Jump to content

Zalgiris 1410

Members
  • Posts

    544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Zalgiris 1410

  1. I agree mortars certainly can inflict gun damage and immobilize tanks, although I must admit that I've never seen a 50mm mortar do either. Furthermore I would be extremely surprised if such things resulted from 45-50mm mortar hits upon tanks. Has anyone actually seen this happen?

    I wouldn't expect a 50mm round to damage a 75-76.2mm tank gun, even with a hit directly landed upon it! :eek:

    IME I find that even 50mm mortars seem to be high priority targets for those tanks yws is trying to target fire at and I would say that get off one round a minute is the most that I would expect an exposed crew to do since they would normally been very quickly surpressed each minute if not knocked out which is what I would usually expect to happen under the ercumstances. Hence the mention by MeatEtr of employing the technique of using a HQ team in spotting for an out of line of sight mortar. ;)

  2. I agree with Cassidy, when you've got some points left the best thing to get are snipers over Tankhunter, LMG, ATR, Flamethrower and rocketeer Teams etc. Even if you can only afford low quality, they are very useful for LP / OP sentinel duty with the advantages of being stealthy, good spotting ability being equipt with binoculars and being the hardest unit to kill.

    (Although I like to make sure that I've got plenty of HMG Teams for the fire power and good quality snipers first of all.) ;)

  3. In relation to your first querry Lt Beavis about the sniper inccident happenning or having been notice before, the answer is yes by me.

    Origionally posted by Zalgiris 1410 26/27 August 2005

    Here's one from the other day; I watched and listen to my elite sniper take a single crack at an exposed (Sherman) tank crew and heard "outch my leg" while the camera was close to that tank exactly as it shut its hatches. I thought good bloody shot by Jove! The tank never opened its hatches after that, it waited a bit there then advanced to park itself 100m infront of the main flag building and just sat there for over 10 minutes while my troops could only hide inside. Eventually I managed to move a schreck team against it from the flank and hit it with the forth rocket! Two crewmen out of five got out of the tank who were then shot by the unhiding troops from insde the building.

    Fair enough so I won the battle and checked the kill stats for my units. The sniper had none, WTF, and the schreck had the tank and 3 for infantry casualties while sure enough the troop unit had the other 2 for the crew. None of these units fired at anything else, even the sniper finished with 9 rounds left! (This was on the quiet sector.) :eek:

    That tank behaived as if the sniper had hit a member of the crew, staying all buttoned up while nothing was happenning anywhere around it. IME it would have normally made itself unbuttonned otherwise, especially while just sitting there in a very quiet position. I don't know if having been shot at from 300m by a sniper made the crew keep themselves all shut tight for over ten minutes but I definately heard the "outch my leg" or possibly even "outch I've been hit in my leg", not sure IIRC exactly but words to that effect, it was the only thing that happenned durng that full minute turn though.

    Unless it was missinformation the only way I can rationalize this is to assume that the guy who the sniper nailed was too injured to exit the tank or else in some way was also hit by the schreck rocket, purhaps worse and thereby in avoiding a double count resulted in only being included in the schrecks kill tally. Bloody weird hay!

    The answer in got in respose to this post was that when a tank is knocked out all previous crew casualties are transferred to the tank killing unit in the stats records. I've since noticed this quite a few more times since, wheither the earlier crew casualties were inflicted by a sniper, a HMG, HE, a gun or another tank, etc.

    Similarly I think even that if you have two tanks or guns or whatever firing at a tank the kill and crew casualties will go to the last AT gunner to hit and KO that tank just as or before the crew abandoned the vehicle, even if the other tank or gun has made an orrigional KO hit against that enemy tank before the latter hitting one. Even if the first hitter had of caused crew casualties and the crew to actually begin the process to bail out of the tank, then the second and final KO hitter still is gonna get all the credit just the same, IME. ;)

  4. My games against the AI rarely go over 40 turns so I like 40+ or so (max when on the defense) while important things are usually still happenning at around turn 30 IME. At 15 to 20 I've just got started during my battles usually not having fired a shot except for some off board artillery even if just spotting rounds! ;)

  5. I second this; HMG42 "at 700 meters is really combat inneffective in CMBB terms and a waste of ammo. Usually small arms should be used at 250 meters range and below for rifles and also for heavy machineguns." For HMG's supporting fire from up to 400 meters is fine but remember that it is just support fire, although I think HMG34/42's are able to perforate Russian gun shields at least up tp 500 meters and may be as far as 550 meters! :cool:

