Rinaldi
-
Posts
1,186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Rinaldi
-
-
48 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
This might actually turn out to be a good thing.....A small part of me fears they may be deliberately put in harms way to trigger an 'incident' though.
-
17 hours ago, c3k said:
200m to 300m standoff range for halftracks is my goal. I'll try to sit them that far back and have them saturate likely points of resistance with area target firepower while the dismounts move forward. At that range my ht gunners tend to last longer.
7 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:That sounds spot on to me. I certainly don't like to move them in any closer than 200m.
That's best practices, for sure. Especially when the terrain and (lack) of information warrant it. I often, even when I do a hot dismount, actually pull the HTs back to these ranges so that they won't draw fire while near the dismounts.
-
Haha, maybe! Perhaps we can finally kill this loud j'accuse over Halftracks not being proto-bradleys too with this excellent tutorial post by @George MC:
Who also reiterates the same thing I, and many others already have: HTs can't make fast dashes without inordinate supporting fire and tank protection, as God intended.
-
Wow, this thread is back from the dead, eh? Well its good to see @womble has been consistently helpful over the years.
Every time I see a thread complaining about Halftracks I always raise my eyebrows; and this isn't me being rude or judgemental - everyone has their own play style and I respect that but I have no trouble doing 'hot dismounts' and rapid entries with HTs when the situation calls for it. It takes a lot of preperation and an inordinate amount of firepower.
So, welcome bruno, and don't take this the wrong way. I'm going to be speaking from the other side of the fence as someone who uses half-tracks regularly and aggressively...
2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:I also noticed the extreme vulnerability of HT personnel to small arms fire. Also I noticed how slowly and awkwardly the HTs are making turns when moving.
That would be a result of the fact that they are half-tracks, suffice to say. Their turning radius is poor and you need to make fairly minute waypoint adjustments with them.
2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:Vulnerability: even when the personnel is not "opened up" and at horizontal angle, they suffer from smg or ligh MGs up to more than 100 m away just as if they were sitting in trucks. That is nonsense.
I'm sorry this is objectively false; have you tried these maneuvers with a truck? I dare say you'll be recanting your statement that the vulnerability of the Haltrack is on par with the vulnerability of a thin-skin.
2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:As mentioned above in this thread, HTs provided full cover from the battlefield small arms fire and shrapnells. And the MG shield should provide a cover to the gunner like behind a small wall. For whoever like me has been playing ASL for years before the digital games arrived, remember the "+2" protection when firing from a HT / SPW...
Define "Full Cover." I don't think I've ever read any historical document that ever spoke about full cover while being in a halftrack, in fact German and American accounts, even the favorable ones, tend to say they were anything but. You'll find yourself reasonably well protected from sustained small-arms fire up to around 100m but if the HTs are getting concentrated on then the losses are going to stack up fast. There's a reason these units fought in conjunction with tanks, I suppose.
2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:Only ATGs and medium/heavy MGs could punch thru the HT armor thanks to their AP bullets at level angle.
ASL got it wrong. The Ball type ammos in-game that are most common (8mm, 30 aught) can penetrate up to 10mm of steel at around 100m, and that's probably being conservative given the mixed manfacturing in game. I'm speaking more from the realm of the American halftracks, which were much zippier and than the Skdfz. 251s, but more vulnerable. All the same, sustained .30 cal MMG fire from close range (less than 100m) usually gives me spalling at least when I've been able to catch half-tracks flatfooted.
I've also consistently been able to see the MG gunshield do its job as intended...at around 100m or so. The KG Peiper campaign saw me putting a lot of fire down with my halftracks at little loss to myself; even when I got a lot of return fire back.
2 hours ago, bruno2016 said:Tactics wise, HTs were used to saturate the objective with MG fire (combined fire could also be done in ASL using adjacent HTs) while the personnel was dismounting.
With CM, it is not anymore possible as HTs are as vulnerable as trucks. This is a misconception, not a bug.
Still very much possible, and I must disagree. Rapid insertions and using the HT as MG platforms is still possible - in fact with the tweaks made to unbuttoned vulnerability even more so than before. My routine opponents can attest to this, and my use of HTs in SP (like in the AAR linked above) can also be used as evidence to the contrary.
