realest
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by realest
-
-
Jo is a good guy, he's helped me and been quite nice about it.
Enjoy
-
I have no idea, i just like to play the game. LOL
-
Be historical, however getting "Grog" may blow off the part that will hold them where you want them. If they can't imagine some for themselves, you've probably lost them. The fun for them will be getting to relive an action their grandparents or more likely great grandparents expierienced. This is further in time for them than it is for those of us in the 30-40 range.
99% of them hold WW2 in their timeline as we do WW1 in our perspective. It seems like Ancient History that belongs back in the days of knights and chivalry to them.
Whereas the adult mind see's the span of 60-70 years as 1 lifetime, not several as someone 14-18 would.
Something else, you could also tie in current events to the after effects of the war. I.E. Trouble in the Mid East where Britian set aside land to be called Isreal. The cold war, and all those issues. They likely will not realize that where we are in political situations is the result of decisions made years ago. Perhaps give them pause to think about the decisions they make today, as what actions they take today will determine the future they live in.
My Thoughts
-
If you could maintain that heat for about 5 minutes, you could likely weld up or otherwise cause failure of a connecting member. 10 seconds, just simply not enough time.
I am shocked that the burn time is so low, but i should have realized i guess. I'd have thought that the fuel mix would have added a solid for longer burn times. Likely tried, probably to many problems with gumming up the hoses or firing mechinism. Or if fuel gets to thick you might not be able to get distance i suppose.
Thanks for the info...
-
I'm curious, i'm going to have to find some close up pictures of the tread ware. 1" material or better i have no problem believing. I wonder about the PZ 1's and those early smaller vehicles? However, a 1/2 inch pin can be affected, but the burn time would need to be more than 2 minutes or so. The pin itself if it's 12" or so..... hmmmmm, if it softens then it's big enough to hold and would slowly chew itself up over time, as it would likely take a few months to show. Replaced i'm sure between operations.
How do those tread pieces link?? Are they sort of like door hinges where you have "fingers" interlocking to spit the pin through?
Not thin wire, i would doubt the strain of traversing on those connections is substantial. However, a smaller vehicle and not a main battle vehicle perhaps??
-
Thanks for this, and no to say that i think a FT will slice through tanks is untrue. You are failing to understand my concerns of the heat issue with connections. However, if the burn times will not exceed a minute then i doubt it is likely to have the time to sufficiently heat the material. If the burn time exceeds 5 minutes and can keep a 600 degree or so heat going it's going to have the potential to soften the steel or have adverse affect on "Small" pieces. I'm curious about pins, links, etc.Originally posted by JasonC:I've done some further searching for FT vs tank real world stuff. First thing to point out is that 99 out of 100 things you find are from games, not reality. And easily 90 percent of the remainder are theoretical or technical description, not anything about actual experience in real combat.
I've found two mentions beyond those categories. One comes from WW II use lessons and tactics pamphlets, where the subject is dealing with Tigers. It says that while the flame will not penetrate the vehicle, it is possible to soot up the sights and vision ports (!) Would they be talking about that if it routinely just KOed the vehicle? Nooo.
The second source is from Korea not WW II, and addresses air dropped napalm not man packed FT. It is communist side - a Russian advisor telling lessons learned, passed on by the NK and Chinese etc. Here are the relevant bits -
"When it struck the road wheels of the T-34 tanks and SU-76 SP guns, napalm burned off the rubber tires. Tanks and SP guns deployed in place and lacking an ability to combat the fire in place were found stuck where their rubber was burned away. During dry weather, when moving a tank that had its rubber tire burned off but had the next wheel remaining intact tended to throw that track. But at the same time, a small number of vehicles suffered no major damage to their road wheels due to the short duration of the burning time of napalm or the fact that its flames soaked into the ground and were run over by the tracks."
"When it fell inside the tank, and when no timely counteraction was taken, the napalm started fires inside the tank, and on occasion caused the ammunition load to detonate."
"When napalm struck a tank, frequently the engine shut down due to oxygen starvation, but on the other hand once the fire was put out it usually restarted."
"Trucks and simpler unarmored transport means struck by napalm simply burned up."
"For protection of tank crews and armored vehicles, it was recommended that they cover all openings in the hull of the combat vehicle with fire-resistant material and exit the area covered by the flames."
