Georgie
-
Posts
612 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Georgie
-
-
In my experience the building itself has a lot to do with whether or not an infantry assault will be successful. Some buildings offer good protection some don't. If it is a strong building and offers good protection then your covering fire doesn't do much good , unless its tank or artillery fire of course. The problem is , how do you tell before you assault it?
-
For what it's worth -- and some have said in the past that it isn't worth much -- Dupuy's efforts to measure combat effectiveness showed US forces having a slightly higher effectiveness than UK in Italy, CEV .77 and .65 respectively.
Sounds to me like that amount of difference would fall within the margin of error for the study. The US and British troops must have been about even by '44 and any difference in how they performed a task would , I believe, be because of difference in the quality and strength of the opposition the terrain the quality of individual units, leadership and weapons suitability for the task and on and on.
-
Great Childress, you made my day.
-
I'm under the impression that it means that the soldier is completely untrained in what he is doing. Gunner, MG crewman , gun crewman etc. Am I correct? Grogs to the front please.
-
UN tanks did horrible at first. The majority of them for some reason were m24 chaffees and shermans vs T34. The T-34 reigned supreme.
Weren't many Pershings to begin with in the conflict, and they had reliability issues, their use was suspended. And the Pattons came much later.
I remember reading a book, cant remember the name right now, and it was about the US Marine Corps use of the Pershing in Korea and according to the book they did quit well with them against the T 34s. I remember one passage in the book where the crew of one of the Pershings was inspecting a knocked out T34 after a battle and they found that the 90mm of the Pershing had gone completely through the T34 from front to rear.
-
Perhaps part of the problem, or at least an aggravating factor, is that people are driving tanks faster than would be the case IRL over many kinds of terrain. As has been stated in these pages ad nauseum, vision from the inside of an AFV was severely limited, especially when buttoned up. The consequences of a track hitting a stump or a stone could end up being fatal, or at least the major inconvenience of having your tank immobilized until it could be repaired. Dangerous obstacles can easily hide in tall grass until you are right on top of them. It might be necessary to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid them, and that is far more practical at a slow to moderate speed. If people are getting away with driving at Quick or even Fast speeds off road, then the game should impose a higher probability of immobilization.
Michael
The way tanks are used in the game may not be the same as it was IRL but the problem is that AT guns in the game are not coping with the tanks in the game at short to medium ranges the way that they did IRL. The guns are spotted too easily and the guns are too slow on the trigger to cope with the fast spotting and reaction time and accuracy of the tanks. It seems to me that the tanks in the game are endowed with better spotting ability and reaction time and accuracy than they were IRL and the guns are pretty much the same as they were IRL except that they can't be concealed very well.
-
I don't know which Russian tanks were used in Korea but it would be interesting to see how the late war US tanks stacked up against them.
-
While I agree with most of the sentiment, I think it's symptomatic of the problems people have using ATGs that 600m could be considered even close to "long range" for 75mm or better ATGs. I'd characterise it as being at the short end of "medium", myself.
Yes I agree. 600m is actually at the upper end of short range for the 75mm or better ATG but I have found that at that range the change of angle relative to the gun of a tank crossing at quick speed perpendicular to the axis of the gun is slow enough that the gun can overcome the targeting bug well enough to engage the tank if the gun is well cited. Hope I said what I meant to say.
-
Historically ATGs would have been spread over quite a long front, whereas the attacker would concentrate his forces at one point, and RL ATGs would have been at their most effective long range (by CM standards), so ATGs are probably well modeled for cost and effectiveness. In CM they're usually only effective in the hands of experts, though (of which I'm not one).
What I have found is that with a small or medium sized map the range of most encounters is so short that AT guns have a hard time traversing quick enough to engage a moving target unless its moving away from or towards the gun at an acute angle. Not only that but the AI for the AT gun targeting has a bug and this further handicaps the gun. Hopefully BF will correct the bug and that should give the AT guns a better chance at close range to engage a moving target where the angle is changing rapidly. Even with the targeting bug AT guns are effective against tanks if used at long range , 600m or so, if they are well cited but that can't be done on a small map or even a medium sized map in most cases.
-
I have read many posts concerning the questionable capabilities of tanks but the only ones that I have read have been made by BF customers. Have there been any response by BF on the complaints? I use conscript crews but they still are , it seems to me, too fast on the trigger and too accurate. Some times their path finding does suck though.
-
I just ran a test of a German AT guns target priority. First I had an infantry team quick time into the AT guns field of fire and then 10 seconds latter I had a tank at quick speed into the AT guns field of fire from the other direction. The AT gun first engaged the infantry target and then when the tank entered its field of fire about 15 second latter the gun quit shelling the infantry and targeted the tank. Very impressive.
-
Kinda gives you a feel for what was going on at the individual soldiers level.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r3430052-A-perspective-from-a-different-WWII-soldier
-
The acquire command is listed in the manual as being available in the editor but it isn't. Any body else notice this?
