undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
does it really belong to the scope of CMx2? i'd imagine that each CM battle (lasting some tens of minutes) is the kind of critical point in a battle (lasting hours) which you speak of above.Originally posted by Bigduke6:But then, battalion commanders definately have a battlefield effect. A battalion commander that sits in his CP during the battle is probably doing a bad job. Most militaries consider it important for the battalion commander to be at the same place as a company commander at a critical point in a battle, so he can lend his rank and ability to bringing strong resources to the tactical problem. Then, when the local crisis is either fixed or heading in the direction of being fixed, the battalion commander heads off to another crisis, or failing that back to his CP, where his staff brings him up to speed.
battalion commander's position would make a great difference in a bit larger battles though, because his position would be directly related to command /information lag. e.g. when and where to commit reserves etc.
i really like what Dorosh is suggesting.
-
good name is everything.Originally posted by Sergei:Nasu
-
have to agree with thatOriginally posted by kipanderson:The discussion between us is a very good example of how people, who in terms of facts agree, can end up on opposite sides due the different “spin” they put on their posts
. 
and now that i am in this mood, i have to say that A6 has definite upper hand over A4, if A6 manages to get hull-down positions.
i just personally dislike Western, overly passive, defensive doctrines of tank tactics. they might be good in 1985 Fulda Gap battles, but other than that i hate the idea of using tanks as pillboxes.
-
Kip,
if i am not mistaken, DM-53 shot from A4's L44 gun should penetrate over 700mm from 2000 meters. as the front hull of A6 offers just some 600mm worth of protection, it seems to me that DM-53 should penetrate A6 armor even in frontal engagements at 2000 meters.
-
hi there Kip,
A5 and A6 are just modernized earlier variants. they use the very same hulls and turrets of earlier batches. yes, there's lots of new stuff, but so there was with A4 as well. the differences in capacity between A4 and A6 are still pretty small if you compare it to other modernizations out there, especially those for old Soviet tanks.
armor differences between A4 and A6 deal mostly with the turret. the hull offers basicly the same level of protection and the standard A4 gun penetrates the A6 front hull just fine, not to mention the sides. i'm not sure if you are aware, but both L44 and L55 use the same ammo. L55 gets a little better penetration, but the real reason for the L55 gun is the greater accuracy at very long ranges.
in my opinion A4 should do fine against A6, as long as the A4 refuses to get into hull-down duels at 2000-5000 meters. in practice the side with better tactics, battlefield awareness and crew wins.
-
sorry for taking this thread so off track.
Leopard 2A4 is not just a vanilla 1979 version with better armor (which is not Chobham BTW), but includes stuff like a much improved FCS.Originally posted by kipanderson:The Leopard 2A4 is the late ‘70s model with first generation Chobham armour.
Leopard 2A6 isn't that much different from Leopard 2A4, both can KO the other one just fine.The Challenger 2 is the equal of the Leopard 2A6, and would indeed wipe the floor when up against Leopard 2A4s. -
i'm definately with Duke here for most parts.
FDF considers company the smallest tactical unit. from that perspective company vs company battles offer rather limited tactical possibilities.
-
differences between tanks are marginal these days. it's nothing like in WW2. even several decades old tanks can confront most modern tanks, with cheap modernizations. it's not just getting things like reactive armor, but ability to KO modern tanks.
i talked with a Finnish tanker some time ago and he considered the modernized Finnish T-55 to be a better tank, on some parts, than the Finnish Leopard 2A4. he said the FCS is as good and T-55 actually has better AP ammo. survivability and mobility are of course a lot worse. still amazing for something as ancient as T-55.
one thing that has changed things is the accuracy of the most recent generation of AT weapons systems. if a tank has a known weak spot, AT weapons have good chances of being able to hit it. for example here's a video from a demo day of Finnish defence forces, it shows EuroSpike AT missile being shot in right thru T-54's machinegun port: EuroSpike vs T-54
-
i hear there are basements so they damned better get the mice & rat sounds right!
-
there's still hope... for some two weeks or soOriginally posted by Michael Dorosh:You don't get lighter than a pullka. You won't be disappointed.
-
not Hungarians, thus it's either Poles or Frenchmen!
-
nah, it'll be 1939 or 1940. :|
EDIT: Vietnam or Afghanistan would rock tho.
-
thanks for the answer Steve! i totally understand what you are saying and i agree with you. it's the way to go.
if there won't be that much of "what if" in there, i trust it's still going to be extreme fun.
it's not the heavy stuff i miss, but rather the lighties. for some reason i like the light tin cans (with lot's of infantry) a lot. so i hope one of the first releases deals with early war battles.
i guess it'll be more like a clash between two divisions than entire armies, Other Means.
