Broompatrol
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Broompatrol
-
-
I tried a full size scenario with the parameters you described. As It worked out for me, in order to buy that many tanks for the allies all but 1 or 2 of the tanks is conscript.
For the axis I purchased 37mm X2, one quad flak one PAK40 75mm. Three platoons inf, 2 snipers, 2 hmgs 42, strafing aircraft, 3 AT mines, 81mm FO and 2 trenches.
The snipers and mgs kept his tanks buttoned the whole game. The 37mm and the quad flak, easily stopped the t-60s. The KVs had trouble spotting the 37mm at first but even after they did they had trouble hitting them. the smaller guns caused immobilizations and abandonments mostly. The PAK 40 only came into play once, KOing a KV. The quad was never spotted. Between the QUAD, the FO and the HMGS the infantry weren't really a factor. The snipers were also handy for pinning the towed 76mm guns. I only lost one 37mm in a duel with a 76 gun.
I did have some luck as there was a copse of trees in the center that prevented the whole map from spotting my PAK40 when it opened fire from the back but other than that, his tanks tried to mass their fire but had trouble spotting and hitting my guns. His infantry spent most of its time pinned or panicking. The few hardy souls that got too close were razed by my platoons and sent packing. Ironcially by the time my aircraft showed the only targets left were infantry.
Yes, I beat the AI! Seriously though, the scenarios seems winnable, especially with the poor quality of his troops and the lack of any meaningful infantry. It seems to me it would be harder if he had less tanks a few mortars and more infantry.
-
Was that because trees and houses made good landmarks for zeroing in mortars and arty? Or, was there a less obvious reason?Originally posted by John Kettler:Stalin's Organist,
ISTR it was forbidden to set up next to a tree, at the top of a terrain feature, next to a house, and so forth.
-
It seems that it is a scenario with everything cherry picked in his favor. There are different rules some people go by to ensure fairer play. See: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002173
and check out Kettler's post.
If your friend is so confident see if he'll play the same scenario with you as the allies.
-
I believe the (W) means wet ammo storage but I don't know what WSS means altogther
-
DT,
would you like us to just listen and commiserate with you? Or do you have a question?
I have played a few where the briefing doesn't seem to relate to the scenario at all.
-
Well said JK.
Why would I not withdraw an FO if it was no longer useful? Just so the other guy can get points for it? Is it a good simulation to have a FO waiting to be overun? If I make a dumb move and you capitalize on it and get points, great, but just standing around waiting to die because of some weird ground rule doesn't sound fun.
-
JK, if I may?Originally posted by John Kettler:jBrereton,
Am somewhat surprised yours is the only response to date on my post. Why not repost the truncated, friendlier link via an edit?
Regards,
John Kettler
I enjoy some of controverisal topics and lively discussions that ensue from some of your posts, I also like hearing AARs from some of your games, but some of the links are little dry for my non-grog tastebuds.
I have a basic knowledge of WWII from school libraries, history channel, James Jones, sources like that. So my interest here in the CM forums is more on learning about the "flavor" of WWII combat so I can even recognize what a good simulation looks like, to have a better understanding regarding the equipment match ups (such as the Sherman isn't not the thinnest armored tanks of all time and it has a bad rep) and to collect information to make me a better player so I can derive more satisfaction from play and be a better opponent.
When I see the random links that are posted (not just by you) Sometimes I check them out, but frequently the content is so specific or hidden within tomes of uncollated information I don't really have time to go though it to find anything useful.
Information I find useful is stuff like: If I was making a fictional scenario what would a typical match-up look like? How often do ya come across an 88mmFLAK? How many Shermans would you use to support an Infantry company? What is the best method for me to reposition a Vickers, or should I leave it be?" The philosophy behind the use of different vehicles (Matilda's=basically good for killing tanks, Stuarts=great for hosing inf.)
Basically trying to get a feel for the overall history of the war and experience some good gaming.
This is where I'm coming from, and why I don't respond to a lot of the links.
Hope this helps. and I'm always up for PBEM
And don;t stop being yourself, there's only one you, reach for your dreams and all that.
-
Its kinda like the Richtoffen(sp?) V Rickenbacher comparison. Both were great pilots with impressive records, but the context of their service was so different that it makes a point by point comparison difficult and awkward.
It seems to just boil down to rooting for "your team".
-
I guess we can look at it as and intereting opinion piece and not a foundation for a well concieved debate.
There were points that jumped at me too: "vehicles v tanks" Obviously Poole can only shoot at whatever targets he has and its not a reflection on his skill that he didn't have a opportunity to shoot more tanks, but It isn't really as impressive if the targets can't shoot back.
The comments regarding Whitmann's politics have several implications. Is it that he should not be respected because of them? Or, does it mean we should look at his accomplishments in a different light. Because he was a well connected SS man he was able to cherry pick and perhaps his record is padded due to propagana, Like that screwball Stuka driver (you know who.)? I don't know I'm just pointing it out.
