costard
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by costard
-
-
Cast iron would be less brittle than some hard steels, perhaps tool steel (used for cutting metal on lathes, high chrome percentages I think). Most, though, would be tougher. A molybdenum alloy gives a work-hardening property - provided the piece isn't over stressed while young, it will over time gain toughness, the crystal structure within the metal changing (you're right, a metallurgist would be handy). I think its this alloy that face hardens, too. Titanium has this quality on its own, but it is a total bastard to machine and expensive. There might be an old SR-71 shell lying around somewhere, going cheap.
Looking at JasonC's links, the single pin track looks to be easiest to manufacture. The driving wheel acts on the pin, so the weak point would be where the pin passes through the shell - where you'd bush it - and no chance of saving weight there with waffling.
Building a Tiger from scratch - heh, THAT's a hobby!
-
great stuff JasonC - thankyou.
ww2steel - bushings likely made of bronze - easy to machine to tolerance and fairly hard wearing. The advantage with using a cast iron link would be the inbuilt lubrication - due to the graphite. You could just forget about the bush. Cast iron also machines readily, so your bearing surfaces are smoother to start with. In my opinion it would be difficult to get it to look like steel - particularly if exposed to the weather.
I'm going to take a gamble on my ignorance here, and suggest that cast iron would fail under tension more readily than a hard steel, and wasn't used for this reason. Also, being brittle, would more likely shatter upon the impact of (relatively light)solid shot.
What scale do you plan to make the replicas?
-
JasonC
The photos I have of the WW1 tanks have what look like rivets attaching plates to the drive chain through a vertical axis - I assumed they were such with the info on mild steel, and assumed (there's that word again) the cost of bolting to be prohibitive (tho' allowing pretty good replacement ability).
Were the pinned track sections made in one piece with the chain element a vertical component of the original casting, or was there another linkage - chain section pinned to plate, chain section to chain section, plate to plate?
There ough to be someone's article on track designs around, with engineering drawings etc. Different designs for sure - Carden-Lloyd, Christie, Porsche, Holt.. probably mixed up some suspension designers in there.
Do you have a link to engineering drawings in your library?
Cheers
-
ww2steel
The reference I have is mild steel being used by the Brits in WW1 (MkIV and V), the French AMR-33 (Renault VM) using die-forged steel tracks of the Carden Loyd system.
Mild steel doesn't weld well, much better to rivet it - loking at the plates of the tracks will give you a good idea of which is being used.
Cast iron is unlikely - too brittle. Poured steel suffers from being difficult to control in a mould (cast iron expands slightly as it cools, making the process easier). So perhaps a die-forged alloy steel - what alloy I can't tell you.
Cheers
-
Kingfish - thanks for the great work.
The sight lines (or lack of them) take the action in close, more of a manouverability / short range support capability required. There should be some good movies around.
McKay's Fortress is imposing - planning an assault ain't easy because you know you have to take the risks.
St Saulon looks like it'd be nearly as good played single player vs the AI - there're some wicked natural features coming into play.
I'm having to keep an eye on the clock in Devil's and Dragon's but it seems to present the defender with the challenge of covering the whole front with a low quality paucity of infantry - I hope.
Having huge fun, hope you continue to enjoy making these scenarios.
-
Tuning the barrel length - having the end of the barrel lie on a node of the waveform caused by the shockwave of the igniting propellant - should help with dispersion problems. Fullbore (7.62mm) rifle shooters have been doing this for a few years now (as far as I know). I can appreciate why the navy might just adjust the propellant loadout instead.
-
Nice find Lee. I should do a test to see if combat bonuses apply...
-
I'm enjoying this, thanks guys.
On the subject of barrel design, does a higher muzzle velocity necessarily lead to a shorter barrel life?
-
Hi guys - n00b central for PBEMs here, so hang in there.
Received and plotting setups, should be off in an hour or so.
-
Sly - I'll have a go. email in profile.
Tim
-
Trying to rationalise something that does make sense is a mug's game. Attempting to shift the perspective of an observer from one viewpoint ("It doesn't make sense!"), to another ("Oh, I see.") is the practical outcome of successful communication.
1. seems like a pretty good scenario - in the operation, the guy with the rank makes the decisions, gives the orders. True, I'd expect the leadership role (in TRW) to pass down in the platoon structure for the armour, so the next senior tank commander would take over the platoon, but CM doesn't model that either.
2. I'm sure junior infantry officers are trained to appreciate the advantage of firepower added to their force - with the right set of circumstances they would positively embrace, every time, the opportunity to gain control over a depleted platoon of tanks. They might even use that addition wisely.
What does happen, all the time, in every army, is the deferment to superior rank and the continued existance of the command structure.
-
The logic for the programme, I think, would be in the classification of the members of the "platoon" - a platoon of men, if it has lost its lieutenant, passes up to the captain for command. The platoon of tanks does the same. Independent vehicles miss out.
