bruno2016
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bruno2016
-
-
Does anyone agree on the very high frequency of gun barrel damage by shots especially from the front and at long distance (noticed it even happens even at 500 + m) in CM2 WW2? This is to me very unrealistic; in tank battle detailed accounts, gun damage is always mentioned as an exception. And the few pictures taken show gun hit from the side. From the front would mean they are hit exactly in the muzzle brake or on the recoil mechanism near the mantlet (even the thick additional protection of the Elefant for instance, added in the field precisely to protect the ball mount) . Looks very unlikely to me. What are your thoughts?
-
I noticed that, in CM2, tank crews tend to panic very quickly when they get simply hit (even without armor spalling, or immob, or anything else really harmful). And then it takes average 5 minutes, after they run away, to become available again! to reflect what? intense shock? This behavior is regardless of the armor thickness (for instance with Elefant crews hit, just hit, by a non APCR 76.2 mm fired by a wolverine). Same would also often happen with tiger crews, etc. Is it really realistic? I have never read this in any serious war history documents or tank crew bio. I was more under the impression that crews bail out only when the tank is destroyed of course or immob'ed in view of enemy anti tank capable units. Sometimes, like for the battle of Kursk, Panther crews were even forbidden to bail out if immobilized (by mines for instance), which in this case would be a special scenario rule. Well just a comment for your feedback. Maybe am I too much influenced by years of ASL games ...
?
-
Hi,
any preferred scenario in mind with which side?
-
Hi Chris! I am interested. I have been playing mostly against the computer all CM2 WW2 games with extensions, and few H to H ones too.
my email is vazquez_bruno@yahoo.com. We can use dropbox.com to send our turns.
tell me how you wish to proceed and if you have any scenario in mind.
Bruno
-
On 11/30/2015 at 2:26 PM, womble said:
Smoke is an option for you to use, not a right to have on top of the HE. Unfair or wrong as you may consider that to be, that's the way it works in the game, and it's not exactly difficult to adapt to. Nor is it entirely without historical merit, according to "lanyard pullers" who have made comments here based on their real life experience of how artillery support is organised.
Hello. Then how come the opposite is true? If I have 60 HE rounds and 30 smoke rounds (typically 3 Wespe's like in the Conrath's counterattack campaign in CMFI), if I first fire the smokeall 60 HE rounds remain available.
-
Hi
I am getting the same display error 1024*768, 32 bits when i launch the CMRT v4 in my new Lenovo windows 10 laptop, set up at 1920*1020
when I go to the CMT properties > Compatibility> Settings there is a "Change high DPI settings" box. After I select it, i have 2 check boxes:
Program DPI - use this setting to fix scaling problems for this program instead of the one in Settings
High DPI scaling behavior - override high DPI scaling behavior - scaling performed by (choice): application/system/system(enhanced)
I tried to click all combinations to no avail. The error persists.
FYI, when i run CMRT on my win10 desktop with 1920*1080, i have no issues
-
On 3/30/2017 at 5:55 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
German halftracks are powered differently to US halftracks, I believe they use a different type of transmission too (they can steer with their tracks alone IIRC).....In essence a German halftrack is a small tank with two unpowered wheels on the front, a US half track is an all-wheel drive truck with tracks replacing the rear axles.
Hello Squarehead,
Agreed, and this supports my point on the way the German HT's make turns in Combat Mission (and the speed) needs to be remodelled.
Same for most of the tanks (except, strangely enough as I mentioned above in the thread the Tiger II)
-
Dear all,
I found this video showing how quickly a Stug turns at almost right angle. Move the cursor to 1:27 just for this:
as to the way a HT can turn - smoothly with no hiccup - at sharp angles, watch this one and go directly to time 6: 40.
-
On 3/19/2017 at 10:31 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
The Panther had a notoriously weak transmission and the user manual advises against pivoting in place IIRC:
https://archive.org/details/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung
My German is a little rusty (non-existent TBH) but I suspect it may be in the section entitled 'Kurven'.....This is off the top of my head, I may well be wrong, I'll have a look in the relevant books and check if you want.
