could touch it during its prime
  16. I was pretty annoyed at having a KV-1 knocked out with a stationary quad 20mm. He wasn't even conscript or green, he was a regular. But being immobilized and under constant fire, with masses of enemy infantry not so far away, I can understand why he bailed. You never know if one of those Kraut squads is carrying a grenade bundle or satchel charge.
  17. Didn't Canada say "fat chance" to the US as recently as last year, over joining the war in Iraq?
  18. Haha crap, I just realized where all this confusion with Legion started. My original starting sentence was a little confusing. I should have said "I almost never choose the Pz IV as my main tank." I'm sorry about that.
  19. Er... Canada was already independent by the time World War II came around. They weren't colonists any more. They were Canadians. And given how well Canadians fought in both World Wars, let me extend my sympathies in advance to whoever tries to dislodge them from their frozen wastes.
  20. Could you elaborate on the advantages of a five man crew? It seems like Pz IV loading is faster than a captured T-34 already, for example.
  21. Thanks for the explanation, Legion. Sergei, I only used MBT as a loose term - I'm not sure of its origins or specific military meaning. Basically I was implying the default tank for combat scenarios, one which could generally fulfill all its roles even when faced with enemy tanks. I don't hesitate to put T-34s in these situations, but the T-34 is considerably cheaper and at least feels more resistant to lighter gun fire. Maybe I'm too protective in my use of the IV...
  22. I have played many scenarios with mostly Pz IV and Pz III tanks. I'll throw in the occasional Panther or Tiger for ****s and giggles or variety, but... I just find the Pz III more cost effective up until 1943, at least as long as the combat distances are under 1km. Pz IVs drop like flies. Yes, the L48 and the L43 Pz IVs can effectively engage their foes from long range, but because of its light armor, the Pz IV can be hit just as hard with the 76.2. Hull down isn't nearly as effective with a Pz IV because of its giant paper mache turret. I don't like the assumptions you're making about me. Contrary to what you've implied, I like using the IV because of the thought that goes into working with it. It can generally successfully engage and kill anything up to and including KVs, but it's also very vulnerable. I don't worry much about a Pz III getting close to a M42 or later T-34, but I worry about even T70s getting within range of Pz IVs. What I'm saying is that while the Pz IV's later guns let it hit a later T-34 or even a KV-1 from equal range (and with greater accuracy), it's much more vulnerable to lighter guns up close. This is why I wonder if the Pz IV is really a successful MBT. It's not that it has a roughly even exchange with tanks its size, it's that it can't ignore smaller enemy tanks as long as its Russian counterparts do. Ergo, I end up using tactics similar to those of a StuG (non-80mm) or Marder.
×
×
  • Create New...