Jump to content

Zalgiris 1410

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by Zalgiris 1410

  1. I concur, but OTOH you can always tell them to go and take a dive into or a long swim in the 'West Nile', lol!
  2. From a thin book on Panzer Grenadier fighting techniques: 75mm leIG 18 Caliber: 75mm Length: 0.9m Weight: 400kg Range: 3550m Projectile weight: 5.45 or 6kg (12 or 13.23lb) 150mm sIG 33 Caliber: 149mm (5.9inch) Length: 1.65m Weight: 1750kg Range: 4700m Projectile weight: 38kg (83.79lb)(HE) 105mm leFH 18/40 Caliber: 105mm Length: 3.31m Weight: 1955kg Range: 12325m Projectile weight: 14.81kg (32.66lb) 105mm K 18 Caliber: 105mm Length: 5.46mm Weight: 5624kg Range: 19075mm Projectile weight: 15.14kg (33.38lb) 150mm sFH 18/36 Caliber: 149mm (5.9inch) Length: 4.44m (36 had a muzzle break whatever redution that means) Weight: 5512kg (36 about half this & towed in a single load) Range: 13325mm Projectile weight: 43.5kg (95.9lb) 170mm K 18 Caliber: 172.5mm Length: 8.529mm Weight: 17520kg Range: 29600mm Projectile weight: 68kg (150lb)(HE) 210mm Morser 18 Caliber: 210.9mm Length: 6.51m Weight: 16700kg Range: 16700mm Projectile weight: 121kg (267lb)(HE) At a quick glance I would like to raise questions regarding ammunition interchangeability between the different kinds of guns with the same calibers, esp here for the two 105s and the two 150s . Also, while not here there were as mentioned above earlier in this thread 150mm (149mm) long barrelled Field guns as well! So were they interchanable, by degrees or totally not at all? From the different weights of projectiles it doesn't apair so, but I thought that they ought to have, at least the IG/FH 150s anyway. Please can anyone explain the reasons for this to me? Related to this I was wondering about the use of the same round or at least the same AT round in say PAK 35/36 L45/37mm and the Rhinemetell L57/37mm AAG. This holds for the German 20mm guns in their usual AA veriety with the guns mounted on the Pz IIs and PSWs, which BTW were L70 and not L55 as in CM. Same again for other counties weapons such as in the case of Hotchkiss AA and Puteaux AT L72/25mm guns, since AFAIK they are made with the very same gun berrel. Hmmm, would the 75mm leIGs ammunition not be compatable with the 75mm leFG 16 or the mountain gum veriety. How about the 105mm mountain Howitzer and the 105mm leFH, is the same ammo used in both? May be not, since I think that the Mountain Guns & Howitzers were of Skoda construction, although that reminds me that there were Skoda 105mm & 150 Field Howitzers which the Rumanians were equipt with. I now am also wondering if the all the Skodas were compatable with normal German ammunition for the same caliber guns & howitzers like how Czech rifle and LMG/HMGs were with German 7.92mm x 57mm rounds? :confused: :confused: :confused: [ January 03, 2007, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  3. O'h yeah, they are too, I should have said that their maximum ranges are shorter and less effective at range than if they were armed with rifles. OTOH all this talk about weapons and tank crews carrying rifles/carbines, SMGs and having provisions to field mount their detatched and retracted MGs has got me thinking about what the crews really needed them for: sentry duty. Cirtainly they may not have taken the trouble to have removed tank MGs to perform this task, (while also rendering their tank less combat ready in the process) although they might have done so for a broken down or bogged fighting machine to secure it while they waited for recovery or repairs to be carried out, even if they had to do that them selves! I've read a few AFVs crewman memoirs and some of them relate about pulling security and performing sentinal duty usually with rifles/carbines & SMGs, definately not with pistols or dismounted MGs to be sure. The crews would not have been able to have rested, eaten nor especially slept if they didn't feel safe in their vehicles or billetted in some town or village at night if they felt volnerable to having their throats cut by partisans or if raided by commandos, etc. It stands to reason that weapons crews would have done much the same, I should think.