-
i saw a dream of playing CMx2 last night.
i was playing a "TCP/IP" game (took place near Caen, BTW) and i was chatting with my opponent. we both loved all the new tactical details and dimensions that CMx2 had brought, the mind blowing immersion of being there and the historical accuracy of it all, the greatness of the campaign system, but we both felt a bit crippled by the limited arsenal in our hands.
while we enjoyed all the new tactical aspects now available to us, and the realistic historical feel to it, there was a feeling that we were forced to repeat battles with same kind of gear. we were talking about how it was great in CM:BB that we could have different battles ranging from 1941 tin can battles to 1945 royal catfights. not historically accurate battles, but fun battles. more "i wonder what if" than "OMG, this is just like it must have been".
i really like the idea of having more detailed, and thus also limited, modules for CMx2, but the dream made me wonder how limited the modules will be in scope.
will we be limited to the equipment that was available for certain handful of divisions during certain couple of months?
how much of simple brainless "what if" fun will we be losing to get all the detailed historical accuracy?
BFC, please make me sleep well and tell it ain't so
-
want added
1. real 3D line-of-fire instead of point targets, so that you get, for example, ability to use MG fire that hits all units in the LOF and have vehicles (operational or not, friendly or not) block LOF.
2. random generated operations.
3. more battle types ("delay and withdraw", "recon areas A and B", "prevent enemy reaching/crossing areas A and B", "patrol from points A, B and C to D" etc).
4. some control of rate-of-fire, so that you can tell rougly how fast to spend ammo.
5. ability to give actual two dimensional area for area target command, instead of just a point target.
don't want removed
1. simplistic UI
2. flexibility
3. random battles
4. "TCP/IP"
5. extraordinary quality (not to be mixed with quantity)
-
five were PZ-IV's, can't remember model. i think two others were StuGs and one was a Grille. only some were burned, perhaps three, most were abandoned by crew.Originally posted by dieseltaylor:Undead
Curiosity of mine. No flak!!!
In your game what type of tanks were "killed". How many of the tanks were burnt out?
-
like noted, the 45mm AT-gun has non-existent behind armor effect, but the tactic is not to kill the Tiger or Panther with the 45mm shell. the tactic is to use 45mm shells to cause marginal penetrations TOGETHER with 76mm "pinging". in my experience the German crews abandon their tanks if they receive 76mm fire AND potentially penetrating 45mm fire. some TAC-AI thing, i guess. it's possibly gamey, but Tigers and Pathers are more or less gamey in themselves anyway.
that tactic requires that German tanks move into your ambush, but you pretty much need such a situation anyway. if you move into Tiger or Panther firelines you are dead anyway, no matter what you have. in my experience the point is to always force Germans to move into your lines of fire.
like Sir 37mm noticed, IS-2 will deal with Panthers in a simple face-to-face shoot-out. the problem is that TAC-AI, for some strange reason, forces IS-2s to back-off if they face Panthers when moving. so you need to do the same thing you need to do with 45mm and 76mm AT-gun ambush: force German tanks to move into your firelines. never move into German firelines, or IS-2s will just back off or die right off.
SU-122 and SU-152, in my opinion, have too slow rate of fire and they are too inaccurate. they miss and then they are dead. personally i have never seen SU-152 HE shell hurt Panthers or Tigers, while i have seen SU-152 AP shell just ping off from Panther armor at below 200 meters. Combat Mission is a strange, but fun game. my personal experience is that SU-152 HE doesn't have the bang the German 150mm has, but it's likely to be just my flawed personal experience.
i really like SU-85. accurate, fast and effective. just don't try to move and shoot. take good positions and have patience. use them like mobile AT-guns. they are very lethal at least in late 1943.
about 57mm AT-guns. i admit that it's easier to use 57mm guns, but i usually see them cost more than 150 points and in my opinion it's just not worth it. you still need to get the Tigers within 300-400 meters. it's easier to buy couple 45mm and couple 76mm guns for more or less same money. i have seen far too often the Tiger kill the 57mm AT-gun with a single shot after the 57mm opens fire. with four guns you get more flexible AT system and those less-effective shells are countered with the ping factor. you also won't reveal, and thus lose, your valuable 57mm gun if you face some lower quality armor. and in the end game those extra 76mm shells come real handy.
-
Soviet 45mm armed light tanks and armored cars is one that comes to mind. you can buy hordes of these fast bastards and they have ammo that can take out even Tigers. they are great battle ruiners, especially if the one playing Germans has cats or especially those turretless tincans like StuGs.Originally posted by Wingmanx:What this got me to thinking of though, is what are some other weapons that might be considered 'uber' in the game that a player might be tempted to try and overruse? And how to counter them?
