birdstrike
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by birdstrike
-
-
Hmm, good question.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:And who, then, would be lifting the shells into the breach, that being the case.... :confused:
Maybe by climbing on each other's shoulders? Or they could use tiny ladders - no that would require too much space. Then it's the shoulder-climbing, definitely.
gunnergoz: thanks for the info , I always forget about the weight of these guns - must've been like a piano transport by bike.
Rabidbvr: And thanks again for the links.
-
How about some rangers available in North Africa?
-
You're right, they're not there - maybe they had other things to do (met some pretty signorina on their way, maybe?
).Excellent scenario, anyway.
-
Again a great link, Rabidbvr - keep'em coming!
-
Thanks, Rabidbvr. That's a great link!
Perfectly answers my question. Lots of interesting stuff. Bookmarked it at once
This 105mm must've been a real monster to make that much of a difference between the T30 and the T19. Or maybe they should've used smaller crewman - there should have been a sign on each of these vehicles like "Service personnel must not exceed 5'4''."Originally posted by Michael Emrys:Could be that there wasn't much room inside that halftrack after they put the howitzer and the crew in there.
Now if only there was an ammo truck in the game...
[ January 31, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]
-
I like that "Gary Owen" theme.
-
Looks VERY good.
-
The T19 HMC seems to have an awfully low amount of ammunition: only 8 rounds (whereas the T30 HMC carries 60, the M7 Priest 69).
That's barely enough for the crew zero in on a target - let alone score a hit.
Is this historically accurate?
-
Now, THERE'S an idea for a scenario, me thinks...Originally posted by CombinedArms: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by birdstrike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by JasonC:E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along. [big snip]
</font>
-
Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No U.S. Rangers and airborne units in Africa...That's odd, given that both types were historically present. Indeed, the Rangers fought one or two of their more famous actions there. </font>
-
Now, THERE'S an idea for a scenario, me thinks...Originally posted by JasonC:E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along.
What did they actually do? In the case I am thinking of, they called for air support. Took 2 hours. 36 P-47s showed up. The StuGs dispersed. The column proceeded, with subcolumns along several parallel routes. The didn't lose a single vehicle and killed all the StuGs. Did they do this because 40 AFVs weren't enough to kill 7 StuGs? No.
They did it because they could. And because a few hours didn't really cost anything, and even one dead tank did. At that point (it was early 1945) they knew the war was over and nobody wanted to be the last guy to die for an outcome that was obviously already set in stone. If the idiots on the other side haven't figured it out yet, get a hammer so big they can't miss it. 36 fighter bombers, or a 10 battalion time-on-target shoot by every gun in an entire corps (at one battalion in a single village), or set up a whole armored task force at 1 km and fire off 10 rounds each, direct.
-
There is a reason I tend to field mg's instead of snipers in large numbers...originally posted by dugfromthearth:there is a reason that armies tended to field mg's instead of snipers in large numbers.
BTW, what ranges do you usually order your sharpshooters to engage enemy targets? Should one care to attack at maximum range at all or better save ammo for closer ranges?
-
I ran a couple of quick tests and I got the impression that this exactly the case in CMAK:Originally posted by flamingknives:I've got a feeling that a regular ball round from a 7.92 weapon probably won't penetrate an M3 HT, but that sMK ammo (steel cored) will.
Both HMG34 and HMG42 knocked out HTs with no problem at ranges between 100 and 500 metres. (with one even catching fire after shot by MG34 at 120 metres).
LMG34 and LMG42 ceased firing at targets after HT crews went buttoned. Afterwards refused to fire at buttoned HTs.
Maybe they should call them Halfdeads instead of Halftracks.
-
Hehe, had exactly the same problem.originally posted by kingjames:Now if I can find the American Rangers, and paratroopers for my qb's I will be happy.
No U.S. Rangers and airborne units in Africa - these are available exclusively in the Italian TO:
Rangers in Italy available from July '43 to Feb. '44.
Airborne in Italy available from July '43 to April '44.
As far as I know, anyway.
-
Whoops, I don't know, but it seems the post I wrote just sometime before somehow disappeared. :confused:
Anyway, thanks for your replies, guys (once more).
I will be more cautious with HTs in the future.
-
When playing on the Allied side, I got the impression I'm loosing more HTs to german HMGs (notable the MG42) than to tanks or guns. :mad:
And this happens at ranges of 400+ metres!
I'm pretty much used to have axis light armor shot to bits by the M2 (I LOVE that gun
), but I was really surprised that the german HMGs are about as effective - if not more effective in taking out HTs. :confused: Is this overmodelled in CMAK or were those HTs really that vulnerable?
(I remember reading in another thread - can't remember which one it was - about someone putting a hole into an allied HT with a Colt .45 - but that was at point blank range.)