  4. And the Rumanians used their Breda/Bohler L32/47mm IGs likewise. I will have to admit that I have no evidence that they used them indirectedly. I'm just assuming that they did based on the fact that they could have, given their 7000 metre range, which is abviously not within direct flat tragectory LOS fire. I agree that AFAIK IGs date from WWI with the origional German conceptional form of them being a 37mm caliber infantry fire support 'assault gun', which was to perform the tasks in the manner that you lay out above in an attack. They were to advance with the infantry and provide fire support when they most needed it, once the forward infantry had effectively outrun their less mobile field and heavy artillery support. However at the time that they were introduced (I'm not exactly sure when) there was the threat posed by tanks a plenty to be countered and it feel to these guns to cover that mission in a dedicated anti-tank fashion, a role which their light weight and mobility helped them to fulfil. IINM they were doing this by or from the battle of Chambrei and onwards and were provided with an anti-tank round. I haven't read any actual AARs especially mentioning the employment of 75mm leIGs in 6 gun Regimental batteries but I can't say that it's not possible. It ought to have been, even if the 2 gun platoons were set up in widely seperate platoon positions, but all within range of a respective target area. I mean it takes the platoon half an hour to set up in a postion, it therefore stands to reason that they were spending all that time setting up fore control for something. If what you say is true it would make me feel better about using the 6 tube 75mm spotter team in CM. OTOH haven't you been saying in this thread that the Germans usually used their 75mm leIGs in a direct fire role, as in almost always. If you stick to that, are you now saying that these 6 gun batteries of light Infantry Guns were used as some sort of Regimental direct fire sledge hammer? I'm just taking the piss here Jason. But seriously it really would be good to read any of those AARs if you could help me access them Jason, they'd be awesome I reckon maaite. Auh, Jason, here's the thing, by you not having heard or read that it became a standered thing for 75mm IGs to be replaced at Regimental level with twice their number of 81mm mortars, it is perfectly understandable, permisable and forgivable that you then over emphasize the inflated number of 81mm per German infantry type Battlions. It is not that you are deliberately or ultimately misguildedly exadurating the ratio of 81mm mortars that German infantry type Battalions had availiable to them as assets on a regular basism especially from mid-war onwards. It's just that you, amoung others no doubt, arn't realising just what exactly is going on in the German TO&E and what it means in the field, as it were, with regards to the 13th Company of the Regiment. Yes the Battalions 6 tube mortar platoon was usually divy'd out to the Inf Companies in 2 tube section pairs, and when they were 2 gun 75mm leIG Platoons they were likewise dished out to the Battalions as such. The thing to understand is that things didn't stay that dull and boring way though out the length of the War and as you very well know Jason, German formation stuctures changed, and changed in hodge podge & ad hoc fashions and flirtations. Over time the 13th Company became more of and more than likely to be a mortar Company rather than an Infantry Gun Company. The 75IGs, if Regiments were to still retain them were handed down to become organic units of the Battalions, while actually repaced in the 13th Company organisation with 81mm mortars in lieu at a two for one rate, just like as when the 2 gun 150 IGs were repaced with a 4 tube 120mm heavy mortar platoon/battery. Often the 75mm IeIGs were lost altogether and just substituded with the 81mms. Thus, while Infantry Battalions still had their origional 6 81mm mortars, the Regiment could provide them with 4 or 6 more in much the same way that they had previously provided a 2 gun light or heavy IG platoon/battery in the old organisation. Bear in mind that the Regiments were usually reduced themselves from formations origionally with 3 Battalions to 2 in the second half of the War and it is obvious that counts of 10-12 81mm mortars per Inf Battalion are encounted, but that is not how they were officially organised and equipt. [ January 01, 2007, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  5. Regarding the FP points of crews I believe that in CM they are considered to be armed with pistols ergo their FP is what normal pistol rates are for the same quality troops, like in HQ units. That is why their rates are less than rifles, because they arn't armed with rifles, but pistols. Weapon crews do occationally use them at close range enemy even while they are still serving their piece, possibly discounting the No.1 gunner from the total number of pistols calculated as firing, I'm assuming, although I've no idea for sure. I don't absolutely know for sure but the still weapon manning crews will fire their pistols at approaching ememy troops when they reach either half way or the final quarter the why under their pistols maximum range. It is not some thing that I have specifically tested but I remember figuring it out (if it is actually true) playing a game a long time ago. An anti-tank gun crew, the gun of which remained pointed elsewhere, pistol shot upon some very close enemy infantry, and it was quite a few units, not just one but a few that used the same approach route. I certainly took notice of who had made the fire lines and I realised it was them and only under a certain range, like they had a self inposed covered arc. The crew servived the battle still serving their gun at the end. PS I nominated them all for medals of course! :cool:
  6. Done Redwolf and thanks again if you are serious. BTW I tried to open your homepage and it wouldn't connect, if it is just the computer that I'm using racked witht virises and bugs whatever then may be my email didn't get to you either. Please let me know one way or another if you could. Now I hope that you and everybody understand just how completely out of touch with this technology that I am. I can half use a computer but undertstand it and IT I'm no good at ...yet. Please understand my fear of it all and of making a mistake when buying a new PC and assortments. Yes I am a Ludite and proud to have been but it is a really limiting constant now. OTOH I'm decended from an actual Ludite or well actually a Swing Rioter which was a later Ludite industrial sabotour during the 1830s. My ancester was captured leading a band of them in Berkshire (IIRC) in 1834 and convicted of machine breaking and was sentenced with transportation to the NSW penal colony for life!