    Personally when I started out I only played defensive battles against the AI, spending over half my time setting up my deployment and then letting the CPU opponent do most of the work and face most of the tough troubles & touchy problems that I'd created and inflicted upon it. I learnt alot about what not to do from the AI that way and how to go about things during my end of game counter attacks that finished him off. It feels slightly better making any mistakes and having unexpected things occur when you've already got the battle in the bag for sure. :D

    I also play larger force size battles so that I've got enough of everything to go around and to lose a few things here and there along the way. I don't like the smaller scale battles of less than 2000 points because of those kind of things that you describe happenning.

    I recommend that you check out Jason C's posts on tactics on the forum to immprove your CMBB tactics.

    My other piece of advice is save your games before every turn so that you can re-play the WTF's especially when important stuff gets KOed - thereby so that you can cheat basically! ;)

    [ December 26, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

  6. Originally posted by John D Salt:

    I should be interested to see your source for that. If it really says that an 81mm bomb won't fit in a 3-inch mortar barrel, it is simply wrong.

    I suspect that it just says that the German and Italian rounds couldn't be fired, which would be correct up until the introduction of the Mark 5 barrel, which had a modified striker stud to allow it to fire German and Italian 81mm bombs [source: Jane's Infantry Weapions, 1975, Ed F W A Hobart].

    That might account for some of the examples that I had in mind, captured 81mm mortar rounds not fitting in British 3 inch mortars because of firing mechanism not size. I can understand that. Any idea on when the Mark 5 barrels with the adroit striker stud were introduced and distributed?

    I can think of two examples off the top of my head, firstly in "Tobruk", by Chester Wilmot and possibly also from in "Tobruk, the Birth of a Legend", by Frank Harrison somewhere where the Aussies complain about being out ranged by Axis mortars, although thinking about that one it might be more a case of a comparison between 51mm to 81mm mortars. Quite a few others might also have this confussion to them as well, may be I'm also thinking at least of a British Divisional histroy book or two by Patrick Delaforce?

    A very good exampe I have comes from "Cassino, Portait of a Battle", by Fred Majdalany, which incidentally is a very good book on Cassino IMHO. During the 3rd Battle of Cassino the 4th Indian Division had to borrow some Texian US 81mm mortars to fire the large stockpile of captured German 81mm mortars rounds nearby specifically because they couldn't be fired from their 3 inch mortars. May be this happenned before the introduction of the Mark 5 barrel?

    Thanx John for that detail.

  7. Back when I was a Newbie I tried to use Arty Spotters on the defense as I had read that the Germans did (somewhere) to break up a Soviet attack and separate their infantry from their tanks by firing at them as they approached. I found this method or rather my employment of it didn't really work at all, because I would end up having fired off all my Arty support and have nothing left for reactive fire support later on when I needed it the most!

    On the defense against the AI it is pretty easy to use your arty to break up his infantry since it funnells them through terrain. I hit them as they mass through that last bit of cover (hopefully trees for airburst) while whatever survives that gets cleaned up by a multitude of my infantry squads, HMGs and guns firing from as close enough as possible, the more the merrier! It's always a good slaughter.

    So on the defense IME reactive defensive fire is much more effective than prep fire although I must admit that I'm against the idea of firing on the start line or set up zone.

    IMO reactive fire on the attack is just as effective as on the defense especially for taking out or suppressing guns and HMGs but best used for properly preping fortified zones just before immediately following up with an infantry assault.

    That said, I'm in the middle of playing that huge operation senario "To the Volga" and I'm still in battle one especially cos I gave the Russians a 100% increase in force size which means that I'm attacking against 6 infantry btlns, 2 Engineer & 2 SMG Companies, 34 tanks and 58 guns. I set up with everthing thing hiden so the AI didn't have any targets while I used all of my eleven arty spotters on the furtherest 20% of the map specifically to hit as many of those guns as possible while my 32 Panzers, 6 SPs, 6 20mm Armoured cars and 27 out of my 29 guns have provided me with direct fire preparation in lieu of all that indirect stuff. A slight variation I allowed myself but it's a game who needs to stick to a single formular!

