Jump to content

Europa

Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Europa

  1. I tried one. Died first shot. Might have been a bit short ranged though. A few hundred meters or so. Like 300 I think. The defense is a line with pak bunkers and hmg bunkers in hull down along a railroad bank 5 meters high. Inbetween the bunkers he had aa guns. I have taken them out. I have also eliminated one hmg bunker. its the ones with the paks that are hard. tried to keyhole one hmg 2 turns bak but he got me. I don't belive in smoke on this one. The bunkers are to many. Damn...

  2. I tried one. Died first shot. Might have been a bit short ranged though. A few hundred meters or so. Like 300 I think. The defense is a line with pak bunkers and hmg bunkers in hull down along a railroad bank 5 meters high. Inbetween the bunkers he had aa guns. I have taken them out. I have also eliminated one hmg bunker. its the ones with the paks that are hard. tried to keyhole one hmg 2 turns bak but he got me. I don't belive in smoke on this one. The bunkers are to many. Damn...

  3. I've made some tests and come to the conclusion that the slow firing guns are useless. The hope is the 57 mm stuff. Now I also ran a test with one bunker vs 4 57 mm guns. The guns lost. Rememver that the bunkers are hull down so hit % is down to about 25% first shot. I have uesing keyholed positions this far to no use. The guns die and I cant go head to head with a bunker with tanks.

  4. I've made some tests and come to the conclusion that the slow firing guns are useless. The hope is the 57 mm stuff. Now I also ran a test with one bunker vs 4 57 mm guns. The guns lost. Rememver that the bunkers are hull down so hit % is down to about 25% first shot. I have uesing keyholed positions this far to no use. The guns die and I cant go head to head with a bunker with tanks.

  5. Is there a way to take out bunkers frontally? They are concrete, cover about 500-1000 meters of open ground in hull down positions are alternating pak loaded and hmg loaded, are in hull down and multiple layers. I have managed to knock out most of the unprotected guns among them. At my diposal I have 3 sextons, one 95 mm churchill, 2 6 pounders, 3 priests, some 25 pounders and.. a lot of armoured cars mostly equiped with hmgs and 3 with 57 mms. There is no realistic way to get to the back of the bunkers and my infantry is green or conscript 6 men motorized squads. In the arty department we have 20 rounds of 188 mms and some 25 pounder VT and ordinary. 3 spotters dead before firing a round. Airplanes shot down or scared off... Any tips?

    -Edit-

    I forgot: I am running out of time. This must be done in less than 30 turns...

  6. Is there a way to take out bunkers frontally? They are concrete, cover about 500-1000 meters of open ground in hull down positions are alternating pak loaded and hmg loaded, are in hull down and multiple layers. I have managed to knock out most of the unprotected guns among them. At my diposal I have 3 sextons, one 95 mm churchill, 2 6 pounders, 3 priests, some 25 pounders and.. a lot of armoured cars mostly equiped with hmgs and 3 with 57 mms. There is no realistic way to get to the back of the bunkers and my infantry is green or conscript 6 men motorized squads. In the arty department we have 20 rounds of 188 mms and some 25 pounder VT and ordinary. 3 spotters dead before firing a round. Airplanes shot down or scared off... Any tips?

    -Edit-

    I forgot: I am running out of time. This must be done in less than 30 turns...

  7. Originally posted by General Colt:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leopard_2:

    Tanks

    The Sherman was a decisive factor because it could be mass-produced in previously unknown quantities, but I wouldn't dream of calling it a good piece of equipment compared to its peers on the tank battlefield (where I'd look at the T-34 and the Panther).

    Can't agree with this - the Sherman pretty much out-performed any T34 built at hte same time. It had better layout, better equipment (radio, sights, etc), a gun that was at least as good (75 vs 76, 76 vs 85) for most purposes (the 85 prolly had a better HE round than the 76), and it's armour was at least as good too IIRC - remmber the T34's went with 45-47mm front hull armour for the whole war - significantly less than any mark of Sherman!

    The Panther was, of course, better than both! </font>

  8. Originally posted by GSX:

    I dont get Leopard 2 on this issue at all. War is not clean. I mean we all obviously enjoy playing the CM games where there are no civilian casualties and everything is rosey. All weapons are designed to kill, civilians were deliberately targetted by ground troops whether in Russia or Germany or elsewhere. Next time you play this little game on the eastern front and start blowing up houses think about what would be in there.

    Civilians are allways properly evacuated in good time before any CM scenario is loaded...

    Part of the engine...

  9. Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

    For Some Reason the P51 Mustang comes to mind...

    Or the Corsair

    Was there not ONE decisive Allied WWII fighter that was supposed to have turned the tide?

    What about the B17, produce in LARGE numbers yes?

    I am not sure of the "exact" meaning and nature of the question?

    -tom w

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Europa:

    What was in your oppinion the single most important equipment during the waron any side? Mostly interested in equipment that made a positive difference for the side tat used it. Like the T-34. Cost efficient, strong and fast. This means that a thing like the king tiger don't qualify since it, in my oppinion, did cost to much to manufacture compared to the impact it had on the battlefield.

    </font>
  10. Originally posted by Rabidbvr:

    hello one and all

    I for one think bigger is better... not in CMAK

    but you will have to go a long way to beat the sov ISU-152... Never seen it pen armor on larger tanks but if it hits.... Just poor out what's left of the crew and if it's a miss still looks good...Good old HE

    Don't forget the sturmtiger. Can fire one of those at your own men just to watch the carnage..
  11. What was in your oppinion the single most important equipment during the waron any side? Mostly interested in equipment that made a positive difference for the side tat used it. Like the T-34. Cost efficient, strong and fast. This means that a thing like the king tiger don't qualify since it, in my oppinion, did cost to much to manufacture compared to the impact it had on the battlefield.

×
×
  • Create New...