LukeFF
-
Posts
3,901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by LukeFF
-
-
On 4/24/2016 at 7:05 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:
This machine punches a wall, jumping from a springboard from which a car is broken.
Sig worthy
-
8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I dont think it tires them out too fast, but I think they actually crawl a bit too, well, slowly.
They aren't moving too slowly. As others have already said, low-crawling truly is slow and tiring - even more so if you're trying to move a crew-served weapon at the same time.
-
11 hours ago, c3k said:
Nice catch. Looks like an LOD issue. I'll pass it on...
Ken
This issue also popped up with Chris's Shermans during his last Twitch broadcast.
-
22 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Frankly, every one of those "Dare to Compare" videos are amazingly stupid. Through a perfect storm of hyperbole, an honest rejection of anything that does not match his exact idea of what that piece of equipment should do, and just plain ignorance he comes up with an analysis that makes M113 Gavin Air-Mech assault teams seem like a rational product.
22 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:He barely has any valid points, And he is comparing vehicles very wrongly.
Well, remember it was Kettler who created this topic, which means one should automatically be highly skeptical of the information presented.
-
2 hours ago, markus544 said:
I was asking if it was used in the direct fire mode I don't think it in the game...If I remember correctly i was in the CMBO game
Please have a look at the other (identical) topic. There was no need to create another topic like this when the other one was created less than a week ago.
-
12 hours ago, kinophile said:
Oooooooooooooo does this work also with the RUS/UKR FO vehicles?
Yes
-
5 hours ago, JonS said:
Damn. I thought there was something in Pemberton's "Development of artillery tactics and equipment", but now I can't find it, sorry. As I recall it was post COMPASS and pre- first battle of Alamein, so we're talking about a fairly narrow time period of from ~March 41 through to June 42. And I'm also fairly sure it was in the Tobruk area (i.e., within 50-100 miles of the port). I'm reasonably sure it was in the first half of 1942. Anyway, They found about what you'd expect; ballisticly (ballistically? ballisticaly?) it worked very well (which is not surprising for a large calibre gun, firing with a really high MV, against early-war lightly-armoured Pz.IIs and IVs), but tactically it had an extremely high silhouette, no protection for the crew, and took ages to emplace/displace. And - as you noted - when they were busy tagging panzers they weren't protecting Alexandria.
IIRC, they also had to make some modifications to the mount, and supply different sights, before they could even depress the barrels low enough. Later in the war, from about mid-1943 when the Luftwaffe had become irrelevant, they started using them for indirect artillery fire, and found that prolonged firing ruined the mounts because the firing stresses were ~horizontal rather than ~vertical, and the mounts weren't designed for that.
Apparently, the Australians also used it in the direct fire role in the Pacific:
25-pounder artillery pieces from the 2/7th Field Regiment fire along with Matilda tanks from the 2/9th Armoured Regiment and an anti-aircraft gun from the 132nd Anti-Aircraft Battery, Tarakan, June 1945.
-
I wouldn't bother with trying to make the game look like the Pacific. There's far too many differences to make it look right.
-
On 4/12/2016 at 2:21 PM, Overwatch said:
One Sherman had a tow cable displayed but no one in the proximity to help tow him out if that is built into the options....
No, it's not something coded into the game.
-
Have save file?
-
A concrete Department of Defense?
-
It's the keyboard controls, and it's discussed in detail in one of the manuals that comes with the game.
-
It's been put into the bug tracker to be changed.
-
59 minutes ago, kinophile said:
So either side will have a crappy time of it if they try early CAS - US will lose frames to ground AA (primarily) and RUS will lose frames to US air AA and ground SAM?
Eventually, and it won't take long, the flexibility and numbers of US air will win out.
It sounds like some interdiction strikes will be feasible (albeit costly) for both sides but that loitering frames will be too obvious and easy a target for any sane pilot to do.
It would make sense that RUS could get in some hard work with a surprise attack, say 1-2 days margin at tops, but after that it becomes far too contested.
ADA cuts both ways, and the RUS air force has far less depth in numbers and capability, hence is brittle to counter attack?
Did you read the rest of this topic?
-
40 minutes ago, BLSTK said:
Is that CM:Final Blitzkrieg or are you happy to see me?
Adolescence can be an awful thing.
-
3 hours ago, IanL said:
I am thinking you actually meant this:
More or less. In particular, I was referring to Matt Damon's line about P-51's being tank-busters. I remember almost falling out of my chair in laughter when I heard that quote.
-
7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The ricochet thing is frankly urban legend.
What, this isn't real? https://youtu.be/Lv-67DFlOsM?t=20s
-
10 hours ago, SLIM said:
Eventually we'll get down to the "M1 Garand with Grenade Launcher soldier uses a bolt-action rifle firing animation, and that makes me angry!"
Well, that's actually modeled correctly.
The Garand could not fire in semi-auto when fitted with a grenade launcher.
-
"Third Reich" and "respect" - two terms that should never be joined together.
-
BLSTK, get a life already.
-
44 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:
add in that they also carried bombs and they where more than capable of tank busting up to and after they where overshadowed by the p51 mustang which with its longer range came to be the preferred aircraft.
If it was that bleedin' easy to take out a tank with .50 cal/12.7 mm weapons, the Soviets would have simply fitted a pair of UBKs to the wings of their Il-2s and then told their pilots to simply skip the rounds off the ground when attacking tanks. But, that's not what happened.
-
23 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:
20mm aft (less than an inch) belly plate 40mm forward belly plate is all the tiger had underneath, easily pened by a .50cal hell a 7.62 can pen that at 90deg. .50 would go through that and some engine block and ill bet if they are anything like AFV's today the only thing above that armor is a grid plate for the crew to stand on and some torsion bars if that.
If you seriously think that a .50cal round is going to have enough energy to penetrate the belly of a tank after skipping off the ground, then this conversation is hopeless.
23 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:In any case ill take the word of combat exp vet who did it with guncam footage to prove it over a forum poster.
...a forum poster who does know a thing or two about weapon ballistics and who was an armorer during his time in the military.
8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:It never fails to amaze what historical fictions carry on despite the existence of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
No kidding.
-
24 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:
Watch the documentary it shows them doing exactly that. its not to say it was easy but it was effective use of ammo for them since they're only job was to kill anything that moved. you don't seem to understand the power of a .50 cal bullet they have a lot of energy even after a ricochet. but theres always gotta be someone here to argue even if the veterans of the time are saying it with actual guncam footage to back it up.
We are all very aware of the power of the .50 BMG, but that still does not mean it could kill a Tiger by means of being ricocheted up into the tank's belly. JonS is right - the idea is utter nonsense.
-
1 hour ago, Andrew H. said:
So I noticed that the M1919A6 MG starts out semi-deployed. Is this new, or did I just not notice it before?
There are two different versions of the A6 - one with a bipod only and another that can be deployed with a tripod.
The Garand could not fire in semi-auto when fitted with a grenade launcher.
How come British infantry sections don't have binoculars?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Yes, because the cover of a model box should be used to determine whether or not something is rendered correctly.