  8. That last one reminds me of one experience, I had a PzIVF taken out by a 3 man Russian Infantry Platoon HQ team with a single handgrenade while that Panzer and 2 PzIIIH's were area firing at the creater the team were in roughly speaking but definately accurate enough!

    I mean it was a bloody handgrenade while three Panzers were firing at the HQ team even with MG's & or main guns, how do ya figure WTF?

  9. I really like this one;

    Origionally used by fytinghellfish in this thread:

    "In fact, Papua-New Guinea is thinking of offering two platoons: one of Infantry and one of engineers. They want to eat any Iraqis they kill. We've got no issues with that, but State is being anal about it."

    LTC on OIF coalition-building.

    I don't understand why the BFC's couldn't do a CMx2 'Korea' that is US centric if they are really so serious about being so myopic or in a positive sence manage CMx2 through such a limited scale and scope. Then do a CMx3 WWII ETO 44-45 that has at the very lest British & Canadian Forces that the player can go besides going the US, although going the Germans might be actually really be cool too!!! :cool:
  10. Originally posted by Tarquelne:

    Ah, the lack of choice... So if it was the British vs the Syrians, you'd be complaining about the game being Anglocentric? ;)

    (How is being made to go the US not also Anglo-centric I say?)

    Not really, it would be something different to have though like the Hidden & Dangerous series which is British WWII SAS only, although you don't get to go the Germans or Italians in that unless you're inpersonating one!

    No I have two beefs, firstly the US centricity and secondly with the apparent restrictions for playing the other side, the Syrians. That said, the latter issue is definately the lesser of the two cos I can understand the language problem getting in the way of the multi-player developments etc, which by the way DO NOT bother me in the slightest.

    I hope the AI does have any problems with the language barrier! :rolleyes:

  11. The point about complaining about CM:SF being US Forces centric is just that juan, the lack of choice. I'm not particularly concerned about having my home country included or not, although I think that the Diggers would be interesting to go in a near future Middle Eastern conflict simulation, especially since I've never ever come across a single bloody one! However for all anybody knows particular other nations Forces might be extremely interesting and fun to go such as the British, even alot of Americans might find that they would go the Brits more than their own home country, you never know.

    (While I'm thinking about it, I demand the BFC include the defunct Blackwatch Regiment to be included in this near future Middle Eastern conflict setting!) tongue.gif

  12. Originally posted by kipanderson:

    With the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration behind us CMSF clearly does have mass market appeal, especially in the US. I think this is a very good thing, the more money BFC make the better. CMSF will no doubt be marketed as the most realistic and accurate simulation of the type of fighting we have seen in recent years in the Middle East and may see in future. As such it is bound to sell well.

    One of the keys to the success of CM has been its scale and scope, as with Squad Leader. This remains unchanged, with just the slightest tweak downwards in scale but nothing that really changes things. Perfect. (However, a word of warning, tweak downwards in scale any further, and in my view, you will kill CM… it will just be another “shooter”… scale, like much else, is a very finely balanced matter.)

    Contemporary First World v Semi-Third World is not my favourite setting… but fun all the same smile.gif . Importantly BFC want a change from WWII, so once again it is a very good thing that they have that break from WWII.

    This gives me a thought, may be the BFC ought to expand Shock Force in scope if not scale and develop it to encompass other First World contingents especially the British, but also others such as France, Germany, Italy, Canada and other NATO Countries as well as Australia, South Korea and Japan. Israel too. In doing so BFC then would be able to rename it to something like 'The Mother of All Wars."

    I know what would sell well with them kids and RTS jockeys - "The Mother****er of All Wars."

    BFC oughta get some Mass appeal out of that one.Whadya recon?

  13. O'h, fair point again JasonC: 75mm Field Guns "used for direct fire, at ranges out to 2-3 km but with line of sight."

    I see where you are coming from here but if it is done with all the field guns then there is no indirect fire support and concentrations of defensive shell fires are going to be significantly retarded.

    Incorporating divisional field pieces into gun lines was standard practice on all sides, from the introduction of tanks in WW I clear through 1942.
    I know that especially ever since I read Herbert Sulzbach memoir "With the German Guns Four Years on the Western Front". Herb Sulzbach was a commander of a 77mm field gun batterie and describes such an arangement during 1918, of IIRC two guns forward per batterie!