  7. Jason is right about what the different spotters represent. Each German Infantry Regiment had a 13th Company with 1 2 gun 150mm heavy Inf Guns Platoon/Battery and 3 2 gun 75mm light Inf Guns Platoons/Batteries. Later in the War the 150s were either retained or replaced with a 4 tube 120mm heavy mortar Platoon/Battery, while the 75s were either retained, or shall we say lengthen by being upgraded to L24/75mm guns (origionally on short barrelled Panzer IVs & Stug IIIs) or again they were replaced by twice their number by 81mm mortars; for 12 extra 81mm mortars. All German Divisional and above Artillery batteries were of four piece units and almost always in 12 piece / 3 batteries Battalions (oddly called Detatchments) on paper! The German Army had always used 4 tube Artillery batteries from before WW1, though I'm not sure if that pratice goes back to the Franco-Prussian War and further back or not. IMHO the 6 tube 81mm mortar & 75mm IG spotter units are very unreallistic. I don't think that it was even an uncommon practice let alone a regular thing the Germans did to combine the 2 tube units together like that. These units were always attatched as a single pair to sub-formations. The 81mms to Infantry Companies while the 75mm IGs were assigned to Battalions and not massed as a Regimental 6 tube indirect fire asset. BTW those 4 tube 81mm mortar batteries would mostly, over the time length of the War, represent all those replaced 75mm lIG batteries, since otherwise it was quite rare for the Germans to employ them in fours except for in very extranious Battalions before that organisational development. OTOH I think that both of these support units were much more accurate in the indirect fire role than the CM off board artillery dynamics simulate. One point that I would like to make is that these light support units ought to be considered different to the heavier stuff and the fall of their shells should be spread into a smaller area than the 'Divisional' stuff. I constantly read about their accuracy and the effects of their fire missions, from sources from both sides. Jason os right about the lack of effect by the 2 gun 75mm IGs spotter units and I hold that the same goes for the 81mm mortars as well. I find that I have to go with the 6 tube verieties just to achieve what I want to achieve with these calibers of spotters and what I assume was achieveable with 2 tube verieties in real life. I'm not expecting them to be as accurate in the game as direct firing (as in the case with the IGs on the map) but IMHO I think that they ought to be as accurate as on board mortars are, when their shells land in a thinner shorter tighter pattern even with a HQ providing the spotting function for them. This is what you want, light indirect fire support assets that will take out individual HMG posts and identified guns & anti-tank guns etc. Personally I can't phathom why a HQ unit providing spotting for an out of LOS mortar or more in an ad hoc manner has better fire results than the dedicated spotter teams are. I can understand the time delay differentials due to communication time consumption, but definately not the accuracy difference that CM has especially for the same weapon! Now as I said earlier it is a matter of historical realism as to having 47mm Infantry Guns avaliabe as an indirect firing asset. Quite frankly Jason you might be right that they are so ineffective at it that the Rumanians didn't even bother to use them indirect. OTOH possibly it might be the case that they couldn't do so because they lacked the spotting ability. I mean that they simply didn't have enough of the range taking equipment and the means of communication for their 2 gun very light Infantry Gun batteries to be fire controlled indirectly. For instance I've read that a single German battery was better equipt with the means of fire co-ordination than the regular types of whole Rumanian Artillery Battalions. Still, if they did use their Bohler L32/47mm IGs as a two tube indirect fire battery then I would at least like to have the option available to me to see the