[ January 28, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]
-
Not quite sure, but I think you're right - after all tanks will definitely use HE on enemy tanks when no other ammo is left...it seems to me than once the AP ammo supply starts getting low tanks will start switching over to other rounds against light armor in an effort to save what remainsHowever, what I really would like to see is my tank crew using HE from the beginning on aginst light armor, I understand thin armor basically leads to much lesser damage from AP rounds and such - and most HE shells of 75mm caliber and higher can penetrate even 20mm of armor and more.
-
Yes, but not before April '45.Originally posted by flamingknives:Churchill AVRE is available in CMAK
I know, but this doesn't work in QBs and as I noted, it just would be easier not to need to look through all the dates and regions, looking for a specific West European unit, but to have them all in one place. (Call me lazy...) :cool:Originally posted by Mark Gallear:If you are creating ops or scenarios you can change the date to when an equipment type or troop is available buy it then change the date back.
Agreed, and that's exactly why I brought up this idea to have an extra option for a region of Western Europe, which does not interfere with the existing regions of E-Africa, N-Africa, Italy, &c by bringing in units/formations that did not see combat in the mediterranean region.Originally posted by Mark Gallear:However, I am against having stuff in the game which was not available in North Africa/Italy but was available in NW Europe because thats what the game is about!
[ January 24, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]
-
(As you're talking about Crete invasion, I suppose you're talking about to CMAK - so I'll refer to this specific game, as there are differences in the way movement orders work in CMBO, CMBB and CMAK)*
Sneak is generally a bad idea for scouting units - as they crawl on the ground and don't have a good field of view.
I generally use the "move to contact" order (hotkey 'E') combined with a "hide" order, so when spotting an enemy, the unit stops moving and takes cover, without attacking the enemy and giving away their position - that is of course only if the enemy has not already spotted them.
Anyway, I think scouting is a dangerous business - you should expect casualities rather than not.
However, when the enemy opens fire on them, you got to keep in mind, that he either is too far away to inflict serious damage, or he is close enough to be identified and been shot at himself.
Try to use scouts as some sort of pointman, if an enemy comes into sight, have enough firepower ready (tanks, artillery) to smoke him out instantly...
*(edited due to helpful hint in other posts to make clear, what game this applies to)
[ January 25, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]
-
I wonder whether it would be possible for any future CMAK patch to include something like a Western Europe-Option when choosing the theatre of operations in QBs and the editor.
I'm not talking about including new models and units - just a way to make the already existing units, that were also used in France and Germany in '44 and '45 (like U.S. airborne, Churchill AVRE, &c) available for the time they served in Western Europe.
This would surely make it easier to recreate old CMBO battles.
-
For CM specific data try this site:
There are Excel Sheets for every CM game containing units armor, weaponry, etc.
For general Information about tanks and vehicles try these:
A comprehensive site with tons of WWII tanks and vehicles.
About anything you want to know about german tanks.
A nice site for quick information about WWII tanks.
-
Why do tanks and howitzers armed with the larger caliber guns (75mm, 88mm, &c.) keep pumping numerous AP shells into thin-skinned units, like halftracks or trucks when one or two HE rounds would probably do the job much better?
Does the game consider these lightly armored vehicles as 'tanks' or is a target's armor not taken into account when the AI gunner chooses which kind of shell to fire at it?
-
Thank you all for your insights - this surely makes things clearer for me.
Though it would be nice to have some ski-on/ski-off order, e.g. like the button/unbutton for vehicles...
-
Okay, this is my first post on this board, so please be nice.
I don't think this has been mentioned on this board so far, so I thought I'd bring it up myself:
I recently played a QB in dec '44 with german infantry on skis - and there are two things I noticed.
The good thing is, as you would suspect, they are quite fast in snow and don't get tired as quickly as infantry on foot.
The bad thing is that they're unable to hide while on skis.
In addition, when given any moving orders other than 'move', 'run' or 'move to contact', they seem to totally abandon their skiing equipment and act like normal infantry on foot.
The same happens, when they are fired upon and dive for cover.
After that, there seems to be no way to get them back on their skis. :confused:
Has anyone other ever used these kind of troops before and can give me some further advice/information about this?
Thanks.
Cloned Mortar Carriers?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
All right, maybe I really am obsessed with those halftracks, but what exactly is the difference between the M4 and the M4A1 Mortar Carrier in the game? :eek:
Except for the name they are exactly the same. Same weapons, same ammo, same RoF, same engine specs, same no. of crew, same armor, even the same price! :confused:
In reality, AFAIK the M4 was not supposed to fire its mortar from within the HT, except in emergency situations, whereas the M4A1 could - but I don't see that simulated in the game.
And if they really are identical, why bother at all taking in two versions into the game?
Any clarification would be much appreciated, thanks.