Jump to content

bruno2016

Members
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bruno2016

  1. so, in WW2, to counter hidden ATGs which pop up and fire at your moving tank(s), the best approach, if i understand correctly, is to move with not less than a platoon (4-5 tanks), maybe 2 of them moving, the other 2-3 covering and static, and u have to accept to get one or two of them knocked out before u can write off the gun? The moving tanks shld be in fast mode to reach their destination AQAP, right?
  2. what will u do then if a hidden gun opens fire - during - your move as your tank wont stop to shoot back unless it is in Hunt mode.
  3. Thanks to you all for these explanations. I have other points I never really understood in the CM engine but I will open a new thread for this
  4. I use the hunt mode very often as it allows the moving tank to fire if some bad guys or crates show up on the way unexpectedly. Once I used the fast mode in open ground and a hidden russian tank killer team destroyed my Panther. I re-did the move in U mode and the Panther managed to see them, reverse a bit and fire, from a safe distance.
  5. ok so the armor covered arc isnt only about the angle and distance of possible fire, it discriminates non armor target types. is this what you explain? this MO mens you know where to expect armor. If some armor shows up outside the CA, you are done, right?
  6. how to set up the target type for a gun or an AFV (in defensive mode or hunting) so that, for instance, it fires first on enemy vehicles and/or guns and ignore the enemy infantry units as long as they are not an immediate threat? Many times, for instance in hunting mode to fire at an enemy tank after moving, my AFV stopped on the way or at the end of its movement to fire instead on some infantry popping up in the distance. And I do not want to use the Fast or Quick move command so my tank can immediately stop and fire when the enemy tank or gun is in its LOS.
  7. same for me. impossible to overwrite an existing file. the only way is to change the extension numbering. so looks like u can save a new file but not update any existing one. i faced the same issue in CMFB
  8. @semmes I am interested in PBEM for CMRT and incl. F & R. I also like big games like Studenka or Clash of the Titans for instance.
  9. Talking about ASL (which i know very well), what happens when an AFV overruns some infantry position in the open: Is there a sequence where first the infantry close assaults the AFV (the way it is described in this thread) and the tanks only fires back if unscathed? Also, how does a tank overrun a manned ATG position to destroy it: move command?
  10. Hi. I have been playing all WW2 modules incl. CMBN/RT against the AI. will be glad to be your opponent
  11. Yes my bad 10-12 mm. and the late superstructure added on top of the 251/9 as i said was a good protection from the side. and yes none of them were immune to small arms when using the weapon. my point actually was, in the front CA, all 3 shields give an equivalent protection. Why then make the MG gunner more vulnerable?
  12. It would be good that some of the CM developers or designers join these chats. Wld clarify many things we all just assume at the EOD
  13. Interesting. The only difference i see between the 75mm or 20 mm gun shield with the fromt MG shield is the side (to some extent) or all around protection. The thickness is still 8 mm or so, at keast not more than the MG shield. so why, thru the front covered arc, wld MG gunners be more vulnerable? i really question the design behind the AI
  14. Btw Georges, u mention pbem. Am looking for an opponent in any of the CM games. Wld u be interested?
  15. It works really. I thought of that but cldnt see really how this gave protection. At which distance do u put them from threat?
  16. Hehe yes, we can cope with that. Probably as a vet of ASL for decades i am too much influenced by the omniscience of the player materialuzed by endless dice roll to know if the guy got a flu and then does he sneeze or not lol. HT: dont bring that frustration here plz. I am so annoyed myself. I didnt experience this death rotating craziness u describe but the vulnerability of passengers to small arm fire (their heads arent assumed to be exposed in BU position). A whole debate with a thread opened by others already
  17. Thanks for pointing thos out. Like i just replied to Georges, i think par of this misunderstanding comes from maybe incomplete feedback from the AI on wht really happens with a hit. this is the same with another thread i joined a few years ago about the very strange vulnerability of halftrack or SPW passengers to small arm fires at level angle. I waz replied many times rifle caliber cld penetrate the 8 mm or so armor and therefore wound people ibside. Whereas there was no AI msg about penetration or spalling
