Jump to content

poppy

Members
  • Posts

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by poppy

  1. Im standing here alone with nothing but dust for company. Where are all of the CMBO. poppys
  2. An addendem to my last post. The US army and probably most other advanced armys do not have an effective close support tank. The Abrams is an excellent "tank destroyer" but a poor close support tank,it is too heavy, too large, too expensive, its cannon is good at long range but at close range,ie 200m or so the old Sherman 75 would with up to date armor be much better in the urban warfare role. poppys
  3. Hello Berlichtingen, I agree with every thing that you posted except for the additive delay on movement orders. poppys
  4. Hello everyone, this thread seems to get to the heart of it. It being the employment of tanks and tank destroyers. The tank destroyers and tanks when they worked together were very effective. The tanks supported the infantry and the TDs took care of the tanks. Its still a good system and is still used today except the TDs are Warthogs and Apaches. This leaves the tanks free to support the infantry in the roll of a mobile pillbox. poppys
  5. Hi Denwad, I agree ,you do still have to aim but you dont have to work the bolt which as you know requires you to release your grip on the stock work the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber a new round, grip the stock again and aim, if your target is still in sight,[your right hand obscures your vision unless you move your head or the rifle while working the bolt and this requires a gross readajustment of aim and a longer aim time and a greater chance of losing sight of your target]. The sequence with a semi-auto is ,aim fire aim fire ,much faster and less chance of losing sight of your target and if your laying down suppressive fire on some bushes at 100m or 250m range the aim time is furher reduced. Thanks for your reply Denwad and I hope that you will consider my argument. poppys
  6. My computers back up after a bout of "infinit loopittus". The movement delays for vehicles and troops in CMAK makes it more difficult to move vehicles around which may be more realistic ,but then in the same long delayed movement the tank for some reason makes its laborious way across a dry creek bed instead of taking the bridge as ordered. The infantry model in CMBO is I agree not as accurate as it could be but I believe the infantry model in CMAK may be a little too accurate for a game vs a sim. I cant really argue the graphics comment that I made since Im red-green color blind and thats probably the reason CMBO graphics are better for me. Also the M5a1 is much better in CMBO, dont say it I know, its more correct in CMAK. All three of the Games are great fun though, maybe Im spoiled to CMBO after playing it for four years without much let up except for H@D 1 and 2 and a couple of others. poppys
  7. Thanks Michael, Just got back on line my computers been down for several days. I agree that it would be very difficult to research all the info that is available. This thread has answered some of the questions that I have. Some good info on this thread and it would be interesting to know how the Russians rated the Sherman. poppys
  8. Hello Berlichtingen, I play mostley CMBO .To me a tactical game at the squad level can best be played effectivly within a limited area. Unless of course a player enjoys the details of movement over the details of engagement. CMBO, to me ,fine tuned the elements of movement and engagment. Im sure that an lot of thought and programming went into CMBO to arrive at this balance. CMBB and CMAK in my opinion took away from rather than adding to playability. Why Make vehicles harder to manage. Why make terrain elevations harder to deciper. An "improvement to CMBO" without a new engine would not have made a new game, so changes were made,not improvements, in order to make a new game, ie CMBB and CMAK. And I bought both and thats ok, as long as BF realizes that this is why most, I hope, fans bought CMBB and CMAK. CMx2 will, in my opinion, sell many more copys if it remains true to the parameters set by CMBO.
  9. Is there an operation dipicting the battle of Bastogne. I realize that this was a divisional level battle. But has anyone broken down the various battles close enough tactically to Bastogne and including various elements of the Battle of Bastogne to create a series of battles or operations to recreate this epic and turning point battle, or do we have to wait for CMx2. Caution,this may be a hint.
  10. For some insight into day by day experiences of American WW2 tankers,http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/chap1.htm
  11. Whatta you boys lookin for,,perfection,,, then you are in the wrong business. War is the most imperfect endevor of humankind. Play it the way it is. Seriously tho, indecsision,wrong info, out of date info, bad maps, fighter bombers, impassable roads and a wrong alternate road selected by back area incompentants was commonplace in any war so, Whatta you boys lookin for.
  12. The big problem and what I believe BF is simulating is Command. A tank crew bails out or a mortar crew abandons its mortar they are out of Command. So they are running or hiding and some "Commander" needs to get them back on the line. Make them report to, via command line, to a squad leader or platoon leader or company commander.Equip them with their historical weapons and treat them as any other infantryman but only after they come within the command radius of a commanding unit.
  13. Theres nothing wrong with CMBB or CMAK as far as I can tell but CMBO to me is more fun to play. Vehicle movement along a serpentine road in CMAK may be more realistic but it also is a chore compared to CMBO. And if realism is the objective then the vehicles ,tanks for sure,need to stay on the road with out taking shortcuts across unsuitble terrain. To me CM is a game and not a Sim. CMBO to me has the best mix of Game and Sim to make it both fun to play and accurate enough in respect to the real WW2 weapons to make it interesting and to inspire some research the results of which to question BF with. tooz Im doing the same thing except a little Tennessee sour mash.
  14. I meant that I would have wanted to be in the "Fifth Sherman" along with the other lucky ones. I have read where damaged Shermans were repaired faster than crews could be trained for them and the result was in effect "conscript" crews. I dont know whether the Germans were faced with this or not.
  15. One thing that needs to be considered is that it is more difficult to use an antitank gun in the offensive role than in the defensive role. I would rather have, using hindsight, been in a Sherman than in a Panther in WW2. It took, according to German accounts 5 Shermans to kill one Panther,but also according to German accounts there was always that "Fifth Sherman."
  16. Thank you all for the replies, hopefully someone somewhere has researchd this before and Il be lucky enough to find his or her results.
  17. Hello Micheal. Im trying to get information about the performance of the Sherman vs the Panther in attack and in defense. The Sherman was used mostly in offense but the statistics are related in kill ratios without regard to offense vs deffense. As I said in an earlier post the fighter bombers were credited with kills of Panthers and Tigers that were actually killed by direct fire of anti tank guns and Shermans. Any refs will be appreciated.poppys
  18. Hello Rob Murray, The quick battle maps are chancy at best. Go to the Scenario Depot. poppys
  19. Hello Kingfish Id like to play this scenario. poppys
  20. Hello Skolman, The difference in the LeeEnfield and the K98 is the bolt rotation on the LE is about 45deg the bolt rotation on the K98 is about 65deg and the LE cartridge is shorter than the K98 cartridge and the LE magazine holds 10 rnds vs the K98 5 rnds. Mostly tho is the mystic generated by the super trained Brits in the Expiditionary force of WW1. They were the benchmark of infantry of that era. poppys
  21. How well did the panther do on the offense vs the Sherman.
  22. Hello everyone. This is a great game but like most great games the follow ons get changed to the point to where the attraction of the original is lost. CMBO in my experience is the best of the three. It is to me the most playable for a non grog such as I am. It offers enough authenticity to make the game absorbing and yet enough fiction to make the game playable. The graphics are acceptable. Terrain color in CMBO is much better just enough trees and stuff to make it interesting,remember we are playing on a "sand table" tactics are the attraction and the correct tactics the reward. poppys
×
×
  • Create New...