Sailor Malan2
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sailor Malan2
-
-
On 2/25/2021 at 2:08 PM, chuckdyke said:
World War II was triggered by the Polish corridor. Gdansk was called Dantzig since the Hansa League. Their claim must seen in the perspective of the 19th and 20th century. The British 'owned' Singapore and Hong Kong and the Dutch owned Batavia today's Jakarta. The 20th century was the century that Europe imploded, I see it as a completely wasted century. Hitler belonged in an asylum seen from hindsight. The man saw active service in the trenches was gassed and probably a lot more was damaged. Nowadays we call it PTSD.
Really simplistic view of the causes of WW2. The Polish corridor was Hitler's excuse of the week for Sept 39. Could have been any number of causes, realistically from militarising the Rhineland in 36 on.
-
On 1/10/2018 at 12:47 AM, John Kettler said:
JSj,
... Common sense would suggest that if a target can be seen well enough to put a round within a meter of it, perhaps the better course would simply be to shoot that particular individual foe or put a burst into a team or weapon crew...
I think you need to re-read the article. The point is that firers will (more often than not) miss what they are aiming at under battle conditions. With a single shot weapon on the range, a firer might have a group of 100mm, which will hit a head sized target most of the time. However under battle conditions they will miss that target most of the time. However teaching them to put a round through a 1m square aiming point every 3 seconds is more achievable and efficient. Putting 10 rounds through that 1m square doesn't give additional effect, and (with a single shot automatic weapon) probably wont happen, as to get that rate of fire aiming goes by the board completely (ditto LMG bursts). I think the point is that suppression is best achieved/sustained by slowing the rate of fire and holding consistent aim points. A single rifleman (auto rifle) can probably keep suppressed one target at 1/3 rd per sec which is much better than firing a much higher number of shots over a wider area. More realistically a team can suppress 2-3 m of linear position for a long time if controlled properly but if not will run out of ammo very quickly and not achieve measurable suppression.
The article is indeed very positive to a device sold by the organisation assisting the writer, but that doesn't make it wrong!
-
21 hours ago, CarlWAW said:
If a customer works with, for example AutoCAD and the developer rebuilds the engine from one version to the next and in the new product a feature is no longer available, for the customer its like the feature was removed.
Every development process is a question of choosing priorities. Otherwise we would have one software program in the whole world, that would do everything...
Your analogy is flawed. Windows 10 doesn't have all the features of previous versions. They don't all count as 'removed'.
CM2 is a completely different product from CM. And software programming/development all takes time. What feature from CM2 would you be prepared to sacrifice (in an alternate history) to get campaign reserves? Personally I have a list of things I would like added, not things I would sacrifice for a relatively specialised campaign feature (that would probably not be used, or would cut the number of campaigns because they would take longer to design)
-
On 10/20/2017 at 8:19 AM, CarlWAW said:
WOW! How the hell can features like that (or persistent map damage to name another one) be removed?!? Hard to believe that the old version had that.
Because they weren't 'removed', they were not included in the new engine. Your statement implies effort was used to degrade the game, but in reality it was a choice of where to put it to best improve the game...
-
I couldn't remember. The shell is in a vision cupola rather than a weapons point. When I went, you could look in from the access, and see iron rungs in the concrete wall. The access went up through the concrete roof into a round/hemispherical steel cupola. The shell poked through rather like the plate in the picture above.
-
As to the shell looking clean in the armour, I think it is probably real. There is another Maginot line bunker (well, the southern extension of the line in Alsace) where a cupola very similar to the one JK shows was attacked by an 88mm. There is a partial penetration there, and I recall the nose of the shell being just as undamaged. The Bunker is not far from Colmar if I recall.
-
On 8/6/2017 at 2:25 PM, user1000 said:
Another blunder by the Brits.
I hate to take issue with your assertion, but Dunkirk was not a blunder by anyone other than the Germans. The blunder was in the 10-14 days before, and that was by the Allies (or possibly French) not just the Brits.
But you are about to tell me about irony I guess?