result or lack there of by using them as such. (H'mmm much like finding out how ineffective 2 tube 81mm mortar & 75mm IG batteries are in CM hey Jason.) Likewise I would like to have the Schneider L53/47mm ATGs for the Rumanians as well. This is all connected in my kind of logic Jason! [ December 31, 2006, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  8. No Jason the Rumanians had two differrent 47mm guns, which were intended to serve different perposes, one light shorter barrelled version (which was also pack/man portable) and a longer version which was an Anti-Tank gun with a limited light support capability. The differrence is in the initial velocities produced between the 1.5 metres barrel length on the Bohler and 2.5 metres barrel length on the Schneider. While the Rumanians had plenty of 37mm Bofors ATGs to go around, they did have some 47mm ATGs (Schneider)in ATG units largely with the Cavalry Divisions. OTOH there was the 2 gun Infantry Gun batteries equipt with Bohler 47mm guns and were provided as a unit per Battalion, just like the German & Russian light 75/76.2mm IGs usually were. Origionally, Rumania ordered 300 Schneider L53/47mm Anti-Tank Guns to form a 12 gun mechanised* ATG Company per Division during the late 30's as a response to Hungarian tankettes and light tank developements. Before the fall of France, France had deliverred 160 of them and the Concordia factory had built 140 under licence and it continued to build them afterwards. *The French Renault UE Chenillette fully tracked supply carrier was to provide all terrain mobility and 300 of them were also orderred. A total of 126 had been built under licence by the Malaxa factory in Bucharest, however a vehicle return for 22 June 1941 records that there were 178 Senileta on strength. The extras came from German captured stocks while a few may have actually been interned Polish TK/S Chenilettes. The majority of the Bofors L47/37mm ATGs that the Rumanians have on the Eastern Front were supplied by Germany as barter for oil contracts. These largely came from captured Polish stock with a figure of 669 deliveries of that gun, which was still the most common ATG in Rumanian service in June 1941. Later Germany was unable to find any more of them and started to deliver her own PAK to Rumania including at first the PAK 36 L45/37mm. Origionally Rumania received 275 Breda L32/47mm IGs from Italy, calling them Bohlers of which they are direct copies, while Germany supplied 545 actual Bohlers from her inherited Austrian stocks, also for oil. My point is that the 700+ Bohlers were origionally intended to serve as an IG in an infantry support role while the 300+ Schneider 47mm gun were dedicated ATGs. They were later superseded in numbers by 669 Bofers 37mm ATGs in Rumania service, but that is only by about a 2-1 ratio. So where are the Schneider L53/47mm ATGs in CM and why don't the Bohler L32/47mm guns act like Infantry Guns with an off board option to simulate indirect fire support capability? PS: BTW where are the Rumanians during most of 1943? They were still fighting on the Eastern Front and still had troops in the Crimea and never less than two Divisions on the Front with the 17th Army in the Kuban Bridgehead at Rumania's lowest level of commitment. [ December 29, 2006, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  9. My CD-ROM problems don't prove anything about memery, they serve to illustrate hardware difficulties resulting from not investing in up to date equipment. I still have a CP with an x8 speed CD-ROM and all the games that I couldn't play with the x4 speed CD-ROM. I still can't play them though, because the x8 is damaged, it still runs a few things, but absolutely nothing that requires the full x8 speed. The games remain unplayed which is really anoying. Possibly I could get around to having it finally fixed, but I don't think that there is anyone out there still fixing such old equipment. O'h by the way does anyone recommend Clive Peter's chain store? I'll have to check them out but there isn't one in my area, not that that's a problem.