"The clay soil upon which the burning napalm splattered was a good basis for storing weapons components and reliably isolated the flames from air to feed upon. By covering things with a layer of clay it prevented the napalm from burning them. When napalm struck the road wheels, track run and other parts of the tank, the crew could throw clay (earth) from the rice fields on it with their hands, using it to cover the burning napalm and for that reason snuff out the flames."
"It was more difficult to extinguish a napalm fire with sand, as the sand dissipated and would not always cover the surface; therefore, it was not a reliable way to isolate the napalm from the surrounding air."
"Each tank in a combat assignment was fitted with two 5-kilogram buckets of clay for extinguishing fires inside and outside of the vehicle."
This is a real world behavior for a real world effective threat. But that threat came from *a third* of all USAF munitions expended in Korea being napalm, dropped in 150 gallon drop tanks or 100 lb bombs, with splash areas of 20 meters for the smallest and more like 30 by 60 meters for the largest types. Not from 4-5 gallons for 8-10 second - half or more of it burning in the air long before it reached the target - from a manpack FT brought within 50m.
Design of those tread links in my eyes is where the potential for heat related damage would help failure to occur.
I'm not a proponent of Flame Throwers tank busting. But on a poor design or one that has inferior steel then flame can adversely effect connections causing or aiding in the breaking of the track thus immobilizing. But this would only be possible if the fuel mix will burn for a prolonged period of time. Preferably in excess of 5 or 10 minutes.
These connections would need to be made of things such as 1/4" rods and flats or less, anything made of 10 gage or less would be sure to fail as that material starts coming in at around a tenth of an inch and less in thinkness. I don't know how the track connections were made though.
-
If my investment portfolio works out i'll buy everyone a book... LOL
Currently, i'm looking for donations to offset horrendous losses though. :confused:
-
Jason, my point about the welding is that it was a new technique with real problems at the time. Look at the liberty ships, Kaisers Coffins they were nicknamed. They had a habit of literally breaking in the weld seams on the murmansk convoy. This is water that is in the 40 degree mark and it cause steel to shatter and break. What do you think heat would do????Originally posted by JasonC:There is no chance in hell a mere backpack FT with 4 gallons of gas firing for less than 10 seconds in aggregate can heat any appreciable portion of a 30 ton tank. It is pure physics, the joules of heat energy just aren't there. Welding focuses a lot of energy on a tiny area, an FT billows it over an area larger than the tank itself.
As for molotovs, they were not very effective by all accounts ...
If you had ever even read in any passage of an operational history of FTs being used with tactical effect on tanks, you could cite the elements I asked for...
I therefore have definite evidence and reasons for my opinion. From you I see absolutely none. Of course you can have an opinion without evidence, but if you know you have no evidence it is something less than reasonable to be convinced about it.
Now, the heat issue is that this is referred to as annealing. Heating a steel up changes it and can alter it's chemical and physical properties. Cooling times and methods of cooling have serious effects on the physical property. I don't think i'm getting you to understand what i'm concerned about here. I'm not talking about huge steel pieces getting to hot, i'm concerned about smaller connection pieces. Those are the ones that i believe would be most vulnerable becuase they will undergo a longer process to nail down the exact Rockwell factor they are looking for.
The question is how long did this fuel burn?? Granted 4-8 gallons of FT fuel doesn't seem to be alot, but how long could it apply heat for???? What was the burn time?? If this stuff stuck and would burn for 10 minutes on a track then yes, you may have been able to weaken a member to fail.
Not all tanks or AFV's are equal. Some were better built than others.
I agree that molotovs weren't overly great. Nothing i've seen says "man what a tank killer" it was far more psychological to me.
You also cannot base your evidence on "Operational Records", none of them are complete. Not every incident can be recorded due to any number of reasons during war. The losing side will definately lose alot of records, you know this.
I do have reason and evidence for my views, perhaps i'm not able to convey my point well though. At any rate, top of the evening to you!
-
John, FYI as this is something you may not have thought of. From my own personal experience when one of my buddies was toting things like Mortar baseplates etc the rest of the squad chipped in and carried his excess gear. That man still needs his rifle, pack, and assorted gear that is issued. For instance tent halves. Every man carries a tent half. If you don't have one, then it's the stars for you, that alone would suck, then think if you didn't have a sleeping bag too.I think your argument, from a payload standpoint, is weak, especially since the flamethrower operator carried only a flamethrower.
