Skwabie
-
Posts
603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Skwabie
-
-
you could cry for tank coaxial machineguns be inadequate the same way the HMG´s are. they behave mostly the same in shooting.
indeed for the tank MGs. actually that one is more obvious. probably the same mechanism/code is used for both.. ofc i'm just guessing
-
Then you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles. There is easily discernible "kick" when you watch the side view, even on those short bursts.
in the side views you can only see the gun. i mean the first 5 seconds or so of the video where the impacts of the bullets are shown.
i admit that only video is not enough to convince everyone. for that one would need recognized data results. for example, if data exists that prove the bullets scatter pattern after 0.3 seconds of firing is on the same level compared to after 2 seconds firing, and probably something more complicated than that. so until then i think this will remain another meaningless forum debate.
however it is enough to convince myself, and provides an explanation for my past experiences. i lower my expectations accordingly. no game is perfect that much i know.
-
OK that tripod is awesome. That was an almost 4 second burst and I can see no rounds scatter up and down, except the horizontal swing of the gunner manually! At this rate barrel overheat is gonna come first before accuracy is affected...
By the looks of it all the HMGs in game are under represented with the MG42s getting the bad end of the stick...
-
Regarding the light MG3:
Then i was shooting the light MG3 on the army, i was ordered to fire short bursts
Minimum 2 rounds, Maximum 7 rounds.
Regulary 3-5 round bursts.
The first 3 rounds of a burst are quite close together, round 4-5 is spread more and 6-7 even more. For more information look at my post quite at the beginnging of the thread (Schützenschnur "bronze").
Only gunners with a higher weight or higher power could press themselves so hard into the machine gun that the accuracy could be hold for 1-2 rounds more. So not only the first 3 rounds were quite accurate (then up to 5 rounds)
If the enemy soldiers are closer or dense and you are skilled you can swing the gun from one side to the other with your longer bursts. But if you ever would fire more than 10 round bursts is very unlikely (only if a enemy horde is already assaulting your position between "0" and 20 meters.)
Fireing longer burst with MG3 and being accurate like a "Laser" you can only provide with the heavy mounting tripod.
Additional to the video at the beginning of this post you might take a look at the other links i posted in this thread.
I never shoot the heavy mounting myself. I only know that the bursts are around 25.
Shorter bursts are only useful if you fight a single hidden target, want to save ammo and want to find the right aiming first.
Longer burst on a single target i guess you use if you have the right aiming/distance or you fire on long ranges 800-1200.
Longer bursts on short or medium ranges are usefull if you swing the gun from one side to the other and so dispensing the rounds either to ensure to hit a single target or to increase hitprobability on more people running in the same area.
But i will do a research on the Bundeswehr orders for heavy machine gun to ensure i am not wrong with my guesses related to the heavy MG.
Kauz,
Thanks for the info... didn't know that before!
I set up 3 tests of LMG42/HMG42/HMG34/M1917A1 on a range of 600m. (the LMG can't shoot to 1000m obviously). From what I can observe:
The LMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.
The HMG42 shoots in bursts of 5-7 rounds.
The HMG34 shoots in bursts of 3-5 rounds.
The M1917 shoots in bursts of 4-6 rounds.
HMG42 has slightly better burst frequency then LMG42 but not much.
I think 2 concepts are being dealt here. 1 is burst length, the time between trigger depress and trigger release. 2 is burst volume, the rounds shot in each burst.
From what I can understand from your description of the bipod, its limiting factor is burst volume, i.e. first 3 rounds are accurate, the follow on rounds degrade. Therefore a LMG42 shooting 5-7 rounds per burst, compared to 4-6 of a lower rof LMG is somewhat correct.
The question is, does the tripod offer significant stability to counter recoil, that burst volume is no longer a big issue. If it does, then burst length comes into play. The gunner will no longer be affected by how many rounds he shoots, but will only remain comfortable, if he holds down the trigger no longer than such a length of time, say 1 second. After that he needs to regain his vision/re-adjust aim/etc etc. This 1 second should be the same for any tripod mounted MG. Then the current model CM uses would be incorrect, because MG42 would shoot twice the rounds of a M1917 in one burst (1 second) before gunner releases trigger..... So whether the tripod offers that kind of stability is what I'm wondering.
