Jump to content

holoween

Members
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by holoween

  1. 1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists. 2. Agreed Trenches are awful 3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It really doesnt matter to me if the foxhole cover is 90% or 100% as effective as buildings but rather that its comparable. 4. That wasnt directed at you specifically so sorry if that came across as such. Ive had that discussion now several times and usually the issue is that too much is expected of defenses. Also i dont disagree that defenses could get a boost but i think foxholes are in a good place. Trenches though are just plain aweful and really need a buff or preferably proper narrow and deep trenches need to be added rather than the wide and shallow ones we currently have.
  2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o4nz0sHbp8Z03fFmm9CweH8P8Z8Nf0XiGHwAQvztsZ4/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/130RTbJ8HABwYqp4rTvsBU4NASTWebO3K4igNDxL1W28/edit#gid They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire.
  3. Small arms. I havent tested buildings against arty so i cant say for sure which is better but foxholes are massively increasing infantry survivability against arty.
  4. Depending on where exactly you place them they have up to the same protection as buildings. Making them any better doest really reflect reality.
  5. Foxholes already provide some of the best protection you can get.
  6. Its happening reliably to the german tornados which only have bombs and with all of their different bomb sizes.sSo reliably in fact i count them as only having 2 rather than the 4 they actually have for effectiveness (2 on target, 1 miss, 1 disapearing)
  7. Scratch the usable in the future part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBQe7Ahod34 1:43 for the before and 2:43 for the after. If you get a dricet hit unless youre hitting the Turret or hull front composite armour arrays of something like an abrams/leopard2 youre left with a wreck and if you hit the composite armour thats a full rebuild of the area. In either case the tank is ko.
  8. Its not a little incorrect but its complicated. Because yes they wear green and they are infantry but they also part of the "Panzertruppen" and not the "Infanterie". Thats besides the point though. My claim wasnt there shouldnt be any mg4 with the Pzgrenns but rather that they shouldnt be the primary mg of them. What i posted was the closest to open source proof i could find because i cant just go around a few armouries, count the different mgs and then post how many of each type the PzGrenns in my area have. If the german army was a bit less strict i wouldnt have to rely on the anecdotal proof ive provided for my claims id simply go ahead and copy the manuals and post them. What i cant directly prove is the fact that whenever possible the mg3 or mg5 is used rather than the mg4. That might have just been the preference of the specific troops ive been in contact with but if you look through the german armys youtube channel its exceedingly rare to see an mg4 but mg3s and to a lesser extend mg5 are everywhere so that particular stance seems to be similar across a large part of the german army.
  9. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/93127/milan-adt_er-passes-industry-firing-trials.html To be clear, I think the 400m minimum engagement range was taken from Milan 1, so probably is wrong for Milan 3, but I'm doubting the 20m range as something that should be happening in any normal circumstances. Nice find. The document i found seems to talk about the milan 2 (its called milan2 in the table on page 89). The german wiki puts the minimum range at 75m for the milan 2 the french and english ones at 200m but none of them provide a source. Your link about the milan er would give credibility to the 75m claim but i have no idea if this is something that changed between missile generations. Either way it seems clear that the current 400m minimum range is far too high. If it should be at 20m, 75m, 150m or 200m depends on which source you want to believe.
  10. One is the weapons capability and the other the intended engagement range. Compare the max ranges given for the ERYX.
  11. I wouldnt want to have to do it but its at least possible. The Milan flies Quite straight irl rather than the weird things it does ingame compare Ingame to IRL
  12. They are all relevant to 2008 Aside from the link on the milan they are all just to demonstrate the point as i cant really post german official TOEs and doctrine.
  13. Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed. Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these. Infantry cant fight from marder even though this is part of the core doctrine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw MG3 weapon teams doesnt have the tripod even though they should https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9jlx9NGqyo PzGren should by default come with the mg3. The mg4 should at best be an option. https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/ausruestung-bewaffnung/mg4 end of the first paragraph "The mg4 is mainly used in the infantry" PzGrens in the german army arent counted as part of the infantry and anecdotally ive yet to see an mg4 in any PzGren unit but plenty of mg3s and a few mg5s Milan has a minimum range of 400m but should be 20-25m http://www.guerredefrance.fr/Documents/AIDE MEMOIRE CHEF SECTION INFANTERIE.pdf on page 86 armin distance is 20m
  14. Considering that fighting mounted is still active doctrine in the german army https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw https://youtu.be/lgFH68KcloQ?t=51
  15. Basically youre looking towards 1975 to 1985 cold war. At the end of this period the first thermal imagers apeared but they were bad enough that they only really represent some night vision capability.
  16. So ive tested it a bit more and it seems that for some reason the majority of the spotting potential from the stuart comes fromm the driver and bowgunner. 5 stuarts in hulldown position barely spotted 5 p4s in the open while 5 stuarts in the open easily spotted 5 p4s in hulldown. Trying the same with shermans there was a similar effect but not as drastic. What seems to be clear though is that being hulldown doesnt seem to give any benefit to being spotted for some reason and in CMFB at least for all tanks ive tested so far noticably decreased their spotting ability.
  17. My conclusion would be that the ai has bonuses on higher difficulties and as such testing should always be done in hotseat mode.
  18. Both sides have to move into their hulldown positions and have their tc up. So that doesnt really give any side an advantedge.
  19. I did move into hulldown positions. This is the scenario i used for it. You have to manually move the tanks into hulldown positions because the hulldown command doesnt work. Tank accuracy test2.btt
  20. I just finished my own hulldown test at 700m 5 m5a1 late regulars vs 3 Pz4J late regulars. In 5 rounds the stuarts managed a total of 5 hits while the p4s destroyed 24 stuarts with one getting away with a pen. The p4s suffered 1tank with destroyed maingun and coax from 2 pens, 1 with a partial pen that wounded the tc and one with light damage to the radio from 1 pen. One stuart survived a pen that killed 2 crew. all others were destroyed. So ill keep using my hulldown positions. Id love to see how you managed to get your p4s to loose.
  21. I was trying to replicate the P4 vs Stuart test by having both sides use the hulldown command to get into position. I didnt manage to replicate the test but i did find an easily repeatable case of why i never even use the hulldown command anymore. The tanks dont actually move up sufficiently to get a spot or be able to fire.
  22. Since this is something that only really matters against well armored tanks giving a deviation from the center mass aimpoint if the round bounces to simulate the gunner aiming for different areas could help spread the shots around a bit more realistically.
  23. The forward platoon was in defilade so hard to spot but what i was trying to say it that the actual assault on the position took 15min with more additional time needed to scout around before launching the assault. Also while its relatively easy to spot foxholes its quite difficult to spot if they are occupied if the troops are hiding. He did have arty but that was busy supressing atgms covering the position. And arty isnt great against spred out foxholes. It took an abrams platoon and a striker platoon 15 min to clear and thats 1 platoon in defilade and 2 in enfilade positions. in comparison later 2 abrams wiped a similarly positioned platoon in the open in 2min. So yea the resilience there is entirely due to the foxholes.
  24. As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.
×
×
  • Create New...