Jesus I'm starting to sound like the geriatric grogs I make fun of, but the proof is in the pudding with this; 90 percent of these complaints come from overly-bravose use of their mounted infantry. While yes, the complaints about the stiff animations are 100 percent valid, suddenly extrapoloating everything else is just silly.
-
This just in: 5th Gen fighters may cost more than a 4th Gen fighter. World shocked. In other news, the sky is blue.
-
That's the best you got? More half-assed whataboutism? First ignore - an unhappy milestone. What unintelligent crock.
-
Finally close enough to see the enemy definitively! Honestly was not expecting you to get to grips with them at any point. Hopefully the scout team can exact some much needed revenge.
-
27 minutes ago, HerrTom said:
On the purpose of an air force, wasn't one of the major lessons of WWII that you can't win a war from the air, no matter how hard LeMay tried? CAS was the lifeblood of combined arms in the Btitish, US, Soviet and German armies.
Nor did @shift8 ever say otherwise; his statement was quite clear to me: Win air superiority then everything else (re: effective CAS and sealing off a battlezone) fall into place.
Which, btw, the US did to the 9th degree in both WWII and the Gulf-War. Highly successful ground and amphibious offensives, supported by overwhelming CAS, were the end result of months long strategic air superiority campaigns and shows-of-force. Shift8's assertions aren't just correct; they are propped up by the lesson of history.
Furthermore, I have to say he's quite right about dissecting John's argument. The math actually supports his earlier assertion (i.e: 2/3rds of all kills were with missiles) which everybody except Shift8 and Duchess are somehow conflating with "2/3rds of all kills were BVR" - 'missle kills' especially in that era were often WVR. Further, the PK assertion is also correct. Let me put it into an analgous format: It took dozens upon dozens of rounds to get a confirmed kill in WWII with small arms - ergo, the M1 was a poor weapon. It's obviously a silly statement and its a legitimate BVR and WVR missile tactic to 'smoke em if you got em' to get the enemy fighter defensive, whereupon your follow-on salvos will get them flat-footed.
ECM and chaff is also not a magical barrier that slaps away missles like a Guardian angel. In reality if you're heading into a situation that's not favorable, you freaking egress, not pucker up and go for a merge because you're in a sci-fi transplant. Because you're not. The sheer speed and capabilities of modern missiles make disengaging the safest option, every time. None of this (a) precludes dogfighting or (b) suggests that the US and other NATO country's dedication to learning BFM is silly, just that its not going to be common. BFM takes up a disproportionate amount of training time not because jockey's are convinced we're going to be gunning one another in a peer-conflict, but because BFM is difficult, complex and physically taxing and helps develop good pilots regardless of how often it will practically be used.
2 hours ago, Splinty said:Do any of you remember the "massive" controversy surrounding the development of the Bradley in the '80s? It all turned out to be made up BS, the Bradley has a better combat record than the Abrams. I suspect this on going argument about the F 35 will turn out the same way.
Haha, bang on.
I applaud people who are skeptics and critical of new procurements for their country's armed forces - it is, after all, your tax money and your co-citizen's lives at risk (the F-35 became an election issue in Canada, for example). It's part of being a participating citizen, so I'm in no means saying 'be quiet you don't know any better', I enjoy these discussions, I just think that there's a bit of panic-history going on here in lieu of evidence to the contrary.
-
11 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
I would like to see a lot more of this kind of thing. In the German army of WW II it was standard procedure to tailor Kampfgruppen to missions, but I don't know if that is possible yet in any of the WW II titles.
Michael
Flexible late-war American taskforces too.
I think its 'possible' but not sure if we'll see it soon; I would love to see the type of TFs and Battlegroups a la CMBS in game; with everything subordinate to a single Battalion HQ. Its definitely on my wish-list too.
Then again there is something to be said of the historical accuracy of the more eclectic way we have to do it now in the WWII titles, these taskforces always being transitory (compared now to more operational TFs).
-
-
What crock, frankly.
Your response to a defense of sovreignty is "well its a bit more complicated than all that?" - Sounds like the "Sudentenland" discussion to me, rather than the Georiga disucssion you keep invoking. Curious, given several pages back you admitted that it was 'not at all analgous' to the Ukraine. IMHO your intelligence is undoubted, so please stop this dishonesty. You can argue for a more 'gray' view of the situation, but don't argue like the Kremlin
.