Regards,
John Kettler [/QB]
So these flamethrower guys on D-day likely left the FT either out of real concern for their safety or more likely in reality they feared loss of their equipment by their buddies so kept their gear and gave an ole "gee boss can't take that, too dangerous for us lowly fellows". In their circumstances nothing serious would come of disobeying the order to pick up the FT if they lived.
P.S. I agree with you that weight loads weren't the issue. I think they were scared of them either out of seeing defects or falling victim to military gossip.
[ November 11, 2006, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: realest ]
-
Not true Jason! LOL, sorry but i've been one of these guys that jumped into 4 foot of water with 70 + lbs of gear (not in the same time period though). Around 90 lbs of gear actually. Water didn't scare me nor anyone else. You dont think they didn't train for the possiblity that they may not be able to make it to the beach, of course they did. But the thoughts of having a flamethrower attached to me and people shooting too, well that SOB would have been lost at sea. LOL.Originally posted by JasonC:Chest high water without the waves, 4 foot surf when 1 foot had been expected, 70 lb metal object strapped to your body that isn't a scuba tank, equals stark raving mad. And no, it wasn't the fire that was scary it was the water.
-
Or maybe they did not want to have a heavy object strapped on their back while making it across the beach and through the water?Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Kettler:
Forgot to mention that every U.S. D-Day landing craft landing element was issued a flamethrower, but from what I've read most GIs left the weapon aboard when they debarked? Why? They didn't wish to become human torches if hit while wearing it!
Or maybe they did not have their weeties and did not feel like it?
And how would these man have had evidence that it was likely that the FT would explode when fired at? IOW how can a belief that they might become human torches be evidence for your claim? These are the same soldiers who would have us believe that every German tank was a Tiger, and every gun an 88. So even if they believed something, it is as possible to be based on imaginary fears than a realistic appreciation of the situation.
All the best
Andreas </font>
-
Another question jason, what do you know of the steel that was used to make these vehicles? What do you know of heat and the effect on steel? These are factors that should be taken into account.
Keep in mind welding was a new technique at this time. They did not know how to identify weak welds or connections. Were any of these tanks welded, riveted, drop forged, what was the manufacturing process?
I have worked in the steel industry for some 15 years now in various roles and you can rest assured that heat and steel creates problems for finished products.
Somewhere in those tracks they are held together by pins or some sort of connection. If you can get lucky and find that weak point it's potentially possible to heat the connection. If a tank tries to traverse and exceeds the yield strength of that material making the connection then it breaks. I don't have an ASTM book for 1941 (if one was available then) but my point is steel can yield at strengths as low as 18000 PSI or lower (especially if made wrong). Structural Steels and the HSLA materials being produced today can yield anywhere from 50K to over 100K on tensile, yield.
I'm going to look around and ask and see what i can find out about steel made in that time.
-
LOL, why did russia make all those molotovs??? Besides Jason, all rumors or stories started with some element of truth.Originally posted by JasonC:"it certainly was done"
Dates, times, places, units, vehicles, names.
I don't believe it was. Prove me wrong.
Jason, your request for proof of this nature is far beneath your intelligence. I have read your posts, and i can say that it appears to me that you indeed enjoy reading and researching these vehicles and are a wealth of information to inquire with. You can no more supply proof that it didn't happen than i can supply that it did, we simply have opposite views of the question at hand.
-
The thread topic started about the ability of a flame thrower to disable / kill a tank. And the points of interest in that.
I do believe that it can be done and it certainly was done. However, the events and circumstances would dictate whether it was highly succesful. In a city fight like stalingrad where they lack mobility and can be cornered and ambushed, Flame attack (if lucky) has a chance at disabling. If the crew unbuttons for some unforseen reason most assuredly they are in trouble.
On the Steppe, the only way i can see it done is if the crew fell asleep and let all guard down.
I don't see it as a preferred method, but an attack in desperation. I'd say being in a burning tank even if undamaged likely unnerves the crew simply because someone got close enough to throw something on their vehicle. It's not a comforting feeling to be in a vehicle and realize your guys have abandoned you, been pushed back or you have outrun them.
-
yes the cartoons.