IL-2 is one super killer if your opponent doesn't invest in AA. recently a single IL-2 got eight German tanks when my opponent didn't buy any AA.
-
if you have IS-2s you should do OK, no matter what the range. if you keep loosing i think you have something wrong with your tactics. in my IS-2 vs Panther tests the IS-2 had about 50% chance of winning, no matter what the range, even with the low rate of fire and the fictional abyssmal ammunition the IS-2 has in CM. as IS-2 is cheaper, and you get to waste more points on armor, you should be able to deal with Panthers quite easily.
-
i haven't played 1944 for some time now, but in late 1943 the 45mm AT-guns and SU-85s are my preferred choises to nail both Tigers and Panthers. 45mm AT-guns can penerate Tiger flanks at short distances and SU-85s can succesfully engage Panthers frontally. SU-85s have good ammunition, good rate of fire and relatively good accuracy. 45mm have OK ammunition, good rate of fire, good accuracy, great stealth and relatively OK mobility.
76mm AT-guns are good too, if you engage with them only when the Panthers receive 45mm or 85mm fire as well - the combined effect of penetrating hits and non-penetrating pings will make the crew abandon the Panther/Tiger.
don't take SU-122 or SU-152, as they won't be up to the task. 57mm costs so much that it's waste of points IMO. the static 85mm AA-gun is waste of points as well.
you can get loads of 45mm AT-guns and SU-85s for each Tiger or Panther your opponent buys. you don't need loads of them, though, at least once you get some experience in handling them.
if Panthers are giving you pain, simply stop giving targets to them. just avoid them and make them come for you. plan well and have patience.
-
for what it's worth, here's a word about Finnish StuGs, how they were used and what kind of results they got.Originally posted by JasonC:The romantic types, and own side claims, would try to tell you it was 3-5 for the vanilla StuGs, and 10-15 for the superior types. Such claims do not withstand scrutiny.
Finnish StuGs were at the front for three weeks, including about one week of actual combat.
it was the first time the StuGs were used, so the crews weren't elite hard-core veterans.
the tactical way the StuGs were used was very infantile and certainly inferior to how e.g. Germans used them.
terrain was rather unsuitable for the use of turretless assault guns.
Finns faced better-than-average Guards units, armed with top quality equipment (T-34/85, IS-2, ISU-152 etc).
Soviets had massive numerical superiority and almost total air-superiority (most StuGs that were lost were lost to enemy air activity).
the results:
in average, a Finnish StuG scored 4+ tank kills (+ loads of other enemy equipment) during that period.
in average, for one lost StuG, Finnish StuGS destroyed over 10 Soviet tanks.
if Finns would have had proper tactics, more experienced crews, less outnumbered, more suitable terrain, faced more typical Soviet units, had seen combat for more than just one week, or just one of these kind of things, the 4+/1:10+ ratios could have easily been dramatically higher.
-
550mm after ERA.Originally posted by MeatEtr:But just out of curiosity, in case you have blisters and can't operate the shovel, how's the penetration numbers of the 95mm "Musti" rifle?
-
i just talked with Steve and heard that the first CMx2 release is going to be titled "Winter War 1939", followed by "Winter war 1940" some 6 months later. advanced physics are needed to simulate realistic Finnish AT tactics. like the one in which a tank driggers a trap by pushing down a small branch, which causes 1-5 trees fall upon the tank. accroding to Steve there are very accurate calculations on what kind of damage individual falling trees cause on the tanks. it's all up to tree type, temperature etc, so that for example frozen pines are more likely to cause dents if they hit specific hull weakspots. on the other hand firs are more likely to cause facial scars for the TC if he's not buttoned up when the tank drives into the trap. he also said that there will be horses early war 1939, but that they'll be excluded from 1940 version because by then it's only realistic to expect that the Soviets have already eaten them.
-
i just talked with Steve and heard that the first CMx2 release is going to be titled "Winter War 1939", followed by "Winter war 1940" some 6 months later. advanced physics are needed to simulate realistic Finnish AT tactics. like the one in which a tank driggers a trap by pushing down a small branch, which causes 1-5 trees fall upon the tank. accroding to Steve there are very accurate calculations on what kind of damage individual falling trees cause on the tanks. it's all up to tree type, temperature etc, so that for example frozen pines are more likely to cause dents if they hit specific hull weakspots. on the other hand firs are more likely to cause facial scars for the TC if he's not buttoned up when the tank drives into the trap. he also said that there will be horses early war 1939, but that they'll be excluded from 1940 version because by then it's only realistic to expect that the Soviets have already eaten them.
. 
Er... correction... one small thing
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
i'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but is friendly LOF blocked as well?
and does this also mean that machineguns can now fire proper grazing fire instead of just point fire?