Viz. a viz. people not being eager for war; I have another breaking news flash: The sun rises every morning and even more shockingly, it does so consistently in the East! Statements of patriotic fevour are almost always fabrications or hyperbole, quoting tired men and women in the contested areas is not particularly revealing to me. Callaous as that may seem, to me far removed and comfy in my office chair in Toronto, telling me civilians wish for an end to the fighting isn't showing how bad and evil the Ukraine is for keeping the fight alive for what was conceded to it in MINSK 2.
We call this the 'but for' principle; but for Russian and Seperatist failures to honor their MINSK 2 agreements, the Ukraine would not have to renew offensive actions to seize what they were ostensibly given via treaty
, similarily, but for the Seperatist refusal to remove their heavy weapons from Donetsk region, the Ukraine would not have to reciprocate.
If you want to continue to argue (against all evidence to the contrary) that there is no 'right' here because everyone is a political animal, there's very little you have to say worth taking in good faith until you are willing to admit that the armed sepratists are 'most wrong.'
____
Re: WWII tactics
Pretty broad term, WWII had its fair share of thunder runs and stalemates. We're definitely in a war of patrols and shells at the moment, as both sides ostensibly aren't 'fighting.' Precludes operational offensives.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Steam - and I continue to believe it is lunacy to not have this series on Steam. I find the dev arguments and reasons as to why its not unconvincing.
I just don't believe it will necessarily lead to good exposure; objectively good sims are very 1:0 on Steam depending on who gets to review it first. I remember SABOW initially got horrible sales and reviews because 'how 2 m60 reeeeeeeeeeeee' made up 60 percent of the initial reviews. Exposure isn't inherently good and the crowd is fickle. I'm speaking generally, however. I think Raptor has good reason for his optimism, a lot of titles that aren't realistic but look like they are would make a good gateway drug for younger players (like us) into CM. The other barrier to a new player base is the price; not many 24 or 25 year olds are going to drop 80 dollars on what they may ultimately view as a timesink (even if, and they often are, taken with the demos). That's not a knock against the pricing, just a statement of reality.
These same gamers on a budget will take risks on AAA games or 'sit and wait' because we know they'll be 60 percent off for a bit within one to two years of release on Steam. They get their foot in the door cheap, get hooked, are willing to shell out more $$$ later because they know its quality. That's how it worked for myself and Graviteam. I bought the base game for a steal on sale and eventually paid the DLC full price when I realized I had purchased a gem of a wargame.
-
I haven't sat down and empirically tested it but I can say that the timed fires are not fully reliable; rounds will often burst early or not at all - but its often more effective than not. I have wiped out an entire enemy platoon in a PBEM with a timed barrage once; they just happened to be setting up a position on a TRP.
I'm more curious to know if air bursts have any effect on men in buildings. The timed fires were really just to punish any enemy whom broke under the general barrage and tried to find new houses as shelter.
-
Crash course in appeasement
- and a strong argument for why you should always have a sense of history.
-
Soft factors don't affect off-map assets except for veterancy. The question not asked yet was; what was the plane's veterancy? Could explain the nerves of steel and the uncanny accuracy despite the curtain of fire.
-
43 minutes ago, kinophile said:
I'm curious, has the western training begun to affect tactics? Has it started to stimulate different, more flexible tactics? The units involved in the last 2 months of skirmishing - did they go through the full western training programs in UKR?
To be clear, UKR seem to have been very flexible and adaptive since the Russian invasion. I'm just curious as to how effective and useful the NATO training has been, after 2-3 years of it.
I wonder as well. I'd love to see the practical effects of stuff like UNIFER in action, but I suspect many of the men on the frontlines have become flexible and adaptable via harsh lessons and material aid; lethal and non-lethal.
I wonder if its smarter to cadre out the newly trained NATO men to try and disseminate information, or ship them whole to the front. I personally lean towards cadreing men out to units already on the line, but it can be tough for a young buck with clearly superior training but no practical experience to convince a frontiviki that he knows how to go about things.