I came across it playing Wacht an Reim CMETO.
I think its a *cool* , ahem, feature - it probably does have morale effect, but probably not cover. Who wants to fight fair anyway?
-
Adam1 - would it be something along the same lines as taking smaller ball for the rifles? More units of ordnance, longer time on the battlefield with fire ascendancy? or summfink. Large packages do deliver more kill and in a larger radius, the advantage gained being exponential in effect. Against an exponential effect in the reduction of number of rounds carried by a unit for a given kill in an out of supply cirucmstance (battle).
A square to a cube?
Probably comes back to communication theory and the art of maintaining supply into a battlefield.
-
JasonC - thanks for the reply.
Knew I had to be missing something - ME instead of attack makes the difference.
Managing the movement of the four 105s seems a little tough in 26+ turns - I guess the payoff is about 180 rounds of105mm HE to throw. As a matter of interest, how would you go about "pulling" the T34s onto the guns? Offer some tempting bait (Flammenpanzer) in the covered area?
-
JasonC - I notice you don't include mortars heavier than 50mm in the mix. Doesn't this mean that you have to get your troop up to 800m (say 600m for good accuracy) from the AT guns before you can deal with them? Or do you find the accuracy and ammo loadout of the 81mm too low to be worth the sacrifice of other units in the initial purchase?
-
Surely plenty of planes left in '44, but maybe.
Sorry, no more ideas here - I'll have to go and see if I can get the same results. Did you have any particular parameters set when you created the original map?
Cheers.
-
GDog -
You may have the weather set to random - this would allow air support sometimes and not others. That's the only thing I can think of there...
Are the allied units a reinforcement? If so the reinforcement marker needs to be placed - you do this in the map preview in the scenario editor.
Hope this helps.
-
Thanks Philippe - parody was my first thought too; wondering if brainwashing really is that effective. And, god help me, did they have to sow the foreskins back on?
-
"...fanatical Hitlerjuden defending Berlin." wtf? There's a story here, please enlighten us.
-
SteveP - I see your point. Was there a class of tank platoon commanders that used to jump on their subordinates for not absolutely making sure that they weren't in sight/command? More time taken to check?
-
originally posted by Philippe
I'll say! It looks like the whole river north of Cassino has disappeared under the motorway running N-S!
-
SteveP
I bought a platoon of '41 T34's, regular, in a tcp/ip quick battle last night. The first (the command vehicle) went in the first round, knocked out by a PIIIH at 600m - I'd foolishly gambled on the opposition not having anything significant in that fire-lane.
The second scored a PII flame and a 20mm armored car, then was knocked out by the PIIIH. The delay on movement meant that it hung around just behind a crest for thirty seconds too long, giving the German time to make the flank.
The third won the game for me - even though he unbuttoned forty seconds after being fired upon by a sniper. The delay on firing through being shocked was less than the delay for getting moving. I had held on in desperation and was rewarded with a dose of good luck.
The whole of the battle, set in August 1941, was a wake-up call as to just how brittle the Soviets are at this time. Regulars all, incompetent for the most part.
So, in answer to your questions, from a very junior point of view,
1. The homogeneity of the force means a requirement for less mental ju-jitsu; in positioning for advantage, replacing knocked out elements. I haven't noticed a real difference provided by command (morale, recovering from panic) but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
2. Gamey is - the game is a game, and ever will be. Any model of the universe suffers from being a model, as opposed to the real thing. At the very least this model is highly enjoyable, in my humble opinion, and well worth the money spent on it. Hopefully worth the time and effort put into creating it (you'd have to ask Battlefront).
3. The product seems too highly polished to have this feature as unintended, a mistake. The frustration engendered by this coding has been a part of all the Combat games I've enjoyed - CC2-5, now CM. It enhances the immersion and "real-life" feeling of the game, only a shallow and unforgiving person could possibly take exception to it's being included. (An interesting marketing ploy, that.) As a possible real-world circumstance describing the mechanics of the game, How about (in Russian, over the noise of some fearsomely large, unmuffled diesel engines):
"Straight ahead, 180m, half left, behind that clump of woods."
"What?"
"Go! There!" (points). Gets taken out by a MkIII.
"What? Where?" pause. etc.
-
Thanks Leprechaun -
in the middle of TCP.IP game now, axis attack. Need to gather for the final assault. Right hook coming up.
This game rocks.
-
When I have troops in a cemetery, the terrain detail window shows a picture of "rough": does a trench in a cemetery reduce the exposure more than a trench in the open? Or is it that the range at which the trench is spotted is reduced?
Attempted AAR: Tactical Criticisms Welcome...
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Tux - enjoying the AAR, thanks.
With regard to plans, do a screenshot and save the file in Paint as Turn # plans. With all paths/targets, arcs etc, showing, of course.