Broompatrol
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Broompatrol
-
-
Reply to Stalin's Organist post:
Thanks for schooling me regarding US v German armor matchup. I should've looked at it from the perspective thatjust because a German HV gun is powerful doesn't automatically mean the armor it penetrates is thin.
As far as airplanes go I guess I should've been more specific to fighters. Much Armor was removed from bombers to improve range, payload and speed. But the US philosophy in fighter design for the Air Corp and Navy was to armor plate vital areas of the aircraft including armored glass canopy. Typical armament was 6 .50 cals, by contrast Japanese fighters had little to no armor and had rifle sized ammo mixed with a cannon. British and German fighters (in my current understanding) had less armor too. The preferred method of engagement for a P-40 pilot was to fly head on and shred his opponent with the 6 x.50's confident his aircraft will soak up the the damage from the opponents lighter guns. This includes damage to propellor and radiator. The Wildcat was practically bulletproof compared to japanese fighters. The Japanese pilots would empty their magazines into US airplanes and still not get a kill (cannon still worked of course) unfortunatly Japanese airplanes tended to explode if you stared at them to hard. The P-51, P-47 were well armored too but the german guns were more effective than the Japanese ones.
As far as why I would compare the Airplanes to tanks? I realize it is likely apples to oranges, but I thought it upside down that by some accounts if you lined up some Shermans you could shoot through 3 of them and they would all burst into flames even though by definition a Tank is supposed to be Armored and heavy and scary, and a fighter which flies through the air and has all those delicate thingies sticking out would fly head-on into an enemy formation soak up dozens of hits and still get a kill and fly home.
"US tanks were not lightly armoured - the Sherman had more armour than the P-IV, and about as much as a Panther on its hull. It had more armour than the T34.
However the German tanks mounted much better anti-tank guns than the 75 and had little trouble penetrating that armour
I'm also unaware of any US aircraft being particularly well armoured, and only the P-47 stands out as being particularly well armed - vertainly the bombers were not well enough armed to survive on their own despite an apparently huge number of machine guns."
-
Can AA fire actually destroy aircraft in CMBO,CMAK or CMBB? or does it just hinder its effectiveness?
And on a side note: Does anyone know why the US liked heavily armed and armored airplanes but at the same time went for lightly armored and lightly armed tanks?
Thanks
-
Nice mod, but what its look like burning? ;>
-
A question regarding JasonC's reply:
Is it okay to be stupid if you don't whine?
[ August 23, 2006, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Broompatrol ]
-
Lately I have been experimenting with methods gleaned from other simulations and some real world experiences and have had some success. I realize that none of this is fresh or new but it works for me to have it presentied in a way I understand. Military theory generally baffles me so I have to find different ways to interpret it. I don't have a lot of experience against live opponents so I'd like to hear what other players think:
(1)Pawns vs. Knights: I've been assigning values to my units in an effort to determine who is expendible and who isn't. It may seem obvious but at the very end of a scenario you may find that 2 squads of infantry are more valuable than a tank (especially if it bogs!). Anyone who plays chess knows it is much easier to win if you save a few pawns for the end game.
(2)Combat Loss Grouping: (I did not concieve of this concept and if you want to know where I got just ask) Applies mostly to infantry but you can stretch it for vehicles. There is a point at which units that are enaged in combat will suddenly stop being effective. Through casualities, morale or ammo. If everybody is fighting at the same time then at a certian point a side will suddenly collapse from the pressure of combat instead of being slowly wittled away. If you can foresee a CLG coming you can take measures to prevent it and keep your forces viable longer and if you understand it try to inflict it on the other guy. Most players do this intuitively by keeping up supression, good coverage and fire support to keep the enemy engaged, you win faster by wearing out squads in groups than by trying to eliminate them one by one. This involves you putting out mucho ammo at the same time so If you run out of ammo before the other guy is broken you have a problem. Predicting how long a unit can fight is key.
(3) Field coverage: I think this is the easiest to understand and hardest to master especially because cover isn't static (buildings fall, smoke, direct v indirect fire). You want to see everbody and not be seen, and to shoot without being shot at and move without being hit. Easy!
Instead of areas and arcs I try to set up fire lanes. Imagine static lasers that the enemy must cross to achieve his objective. If you set up enough lanes you can set up a net that strangles the enemy. They cannot move or shoot without taking casualties. Eventually when you have set the field like a chess board you can march units right into his face and all he can do is watch. If you are really devious you can leave "holes" in your coverage that his forces will naturally move into, such as a big depression in the middle of the map. Then you shell him or roll over him with armor, whee!
(4) Caveats: Obviously you scheming will be for naught if all you have are 5 Stuarts and a regular platoon if he has 3 tigers and a Fanatic SS company. The reality of firepower cannot be ignored and big differences in firepower usually trumps tactics anyway.
But it sure is fun to talk about!
-
Someone please correct me if I am wrong..
During WW2 the modern clip in ski binding wasn't invented so I would believe that getting your skis back on would take several minutes immobilizing your entire squad. Were the ski bindings of that era easy to get on?
-
For what its worth:
The CMBB DEMO scenario; Citadel Schwerpunkt is good for practicing reverse slope defense.
Play as Russians. Your guns will be easily destroyed at long range in open and will do little damage to german armor at long range.
The germans have no infantry in this so it is very uncomplicated and you can play with what works.
-
German armored cars and and 1/2 tracks generally get a lot of praise for being innovative and advanced. But in CMAK play it seems to me that the emphasis on specialized designs over utility and transport ability seems to put them at a disadvantage. I seem to be able to do much more damage with universal carriers by being able to move infantry around than with say a puma. It seems that whenever an AC pokes its head out it ends up either popped by a gun, capped by an anti-tank rifle or brewed up by a tank.
Extrapolating to a strategic level: Does anyone think that perhaps the Germans wasted resources on so many fancy designs when they may have been better off with a truck and a MG? Cheaper and more felxible than a sausage shaped vehicle with a steering wheel on both ends. (Hans didn't know if he was coming or going! :eek: )
All this being said I admit I am by no means an expert on the uses of AFV's and the like and welcome anybody to school me on the proper use of these vehicles in CMAK and their real world histories
-
Besides being fairly entertaining during mop ups has anyone found flamethrower infantry very useful tactically?
My experience with them is they are slow, easily suppressed and easily killed. Which although accurate is annoying when its my FT. I find that it takes too much time and resources to bring them into the fight, even as a reserve. :cool:
Tank heights
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Read that in N. Africa US tankers used the "high" turret to an advantage when engaging enemy guns by being able to peek over sand dunes w/o exposing as much of the hull to danger even if the enemy had higher ground. (I know that is called being "hull-down" but I guess in this situation a Sherman could get "more" hull-down than say a PZ III) Being tall and skinny can have its advantages. Besides the Sherman could suck in its gut and wriggle 'tween trees, too!