black_prince
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by black_prince
-
-
Having read 'The Clay Pigeons of St Lo' not too long ago, it struck me that even for radio equipped troops, landlines seemed to be the primary means of communication. The radios often seemed to be inopperable and lines for field telephones were constantly being laid and re-laid in all kinds of circumstances.
-
When you're on the purchase axis forces screen, ensure you have the Italian army selected before purchasing bunkers from the fortifications section. Hopefully they will be stocked with Italian ammo.
-
I'm not sure of the exact date that the first Panthers were used in Italy. However, my understanding was that all the available Panthers were sent to Kursk for operation Zitadelle starting at the beginning of July so I doubt there were any present in Italy at this time. In any case, I'm fairly certain that none were encountered in Sicilly, which is the period of fighting covered in the CMFI base game. Doubtless we'll see Panthers in future modules.
(beaten to it by Sergei)
-
Are the 75mm HEAT rounds effective against the Tiger's frontal armour?
-
True, wikipedia can't really be taken as gospel. I've been trying to find more info about the 90/53 as this vehicle intrigues me but I havn't been abe to locate any detailed accounts of its operation so far-just some brief descriptions. Can I ask where you came accross the picture you mentioned?
-
I see this on my PC all the time with US airborne units when looking at them from a distance.
-
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I would say abstraction is prefferable to ommission in this case, especially as this is probably the only Italian vehicle that should be able to reliably threaten the Sherman at long range. On the other hand it would obviously have been great to see some special features implemented to really bring this 'peculiar beast' to life. For example, a deploy weapon type of command which would cause the crew to dismount and move to the rear of the vehicle to operate the gun or an ammo carrying vehicle with ammunition sharing capability. Of course, I understand that this would be a lot of effort to make for one rather obscure vehicle. To be honest, I'm still not quite over the shock that we will actually be getting a CM:FI.
-
According to good old Wikipedia, the Semovente 90/53 could only carry 6 shells. Each vehicle was therefore attended by an ammo carrying L6/40 tank in action carrying extra shells internally and in a trailer. As this vehicle is not included in the TO&E list and as no feature allowing vehicle to vehicle ammo sharing has been mentioned (unless I've missed it), would I be right in assuming that the ammo capacity of the 90/53 will be increased to compensate?
-
Yep, different log in. You have to register, there's a link in the 'user menu' box in the column on the left hand side.
-
I've experienced this recently too. My 95mm armed Churchill used up its precious HEAT rounds on a building and had nothing left for the enemy armour. Bit irritating. HEAT rounds might be more efficient at penetrating particularly thick walls but I would have thought HE would be the round of choice for engaging your average building and pummelling it down to rubble if need be. TBH I don't think this is really a good argument for introducing SOPs as I would assume (whilst holding my breath and waiting to be corrected) that a fairly minor tweak of the existing tacAI could fix this behaviour.
-
@Black Prince: Sound tactics there, but I'dd add that one should put the team on HUNT or SLOW for the last AS before they reach the hedgerw or terrain feature.
I'll try that in future. I usually use slow when I'm sending a scout or sniper team over the crest of a hill in the hope that they won't be skylined. I agree that the forums at the moment (or at least up until recently) seem to have been utilised more for miscelaneous gripes than discussions of gameplay. While I do understand that constructive criticism can assist in improvements it is nice to be able to discuss tactics.
-
What I often do is move a scout team fast over a short distance to the next hedgerow and set them to hide at their destination waypoint. If I didn't spot anything that I think would be an immediate threat to my scouts in their current location on the way in I will dispense with the hide order and give them a cover arc on the next turn. The disadvantage being that you have to wait another turn before you get a decent look at what's up ahead. I started doing this after an incident in which my scout team was fired upon by an enemy hq unit which was just outside the area covered by my arc making for a very uncomfortable turn during which one of them became a casualty. Had they been on hide they would have returned fire once fired upon.
-
While it is a risky task and I do lose members of the scout team on occassion I never feel as though I'm sending my scouts on a suicide mission. I think as long as you are moving them from cover to cover and using the correct combination of commands then your scout team has a decent chance of survival.
-
Is it something that came in CW (which I don't yet have) or is it just a rare item for BN formations that I've just not seen?
IIRC this is already present in CMBN base game although not as common as the US gl. As is the Priest which JonS has highlighted in bold. I think it just goes to show how spoiled we are already that there are bits and pieces in CMBN that we don't even realise we have.
-
My heart and prayers go out to the missing crew and their families. Hope they bring them home alive and well!
x2
If Russia is presented with the option of either airstrikes against Syria or tighter sanctions including a ban on all weapons shipments they may accept this as the lesser of two evils. As you say though, Russia's strategic interests are stake and their co-operation in enforcing any sanctions regime may do some serious damage to their future relations with the Syrians. Therefore, they may respond to threats of airstrikes against Syria with increased support for the Syrian government in the shape of more advanced air defence systems. In the short term, to make any advanced new systems operational (and therefore a credible deterrent) would probably require their operation by Russian crews while Syrian crews were trained to an acceptable level of profficiency. In this way the potential for a very ugly scenario starts to become apparent.