I'd guess all the same issues should apply to the Kingtiger as its transmission was every bit as overloaded, if not more so.
I agree that the transission was weak, that just confirms the game is inconsistent across tanks as the tiger II should rotate in its tracks at snail pace then1
Regarding turning speed, and as I mentioned above in my initial message, look how a Jagdtiger (the Porsche one captured by the British) turns quickly and smoothly on soft terrain even with a large radius, moreover with one suspension bogie less... I hope you will better see why I complain about the hectic way a HT or a wheeled vehicle makes a soft angled turn in the game
-
On 3/13/2017 at 7:13 PM, IanL said:
@Rinaldi and @Vanir Ausf B have covered the half track stuff pretty well.
I'll just add also that vehicle drivers do *not* move at maximum speed at all times for good reason. Take pivoting as an example. It is great that a vehicle can spin in place but during battle tank drivers in WW2 avoided doing that because if you think a tank is to slow to turn in a dangerous situation throwing a track would be worse. Same for crashing around through walls and fences. Tanks can only breach low walls not high ones, no driving over bocage with Churchill tanks even though it seems that was possible. Clearly there could be times when drivers would do things they cannot in game but BFC had to make decisions about how to handle what was usual vs what was extraordinary. They deiced to use a slower turning speed than the theoretical max. They did this for good reason. For historical reasons. To make the simulation better.
Fine, I understand the reason. Yet I disagree on the way the game factors in this "risk management" regardless of the situation and not in a consistent manner across vehicles.
For instance, why then in the game a Tiger II can pivot in its tracks so quickly, even in a non hard terrain, whereas the Panther does not? They both had the same engine and reverse track capability and the latter being 20 tons odd lighter than the former....
Turn speed: even when you micromanage the way points to make a smooth angled curve, a HT or a wheeled vehicle will often even stop at each way point to turn the wheels and move in a very weird fashion by hiccups, like you can see in some TV add showing an old 50's US sedan moving up and down on its brakes at a red light. Funny. I would get sea sick if I was a passenger in CMB lol
-
On 3/13/2017 at 4:57 PM, Rinaldi said:
Fair play, won't argue with this. In fact, I agree. So forgive the slew of qualifying statements I'm about to make about the rest of the post.
So I'll preface the following with the reminder that I agreed the stiff animations were not something I was willing to hand-wave either, having said that:
This is for ball. Further reading that suggests stronger pen values. Whether you accept the source is your perogative, of course.
"The 1939 US Army specification for M-2 .30-06 AP penetration is .42" (11mm) of armor steel at 100 feet."
The M3/M5s were a bit more thin-skinned than the 251s (which had about 6mm at their lightest points). Well within parameters for punishment if you're trying a hot dismount. Doubly so given the proliferation of 8mm AP for sustained fire MGs.
Anecdotal and secondary sources are, at best, conflicted I will admit. Suffice to say however, that with notable exceptions (such as the much written about charge at Troyes and Assensois, covered in Armor in Battle) most US armored documentation I've read tend to stress dismounting your armored infantry in defilade rather than in the face of the enemy.
I understand you're arguing with good faith and your logic in the first paragraph is sound, but dismounting at stand-off distance isn't some expedient we're forced to accept for gameplay purposes; its just damned good sense. It's also more typical than atypical useage of these units.
Again I wish I could say I'm not arguing from experience but given I've linked to an AAR where I repeatedly dismount in the face of the enemy with no losses I'm not sure what to say. Hot dismounts, even in Black Sea where the Bradleys can feasibly shrug off 2A28 fire has a lot of planning and masking fires behind them.
I generally agree that the animations are utter trash, but they've never been too gamebreaking for me asides from losing the occasional one man or so from potshots at range. This is subjective, and you have every right to moan about it - you may have had a much more distasteful experience with them than I have.