  10. I'm not saying that any of this is really a bug in CMx1, but... well it just bugs me! [ December 29, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  11. Actually remagel so far I have found the staff at Harvey Norman very competent and to have computer expertise above and beyond their function as simply computer salesmen and IT service peons. The problem that I 'believe" that I have with that chain is that it feels restrictive upon its talented staff and doesn't provide enough information to perspective buyers; ie moi! I'm trying to avoid buying on line because I need someone to actually talk me through it (hopefully not into or out of anything bad) and demonstrate a little, etc. Redwolf I'm gonna have to insist upon the DDR2 2GB because I want my new PC to be both very fast and have massive power. I'll tell you why, because when I bought my first real PC, the x8 speed CD ROM was just coming onto the market at a considerable differrence in price from the x4 speed which I got. In a couple of years every gsme or programme required x8 and din't work at all on 4. I din't want to go through anything like that again even if things cost a bit more!
  12. I know stuff all about Computers so I am asking you fallas before I buy a new one. I want not necessarily the top of the range, but close since I intend to learn to use it properly, meaning do much more with it, ie get into a bit of graphic design even if only to learnt the ropes. I do realise that I'll need capacity to do so. I have been looking around but it is almost all too technical for me, I'm getting swampt by it all! I really am out of touch. What I am determined to get so far is something with a 2 GB DDR2 RAM and at least a 250-320 GB Hard Drive, preferably the latter. I've also heard that a Geforce sound card is good to have, don't remember about the graphics card recomendations. (The piece of paper with all my mates list of recomendations was left in a shirt pocket that I put in the washing machine!) I'm also intent on buying a PC from a reputable chain store or major outlet for the support that I will need latter on down the track. I'm not building the contraption by my self! The one stipulation is that I must be able to play CMBB and CMAK on it, no matter what! I live in the Essendon area of Melbourne, Australia and so far I've really only looked seriously at Harvey Norman, but fallas that I know are saying that Hardly Normal computers are over-priced and I've also looked at Dell on line. The other area is in the CBD but there are alot of stores, too much choice (including the pitfalls) and I can't tell a good place from a bad one in there! Please help, thanks in advance. Regards Saul.
  13. Point taken on the 60mm mortars Jason. I don't know much at all about the SOP of a Rumanian Company battery of 2-3 60mm mortars, especially as to wheither they were past out to the platoons individually or bunched up and controled like an actual battery or not or what! However given that they were origional organised on a 2 per Company basis for full strength Battalions (as for 41 type Battalions) I'm making the assumption that they were controled (or were attempted to be) like a battery even given their short range and slight blast effect. The increase to 3 per Company in 42 seems to have been done as an increase in fire support rather done to ensure that each Inf platoon has its own 60mm platoon mortar. Just because the 60mm mortar fire effect is not that great doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated differently from what was historically correct as BF has set out to achieve and as we all like about CM so much. An example is the Italian L/17 65mm Mountain Howitzer, which with a 1.1 metres long barrel length IMOH is for all intents and perposes an Infantry Gun, in CM it comes with the 4 tube spotter provided battery option, even though while the blast effect is 32 and higher than what some posters believe accurate for that calibre, it is still well low below what a lot of players would like to get from a spotter unit for their games. [i think of the Italian L17 (1.1 metres barrelled) 65mm Mountain Howitzer as an Infantry Gun because the Russian 76.2mm Infantry Gun is also an L/17 although that means that it is 1.3 metres long. It also falls between the German L/11-12 75/150mm Infantry Guns (including SP versions) and the L/24 75mm gun on the short PzIVs & Stug IIIs have barrel lengths of 0.8 metres to 1.8 metres, the 'Stumpels' were given to some late War SS units in stead of the 0.8m 75mm light IGs. If pressed on it I would refer to the Japanese who had both a 75mm IG as well as an L/10 70mm 'Howitzer Battalion Gun' or 'Pack Howitzer', with a barrel length of just 0.72 metres! Both of these Japanese Infantry Support artillery pieces had initial velocities of 198 metres per sec. This is similar to the 210 metres per sec initial velocities of the German Infantry Guns. ] Those two tube German Infantry spotter batteries that you mention Jason are another good example in terms of gaming design to reflect historical realism as well. Again some players might not like having only two tube spotter units but that is what is historically accurate, what is not is that there aren't any 6 tube 150mm Infantry Gun spotter batteries, which is what some PG Regiments had latter in the War! Hmmm, 6 tube 150mm spotters...ahhh :cool: O'h while still on the subjuct