One thing, for any German to survive combat for 25 months is noteworthy to me.
-
I thought your turn of phrase quite appropriate and timely.
-
Waltzing Matildas?
When I played this one the Brit Player was too cautious and drove over some mines so the battle ended before the Mati's overran me
Enjoyed this one immensely PBEM until the Matilda's waltzed in and cleaned house. [/QB]
-
I played "Dead Salute the Gods" V AI and annilhilated the AI W/ my Stuarts. Simply because the AI did some very, very dumb things. The AI drove the tanks single file up and over a ridge into a killzone where about 12 Stuarts could shoot the Germans one at a time. Basically letting me have my way with them. I would like to try it v a Human. The map is cool and looks replayable.
-
Is that Ariete-The Ram? the Italians have an opportunity to really hand it to the Brits on that one. Very little dead ground. Practically everybody shooting at everybody else. Big fun
Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:There's a great battle on the disc between UK and Italian forces - A-13's vs M13/40's. Tehre's a bit of infantry involved too, and some portee 2 pdrs, 75mm SP AA for teh Italians, and IIRC 4 Matilda's for the Brits.
but the main thing is the A-13's vs M13/40's - 2 pdr solid shot and easy burning tanks vs 47mm APHE is an interesting tactical situation when both sides have eggshell armour!!
-
Re: PzII
I was only commenting that in an armor only environment the PzII's tended to just die. Like any piece of equipment it works better in its intended role.
Unfortunatly in this battle every time a PZII showed itself there was a crusader or Stuart to blow it up. My Mats and Valentines where in the path of the main force with the lighter tanks on the flanks. So the strengths of the PZII's were nullified.
Don't get me wrong. I love having flexible and quick vehicles like Stuarts, PzII's, I like Sherman's and chafee's because of their mobility in addition to a larger gun.
Sometimes the ubertanks get annoying becuase they are slow. W/O long lines of sight thier strengths are minimized.
my 4 cents
Originally posted by the_enigma:The MK IIIs and IVs can go toe to toe with M3 and Shermans alright as well.
I like the Crusaders but depending on what part of the desert war were talking about there too outdated imo (
)unless you have the MKIII.Same with the Matilda, the 2 pounder just doesnt cut it after a certain point.
Edit: You may not like the MK II but that and other light tanks i love in the recon and raiding role.
Use them to find the enemy so you know where to get your big guns, and there usally fast enough and armed heavily enough to deal with trucks, half tracks and guns etc so if you can slip them through the back door to where they are they prove themselves - while not diverting your main force.
I do it all the time, its great!
-
Yeah, the Stuarts tend to go fwoosh as soon as they get get hit by a 75mm. But that is part of the fun eh? Great incentive not to get shot.
After posting this question I played a 2000pt quick battle v AI armor only in Jan '42. I had Valentines, Crusaders, Stuarts and Matilda's v PzIII, PzIV's, and PZII's. I blew the crap out the Germans. Complete waste of time but fun. It was useful for learning the strengths and weaknesses of the vehicles.
I like the Stuarts for the versatility, The Matildas are an obvious choice for confronting armor. The Crusaders and Valentines fall in between.
The PZIV's were just too easy to kill for thier gun to be very effective. They couldn't get enough shots off to make a difference. The PZII total waste of time in an armor environment. The PZIII's were the biggest threat. They could kill the Valentines easy enough inside 500m could kill the Crusaders and Stuarts from about anywhere (and they did). The Mati's and Vals were great because the PZIII's had trouble knocking them out so they could spend several minutes constantly shooting toe to toe while my Stuarts and Crusaders flanked.
-
Partisan action scenario = "A deadly affair"
Best played as Germans v AI or 2 player.
When playing German against AI this scenario can be a good teacher. If you are careless you will get creamed. If you are too cautious you run out of time, but is very winnable if you understand how to use your forces and are methodical and persistant.
I havn't tried it as a 2 player but my guess is that it would be a real pain in the A** winning as the Germans v a human oppoenent given your objectives.
-
Sorry, its the scenario "where forefathers fought" my mistake.
AdamL, please see bitchen frizzy's earlier post. I don't think anyone really expected ATRs to blow up PzIII's. Picture all those other vehicles driving around, tractors, trucks, marders, 1/2 tracks.
But since hand held death rays were unavailable they deployed what they had. Keep in mind also that armor v AT tactics were constantly evolving as well but equipment and organization was perpetually in a state of catch-up.
As far a the actual thinking of the Soviet, you must seek the wisdom of the CM elders. I can only lay humbly at their feet and play with my plastic green army men. :cool:
-
In the CMBB scenario Viennese Waltz (I think is the one). The Russian AT rifles are very handy. The German vehicles are predominatly 1/2tracks and SP's. The Soviet troops are able to fire on the vehicles from the buildings from long range. They are are rarely detected and force frequent abandonments.