EDIT: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I think its agreeable to say that, you can get punished much harder than in reality for bravose use of halftracks. I can agree with that uncontroversially.
This is a joke right? What an empty gripe.
Thanks for these details. actually my point was more on the resistance of the HTs, especially the thicker SPWs, to horizontal fire from non MG, ATR, ATG, energy or nuclear weapons, lasers etc for - buttoned up - personnel when they travel in the HT at non close range (i.e.>40 m let's say) than the vulnerability of dismounted personnel which to me is OK in the game (as it was in ASL with no special protection, jsut as if they were standing idle in the terrain they occupy)
And I can see by brwosing in this long thread that other players also find the vulnerability of travelling personnel excessive.
-
sorry I sent the above msg wrongly by trying to quote.
So I will reply globally.
@Rinaldi. Thanks for your reply, I wont take it personally of course, Just I believe ASL was not wrong and also ASL never said HTs are assault guns either. As to why they were accompanied by tanks, I would rather say the other way 'round: tanks were accompanied by HTs to provide infantry support and eventual assault of the enemy positions, with mutual cover fire of course.
Full cover does not mean impervious to any attack, it means that at - horizontal angle - the carried personnel, as stated in one the messages above, could hide themselves behind the walls of the HT without having their head exposed. MGs, ATRs and of course ATGs could penetrate 10 mm armor. but rifles and smgs?
If you believe usual 9 mm can easily penetrate 10 mm armor (please give any link to documentation showing this), then why doesn't the game show any armor penetration or spalling at least then? sorry this is not a consistent behavior, whatever the simulation of the game tries to do. As stated in older messages, that is probably because the game considers carried personnel have their heads exposed. Back to the discussion....
Now I agree with the statements that 200-200 m is a safe range and workaround for the behavior of the game, more than as a reproduction of reality.
As to the turn radius of the HTs, even if it was big, in the game the HTs/SPWs are almost at idle speed when making a sharp turn. I have seen HTs in real life, they move much more quickly even with their radius. Consequence in the game: when you need to quickly escape, you get artificially exposed a long time.
I also mentioned the slowness of other AFVs turning (except surprisingly heavy weights like the Tiger II): have you seen quickly a real Panther turns on its tracks? or even a Stug to name a few ...even if of course its slower than a Leopard II pivoting and keeping its gun steady in its direction. Even in the footage of the running Porsche Jagdtiger made by the British at the end of the war, watch how quickly it turns on itself, with some radius yes, despite its 76 tons... Now compare with CM and tell me if again I got it wrong...
I am not trying here to find the devil in the details, just that these shortcomings can have very surprising and negative tactical consequences where you dont expect them.
-
On 3/6/2017 at 6:55 AM, Rinaldi said:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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...
Only when the angle of fire was steep (again in ASL, approximated by the the firer having to be 2 levels higher than the distance to the HT, in hexes) could it score hits inside.
Only ATGs and medium/heavy MGs could punch thru the HT armor thanks to their AP bullets at level angle.
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.
Last, as to the slowness and awkwardness of HTs to perform quick turns especially around buildings or hedgerow paths, that is very surprising. It even leads often the vehicle to make huge detours or even reverse completely and then become vulnerable to fire. The only workaround I found was to micromanage the waypoints and this is not fully safe even. The game engine should be able to devise the best path from origin to destination without getting into convoluted and unrealistic moves.
Regarding slowness, I noticed that anything different from heavy tanks like the Tiger 1 or 2 which could pivot in their tracks using inverted track movement (see WoT), other AFVs are extremely slow pivoting, incl. the Panther (which could also invert track movement). That again is not realistic, they used to pivot quickly even if it took some radius when they had to block one track instead of reversing its movement. This can lead to artificial negative effects in critical tactical situations. To me this is another misconception to be fixed in the game engine.
Tank Gun Damage
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
with a x8 scope magnifier lol?