    That said that's all fine for a static front with plenty of extra artillery in the rear, while OTOH the smaller caliber ATG's require less set up time and were slightly more manuoevreable etc, and I'm assuming more suited to mobile or fluid operations which the Polish campaigne was.

    Otherwise another way to look at it is this: after the German Howiters hand suppressed or knocked out those all those Polish 75mm field guns firing direct LOS then they ought to still have their 37mm ATG's to deal with Panzers and protect the infantry...

    [ December 07, 2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

  14. Duh, a 75mm ATG is better than a 37mm ATG of course. My point of emphasis is in relation to considerations of how technically obsolette those Polish 37mm ATG's were facing thin armoured early Panzers. You seemed to imply that they were hopelessly if not completely outclassed and ineffective.

    I agree with your point JasonC about the benefits of 75mm field guns over 37mm ATG's and in my fantasy TO&E I imagine that each WWII Division had an artillery Brigade of two Regiments, one of Howitzers and the other of Field Guns... :cool: especially long barrelled and with high velocity performanced! :rolleyes:

  15. Originally posted by GAGA Extrem:

    I just stepped over a player command in another board, where that player described his use of LMGs as scout troops.

    Now my question is:

    Are snipers better scouts than LMG groups? Both have a binocular and a testrow showed almost equal scouting ability for both of them.

    Has anyone experience with LMGs as scouting troops?

    While I've sacrificed LMG & ATR teams as scouts at times, especially for minefields I don't recomend using either as scouts as a matter of course. Predominately most CM gamey gamers use snipers as their scouts because they have binos and are the hardest unit for the enemy to see and kill, tank hunter teams or platoon HQ's are the better second option over split squads or full squads for obvious reasons.

    Actually I like to use LMG teams for OP duty / standing patrols in concealed positions to cover flanks etc, I think I get more out of them that way than trying to use them as scouts. Personally my table of preference for scouting is sniper, Pltn HQ, Tank Hunter team, Coy HQ, & at 5 a full squad if I must!

  16. Originally posted by RockinHarry:

    ...Assuming a single soldier per squad to operate the cup launcher, then he actually had about 30 pieces (2 bags containing 15) to carry according to this website: above

    I love the German Rifle Grenades and I for one have a problem with the ammo load in CM for them being under modelled, since it was usual for the Rifle Grenadier to carry at least one basic load of 5 AT & 10 HE RGs AIUI.
  17. Orrigionally posted by Count D'Ten

    The Polish R-35's were never committed -- which doesn't mean they couldn't have been. But I don't know whether they had the short barreled 37MM, as in the game in Romanian stock, or the long barreled, as with the H-39's that the Germans have in their CMBB inventory.

    Definately the short barrelled version since the French only started putting the longer ones in their inproved H-35's, the H-39's from late 1939 IIRC but never in any of even their own R-35's AIUI.

    This 'Fall Weiss' / Polish campainge thing is a bloody good idea, all the best Patboy.

  18. Originally posted by JasonC:

    As for their gun park, they had a large number of 75mm or 76mm field pieces like the French 75 or Russian ZIS-3 basically, and used them at ranges of a few km. They had as many again of larger pieces, 100mm and up, that fired from longer ranges but typically by plan rather than reactively. The field pieces were their best AT weapons at that stage. They had some relatively ineffective 37mm ATGs as well, but not enough of them.

    JasonC is essential correct, the Poles got there Brownings from the US from after WWI, French 75mm & Russian 76mm light field guns from WWI and after, (not ZIS-3's exactly though but the 1902 version which they, the Poles had converted to 75mm in 1926 AIUI) also they had 100mm howitzers and 120 fortress guns from Austro-Hungarian stocks.

    The French tried to help to build Poland up to some extent as a repacement for Russia on Germany's East by ensuring that it had 81mm Brandt mortars, some 155mm howitzers, 40mm bofors AAG's, and a few Renault 35 light tanks. The British also supplied them with some Vicker tanks from with the Poles developed their on version during the 30's similar to the Russian T-26.

    The Poles had some kind of Rodom pistol of their own and a 7.92mm ATR that fired tungsten, which the Germans later picked up upon and I have a higher oppinion of their 37mm ATGs than JasonC considering the thinness of all those early Panzers but as with everything else the Poles just didn't have enough of them to go all around their boarders.

    Sorry I don't have anything on the organisation side of the tables but I'll be watching this space.

×
×
  • Create New...