of Infantry Guns, those L/32 47mm guns that CM has classified as Anti-Tank guns for both the Romanians and the Italians were actually Infantry Guns, or purhaps meant to be Infantry Support Guns origionally. The Rumanian 47mm gun is the origional Austrian Bohler version, while the Italian 47mm gun is the Breda copy of the same origional version built in much much greater numbers. Both are actually in reality very light Mountain or pack guns, being break down able into 11 man or donkey portable parts and could come with or without a shield. The 'anti-tankness' capacity is derived from the fact that they are provided with an anti-tank round, as a secondary funtion AIUI. Their indirect fire range was about 7000 metres and here was their intended role IIUOC. Even though their blast effect is woefully low that gives these very light guns a much greater range than those German Infantry Gun handled properly in CM as intended. Interestingly, coming back to the mortars I've recently read that Rumania also had 50mm Brandt mortars as a platoon mortar, 60mm Brandt mortars (with a range of only 1000 metres!) as the Company mortar and 81mm Brandt mortars (with a range of either 2500m or 3000m IIcouldRC) at Battlion level. There ranges are very different than what we have in CM. I'm not sure how accurate these figures are and while I would like to extend the range of the 81.4mm mortars I don't actually want to bring to the attention of BF the 1000m range limit for the 60mm Brandt mortars! Also I have sources that say that the Rumanians were equipt with Schneider L/53 47mm Anti-Tank Guns, which are not in CM for the Rumanians and certainly would suit to replace the Bohler L/32 47mm guns in an anti-tank capability. Fair enough the Schneiders are not going to stop a horde of T-34s or KVs but probably eliminate the lighter obsolete stuff at a greater range than the Bohlers which might matter for some thing over the flat wide steppe in Southern Russia where they were. I must admit though that I can't find any direct examples Scheider 47mm ATGs in Rumania TO&E that I have; except for the inspecific mentioning of 47mm ATGs with out stipulating as to wheither they are Schneider or Bohler. OTOH I've got plenty of Bofors L/47 37mm ATGs and 2 tube 47mmIG per Inf Btlns, which can only mean the low velocity Bohler.
  14. It is my understanding, which I admit is totally derived from secondary sources only, that 8 snippers per Battalion is max, not 16 which I'm assuming to be the result from a case of double counting somewhere. AIUI the establishment of snipers in a Brit Battalion was always only ever of 8 snipers, first origionally they were organised as pairs, two per Company attatched to the Coy HQ. Latter they were all withdrawn from under the Companies and combined into a section of 8 snipers independantly under the Battalion. The main benifit from this was not an increase in the number of actual snipers but that there was now room to provide them with promotions. There being a need to do so given that they are in a full section of their all of own. -What section could not function (in the British Army) without the right and proper proportions between privates and NCOs, it would just not have been Cricket otherwise! Tally ho.
  15. Excellent Jason C, likewise I find CMx1 handling of off- board Artillery unrealistic, in the sense that converged shiefing by all each and everybodies single batteries was neither then norm nor even a capacity of many a WWII spotter/battery team, especially where, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't ever funtion that way as in the case of Russian and backward Axis FOOs. Where are the walls of curtain artillery fire falling latterally in front of my troops for protection? :confused: Where is that TOT by whole Battalions and Regiments that I've read about? OTOH designers please note that for all off-board spotter Artillery units in CM you can increase by 4 times the innitial ammount of ammo shells each unit has. This means that instead of having only 35 rounds of 150mm you can increase it to 140 rounds. Similarly 50 rounds becomes 200, 60 rounds becomes 240, 100 rounds becomes 400, 150 becomes 600 and 200 rounds becomes 800 rounds, etc. IMHO it always does help to have the extra indirect shell fire.
  16. Hmmm, unfortunately that isn't really being modelled in CM AFAIK Stalin's Organist. The setting fire to external storage ought to be in the game IMHO though for such reasons of historical realism. I am especially thinking of the case with the extra feul drum barrel on top of the rear hulls of the tanks that the 5th Tank Army arrived on the scene of Prokhorovka with. The SS tank gunners themselves accountably took advantage of such suseptible weaknesses and inflicted a punishing toll upon their foes accordingly. However I think that the resalts were more of the kind of bailing out of crews from burning and soon to be brewing up tanks than of the type we are talking about in this thread. OTOH, if extra storage was to be depicted in CM it would help with ammunition load outs especially if 'unofficial' ammo racks are to be depicted as well. Of cause as to wheither AFVs employ these extra ammo capacity features could be dependant upon there historical likelihood and upon crew quality and even as a purchase point differrential option if BF could manage it. It was something on my wish list for CMX2 IIRC!