-
No, I think it is just the barrel length which allowed a bigger propellant charge. The peak design chamber pressure is probably the same, and the decay is such that if you use a bigger charge on the Tiger I gun there is still a lot of pressure available at the muzzle (which is wasted and also produces a big flash). The Pak 43 can use this energy, so had a bigger (longer) cartidge with more propellant. The barrel lengths were 56 calibres and 71 (IIRC) so over 10% longer in the case of the Tiger II gun...
I can't find the details of the charge weights.
-
You people don't know you're born. I was only in the Cadets but we had British Army Compo 24hr individual rat packs (they came with my Lee Enfield No4, which was made in 1942!). The compo came with "Biscuits AB". There are various things you can do with Biscuits AB: use them to stop bullets. Kill mice with them. In extreme circumstances bite down on them when you sprain your ankle (or worse) as they are more hygienic than sticks. Just don't eat them! Not if you value your teeth and jaws
Don't get me started on hexamine stoves!
Although there was the time one of my school mates was using an old Army trick to cook faster: use your knuckle to put a small dent in a the food can, and then heat the can directly on the stove until the dent pops back out. Voila - instant pressure cooker and much faster heating without the need to wash mess tin. Do NOT (as this guy did) forget about the tin while heating it. Especially in poor weather when cooking just outside the mouth of the tent. The report of a bean tin rupturing is quite loud. He got well covered in beans. And your partner in a 2 man tent will not thank you when he is finding beans in the tent at 2am after night patrol later on!
(We didnt have Health and Safety in the 70's
-
17 minutes ago, Sequoia said:
I'm hearing you say their are no comparable shells between 1944 and now . I assume the increased velocity is due to superior propellants in the casing?
No and yes. Guns have pretty much always been designed to a maximum chamber pressure, and propellant mass is set to achieve that. There are also secondary effects like barrel wear and peak temperature (which can also be linked to propellant). The more modern guns have better metallurgy and hence allow somewhat higher chamber pressures whilst keeping gun weight sensible, but also more modern propellants allow higher velocities without undue barrel wear, I am not an expert but I presume it is more to do with predictable and consistent burn rate, rate of change of pressure etc rather than pure "power". Anyone want to step in?
-
6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Not even close. The German 128mm would penetrate about 272mm of RHA at 100 meters. The Russian 125mm firing 1990s-era ammunition would penetrate 600-650mm of RHA at 2000 meters.
For one thing, the penetrators are made of different materials. The 128mm shell is steel while the 125mm sabot is either tungsten or uranium, much denser metals than steel. Also, the penetrators are shaped radically different. The 128mm shell looks like a very large bullet. The 125mm cannon fires a shell containing a submunition called a sabot. The outer layers of the shell peel away in-flight leaving the sabot, which is only about an inch in diameter but nearly two feet long. That means the kinetic energy is concentrated into a very small area. It's the difference between sticking someone with a knife and striking him with your fist.
The logic is exactly right but I am afraid you have the term Sabot backwards. The Sabot is the light jacket or sheath whose job is to keep the sub-calibre penetrator centred in the barrel whilst being as light as possible. (This means the sabot falls away leaving the tungsten or depleted uranium penetrator to fly on, with less cross sectional area and hence less drag but most of the energy imparted by the propellant, which it applies to a much smaller area of the target than a full calibre round would, as you say).
The APDS designation (and its more modern versions like APFSDS etc) means Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (i.e. it is the Sabot that is discarded)
-
On 6/16/2017 at 11:32 AM, domfluff said:
I'm certainly not well read on my Italian tactical doctrine, but I've been playing around with them quite a bit recently. Thought it was worth sharing some ideas, or at least being told how wrong I am.
The Italians have some bafflingly dodgy equipment. No radios and limited binoculars mean that reconnaissance is extremely difficult (C2 sharing is mostly spotting with naked eyesight, then running back a team to share that information horizontally to another unit), a complete lack of anti-tank weapons at the infantry level, and a general lack of automatic weapons.
The 20 man squads do have two LMG's (Breda 30's), with 20 round clips. That puts it more-or-less equivalent to the BAR as a suppression weapon. That's not completely terrible, but certainly worse than a Bren or MG34/42 at winning fire superiority.
The HMG's (Breda M37) are even more baffling - they also have 20 round clips, which makes their job very difficult, if not impossible.