This also allows the Soviet tanks to spend more time waxing the German infantry.
That being said, yes: AT rifles aren't very good at killing tanks compared to guns. But like was mentioned before they had been in production in some form or another since 1916 and were cheap and easy to produce (compared to other anti-tank assets), there were existing stockpiles, required a team or single soldier rather than a crew, you could pass them out to partisans to annoy convoys, and was better than pointed stick.
-
lol, well said.
Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:The early British Cruisers, Stuarts, M-13/40's, II's, and IIIF's all match up pretty well and are a hoot, especially at longer ranges.
They shoot like crazy, miss a lot, and you and your opponent drive them like race cars from cover to cover, trying to get close enough to hit anything.
-
I tried researching previous threads and didn't really find what I was looking for, so if this has already been hashed out then would someone please point me to the right thread? That being said I am hoping to get some current discussion going as I love hearing everyones opinion. I hope people are still playing!
Anyway my topic: In African scenarios (I feel the later war match-up of Panther/Tiger/Sherman has been done) what armor matchups or forces to you guys like and why? Any reason is okay with me. I like Stuarts cause they go fast and have 3 mg's. They are like little hot rods that mow inf. For example, I've found Stuarts to be fairly effective v. PzIV's. The slower turret, ROF and muzzle velocity and thin armor of the PzIV handicaps them as long as there are opportunites of cover for the Stuarts. But, I have found Stuarts to be ineffective V. PzIII's. But if I play the Axis I find the PzIII's smaller gun tough going against the heavier Brit and American tanks. Also I remember JasonC mentioning a scenario where he found some of the Italian tanks were highly effective v Brit armour when used properly.
I look forward to hearing your opinions any reason is fine (the stubby gun looks cool, etc.)
-
Would you please share your sources for the 15% figure with the appropriate citations and your credentials regarding your experience working with individuals with PTSD?
Obviously PTSD rates are higher now since it wasn't added to the DSM-III until 1980. So prior to 1980 there was no recognition of the disorder.
Originally posted by JAFisher444:flamingknives is correct. The major difference in training doctrine involves using reflex in shooting an enemy silhouette. Prior to this training doctrine soldiers were trained in rifle marksmanship with simple round targets. When they came up against troops they knew how to shoot straight but had to choose to use that skill to kill. Under modern training it has been instilled as reflex to shoot at a silhouette when it pops up. The soldier is then left to deal with the consequences of these actions, whether he (or she) is psychologically equipped or not. This is why there is such a higher occurrence of PTSD in modern soldiers.
According to most studies about 15% of soldiers are capable of killing voluntarily, the rest generally intentionally miss or even just don't fire and often hand off their ammo to those who will kill, and therefor run out of ammo faster.
[ July 10, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Broompatrol ]
-
Yes, it seems the Germans failed to consider the difference between a tank and fort. Can't quite tell if they were going for a slighty mobile bunker or a battleship that doesn't really float.
-
I can't say for sure, but probably because it was another one those of those goofy German programs that never went anywhere or had any effect on the outcome of the war. The last time I heard the Maus mentioned was in a book of odd facts back in the 70's.Originally posted by Axel:Giant tank. How come I never heard of it?
-
)unless you have the MKIII.
House rules for Quick Battles?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Is this what ur looking for?
posted 05-20-2006 08:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rarity *off*, not standard. Standard favors the Germans, because it leaves their thickest armor readily affordable while making Russian counters too expensive. Similarly, it gives the Germans full access to quality arty while restricting the Russians to pop guns and a single medium type, the 120mm line FO.
Ubertanks that should not be taken unless there is prior agreement to play "no holds barred", in which case rariety must be off.
1941 - all KV models
1942-43 - Tiger I
1944-45 - King Tiger, JagdTiger, IS-2 1944 model, SU-100
You can also have a prior agreement for "vanilla strength armor", which in addition to the previous bans -
1941 - all T-34s
1942 - KVs, 80mm front StuGs
1943 - 80mm StuGs, Panthers, SU-152
1944-5 - ISUs, IS, Tiger I, Jagdpanther
All captured tanks, all periods
The basic intention of the default "no ubertanks" level is to remove items that cannot be effectively dealt with by common AT weapons of the era on the other side, even with coordinated tactics.
The basic intention of the second, "vanilla quality" level is to remove types that standard AT weapons of the era can't knock out from front aspect, regardless of range. It is meant to ensure a player that taking standard types for the era will give him effective weapons, not something readily "trumped".
The intention of "no holds barred" is to allow uberarmor but also all of its counters, thus to allow "trumps" but in all "suits", armor air arty all of it.
The reason to separate them is to avoid endless repeats of 1943 fights always being decided by Tigers or the StuG flanking nonsense we all got tired of a year and a half ago, and to avoid the gamey unhistorical force selection process that winds up with SU-152s and 57mm ATGs and Valentine IXs everywhere, with not a T-34 to be seen.