-
Is there a way to order a target arc and use the acquire command in the editor?
-
Sure - that an MP would be an advantage. But it just wasn't there in history. And since the proper tactical employment of a Panzerschreck would be embedded with additional infantry. Since CMBN strives to get us a feeling as historical as possible there should be no MP in a Panzerschreck team.
Yes, you are correct, if there is no record of any sort of an MP 40 in the shreck team then it would be more realistic to keep it that way in the game. I do wonder though how many teams picked up an MP40 on their own? The shreck teams probably didn't live long enough to get the opportunity.
-
There was no need for an MP for the Panzerschreck teams since they would operate under the cover of other troops, e.g. an infantry squad. And that's what you should do in CMBN too. To use a single Bazooka/PIAT/Panzerschreck team is just not tactically sound. So no need for an MP for the team.
Would it be a disadvantage or an advantage for the shreck team to have an MP40 and if it would be a disadvantage then why? The work of a shreck team is necessarily close work so a little more fire power at close range would seem to me to be an advantage.
-
I would guess that most riflemen in the war fired their weapon "in fear" and when they were reacting out of fear they had to fall back on their training and unless they had extensive training in firing their rifle they didn't have much to fall back on. I don't think that most troops had extensive rifle training after the professional army was used up. Maybe 50 rounds and then qualify? Grogs? The assault rifle put more rounds in the air for , I guess suppression.
-
I hate to double-dip in a thread, but now I'm curious: what do you use 60mm mortars for? Anything role(s) in specific or just generalized beatdown sticks?
And I agree there should be some kind of truck, ammo box or editor-side supply setting that a scenario designer can use to increase the ammo above the norm. It is sometimes difficult in defense scenarios only because everything other than HMGs is running close to black.
Hello Apocal, I'm working on battalion size scenario on a 3k x 4k map and my theme is that the Americans have advanced so fast that they have outrun their artillery support and they will have to rely on their organic 60mm and 81mm mortars and it would be more realistic , as Pak 40 mentions in a latter post, if they could be resupplied instead of having reinforcement 60 and 81mm mortars. It would also be better because, hopefully, most of the mortars will already be cited and will have the range of some targets. The 81mm mortars will not have arrived on map as yet and the American tanks can't get into the fight until the 60mm mortars knock out some of the German AT guns ,so the advance is held up. The 60mm mortars will be firing at long range and they run out of ammo very fast with out doing much damage to a pinpoint target such as an AT gun. I ran tests just to see how well the mortars can do the job at these ranges and they use a lot of ammo.
-
Americans are attacking a gun position just over a sharp ridge withing easy grenade range. They know that its there because when they peeked over the ridge they could see it and they also took small arms fire from the position. It would be a classic use of grenades IRL. Just toss a few over the ridge and the gun position is kaput, but I cant seem to figure out how to do it. Cant target the action spot because its over the ridge.
-
The 60mm mortar simply does not have enough ammo to be of much use in a large or especially a huge battle, 3 or 4 hours long of battalion strength. Their needs to be a resupply of 60mm ammo available that the scenario designer can utilize.
-
Again,Great post JasonC. Answers a lot of the questions that I had and puts WW2 smgs into the proper perspective for me.
-
Cheers, thanks Erwin.
Hmmm. Seems like a lot of potential edge cases there. What do you want the MG gunner to see and shoot? How would you designate it? Would it only work with target orders? Should he move if the unit is already deployed? What if they spot a new threat? What if they spot a new threat during an existing target order? Those are just off the top of my head, if you think it's a problem for the TacAI to solve.
Or is it a control problem - an issue with the way LOS is checked for target orders? Is it that the 3rd ammo bearer's ability to see doesn't mean the unit's primary weapon can see?
Hi Phil, In the set up move if you give a MG a face command, even if it is in the same direction, the gunner will shift position, then if your repeat the face command the gunner will shift back to his original position. The face command acts like a toggle if it is used in this manner. If this action were available for the face command for the rest of the moves in the battle it would allow the gunner to be shifted slightly without packing up, this would also be handy if it were available for the AT guns.
-
Not knowing which building to occupy. Hear we go again, in CM1 a building was labeled "light" or "heavy" so you stayed out of the light ones and made a bee line to the heavy ones. Can't do that in CMBN, yet-maybe.
-
There seems to be a vast difference in the stated effective range of SMGs. Varying from sling shot range to assault rifle range. And also varying depending upon the source of the data. Does any one know of a single source where they are rated according to the same test criteria?
What does "Conscript" mean in CM terms?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
What about tank crews where a veteran or regular trooper was make a tank crewman with just a few days training? Seems to me like he would be conscript and if there was more than two or so "conscript" crewman then the entire tank crew would be conscript till the trained part of the crew got them up to speed.