Magpie_Oz

I have a Razer Orochi 7 button mouse and it is child's play to assign what ever key strokes and combinations to each of the buttons. You can even assign one of the buttons to be a "Change button map" so you can have an endless number of button maps that you cycle too depending on the situation.

WeGoers are just more noisy on the forums than us pureist Real Timers. RT is so much more an absorbing experience for me, you need to watch the action and think fast rather than just have a cavalcade of data presented to you for you to process at your leisure

No doubt Clancy and his ilk tell a good tale, problem is that they hit a formula and tell it over and over and over and just change the location and add a few more characters to replace the ones they had jailed or blown to pieces in the last book. This thread brings to mind a thing I saw on the History Channel a little while ago. The doco was talking about the US in Europe and spoke at length with first hand interviews with veterans on how amazing the BAR was and how it outclassed the MG42 with it's rate of fire .............. When you see something that patently wrong you wonder about a whole lot of other things.

You don't actually have to destroy them, just occupy the objective area they are in.

Until it falls off and goes skittering across the floor taking out your mates in the process. But 5 minutes does seem like an extraordinarily long time to muck about with it. Is the crew suppressed or panicked or anything like that?

This was discussed awhile ago, not sure what the outcome was but the general camps divided into "only an idiot would leave their tank and by the time you got back in it the enemy would be gone" and "Yes crews did this sort of thing all the time "

LOL, yes I saw that too ! M1A2 and M7 are there tho

Looking forward to the British Module and the 17lbr OBA.

Here ya go, knock yourself out ! http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

Yes I don't dispute the fact that the weapons did conduct what could be considered indirect fire missions, my point is that they could only do so in quite specific situations. I guess the trick with the timed air burst would be to attempt to have the explode well before the target, although the second half of the trajectory is much steeper than the start so perhaps that would help.

Artillery will finally be adjusted to land correctly on the objective at the precise moment that own troops reach the first trench line.

Dunno why but the Pacific has been generally bypassed in the simulation side of things, sad as is it a great theatre for some interesting games, especially since the focus is off armour

Is "like" now a verb ?

No of course he didn't. As usual he is left floundering by the simplest of questions regarding the Great Southern Land and hence assumes that the cancerous rot that infects the cess pool in which he chooses to dwell, is similarly inflicted upon all nations thus he makes up some sort of gibberish that appeals to the general low brow nature of his peers in forlorn hope of some cheap amusement and momentary popularity. Uluru is the name for the monolith given to it by the people who own it. They have called it this for 1000's of years, calling it Ayers Rock is an insult to the owners. It would be like calling Emery's house Scuzzbucket Manor, however accurate I am sure he would find that insulting. Calling it Uluru has nothing to do with Political Correctness, it is simple unadulterated Correctness.

yes the HMG question is the same and technically they too are not really firing indirect in the true sense, probably better referred to as plunging fire The point is the OP asked if using an 88 as OBA is historically accurate and given the limitations of the weapon firing in this mode the answer is I think, no. Not sure but I think the OBA model would not support the way an 88 would have to fire, it would have an elongated "beaten" zone like an HMG but I think the FFE pattern of the arty is linear or circular ? I like the airburst using AA fuses, I hadn't thought of that. Of course most of the shrapnel would be travelling parallel to the ground not down on the troops.

Yes that is right, as I put in the list but the problem is that if you are having to clear an intervening obstacle, the flatter your trajectory becomes the less clearance you have, also the "dead zone" i.e. that area where you cannot land a round behind an obstacle is increased. To get techo: Using the JDM ballistics program a projectile with a MV 0f 820m/s (88Flak) If aiming to hit a target at 3000yds the apogee of the trajectory will be at 1800yards and will be 108m above the LOS If aiming to hit a target at 2900yds the apogee of the trajectory will be at 1700yards and will be 97m above the LOS So for a small change in in range the clearance has shifted by 100m and lowered by 11m A 100m high hill is a small hill and the closest your target can be to the back of it is 1200 yds, all they have to do is run forward 100 yds and they are in the dead zone and safe.

EXCELLENT ! "Hey fellas !! Gibbo says the CMSF2 will have Arab Isreali forces in it !! "

The big , like HUGE problem with the 88 is what happens if you have to change range? If you are sited to engage a particular target, which I think the examples of the 90mm and 88's firing "indirect" as talking about, that is ok but if the target moves or you need to engage another target in the same area but closer what can you do? There are 4 things you can do to drop/increase the range: - less/more charge to lower/raise MV and hence the point at which the round comes to ground, which the 88 cannot do -lower the elevation, which will plough the round into the obstacle -raise to the high elevation and put the round into the stratosphere which causes the met problems and also will most likely tumble the round -Move the gun backwards or forwards which a ground mount cannot really do in game time frames.

Actually yes. All of that stuff you quote does not indicate in any way that the gun can fire indirect in the true sense, i.e. as a true artillery piece. All of the gun laying mentioned in the quote is simply the various ways it can get the data it needs to fire. Most of which is related to when a battery of guns is engaging a single target. Nearly all of the devices mentioned talk about the different visual ranging devices, i.e. they can see the target. I think the key is to look at what the term "Indirect Fire" actually means. If you definition of it is "firing at a target it cannot see" then sure the 88 can do that, but so to can a rifleman firing into a hedge. In the context of the OP question, that of OBA by 88's, the definition of indirect fire is more that the guns are able to engage a target that is defilade to them and they are in turn defilade to it. Put simply if you are behind a hill and can engage a target on the other side of the hill you are capable of indirect fire in all circumstances, ergo you can be used as OBA. Flat shooters like the 88 have an enormous zone of dead ground behind any obstacle in their view so there would only be a few specific times they could fire over an intervening obstacle to drop fire on a target, a hill in between for example, provided the target and the gun are many hundreds of metres from it. The situations in which an 88 ,or any other HV cannon for that matter, can provide fire support onto a target that is out of sight are so specific that modelling them in game terms would be difficult to say the least.

No, but I believe all the bad politicians, drug lords and terrorists have now been killed by black ops which no one has a problem with being carried out without consent. Many of them in all cleansing large explosions

Soooooo it could be a hypothetical Arab - Israeli war ..... in the Ukraine?

Or my favourite "Docudrama" or "Historical Fiction" i.e. we got a real event and sexed it up so it isn't as boring as all get out

No it is called Uluru

The problems with 88's in the "indirect" role is that they do not have separate loading ammunition therefore there is only 2 ways engage a target; fire on a direct flat trajectory, which means you can't fire over things or fire in a high plunging trajectory. The problem with the high trajectory is that, as it is an AA gun, it has a colossal altitude, some 39,000', so the effects on the accuracy by the upper level atmosphere would be huge and the gun would end up wildly inaccurate.

OK so you are quoting the full UTM coordinate rather than a grid reference ?