Seedorf81
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
Posts posted by Seedorf81
-
-
Well put sir.
And I will gladly take sloppy seconds on Jodie, or any other mourning girlfriends that you haven't gotten to..
And I thought war was dirty..
-
The hairballs are not that bad
Most people don't even say anything about them...
They're just being polite.
-
Sounds like the game doesn't allow for tanks to know what way an AT-gun points. Don't know for sure, but for any tank it would mean: AT-gun close-by is AT-gun scare, regardless of gun direction. That would explain the: "F#CK! Get the hell outta here! Smoke, smoke, SMOKE!!" reaction.
-
Yes, grogginess has gotten completely out of control, but some of you may find this of interest. I sure did. Buon apetitto!
http://17thdivision.tripod.com/charlottesaxisattic/id26.html
Regards,
John Kettler
Interesting site, and brings back memories of service in early eighties Dutch army. Was stationed in Germany and still remember the huge cockroaches in the mess. When one picked up shrimp crackers from rice that was just brought in, those creepy crawlers scurried away from under it, scaring the crap outta me the first time that happened.
Anyway, I'm still glad I didn't have to eat the food of the Japanese army in ww2
. -
How about the use of railroads in the American Civil War? Or repeating rifles in the Franco-Prussian War? Or the introduction of motorized vehicles in World War I, most especially tanks? Or the airplane in that same war? Or poisoned gas?
And that's just on the land. Also in WW I the navies were transitioning from coal to oil as a fuel.
In short, for any war that lasts long enough, there will be greatly accelerated technological evolution as each side struggles to gain any advantage whatsoever over its opponents.
Michael
And I even think that code-breaking and medical care, espionage (OSS and SOE) and even war-production and logistical methods (Higgins boats, Victory ships, Dukws, Red BAll express etc.) could be categorized as forms of revolutionized WW2 weapons-technology.
And look how bombing changed! I bet the list is even longer.
-
The development of laser-guided bombs was a direct effect of Vietnam. They were used very successfully in 1972, as were helicopter-launched TOWs for the first time.
Yes, I agree. M16 is another example for USA, but in the quote that you based your reply on, I meant that the countries Vietnam and Afghanistan (not the conflicts named after 'm) didn't have the political, financial and/or infrastructural possibilities for big weapon-developments, even though they were fighting for their existence (more or less).
-
Nice pics, fascinated. While looking at them I nearly burned me supper!!
-
Since those Tigers used some big shells, and they went into battle with quite a few of them, I would be pleased with pictures of where and how they were stored. But you're probably not permitted to take inside pictures?
-
He man, barbecue!
-
But that assumes the war will last long enough to go all the way through the design-testing-debugging-production cycle. There is a reason why NATO was calling a possible outbreak of hostilities with the WARPAC as "the come as you are war". Of course, not all wars are like that one. Wars between Third World nations (or factions within nations) have sometimes dragged on for years, witness the Iran-Iraq war of the '80s. But wars in which First World countries are involved tend for the most part to be over with before a lot of technological development can occur. The only exceptions that come readily to my mind are the US in Southeast Asia and the USSR in Afghanistan (well, anybody in Afghanistan).
Michael
Well, I mean a real biggie of a war. US in Vietnam and USSR in Afghanistan were not real big wars in the sense of "total" war for which the entire nation is called upon. Those two wars were never meant to be that big a commitment; both US and USSR got suckered in bit by bit. Neither existence as a nation was at risk, so no "fight for life" needed and no all out efforts to survive.
Vietnam nor Afghanistan had any real potential for big technological research, be it for political, financial and/or technical-infrastructural reasons.
And WARPAC against NATO never took place, so it remains an ever-unanswered question if NATO's assessment "come as you are" would be right. It's possible that such a war could be over in weeks, but it is also possible that it would have become a stalemate-y thing that lasted for years.
