The_MonkeyKing
-
Posts
1,782 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by The_MonkeyKing
-
-
The problem with the Warriors lies with the rate of fire.
More specifically the Warriors gun "RARDEN" has manual loading system using 3 round clips. Max full auto salvo is 6 rounds.
BMP-2 can fire more rounds of HE in a one burst than the Warriors whole ammo load of HE.
-
Oh yeah, actual multiplayer support. No 3rd party turn manager required
-
2 minutes ago, Holien said:
I thought so but not much showing i guess the difference with the commanders cupola being so big.
Or the tank being designed to be operated TCs head out. Contrast this to soviet designs.
-
3 minutes ago, Holien said:
Are the M60 tank commanders open hatched? Not sure if they have their heads out scanning for threats, you can imagine the OF moment when you see that streaking towards your crew.
BTW Nice shot of the missiles inbound.
They seem to be.
-
7 hours ago, mjkerner said:
Am I correct in understanding that there will be naval gunfire in CW?
Haha, nope. It was listed on the website but it was later confirmed to be a copy paste error from fire and rubble.
-
5 hours ago, Bartimeus said:
Any chance you finished the campaign ? And if any other player did finish it, please share with me your impression
I liked mission 4. Real slug fest, got pretty bloody. Defiantly did not feel fair but I think that was the point. (I guess if one gives up the town a lot of blood will be spared)
I am in the middle of the Mission 5. So far mission 5 seems to be the least interesting one for me. I am not sure why I don't really find this one interesting. Quite linear battle with only very limited options for the player. I think this is very noticeable when you contrast this mission with freedom of choices of the mission 3.
-
TheCaptain seems to have timed his attack/dash perfectly. Right before indirect hitting and while 2/3 of the M60 platoons were repositioning.
-
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:
How much up armored though? I did test this a bit and Oplot survived several direct impact 203mm and 152mm. In the end I was able to kill an Oplot with 152mm precision, but after it had survived 5+ rounds and I just went ham on it with all remaining precision munition from 3 batteries of 152.
Some of the direct hits it survived were on the ERA, but there were also direct hits on parts without ERA coverage and they didn't penetrate (the direct hits did cause heavy subsystem damage).At the same time, in a recent PBEM a lucky 120mm mortar took out a T-72B3. It hit on the upper front hull right between ERA.
One of my main weapons against Abrams in CMBS with the Russians has been the 155mm precision ammunition. (especially if I get to fly a drone with laser for pointing targets)
With three round salvo you usually get immobilized and significant system damage. With another salvo it is totally out of action Abrams.
But indeed I have no data on the actually survivability of the tanks in real life against artillery.
-
How on earth did you get away with so few casualties? I think you are now very muchly back in the game.
-
26 minutes ago, IMHO said:
Unfortunately due to the game settings these do not convert into kills
I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting IMO there are few things that really kill the game outright as compared to RL and HE effect on armor tops the list (together with AGL fire in CMBS )
I know in CM you can kill BMPs with mortars >80mm and tanks can die from 122mm(smallest I have seen).
Tanks have been up-armored since A-10 and cluster munitions showed up.
-
well, that went surprisingly well
-
This just beautiful stats! Thank you @akd
Surprisingly low percentage. US army training materials speak about 90% hit change for most soviet ATGMs. source: https://youtu.be/4wtcd8PppJw
Now I would be very interested about similar practical stats for all the ATGMs of the era. haha
-
3 minutes ago, Hapless said:
Completely off topic, but I just spent a minute trying to work out what the huge exhuast pipe on the back of the turret was for.
Is it actually a disassembled snorkel?snorkel indeed
-
13 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:
My understanding, backed up by FAS, is that it wasn't terribly accurate or reliable, and slow as hell for a missile. Combine that with the fact that firing a Dragon is an invitation to be blasted to bits (watch the video) and I think I'd rather have fewer, more effective ATGMs like the Soviet company level ones.
Seriously, this slow missile is just screaming for attention as it meanders towards its target. I may have exaggerated slightly, but look at that silly thing fly.
US does have TOW-missiles for the higher level assets. So the real questing is are the Dragons better or worse than the alternatives for squad level AT-weapons of this era?
Speed is same as the AT-5, so yes a bit on the slow side but nothing out of the ordinary for the era.
Does the way it flies or the sound it makes matter if it hits and kills the target? We need some actual data on the hit changes and reliability.
Video on how it works:
https://youtu.be/L-9_EhxfFvY?t=296 -
1 minute ago, SgtHatred said:
The Dragon is comically terrible and I look forward to seeing it in large numbers, hopefully with its signature loudness.
How is it terrible? I am under impression that it is essentially longer range heavy RPG-type weapon. It is a squad level AT-weapon. Soviets have RPG-7 for this role with real range of about 200m, with Dragon US squad as effective range of 1000m.
It is mobile, good enough with the penetration but I am not so sure about the accuracy, do we have any data on the hit changes? How about on moving target?
If its role would have been a company level AT-asset, yes I would agree it would have been terrible.
-
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:
It depends on the formation, but it is essentially a squad level asset. Its available all through the timeline of the game so it will feature rather prominently.
Good to hear! Even tough Dragon is not the most dangerous missile out there it will be a real trouble maker in numbers. As I understand it is light, fast to setup and the missiles are not too heavy. So integrates well to an infantry squad without limiting the mobility.
-
Where are and how we going to be seeing this system in practice? Squad level system like the Javelin in US Army or like the Javelin with the USMC? Are all infantry going to be getting it or just mech or light infantry?
-
-
Good analysis, makes sense.
-
2 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
Gun depression is not modelled in game in the strictest sense, but it will become apparent as a large negative time addition to engaging a target after acquiring. Most often you'll notice this when fighting infantry with armored vehicles in close quarters - that's been in game since the Market Garden module.
Soviet-era tanks are squat with a low centre of gravity and a longer or comparable barrel to NATO counterparts. As a rule they had worse gun depression as a result. Again, not modelled in game unless something has changed beyond my knowledge.
New info for me. Thanks!
-
Were the T-64s misused or why do we have two T-64 platoons practically inoperable?
-
I am surprised by the somewhat lackluster performance of the T-64s. Are they really that blind compared to the M-60?
-
Indeed seems that the ground radar on the BMR-1 is not extended opposed to CMBS where it is extended. This indicates it is not going to be functional in CMCW.
-
I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting
Cease fire?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I think it is good to keep it secret. It tells a lot about the state of the enemy if he is asking for ceasefire
If you want ceasefire send ceasefire, if the enemy also wants ceasefire he sends ceasefire and you get a ceasefire.