-
2nd campaign for the remaining half of the scenarios coming soon!
scenarios editing's finished, time to play-test and write campaign script!
-
I tried the M1917A1 and the MG42 on test maps.
Area firing at 1000m, the M1917A1 fires in 3-6 rounds burst; the MG42 fires in 4-7 rounds burst.
Since the MG42 ROF is twice, maybe a longer burst is better. With the short burst the fire volumn advantage indeed doesn't quite show imo.
But still, does anyone with the relevant knowledge with a high rof machine gun, nowadays say an MG3, know the correct military doctrine in using it? Short bursts that keep the aimpoint under constant adjust, or longer bursts for a better area effect?
-
double penetrations are quite common since hit texts are available. take 88L71 against anything western allies...
-
campaign downloaded and looks very atmospheric! also appreciate it very much that you included the core and scenarios. thanks for your excellent work clubfoot!
-
dig the thread title:D
exiting-->
-
I've tried going in slow with "Hide" at the last way point but still ended up seen before I could call in the fire mission.
if that's the case I think that position is bad (ie if it's too close to the enemy or something), maybe considering switch to another OP...
also if arty support is available from scenario start you can call them in before pressing the go button, at this phase LOS is not needed.
-
ehehe obviously real-time produces more wtf moments sometimes by over-control too. cmrt's large maps should benefit wego greatly. unless one day the on screen minimap wet dream becomes reality that is!...
-
Turreted vehicles will occasionally not aim their guns towards the center of the arc. It has been reported as a bug.
thanks Vanir i think that settles it then!...
-
1) A fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" can not hear, spot/establish LOS (let alone LOF) to an enemy tank that is just 80m away in the open firing it's main gun and hull/coaxial MGs at two other targets for a full 40secs, yet the enemy tank, buttoned and with a dead TC, after 40sec seems to have no problem spotting and targeting the silent, in concealed terrain stationary tank.
It happens to me too like 1 in 10 occurrences. Drives me bloody nuts every bloody time.:mad: The "tank is right f***ing in front of you, why the f*** can't you see it?" moments. (once or twice i just ordered area targeting in rage and actually scored some HE kills!)
That said,
1. I always forgot to save the game after my tank explodes and just went to reload the last save..........
2. It is very hard to reproduce as a bug i imagine. actually i dunno if i can call it a bug or just underlying mechanism of the spotting system at work.
-
[shrug] Nope. That's as far as I've got any experience to suggest. Can't say I've ever seen a TA-ordered turreted vehicle stay "stuck" on its last target.
yep i didn't quite notice it before either actually, i play real time and mostly just used very narrow arcs to point the tanks' turrets, once they get the spot i'd just delete the arc and let them shoot...
You're playing Realtime, yes? That might make a difference, I'm a WeGo Purist
so couldn't say.indeed, come to think it whole problem goes away for OP if he's in real time:D
-
One exception might be when the system "detects" a threat that isn't actually visible but is within the angle of the arc. Have you noticed how sometimes vehicles will point themselves at threats there's no possible way they can see? I see it mostly with AI-controlled vehicles. Perhaps that is applying to distant threats that the gun is "allowed" to point at, or would be if they were spotted... You have icons off, so it may be pointing at a "?" contact. Which is probably desirable behaviour.
was actually in scenario author mode so i could get to the action faster. sound contacts did make sense, especially that 'AI rotate itself to face threats by 6th sense' thing!
however... it still doesn't explain this. the HT in front of the gun tube was just killed. i immediately issued the CA, and the turret stays still while all sound contacts are on the other side. interesting...more thoughts:o
-
Then your surmise would be incorrect. The barrel of a turreted vehicle's main weapon will bisect the angle of any TA it's given unless it's tracking a spotted target that's within that arc.