One of those moments where administrative decisions could have very real battlefield impacts.
-
12 hours ago, John Kettler said:
Rinaldi,
You had said before, I believe, that Fuze MT wasn't in the game, so how can you conduct a shoot while using a fuzing option not available?
Regards,
John Kettler
@MOS:96B2P has already noted, but its worth re-iterating that with TRPs timed fires are possible even after the initial deployment. You'll note when you find the time to peruse in depth that Moncourt has two marked reference points of fire. I tried my best to hide them for cinematic effect but one is visible in one of the final shots in game.
This ground was, on the 20th of September, pre-registered by both the belligerents. The Germans have a lot of TRPs to play with as well, nominally to simulate range cards - its actually why the Panzer IVs shot with such accuracy despite being almost universally inexperienced. A bit of 'behind the scenes' insight to the design.
5 hours ago, jtsjc1 said:Nice kill ratio. Very entertaining thanks!
Cheers, thanks. I always like comparing my losses to the historical outcome for missions like this, so let's take a gander at the 37th's combat diary for Sept. 20th
"A bitter fight [at the hills] ended in the destruction of six (6) enemy tanks and three (3) anti-tank guns, while we lost six (6) tanks..."
...:
"Enemy casaulties: Four (4) Vehicles, sixteen (16) tanks, fifteen (15) Prisoners of War, two hundred fifty-seven (257) enemy killed, three (3) guns..."
2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:Nice work. Thanks for the AAR.
Thank you.
2 hours ago, IanL said:Excellent write up - thanks!
High praise, thank you.
-
We've entered the end-game! Thank you to those who have followed the thread. I look forward to starting the next scenario assigned to me in this project. Hopefully this preview AAR will show off what type of terrain you will be fighting the AI or your mates in. I think, its safe to say, that this should be a unique historical experience for CMBN. In a few days, I will be uploading a .pdf of this AAR for easier reading or if anyone wants to share this to a blog or something similar. Just need to proof read this word salad that passes for writing.
The End Game: Sweeping Moncourt (Turns 75 to Turn 90)
Things move quickly once the barrage begins, unlike Ley, there will be no mucking about, and I have no desire to have my dismounts stand under withering artillery fire as they fight on foot over the gentle, open Lorraine pastureland. The 105 barrage is helped along by direct fire from both maneuver teams armored elements. Team Leach, and HQ/37th in particular deliver withering fire in excess of 1800m, smashing Ley with HE and .50 caliber fire.
As I hoped, the fire on Moncourt greatly is exceeding even that put down on Ley. The town being slightly smaller definitely helps concentrate fire, and soon buildings begin collapsing at a breathtaking rate. Moments like this made me wish CM had dynamic fire. Under such withering HE fire even the stone and plaster houses of inner France would be a blazing inferno on the horizon. Regardless, Moncourt is soon covered in a thick cloud of dust.
Team Spencer’s armor is moving and firing consistently, inexorably towards Moncourt, adding to the overwhelming fire. The tankers are unbuttoned but MG fire soon forces a few to duck their heads in. The very fact that they are still taking MG fire is disheartening – the Germans seem willing to cling to their positions and fight, as they had in Ley. Soon, however, the tankers have a bigger threat to worry about. Arrayed in a hedgehog formation around the open town square and Eglise is a platoon of Panzer IVs.
In the ensuing exchange of fire, a Sherman is struck twice and is knocked out – but the Panzer IVs, buttoned up and firing through a pall of dust and smoke, come off the worse. Two are swiftly knocked out and the remaining two are knocked out in the short but sharp street fighting that follows.
By the 78th turn the artillery barrage that has covered the advance of Team Spencer begins to abate. It’s the moment of truth, buttoned up for their duel with the Panzers, I cannot gauge how many Germans are still in position to threaten a dismount. The tanks of Team Spencer spray the row houses that could threaten my halftracks with coax and HE and we get in among the enemy.
The halftracks move in at top speed – frankly shocking me with how rapidly they can move with a ‘fast’ command – and unceremoniously dump their infantry not even 50m from the houses. The HTs are not greeted with a maelstrom of small arms fire, a fantastic sign. The infantry quickly hustles forwards.