  17. Nope, the 37mm AAG inflicted no crew casualties at all, not even after firing at the scamperring away bailed out figure! It simply inflicted no infantry casualties for the game. I listened intently to the playback and there were no cries or sceamed explitives from the Matilda II crew during the first (which hit the tracks anayway) and the subsequent hits. I also checked the game results to be sure and the tank had a Regular quality crew. Incidently the Matilda was commanded by a Ser Murkin, IIRC, which I found slightly funny too! I really liked that 37mm AAG because it had also earlier knocked out a T-70 at 800 metres or so with a few AP hits in the 15mm side armour of what is an otherwise impervious light tank from the front for that caliber. Actually what really made taking out the Matilda at 616 metres such a bizzare event was that the 37 was moved 60 metres forwards in rough terrain itself between the two incidents. I was really hanging on the edge of my seat watching its progress and then its time delay re-setting up while the heavily protected Matilda was starting to make short work of my ATG defence! :eek: The AA gunners deserved the Iron Cross and I pinned them on each (surviving) member myself, taking the time to talk to each of them personally, the gun chief had the 1st class hung around his brave little neck! My limited expectation of the targetted fire from the AAG was simply to distract or retard the Matilda in its' deul with my last remaining (and pinned :mad: ) 75mm ATG! I did not expect it to defeat the armoured menace so effectively, all by itself. It fired and hit it 8 times in the space of about 20 seconds and I do realise that these 'firings' represent automatic multi-round whole clip firings of 4-5 actual rounds I imagine in both CM terms and in reality. So, yes as Kurbi points out such 37mm AAGs can disable and cause a bail out by the crew of even KVs at impervious ranges because their volumn of hits rattles the morale out of the crew and the crew out of the monster tank. [ November 06, 2006, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  18. I thought that this couldn't of happenned, but my conscript crewed 37mm AA gun, only fired just eight rounds at a Matilda II to force or encorrage the crew into abandoning the monster. Nothing else waas firing at the tank, although a 75mm ATG was targeting it in a duel which the Matilda II was winning. The tank had not been hit by a three inch round at all and had already knocked out my other 75mm ATG earlier. Anyway with my forelorned hope, it all took place at exactly 616 metres, because the 37mm AAGs' 1st HE round hit the tracks and immobilized it! The second HE round was an upper front hull hit with no penetration / little damage, followed by two AP rounds, switching back for 4 more HE rounds. All these shells landed in the same place with the same result. After the eighth hit the crew jumped out and started to crawl away as quickly as they could move. It looked impressive too, 'cos the tank must've discharged smoke when immobilized because clouds of the stuff just started to belch forth from around the machine at this moment as well, right on cue as it were! :cool: PS: In the end I won a Major Victory 82% to 18%
  19. 60mm mortars, 81mm mortars; cock up the arse, WTF. :eek: Take a look at the Rumanians they have both Brandt 60mm & 81.4mm mortars, with only the 81mms availiable as off the board battery mode. Curriously the range of their 60mm mortars is about 1800 metres while their 81mm mortars is only 1900 metres! So my 1st question is why with only a one hundred metre differrence does the Brandt 81.4mm mortars get to be off map while the 60mm martars do not? Secondly, why couldn't there be a way to actualise a mortar battery or the more usual case of a section of two mortars being employed and deployed on map, controlled by a fire control leader or HQ unit with or without a rangetaker or 'spotter'? Likewise I would love to see Infantry Guns in use in the manner that they were usually employed, esp by the Germans, which was mostly in the indirect fire role. For both their 75mm leIG and the 150mm sIG the minimum 'over the heads' of troops in front of them was about 200 metres. This is well with in the ranges that CMx1 is all about. Same goes for the Russian L/17 75mm IG, the Italian 65mm IG or mountain gun as CMx1 has them or the Rumanian 47mm 'very' light IG, represented along side their unshielded ATGs of the same calibre, although I don't have any information regarding these IGs safe minimum 'over the heads of own infantry' range, however someone did a calculation of the Russian IG and come up with a figure similar to the Germans ones above. I think that this would have added something to the game, while at the same time being historically acurate and realistically authentic. The IGs could then be used for direct fire as they are only allowed to be in CMx1, or indirect, like on board mortars can be when using a commanding HQ unit in a substitute spotter role. Now that would not only be fantastic, but tactically very interesting I reckon. It could even have been modelled with the ability for any Pltn or Coy HQ unit or relavent spotter / rangetaker to be able to 'call in' the IGs or 60mm/81mm mortar section via their own controling, coordinating HQ unit where this was historically technically achievable, while not allowing such a process to take place when forces were not up to the technical capacity. (Lacking the signals equipment capable of facilitating such fire control.)