I think what happens next all depends on how important Syria is to the respective players in addition to how much they feel the situation can be manipulated to favourably affect domestic oppinion. Alot of what happens next will probably depend on the pesonalities of the leaders. I don't see Putin as a man who will be willing to back down on this. He has invested too much in his image as a macho strong man. Erdogan, for all of his skill at producing strong and at times shocking rhetoric, will probably be satisfied by some suitably conciliatory gesture by Syria, assuming that his domestic opponents (such as those in the armed forces) do not use the incident to whip up nationalitic outrage and portray Erdogan as a wimp. This is unlikely though as Erdogan has a lot more influence over Turkish media.
The problem with Russia supporting the opposition is, IMHO twofold:
1) It still doesn't appear likely that the opposition will be in power in Syria any time soon.
2) There is no one in the oppositions ranks with the authority or credibility to be able to make and keep promises regarding Russian interests at some as yet unspecified time in the future.
-
If your talking Vietnam era then it would be Shrikes or Standards. I believe the Turks do have HARMs in their arsenal and they also have a number of precision guided stand off weapons such as the American SLAM and Israeli Popeye in addition to a Turkish produced cruise missile (although I'm not sure wether or not this is in service yet).
I don't really see any military action happening as a result of this personally. What the Turks (along with their allies) might be able to do if they are smart about it is to use the credible threat of strikes in response to this incident to persuade Russia to halt weapons transfers to Syria and co-operate in tightening up sanctions on them as an alternative as well as perhaps establishing an internationally protected buffer/humanitarian zone inside Syria-although the last part is perhaps a little far fetched.
It will be interesting to hear the Russian response to whatever comes out of this summit.
-
Unfortunately you appear to be correct. The initial reports which stated that the aircrew had been recovered were apparently wrong. Here is what I think happened (assuming that Turkey's claims that the aircraft briefly entered Syrian airspace in error and were shot down over international waters are correct) :
-Syrian Air Force grounded or partly grounded due to the recent defection of the MiG 21 pilot.
-Syrian air defence detects the Phantoms as they are about to enter or have already entered Syrian airspace. Permission/instructions are requested from higher command.
-'Higher command' deliberates on the decision for several minutes. As there are no aircraft readily available to intercept and identify the intruders the decision is taken to open fire on the aircraft.
-By this time, the Turkish aircraft have left Syrian airspace but are still within range of a SAM battery. The order to fire is obeyed and one Phantom is brought down.
I don't know why there was no warning issued prior to the aircraft being fired upon but it is possible that attempts were made without success to raise the Turkish fighters. Perhaps they didn't use the correct frequency or the Turkish fighters, having made a navigation error, did not realise they were the aircraft being hailed. On the other hand, Syria does not claim to have issued any warning prior to engaging the aircraft.
An alternative explanation might be that one of their SAM batteries was operating on automatic/semi-automatic mode and the parameters for engagement were set incorrectly. This would explain the lack of a warning issued (if indeed no warnings were given.).
The other question that comes to mind is why was it necessary for the Turkish Air Force to conduct a radar test so close to what is essentially a war zone? Of course, there may be some technical reason of which I am unaware or a navigation error may have been made by the pilots. The alternative of course is that aircraft were on a reconnaisance mission, perhaps monitoring arms shipments to Syria.
I'm not too sure what we can expect from the NATO summit. Probably nothing more than a stern, joint denunciation of Syria and a statement of support for Turkey. On the other hand, if other powers, frustrated by vetoes at the UN, wish to take some form of action against Syria, they aren't likely to get a better opportunity than this.
-
According to this a Turkish Phantom has been shot down by Syria. I think this has just been reported so it may turn out to be a misunderstanding of some kind. With the surprises we've had from BF recently, maybe a Turkish forces module isn't too far fetched.
Thankfully, the crew seem to have been recovered safely.
PS-I tested the link this time.
-
It gets better and better, check out some of the upgrades:
Moveable Waypoints
Target Armor Arc Command
Target Briefly Command
Pausable Realtime TCP/IP Mode
-
This is the kind of surprise I like very much-keep em coming guys!
-
Apparently, Russia is sending two amphibious assault ships to Syria for possible evacuation of its nationals/protection of its assets.
I suppose it's not impossible that troops sent to assist in the evacuation or involved in guarding bases could become embroiled in a fight with rebels.
-
Sorry, my last post wasn't that clear. What I meant was that anything up to and including 7.62 doesn't appear to harm friendlies. However, 12.7 and up definitely will.
-
Seems to be 7.62-casualties from friendly HMGs are definitely possible (tested it).
-
Thanks for that. Played this scenario about a year ago and loved it. However, when I played this scenario I had some mortars with a small amount of ammo which I used to silence the fire from Hill B. Did you edit them out of to provide more of a challenge?
60mm Mortar - Target Briefly
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
If the mortar team was able to see the enemy being targeted I don't seen any reason why they wouldn't fire on the target of their own volition. If you want a unit to fire briefly at an enemy they can already see then you should give them a pause command and then add a waypoint with a target arc or hide command. Target briefly is more usefull for area fire.