The plan for clearing the town is unchanged from Ley. A lot of speculative fire on each and every single house followed by 2 to 4 man teams – preferably armed with BARs, probe forward to either secure the house or cut down the stunned Germans as they attempt to slip out. Just like at Ley, it works; and at a much faster rate than before! The German garrison do not share their predecessors stomach for the fight and often make a run for it at the last possible moment, drawing furious amounts of fire from the over watching infantry. Soon a proper foothold is made, the infantry takes a deep breath, waits for weapon teams and tanks to cut the road and establish kill-zones, and presses on.
The German defenders of Moncourt are rapidly reduced to a horde of refugees running for cover; only a few HMGs covering the town length-wise and evidently spared from the overwhelming barrage cause us any trouble. Tank-infantry teams rapidly deal with them as they are identified, though a few bursts cause light losses.
These same tank-infantry teams cause the bulk of losses to the fleeing, shell-shocked enemy. Caught in kill-zones, just as they ultimately were at Ley, the slaughter is once more prodigious.
The enemy surrender with about an hour of play left. Moncourt, despite having more forces arrayed within it, is taken in a quarter of a time as Ley was. The shift to more shock-focused tactics seems to pay off, once again showing that high-risk, high-reward maneuvers have their place in Combat Mission if you have the firepower to dole out.
An enemy surrender automatically gives an attacker a total victory - and despite fairly serious tank losses, I can be well satisfied with the outcome. The losses, unsurprisingly, are concentrated in Team Spencer, whom assaulted both Moncourt and Ley. Tank losses are a bit more spread out, but from an operational objective I have met the demands placed upon me by Combat Command A: My taskforce is more than capable of fighting at a similar intensity on short notice.
It is worth noting that, functionally, my tank losses are closer to the Germans; I have several ‘mission killed’ tanks with damaged main weaponry or damaged tracks. I would estimate my actual losses at approximately 12 tanks – still a highly favorable loss ratio and it leaves Abrams with more than enough tanks to continue offensive and defensive actions.
Indeed, such emphasis on ammo and force preservation will probably be needed, should our development team package these missions as a continuous campaign.
-
Turns 71 to 74:
Frontage begins to compress to about 1100m total; an attempt to maximize firepower as the attack on Moncourt begin. Team Leach is holding its fire until Team Spencer has advanced to a point where it too can fire at Moncourt, the intention is for all teams to open fire roughly at the same time to maximize shock effect and rob the enemy of any safe zone to displace to. There is one exception, however: a Panzer IV is spotted dug in on the main street of Ley and is engaged and destroyed by elements of Team Leach.
By turn 73, the barrage has begun:
Moncourt, like Ley, is subject to a fire concentration by the 94th Armored Field Artillery. The barrage at its current intensity is set to last approximately 5 minutes. The hope is to be ready to dismount and break in as the barrage lifts.
Team Spencer’s rough entry plan is set out below. Marching fire from the tanks will cover a tight formation; the infantry carriers will only be moving approximately 15 seconds behind the armor. The biggest problem area, asides from the buildings themselves is the orchard to the flank; all of these areas will be a focus for fire. Team Leach’s fire should be hitting the buildings across the street and not easily fired upon by Spencer, giving (hopefully) total coverage. For the sake of speed, I will forego the use of smoke this time around. A full three platoons will be attacking this time, and no more than a platoon of tanks will break into Moncourt with the infantry, just as at Ley.
Again it’s hard to overemphasize the assumption of risk it takes to do a maneuver like this, but there’s a lot to be said for the high risk, high reward route. We must hope that the sheer overwhelming amount of firepower about to be unleashed on this small village is as impressive in effect as it will no doubt look.
-
-
46 minutes ago, Baneman said:
Well, I don't know - how "niche" and/or "complex" is Crusader Kings regarded as being ?
Because there's a huge difference between a grand strategy title and a game that's modelling every bullet etc.
No active subreddit ? That's a damn poor show !
You have identified a major shortcoming of Combat Mission. Go ye forth and create one then - we will all be grateful.For the record, it in fact does have a subreddit - just not very active, nor do I ever expect it to be.
The way reddit works, it won't gain any real traction without admin support, and a healthy community independent of the site; like any forum. His temper tantrum is basically white noise, in short.
