Bulletpoint
-
Posts
6,885 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by Bulletpoint
-
-
12 minutes ago, Carolus said:
Does anyone who knows his way around artillery shells know what these Russians are doing?
One of them seems to be attaching fuses. But this whole activity is strange. Are shell housings usually closed off with a cap you need to bash in?
I think what's happening here is that these shells are so old and rusty that the normal protective cap that is usually screwed off before screwing in the fuze is so rusty that it cannot be unscrewed, but it can be bashed in by a hammer. Then after fishing out the fragments, they try to attach the fuzes, but he complains that the fuze won't go all the way in.
-
33 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…
Slowly. Divide into two equal teams, then use bounding overwatch. This takes time but cuts down on casualties.
What they can't do well is the US tactic of sending out a screen of 2-man teams and have them run ahead to very quickly get a feel for where approx the enemy line is.
If you have Kubelwagen, they can be used as Ersatz scouts.
-
The Germans are a bit of a "one trick pony" in this game. Their infantry is inflexible and underpowered, most of their tanks are quite bad, and their artillery takes ages to call in. Everything hinges on those few tanks that are not bad - mostly the Panther, but of course also the other big cats if you're lucky enough to get any of those in the scenario. And of course the Panzerschreks.
But the Germans can be fun to play if you like a challlenge. And at least they are still more capable in-game than the Brits, in my opinion.
-
Also a variable in this test is that in the WW2 version, you're testing with HMG42 which are deployed on a bipod and are bigger targets than the 2-man LMG teams you seem to be testing with in the CW test. The HMG teams also have more crewmembers, which also affects spotting chances.
A better test would be to use German LMG teams.
-
1 minute ago, Kraft said:
They are on that road because they willingly decided to go and kill the defenders at the end of it.
They could have started a mutiny, surrendered, gone to prison for resistance, but reality is they volunteered most likely for money or because they belive in it.
I don't want to get into the whole argument about who is right and who is wrong. Seeing this just makes me sick.
-
3 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Video
This is grotesque. I know I'm supposed to be all manly and indifferent, but this is a crazy and horrible waste of life.
I guess they are Russians?
-
3 minutes ago, Grigb said:
Disagreements are normal. We will eventually get further information to resolve the matter.
I hope you and @dan/california are right that it's a better place to defend than I see it.
And of course UKR command has much better info than this armchair general. I just hope they are defending that place because it actually makes sense on the ground and not for political reasons.
Looking at the Russian side, it does seem foolish to me that they expend so much energy trying to wipe out that small foothold. When they could just contain it and shell and drone it all day long.
-
13 minutes ago, Grigb said:
UKR do not charge into the line of fire in Krynki. They mostly do what they do in Avdiivka - defend it. And it is not a bad position to defend.
This is the main point of our disagreement then. To me, it seems like a bad place to defend.
-
21 minutes ago, Grigb said:
They are not charging forward. They crawl. This is their advance in 4 month and 16 thousand dead.
You could say the exact sme thing about Krynky. The Russians are crawling forward there too.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they charge into the line of fire and get shot dead. Ukraine doesn't need to do that in Krynky in a position that is also bad for them.
-
2 minutes ago, Grigb said:
The true face of RU war. I will not translate the article (yet), but auto-translation should suffice if you want to learn about the true horrors of the RU situation at Kherson direction.
I'm not uninformed about the Russian casualties.
I just don't see why the same resources Ukriane spends in a poor fighting position on the other side of a river couldn't be better put to use in other parts of the front where Russians are also charging forward.
-
I don't see how the Krinky bridgehead is any advantage to Ukraine if it's only held and not used to go farther inland.
AFU might destroy some Russians coming to attack the location, but UKR could do that better in a position where they are not hemmed in on a tiny piece of land and where they need to carry all supplies across a river.
It seems like it's not even a real bridgehead, but more of a contested area where both sides come and go, and nobody stays for very long since it's extremely exposed.
-
On 2/11/2024 at 1:18 AM, user1000 said:
January 1945 means this isn't the last module for the game, damn......
If they continue the timeline any further, we will play scenarios where we are marching disarmed German soldiers around in a POW camp.
-
11 hours ago, MikeyD said:
In-game if you've got lots of experienced eyeballs all in the chain of command things are going to get spotted pretty quick.
9 hours ago, Freyberg said:The goodies have a lot of infantry that can see you (more than you have deployed forward), who will be passing on spotting intel (the forward-deployed infantry you do have are panicked);
This is not how the game works though. Spotting is done by each individual unit - they cannot help each other directly. Only thing that matters is whether the spotting unit has a contact marker for the enemy unit, and in this case, all of SDG's units have received the marker. What happens to the infantry after they pass on this info doesn't matter for spotting purposes.
