Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Thewood1 last won the day on June 23 2019

Thewood1 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,630 profile views

Thewood1's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. Sorry, I quoted the wrong person. The point of my post was even the basic M1 was a massive step up in fire control and armor from almost anything before it. The T-80A and Leopard 2 might be the only thing comparable.
  2. So did that post of armor values help clarify that the M1 was fairly superior to the M-60A3? Just curious if you have a source that contradicts that.
  3. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/0/00/M1armour.jpg/600px-M1armour.jpg M1 (105mm) http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg M-60A3 TTS This is from Steel Beasts. M1 plain vs M60A3. Most of the guys doing this are non-US tankers who actually measured the physical armor for older tanks. Even without the TIS, the M1 was a significant armor upgrade over the M60A3. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg T-62 http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/9/9c/T72frontLOS.jpg/700px-T72frontLOS.jpg T-72A T-62 and T-72A for comparison. The Steel Beast guys aren't perfect, but they know their armor and how its used. For a tank to be playable, they have to have access to the specs and usually the tank itself.
  4. You are correct. The rest of the battle sources were Iranian.
  5. What is most interesting is that Iran and Iraq were working with a lot of the same hardware represented in CMCW. Especially late in the war, you had T-72s, T-62s, and T-55s fighting each other. And some of the crews were more experienced in actual combat than any of the sides in CMCW.
  6. https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946 An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks. Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources. There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance. If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info. Note the comment about damage to gunner sights. Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions. Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.
  7. Did this get fixed? I don't remember if it was mentioned in patch notes, but thought it was finally recognized post-patch. Its a bug that can bite hard sometimes.
  8. Is there any thought or desire to move the base of the game to CMCW. That way its aligned with actual unit stats and performance. I would also think some of the OOBs might align better as well.
  9. If the 577 reps an HQ, they should be worth a lot of points.
  10. Part of it is in squad and platoon training around fire lanes. Even a hasty attack has some semblance of fire lanes. That's why training as a squad and platoon is so important. They really don't mean much in the CM AI mind.
  11. I still play both CMAK and CMBB...more than CM2. For games spanning the North Africa theater and early east front, they are are the only game in town.
  12. I know. I'm just pointing out that was a larger thread about Intel GPUs where someone stated it was in the specs that Intel GPUs weren't supported. I couldn't find it.
  13. That's a very good book if you are interested in wargaming tactical ground combat in the 80s.
  14. Its very effected even in turn-based. I see big differences in fps when looking at empty map spots and spots with a lot of units. Or do you mean the difference netween RT and wego not being impacted by number of units.
  • Create New...