On top of that, the Italian troops seem to be of a worse quality in CMFI in general ("Green" seems to be the default, but I could be wrong).
So, how to use them effectively?
What they *do* have is a high density of men, and large numbers of brixia mortars - they get nine of these per battalion, and each has 50 rounds, which is quite a bit. The rounds are small, but they can keep up a high rate of fire, and suppress their targets quite effectively, usually a lot more than the volume of HMG fire they can put out.They're structured into two 20 man squads, with 40 man platoons.
A deliberate two platoon attack would involve leapfrogging one platoon over the other, with the squads performing similar fire + movement in and of themselves, since they have one 10 man half-squad with 2 LMG's and one half with none. Company level presumably is the same thing, but larger.
This feels almost WW1-like, in that the aim in a deliberate, set-piece Italian attack is a conceptually simple steamroller - the HMG and especially Brixia fire is vital for suppressing the targets, and the infantry will push, push, push into close range, as aggressively and swiftly as possible. In close range, their numbers and grenades (which are as good as any) can wipe out any opposing advantages.
This seems to make a lot of sense. It means that the Italians can be effective in planned, set-piece frontal attacks, preferably over a distance of 500m or less, with protected flanks. It also means that they are incredibly lacking in agility - they can't deal with unexpected outcomes very easily, and fighting in close terrain (cities, woods) will likely be a disaster.
In some ways they seem similar to Soviet infantry, in that the tactical level seems simple and brutal, but effective. The emphasis then is on the larger scale, to make sure that the small scale can succeed.This sounds like the perfect RL description of the Italians in WW2!
-
I seem to have an issue with the glow from muzzle flashes and explosions persisting until the end of the video. Anyone noticed this? (Dusk battle, the light of the flash illuminates the surrounding objects, but doesn't fade, just vanishes next turn or when you change view sometimes)
-
One of the things that used to irritate me was 3" mortars using the 75mm art sound (so you got a whistling mortar round). At some point this has changed and there is now a nice mortar crump and silence. IS this a 4.0 thing?
-
The first time I had that 'wow' moment was when I drove a Sherman down a road(very soon after purchase). I suspected there was trouble off to my left, so was hiding behind houses. Then I got to a gap, that I strongly suspected might be in LoS of something bad. I play non-RT, so game is waiting for orders... decide to risk a quick dash across the gap to the next cover. Its only 20-30m I think... Order the move and position the camera to see the tank close up. Hit the red button. tank rolls forwards picking up speed. Half way across... 3/4. Then 'BANG-CLANG'. A shell comes over my shoulder and hits the Sherman. 'Oh no!'. But wait, tank is still moving... gets to cover and halts. But then I see all the casualties, and only 2 men jump out. I go from hope to gloom to hope to despair in about 5 seconds. I was totally blown away that the tank keeps moving until it coasts to a halt when hit. This was before the penetration graphics, but these days I would have a nice 75mm hole in the side of the tank as well. I watched that video several times, from the tank, it was that good. Oh and a couple of minutes later saw the villain of the piece... 75mm ATG in the wood line a few hundred meters off. I had been right to be suspicious all along!
-
On 2/3/2017 at 3:09 AM, IanL said:
But you are right. I think it is a bug
I think you will find it is a design feature/accident - I would guess they never thought of a 'deploying' label for the teams.
-
3 hours ago, IanL said:
LOL - funniest thing I have read all day. Pretty low bar these days but thanks none the less
Glad you liked it
-
On 1/13/2017 at 3:42 PM, Battlefront.com said:
.... However, I think I've come up with a Cunning Plan™ that will allow us to do that. ...
Steve
I will send you bank details for my royalties if you PM me.
[edit]OK - that would have made a lot more sense if I had been on the forum where my signature is "I have a cunning plan, My Lord"!
-
Just now, Bulletpoint said:
I don't know how long it should take. Just sharing my findings. My example was testing how much would be needed to suppress the building in 60 seconds.
Good point about sustained fire. I think suppression is basically about the balance between how much suppression pours in, minus how much continually drains out (due to leadership etc). So in some cases, you might have just a small surplus of suppression, and it takes several minutes to build up.