!roger that indeed.
edit: i did post from memory tho. just re-ran the scenario, in the screenies the tank previously engaged some targets in the current turret facing and doesn't rotate it when issued a new CA. maybe it's an inbuild tac AI rule or it changed in cmrt? (screenies are in cmbn)
-
womble i reckon a wide arc is more for limiting engagement than to direct facing for the turret could end up facing anywhere in that say 180deg section... i think my intent on this situation is first spot first shot; secondly as many first shots as possible since the 75l48 is really a pea shooter, it often takes multiple pen hits to take out a tank like the t-34 so i'm not sure multiple arcs would fit the intent. but... i think it's just different ways to approach this in our own way. pretty sure it's a t34/85 tho, the german campaign is full of them and no 34/76 in sight in it.
-
Had I been issueing the orders to that platoon I would have ordered them to move and then either change face in situ or ordered one or more additional orders to chang the platoon's facing to face the anticipated threat.
he only times you should be issueing target arc commands is when you are either on the defensive and want your units o hold fire until the enemy enters a kill zone or when you want a unit to overwatch a specific area while othe units advance.
agrees.. from the video i do see the situation somewhat tricky. without using covered arcs, it's either
1. move the tanks close to the road, issue a face command at the last waypoint;
2. move the tanks close to the road, then issue another move/hunt command to change their facing
with option 1 the problem is obvious. it takes a century for a tank to do 90deg hull rotation in CM. if the T-34 gets the spot when the Pzivs are stuck in the rotation process it isn't good. i mean even if the pzivs also spot the T-34, they weren't be able to shoot until the rotation is finished. to make matters worse, when the pzivs arrive at their last waypoint they're facing the threat sideways which greatly reduces spotting ability.
option 2 i think is better, but in such a close quarter fight, the space is tight so it might take some effort to navigate the tanks. the effort probably needs to be taken indeed, but in the heat of battle it's understandable to just use a CA to save some mouse clicks to keep up with one's "inner pace"; another perspective is with CA i sometimes simply means to tell the tank to "there's an enmey tank here look this way!" instead of "don't engage anything outside the arc", the latter probably is the correct interpretation of the CA but i don't find another substitute of "look this way" except the often useless face command. anyway i'm just imagining here...
-
love it. last roars of the gas turbines too probably..
-
^last I heart it was fetishism for Cromwells. ...Thankfully this is eastern front.
-
sburke i've had the same role for another game so knows a bit how it is. yes it does make you a fanboy:D, as in you work not for money or fame but satisfying your fanaticism.
-
As of right now, all we have is a rant.
well yes sburke but... that's what the public forum is for 95% of the time i reckon. pretty sure there's much less of it on the beta foras! (since you probably have the internal chat room for that anyway:D)
-
If that where allowed and with the talent within tthe community then BF would have no way of making any money as modders would have done it all. So I cna understand the reasoning and it doesn't bother me at all.
It actually makes me sad when thinking about today's gaming industry:( Otoh any man with rationality does understand ofc..
-
Just about all of the US equipment has been upgraded or changed in some way since Shock Force, even if the model number stays the same.
We're currently planning on M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams with ERA and possibly some other goodies (and likely the option to have it without ERA as well). Bradley and Stryker also have upgrades and changes that will be reflected.
Thanks and nice to hear Chris!! Keep up the good work! Meanwhile more search for me to discover what's in store for us:)
so couldn't say.
Is the curtain closing on good new EF historical writing?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Saddening but not surprising. I remember a military magazine here that had been publishing since the early 90s. Once it published the combat history of US/Chinese forces in the battle of Chosin reservoir in korea, 3 parts in 3 successive issues. It was eye opening. Apparently the chinese didn't do so good but that was historical.
Later that magazine was banned by the culture bureau. It re-emerged about a year later but there was no longer anything worth reading in it. Same for every other publications that's openly issued since then. Freedom of speech/press has a long way to go in these socialist states i fear.