  20. This might be the same regarding close Area Firing with MGs, but the actual diamiter of the zone of effect for MG Area Fire is 25 metres, or a radius of 13.5 metres. So 14 metres, is the closest safe distance before 'shaking' ones own nearby troops. Would have to test it to be absolutely sure though!
  21. Just taking a look at Sergei's figures above, especially for 43. While I'm no expert at counting tanks or anything, however I think that I can say that the majority ie; well in excess of 20 000, were lost from the beginning of the battle of Kursk onwards. Again like for 41 that is a figure above 20 000 tanks in SIX Months!; but for 43 the overwhelming majority of these are of tanks with 4 man crews, unlike for 41! I've read elsewhere in regards to this period (mid-late 43) as being the real crunch in the armoured war on the Eastern Front. The German Panzerwaffe was overstrained and riden down mechanically, resaulting in greater and increasingly greater percentages of AFVs having to spend time in the workshops. They were overtaxing the fleet of 'runners' grappling with the overwhelming numbers of Russian AFVs constantly thrown against the Ostheer. They were replacing their losses with better quality Panzers over the period, but there were fewer of them and more importantly they were spending less time as 'runners' in the field. The Russians were producing plenty of tanks to maintain their numerical advantage, but they were running out of 'trained' crews to man them to such an extent that they were increasing their inventory of unmanned AFVs 'in the park' as it were, so to speak rather than their real OoB armoured fighting force. PS I do believe that the overall figures of total losses relates to both tanks and Assault Guns/TDs.
  22. The T-26 is a piece of absolute obsolete crap, though for the early period of the War 41-42 their better versions are quite good. The 76 HE chucker usually gets mis identified as a T-34 at range, which can throw the Axis off the lame ducks scent. The flame version (OT-26somethink) is quite able to surprise by fire- literally, with a good enough flame range. My personal favourite is the T-26E with 37mm of front armour which helps to give it a relatively good gun dueling chance against all that early war 37mm Panzer & PAK AT fire. :eek: I rate all three versions above of the T-26 as better than the whole BT series and the T-60, in terms of a combination of protection and fire power punch. I don't mind that they drive so slow in the small scale tactical situations encounted in CMBB. With these three kinds, but especially in regards to the T-26E the early Soviets are quite able to deal with the obsolete armour of the Rumanians, Italians and Hungarians as well as to grapple with German Panzerlite: ACs, HTs, T-35s, PzJgrIs and PzIIs up to Renaults, T-38s, the Marders and even the odd old 37mm barrelled PzIII, though hopefully with an advantage in numbers to be sure at all times, preferably.
  23. I thought it was a good little piece of Fußball idiosyncratic short hand: KV-1; KV KV-2; KW Works for me, I'll go with that. Hmmm on topic, IIRC, I've used T-38s to take out KVs, or at least make them reverse off the map or cause the crew to bail out. But I have done it, let me tell you. What I do is rush or rather basically charge a platoon or company of T-38s against 1-2 KVs, lose half of them in the process, but get enough of them under one hundred metres or even less then 50 metres away from the monster and gang bang away at it. It's fun alright, but cos I've used high quality crews in my cancelled Czechs, inexchange for 1-2 KVs, I haven't exactly won handsomely though I must say. I recommend trying to do it at night or in a blizzard when there is no firing beyond the very reduced LOS/LOF range given those climatic conditions. I've certainly KOed T-34s with a surging bunch T-38s, that's for sure. (Definately the 45mm turretted ones, and I think the 52mm & 65mm versions as well, but I don't think the can KO the 70mm turretted T-34s - I'll have to test check.) [ September 24, 2006, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
  • Create New...