If all of the Islamic fanatics would team up and fight "The corrupted decadent west" that could be a big one. Or China vs. US, Russia vs. US, Russia vs. China, Ukraine vs. Russia or India vs. anyone for instance. Not yet, but in ten to twenty years time.
Hopefully we don't get no great wars no more, but looking back at mankind's history doesn't give me the feel that "universal peace" is near.
Unfortunately..
-
Any serious war skyrockets weapon-tech development, so it isn't unlikely that the things we currently perceive as top-notch (Abrams + T90, RPG's, MLRS, and what not) will be as fast obsolete in a future war as the fore mentioned weapons (20mm, 37mm and AT-rifles) in WW2.
Personally I believe that rifles are a rather archaic way of killing each other, so I expect some surprising developments in that field when a big war erupts.
-
interesting way to use a DShK, dude in black gets a little too close to the muzzle flash at the end. Also note the Yugoslav M-60 recoiless rifle in background. Seems like a lot of weapons from Croatia are making their way to the rebels hands....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6I5652BL2g&feature=player_embedded
edit: guy in black actually puts a pillow on the muzzle ?????
Muzzleflash bounces off the wall, to hot for gunner, hence the pillow. Though not a real clever solution, by the look of things.
-
Ya; in that image, both rifles he's carrying clearly have a grenade adapter attached; it's the extension beyond the front sight post. The one on his back has a grenade mounted as well, but the one he's firing definitely has an empty adapter attached to the muzzle.
So visually anyway, he's carrying two grenade-capable (and therefore manual action) rifles.
Be interesting to know what's going on in terms of game mechanics i.e., is the second rifle modeled as being able to fire semi-auto, even though it's graphically shown with an adapter attached?
It appears there is some sort of bug here, either a minor graphical one in the display of the second rifle with an adapter attached, or a minor mechanical one in that a soldier carrying two rifles would almost certainly only attach a grenade adapter to one of them so that he could use the other rifle semi-auto.
It's also technically unrealistic for a soldier to be running around with rifle on his back with a grenade mounted on it -- the grenade wasn't held on by all that much so was always mounted just before firing. But this may be a deliberate design decision in order to make it easier for the players to see which soldiers are carrying grenade launchers.
Maybe he just picked the second one up from a dead M7 GI from another squad? And he didn't have the time yet to unscrew the M7 from either Garand?
-
I wish I had the music-rights of this "allahoeahkbar"-phrase they endlessly keep on chanting in these vids.
-
There you go! Chin up, my good man. During this battle I'm a gerry-fan, so give 'm hell!
-
What-ho!
Just been replaying the CW campaign "The Scottish Corridor" with my newly upgraded V2.01. Nice.
I am finding that the 'scout' universal bren carriers you are given are very potent weapons against the AI infantry for the following three reasons:
1) V2.01 upgraded MG's (I assume bren's were included?);
2) Passengers can supplement the carrier's fire with their own weapons (although not PIAT's I think?);
3) AI infantry doesn't seem to give a high priority to targeting the carriers, or their occupants, with small arms.
I am happy with points 1) and 2) - no problems there. :thumbsup:
However, with point 3) I feel that the bren carriers and their occupants have much greater battlefield survivability than should really be the case historically.
The enemy infantry seem disinclined to fire small arms, and even HMG's, at the carriers until they are very close (10-20m?). This is despite the passengers sitting up with their upper 1/3 exposed or even kneeling up when firing. PF's and PS's certainly are fired at carriers if they are in range but I would have thought small arms would still be effective - if only to suppress?
Well, in any case, I have found "The Scottish Corridor" to be pretty straight-forward when using the bren carriers effectively as mobile MG pillboxes. With their large supply of ammo, I can happily keep them pushed quite far forward and area-targeting at any likely spot without much fear of them being knocked out by infantry as long as they keep +100m away. The passengers have pretty good vis and seem able to pick targets almost as well as grounded infantry.