-
If you don't mind my asking, how do you go about doing that?
Aplogies, i've had the game barely 3 weeks perhaps.
-
No sir, i speak some german, it's not hard to write. I'm just lazy... now don't let my wife read this as i adamantly deny that allegation. LOL
-
LOL, actually i was just lazy.
-
I have not installed my AK yet, however i love your comic strips!
Now.... WE WANT MORE, WE WANT MORE!! *beating hands on table* LOL
JK, thank you for taking the time to add some good fun and humor.
-
True, people are alot more challenging and fun. but at the moment, i have to get a feel for how to use what the game offers.
-
Para, i'm having a heck of a time learning to keep em alive too. I've found real good advanced scouting by infantry followed (not to closely by tanks) is my best measure for keeping them alive. Grunts seem to be able to take the punishment from fire, then follow through with armor. Often vs the AI, the enemy armor will contine after the infantry even as my armor comes up if i play the Germans. I suppose it sees the panzerfaust as a greater threat. If i play russia, well everything dies except my infantry usually.
Cresting a hill is a sure fire death sentence for me. I try to hull down and not come all the way over. However, even then i tend to lose turrets and guns.
Granted, this is all vs AI. Against a human opponent i don't know.
-
Mikey, that's fairly historical most likely. Especially with Stalins infamous "not one step back" order at stalingrad.
Some of those poor men were fed into combat with scarcely a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition between them.
They may have taken it out due to politics as well. This game was sold in Europe, to U.S. citizens it is pretty much a game, we didn't suffer the real tragedies that most of Europe did. To the russians this issue was a matter of national survival, shooting your own men for running although they may have lacked proper military arms may be cruel to us but something they felt they needed to do. I can see where the designers left it out. Some may not appreciate it feeling as though it puts them in a negative light today.
-
I haven't tried yet, but next time one of my soviet comrades bails and runs, i think i'll have a rear area "disciplinary" guard, area fire on them. Stalin will surely give me my commission? LOL
-
LOL, the ladies would slap you in the mouth for saying "poutine". Could be misunderstood. LOLOriginally posted by Corvidae:Realist,
we have snow,, and the restraunt I work in,, serves pretty good ribs, for being a chain place,
but for frigging amazing ribs, theres this place downtown,
Ribs, rings, and beer by the pitcher, They only have the ribs in summer.
but yeah,, a resturant that serves CM people,,, that would be funny as hell,
PS do you have poutine down there yet??
Funny enough, the south is full of Gravy and Biscuits, Fried Chicken, and enough fatty foods that would make a heart specialist run in fright. But putting gravy and cheese on french fries freaks us out.
I love Dry Ribs, you folks don't know dry, muddy, or the other variations. If you aren't smoking ribs for 6 hours or more, you ain't gettin it rite.
Memphis in May attracts nearly 500 international Rib Cooking Teams per year. Draws usually around 200,000 people and the winner can take a purse of between 50K to over 100K in cash depending upon how they do it that year. Pork is huge here.
Are there some kind of "newbie scenarios"??
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
I'm still very new, but do very well vs the AI now. I can fairly well maul them when i take my time and i'm not swarmed with units on huge maps.
My advice, don't get in a hurry. It's not a race to the flags. If you feel pressure to get to the flag then take a deep breath and put that "gamey" issue to the side. Think in context of "controlling the area". I've found by not worrying with exact spots of flags i was fairing better faster.
I also keep replaying the same scenario over and over. It's given me an understanding of the units and their capabilities. Most of what i've done is infantry, tanks and other afvs just die. I do ok some of the time, but i've read where Jason C seems to have gotten clobbered too.
Don't treat this like a "Red Alert" tank rush (i used to rule there! LOL) you will only die in a fast grusome manner. Also, try and put aside the dice and counter methods you may have learned and relied on in the past. They don't function here i believe because you don't have the fire control cordination like in those games.
Try this scenario "A meeting not well met II" it's the 4th one down on my scenario list. Play germans and don't go rushing around. Get your tanks to the top area of the hill above the crossroads. Just GO SLOW, they will come to you. I played this about 2 times till i was kicking the crap out of the AI, you may enjoy this one, i thought it was alot of fun. They outnumber you etc, but good placement will make this a cakewalk. Use the LOS tool.
From one newby to another..... LOL