There's better platforms for discussion of the game, like here, or at SIMHQ.
-
If CKII is complex than what a time it is the be alive. ? Entertaining? Certainly, but not complex, even if you're memeing as a no name Greek Duke.
CKII has but one sole advantage over CM: I can systemically and ruthlessly exterminate the nobility of England and replace them with my Norman yes-men. BFC is sorely lacking in this feature. I am holding out hope for a patch.
-
Turns 65-67:
Team Leach advances without incident and is just about to enter its intended firing position by the end of these sets of turns.
Team Spencer comes under fire from a Panzer IV in ambush at another farm along the Ley-Moncourt road. A second Panzer IV, much further back from the first, soon reveals itself. The lead tanks react swiftly, while the infantry halt, safely out of range of effective fire.
Moving in wedge Team Spencer has its left most platoon (in reality a platoon reduced to a section and the CO himself) stop to engage; HE and area fire on the forest in front followed by a target arc to account for both Panzer IVs. The rest of the company, at platoon strength, will wheel around to prevent the escape of the close Panzer IV and – hopefully – take it in the rear before it can be a threat.
An exchange of fire with the distant Panzer IV soon develops, and in a tense exchange, the Americans find the mark first. Captain Spencer scores a hit on the Panzer IV; he is one of only two 76s in the entirety of the battalion and its additional punch is clear.
However, just as the Panzer IV is struck, it fires off one final shot. The round is airborne as the 67th turn ends. Nothing can be done but to wait and see.
I belatedly realize that I foolishly did not order marching fire on these farmsteads that dot the countryside as I moved to Moncourt. Though I have not been punished for this security lapse, a handful of dismounts with AT weapons could’ve savaged me. An infantry platoon will move to quickly sweep each farm as we pass it, and then re-enter the formation as reserve.
A platoon from A/10th moves up to belatedly secure the first farmstead, which houses the burning Panzer IV engaged way back during assembly. I expect to find nothing more than a few hiding crew members, given the lack of fire taken. A welcome dose of luck to make up for smarts, in this case.
Turns 68 – 70:
The shell hits the front wheel of a Sherman, severely damaging its mobility – but the tank is still operational and mobile, barely! Under cover from halftrack fire, a squad pushes up to investigate the farm and quickly captures and wounds an enemy crew sheltering in a barn.
Team Spencer wraps up the firefight with the Panzer IVs when the second one is taken in the rear by the tank section sweeping up behind it.
Team Leach is fully in their positions and ready to engage by the end of turn 70. Artillery is still three minutes out, which should give hopefully enough ample time to get Team Spencer back on track to attack Moncourt.
-
The second mission is the...night recon, right? Been a while since I did a playthrough. I recall being able to overcome most opposition with small arms fire. You can dance circles around the Ukranians at night, esp. since Russian recce have helmet-fixed NVGs if my memory serves. I also seem to recall Mission 1 warning you that you will have no time to resupply; don't worry - you definitely don't need the 120mms in this mission and the next one will give you a breathtaking amount of fire support.
.
, similarily, but for the Seperatist refusal to remove their heavy weapons from Donetsk region, the Ukraine would not have to reciprocate.
Hull Down & Partial Hull Down Advantages
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted · Edited by Rinaldi
What akd means is that everything is 1:1; there are no dice rolls or abstractions now like older wargames of this vein often had for CPU's sake. The shells and bullets you see are physically traveling on the path you see it traveling on.
I searched up the conversation you mentioned....its...interesting. I'll be polite and leave it at that; there is never not a good reason to seek Hull-down battle positions with armor. It presents the smallest possible target to the enemy. You should be seeking to avoid being hit whatsoever, instead of weighing the chances of absorbing punishment. Hull downs give you the best possible chance of doing that. Putting a firm number to that is impossible, though you can learn to 'judge' an enemy's ability to score a hit by watching the first few rounds. If the first round is laughably high you can probably get a few more shots in before they find a firing solution.
At the risk of generalizing though, at combat ranges (for argument's sake, 200-500m), I'll give it to a reasonably trained tank platoon in hull down over an equal opponent not in hull-down, even if slightly outnumbered, every time.