  18. I can see we share some common sources I agree on wht u said. In the cases i faced which prompted me, after several frustrating experiences, to open this thread, often there was no more damage to the tank than just being hit without penetration or spalling or anything like that (unless sthg else happens that the AI does not share with the player, like sparkles, or paint flakes or crew anxiety in the heat of battle). Would be probably beneficial to have more feedback from the AI in the game to avoid assumptions and prejudices...
  19. Fine. I will check this point again on what damages actually occured to the tank (as when its dismounted no info is displayed) which cld explain the crew reaction. To support what u said, in april 45 on the front of the 9th army in the Halbe pocket, a Tiger 2 experienced waffen SS crew bailed out after being hit and having smoke inside the tank. They realized after a few minutes that actually the fire wasnt lethal to them but chaos had happened to others near their tank. They climbed back. See story attached
  20. Interesting video definitely. Check also this link which analyses Nicolas Moran’s presentation: https://www.mathscinotes.com/2015/07/sherman-tank-myths/ One unclear or debatable statemement was about the Shermans used to kill panthers and tigers in italy but not in normandy (for the panthers part). What was the difference? And probably it could only mean on the side. My point was not to say shermans or TDs had paper armor, actually it was even better than box shaped Pz IVs, but to say that even the sloped 80 mm armor was overmatched against an 88 or 75/L70 round. And the crews knew that of course. So its not just anecdotal evidence to say that when facing panthers or tigers (or believed to be with Pz IVs) they tried to take them from the side and in some occasions use phosphorus shells when available. I read about similar tactics used during operation Nordwind in Alsace in 1945. i opened this thread because I was surprised by how quite often German crews (their status was veteran, i rechecked) of well armored crates wld bail out when hit at distances of 6-700 m with no mentioned damage (not even armor spalling) . And same as when you mentioned the excellent training of modern US crews which ruled out bail outs for nothing, u could argue that Tiger and Elefant crews were also elite, hand picked from the best combat proven crews, which was not the case for the other tanks incl. Panthers, where green crews were more than often the norm in 44/45.
  21. if u put aside the Jumbo, are you saying that Shermans and TD's could easily sustain a front shot from a Tiger or Panther with their crew confident in their asset? My father was a Sherman M4 leader in 44 and 45 in the French 2nd armored division. he told me many detailed accounts of encounters with Panthers (like in Lorraine during the battle of Dompaire for instance). When they knew Panthers were ahead of them, believe me they did not think their front armor weakness was a myth spread in forums when they faced them. they tried to out maneuver them instead and pepper them with phosphorous shells on the engine plate so it would burn out the tank inside from the air intakes, most efficient tactics apparently. Just a comment, no resentment
  22. Sure its not a question of nationality but training, seasoning and trust in your gear. So yes, many German tank crews bailed out like any other unexperimented ones of any other countries (example panzer brigades hastily assembled in sept. '44 with unexperienced crews, with the wrong assumption this could be compensate the quality of their tanks). But u cant deny also that when u are in a well armored AFV u have more confident in your future than not (why so many drivers have big SUV's when they can afford it rather than european size cars, especially women? no worries, not trying t open another topic here lol). In the case of Tigers (i, II) and Elefants, most of the time the crews were the "creme de la creme" (training, leaders, combat experience), it is a fact. One question for you, as you are a 91 vet: did Abrams A1 or Bradley crew often bail out when hit by enemy fire? Before I bring more input to this thread, I will share the specific parameters of the cases when bailing out occurs in my battles (crew experience level, AFV type, enemy gun, hit facing etc).
  23. Fine and this explains why they were quick to abandon ship. But do you think the same reasoning can apply to WW2 German regular or vet crews in well armored tanks (Tiger 2, Elefant, Panther even) as during most of the war their tanks werent exploding all around them. What about the Sherman (non Jumbo ones) or TD crews when their tinder boxes got easily brewed up around them? Would have they behaved like the Iraqis for the same reasons? I havent read anything on any panick bail out because of this.
×
×
  • Create New...