I certainly have seen the passengers taking hits and becoming casualties. The MMG carriers seem vulnerable to this and appear to attract infantry small arms fire as you would expect. However I am pretty sure that for bren carriers casualties only occur at very close range or from AFV MG fire. Are they treated differently in the code I wonder?
In any case I fear I am being rather gamey and ahistorical with the aggressive way I am using the bren carriers. :confused:
Any thoughts?
(Note: since I have small children and a modelling hobby to support I don't spend time running tests or suchlike. I'm just giving my RT in-game impressions which may be skewed or incorrect. I stand happy to be corrected!)
Toodle pip and all that,
FLV
Ehm, about those small kids and not doin' no tests no more. Don't know how closely you follow the news recently ("Dutch-Turkish relations under duress" .) but we here in Holland have some mighty fine adoptionrules!
-
If there is going to be an all-out World War 3 between Russia/China and the US, i really hope BFC makes a combat mission game about it.
Yeah, but probably all the text, and the manual, will be in Chinese by then :eek:!
-
Good luck, mate, I think you'll need some
.BTW, probably a question that needn't be asked, but since you have three halftracks, are you sure you checked all of them for extra panzerfausts?
-
It wouldn't surprise me at all when Iran's completion, or near-completion, of nuclear weapons is going to trigger something that defies every scenario-prediction that has been made so far.
Will the USA and Israeli's use ground troops to stop the Iranian weapons production? If yes, wouldn't that blow up the entire region?
What will Russia do?
And how about the Chinese? In a few years time they will be probably be the most powerful nation in the world, and every previous one (Roman, Greek/Macedonian, British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Norman, etc.) tried to expand their territory/influence with open or covert violence. Are the Chinese going to do that more openly in their own region if the USA are fighting a full-out Western-Arab war?
From an historical point of view things in the real world are as exciting as the best AAR's on the Forum! Unfortunately, when the fighting really starts it ain't just nice pixeltruppen who will get hurt..
-
1. Market Garden
(Dodge "Beep" weapon-carrier would be nice addition)
2. Battle of Bulge
(With Schwimmwagen)
3. Eastern Front.
(With NKVD troops!)
-
If it was a British tank, it could have been tea-time?
-
Compassion? From someone who plays a game about killing people.
Let's have a new box on the UI so that just as you are about to blow up Fritz a message pops up saying "Fritz's mother worries about him, particularly since her only other son died at Stalingrad."
I would love to see that come true, brilliant idea.
-
Isnt it more like that everything we do in life is based on our drive to satisfy or most basic instincts? Every wish higher than that is just abstracted. When we send a robot probe to mars for example we do that not out of learned fear or insecurity but rather because we hope that the knowledge gained will one day help us to fill our plates with more food, make us live longer and give us the chance to increase the rate at wich we reproduce (ie have more sex).
Well, it looks like you gave a perfect example of my theory, because from your reply I could draw the conclusion that:
- you are (even though you say "us" and "our") insecure about whether you will have enough food on your plate in the future,
- you're insecure about the length of your life,
- you are (and this stuns me, considering the obvious and worrying huge increase of the human population) insecure about the "reproductivity" of mankind (and or your chances of getting laid enough :cool:).
That this insecurity causes confusion and/or trouble can be deducted from the fact that your arguments are contradictory in themselves.
More food and more people, with longer lives, don't go well together. And, but talk about stating the obvious, having more sex doesn't have to do anything with growth of the population. And I do hope that you realize that the length of you're life is less important than what you do with it.
IMHO we do not need to do anything on Mars. Lowering, or at least stabilizing, the human birthrate is a first priority for giving everyone on this planet a decent life. And if only individuals would settle for a little bit less..
(Except for Battlefront games and modules that is!
) -
SLOW does it for me when going over fences/bocage-gaps/walls, but maybe I'll try FAST next time..
.
.
Gustav Line QB AAR Axis
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Great joke, big smile!