But I really don't know what to think of this case. It could simply be massive bad luck that SDG has three vehicles who all kept failing their spotting checks against one single Sherman over multiple turns, even though it's actively firing, which normally gives away the position very fast. And then the Sherman got lucky to spot the non-moving TD in the hedge, even though it's not firing.
It could also be some kind of corner case where the game engine somehow doesn't allow LOS in one direction even though there should be.
-
4 hours ago, FlammenwerferX said:
Is there an issue with the Jpz IVs ?
Not that I have tested out or can prove. Just that in all my countless hundreds of hours playing these games, the only time I thought there was something seriously wrong with tank spotting was when a JpzIV sitting on a location with full view over a big field let a whole platoon of Shermans approach from 1500m till they were literally driving past. Weather was flurries, but that didn't stop other units from spotting the tanks.
Anyway, in this case, it's not Jpzs so it's off topic.
I don't see anything in these screenshots that suggest why those TDs should not spot a firing Sherman. Nothing wrong with the tactics either.
@SDG when you select one of the TDs and draw a target line to the Sherman, does it show you have LOF? Sometimes the game denies LOF for no apparent reason.
The low hedge in front of the TDs shouldn't block line of fire, especially since the target is elevated.
-
What TDs did you use? Jpz IV by any chance?
In any case, some screenshots would be great.
-
9 hours ago, Kinophile said:
I dunno, but I if theres one thing I personally took away from last year's summer offensive, it's that single lane mech assaults led by heavy slow engie vechs into defended dense minefields are pointless.
Multiple lanes on a broad frontage with many expendable and immediately replaceable Unmanned mine-cearers offer better odds.
Something like this?
-
On 2/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, FlemFire said:
In-game, the MG42 on a pod is possibly the deadliest anti-personnel you can put into the hands of infantry.
50 Cal is better though. And the M1919A6 is very close.
Also, sniper rifles are more than twice as effective as the HMG42 once you get out past 300-400m distance.
-
28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Going to lay this one at the feet of all those who declared loudly and uncompromisingly that winning this war must mean 100% of pre-2014 Ukraine is re-taken and Russia is effectively crushed - this is where that amateur dangerous narrative gets us.
It's not just some amateur narrative, it's official Ukrainian policy.
Zelenskiy has always said the goal was to get the whole country back.
-
Barely 10% of Europeans believe Ukraine can still defeat Russia, finds poll
-
4 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Menawhile, value of human remains in "conservative and unspoilled" Russia...
Curiously, "weeping mother" figure is one few strong archetypes in Russian culture that even tough despotic Tsars usually prefered to not engage against.
His body has probably already been cremated to prevent forensics. Just like Osama Bin Laden was "buried at sea" so nobody could check the official narrative.
-
18 minutes ago, Butschi said:
I'm fully aware that "It was the US!" is a favorite topic in certain circles. E.g. our company forums can be a "fun" place at times and I'm telling those people the same thing (plus that I think that the US are among the less likely candidates, btw).
Do you mean it's less likely that it was the actual USA itself, or that you don't think it was any country aligned with the US?
-
7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Nordstream debate. It's unnecessary and not in keeping with the discussion standards here.
My take on it is Grigb's new information (that Putin is saying it's basically operational) adds to the the existing theories that Russia was the only one with the means and motivate to blow it up and there is some physical evidence to suggest this to be true.
I don't think this is new information though?
There were two lines, each with two pipes (A & B). Nordstream 1 had both pipes destroyed, Nordstream 2 only had one pipe destroyed.
But, interestingly, there were four explosions. Nordstream 2 Pipe A was blown up two times at two different times, in two different locations. Leaving Pipe B intact. All this is on the Wiki.
To me , this suggests that whoever was behind the bombings intended all four pipes to be destroyed, but that they made a mistake and hit the same pipe twice. Probably because they were in a hurry and there was poor visibility in the water.
-
Same issue with mortar halftracks in the WW2 titles.
-
57 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:
Michael Clarke is a popular military expert who is often interviewed on TV.
If he squinted a bit, he might read the small letters on the image of the press conference, which was held in January 2023. The news he is commenting on is a year old.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
There's a point where the guy films directly into the shell, and it looks empty, but I'm thinking it's maybe just a trick of the camera - the fuze well itself is empty, but the HE filling is still in there?