Agreed. My play improved immensely when I stopped thinking of minutes as 'Turns'... (i.e. one turn 'prep fire' then assault.. or more accurately die)
-
Why are you targeting light with a StuG? Thats like targeting light with an AT gun in my book! Never bothered me, 'cos I wouldn't think of doing it.
-
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Yes, that's what I personally would like to see.
We already have this: the Target command.
This would be the "Target Light" command.
I did some casual testing and found that I needed two light machineguns (M8 scout cars) and one heavy machinegun (M1917) to suppress a building enough that my assault team could approach with total impunity. But of course these results vary with a lot of different factors.
You know what I meant! There will always be a combination that isnt covered by any combination of orders if you go down the micro-control route. "Fire the SMG but hide the riflemen", or "throw half your grenades but keep the rest".
How long do you think you should fire at a building to suppress it? That sounds like a lot of firepower, and I would guess does it in a minute? You shouldn't treat minutes as 'turns' in (e.g.) ASL in my experience. 2 or 3 mins fire is usually necessary with the type of firepower more normally available (depending on what you are suppressing and what sort of cover they have).
-
On 1/27/2017 at 3:11 PM, Duckman said:
(One of the few positive aspects of national socialism from a military perspective was making the German army a bit more egalitarian. The clubby and snobbish nature of the officer class likely played a part in the morale collapse at the end of WWI, especially after the old school NCOs were all gone.)
Funny you should say this, as I was talking to my Dad only yesterday on army attitudes. He joined the British army in 1950 or so, and was in Germany twice before the end of the 50's and again in the 1970's. He commented that in the British army, officers had to earn the respect of the troops - it was most definitely not given by right. What he saw of the German Army at that point - must have been his second posting (post 1955 when the Bundeswehr was formed) was that Officers insisted on (and NCOs enforced) unconditional respect irrespective. The stories he told of British troops' (and NCOs') ways of showing disrespect in ways that could not be faulted are quite interesting. For example, the merest pause before putting the 'Sir' on the end of a sentence said everything, and any unpopular officer who tried to make a thing of it would likely end up before the Colonel being given a real dressing down for being a prat and causing it to happen. And there were many other ways. The NCOs at Sandhurst (officer school) could make 'Sir' sound like a term of abuse if they wanted to. In fact, there is a standing joke amongst NCOs even today - you call them 'Sir' at your peril, and they will respond with something like 'don't call me SIR! I work for a living!', and I have seen this done in front of an officer (although in a stage whisper!). I was a school boy cadet, and I think they were all having fun, but all the same...
So... the German army wasn't that egalitarian, and the 'class ridden' British Army did not have any truck with 'respect to officers by right'. This isn't definitive to WW2, but you only had to have been in the army for 7 years or so to have seen WW2 when my Dad joined. So pretty much anyone at Captain and above... Also his was the first intake at Sandhurst not to take casualties in Korea...
Another example of careful what you believe concerning stereotypes
-
On 1/19/2017 at 7:26 PM, Cpl Steiner said:
In this particular scenario I was behind schedule so careful scouting was not an option. Besides, the recent engine 4.0 upgrade to squad spacing most likely contributed to the high death toll, so it seems fair to me to suggest another small tweak.
As has been said elsewhere: is this necessarily true? Minefields might be modeled as a % per man in the action square, and exact position might be irrelevant. COuld just be bad luck on your part. I haven't seen a definitive answer to this point..
-
Also there is the minor detail that you can't indirect fire without surveying yourself in accurately. Really not on in CM timescales. The allowing of mortars to indirect fire without any penalty as soon as they set up is pretty debatable. SP atillery needs to be off map to fire indirect (models pre-positioned guns). Dont know what the scenario designer intended but the game is pretty good generally.
Reforger Nostalgia
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
My Dad was in BAOR twice in the 50's and once in the early 70's (just too early for this
. He told me that German farmers hoped never to pay to knock down and replace outbuildings. He told me of one time the farmer told the tank crew that they could hide the tank in the shed (although they weren't meant to). They said the shed was too small. "Ja, Ja, ist goot. You drive in." Got himself a brand new shed.