Halmbarte
-
Posts
455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Halmbarte
-
-
6 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
Thank you gentlemen. So no scout team for the Panzergrenadiere, only half-squads and SPW support. Up to now I hadn't much luck playing this way (true, I didn't really use the SPW as a base of fire squad), though…
Oh please @Bulletpoint !
I used to use my destroyed Panzer crews for scouting, but out of shame I don't do it anymore…
For late war, just round them up, give them some K98 rifles, and use them as infantry.
H
-
35 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
I get your point, but I think you're slightly "off-doctrine" here. IIRC the halftrack is not supposed to be a weapon but only a transport mean (providing the mobility you're rightfully claiming). Nothing forbids to use the SPW as a third MG support team, but that's not what it's designed for. And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…
I may not be remembering right, but I think using the mounted MG for fire support is explicitly in the period doctrine & training manuals.
H
-
42 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:
So the switch to CM2 ,BF through us a curve ball and went modern and no one expected that, so the switch to CM3 will be the same pattern? but maybe to a WW1 or Civil War setting ? I doubt it myself from a $ perspective , but these gents are unpredictable, remember one of the main reasons for the modern switch was to "re-charge their batteries".
Starship Troopers?
The book, not the movie, obviously. We can already simulate a mob with small arms and no support weapons wandering aimlessly.
-
Just now, Vacillator said:
Yeah, and I think this is why I was jokingly asking about Soviet doctrine earlier. But bugger doctrine, we're playing a game here and I need to see Dave's unfriendly TOW (and other) teams sooner rather than later.
Another option is to ask yourself 'what is the perfect place to put that ATGM?'
Then you shell that area to suppress any potential ATGM assets.
H
-
On 4/12/2024 at 9:34 AM, Vacillator said:
Yes, you're probably right. I did happen to spot a TOW in flight so I have a rough direction it came from. No sign of anything firing the missile in that direction though.
Like they say, one exploding AFV, shame on you. Three burning AFVs shame on me.
Sometimes, recon by death is how the job gets done. But, have someone on overwatch. Then pull up to the previous terrain feature and kick some boots out* to go have a look.
Recon takes time, but it's usually well worth it.
H
*You can dismount AFV crews and have them scout forward if you're short on regular infantry.
-
Chieftain V T-62 | Operation Nasr, Iran – Iraq War, 1981
H
-
Looking for some CW action. I'm ok with either US or Sov.
H
-
4 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:
Hi, not sure I understand your point. I did like your earlier post on Russian tactics. My overall point was that players should not feel obliged to play a certain way, but should use whatever plan/tactic works best in the situation. By 44-45, tactics used by all combatants were pretty similar and the characteristics pertinent to the Russians: greater tolerance to casualties, TO&E, artillery restrictions, etc. are already baked in by the game mechanics or can be programmed by the scenario designer.
I was thinking more of strategy & operational actions.
By the end of WWII the Sov was pulling off large scale, combined arms, strategic thrusts that disrupted the German lines and allowed the Sov deep into the german rear areas. The Germans responded by 'holding to the last man' and 'take not one step back', which didn't work out too well for them.
It's like Hitler & Stalin had switched roles by the end of WWII. Which is another reason you shouldn't fight the same people for too long: The survivors are liable to get good.
H
-
5 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:
Just to add to this, as WW2 went on, it was common for combat leaders to use tactics that worked as opposed to following doctrine, which usually meant copying what the Germans were doing. So TC fought unbuttoned, fighter pilots followed Luftwaffe organization and tactics, infantry attacked in small groups with heavy AFV/artillery support, etc. Soviet HQ knew it and looked the other way, as long as it worked. This is confirmed by a lot of memoirs/histories.
Although, by the end of the war, Hitler was channeling Stalin's early war strategy: Not one step back, hold at all costs, attack without adequate resources...
H
-
5 hours ago, Vacillator said:
A purely hypothetical question speaking as a person who has never even played Cold War until now. The question is not based on my first ever Cold War PBEM. Definitely not.
So I believe doctrine says Soviets don't dismount infantry for recon (they're probably in too much of a hurry). And they don't unbutton. Would I be gamey doing either of these games? Hypothetically.
The avoidance of recon by death is on my mind. How un-Soviet.
My take on using the combat recon patrol is you’re supposed to make contact with the enemy. Sometimes your lead vehicle is going to die doing that.
When I’m doing recon with the Sov my vehicles are unbuttoned. I’m supposed to be seeing, and unbuttoned is way better for doing that. If I need to get intel dismounted, and I have time to do that, I’ll go that way.
My take is the Sov tactics are about results: Hit the enemy at weak points with fresh troops that keep arriving in waves until you overcome resistance n break through. If your regimental commander is an idiot this can look like trying to jam a meat grinder by feeding it your arm into it.
H
-
2 hours ago, Vacillator said:
Pierre, I need you to tell me how to do this. PM me urgently
.
The best way I know of to do planned fires is using TRPs, assuming you have enough of them.
H
-
7 hours ago, Artkin said:
Dont area target your enemies infantry with vehicles that dont have a spot.
Remove the area target command for MP.
Ehhh, area fire at obvious superb places to put infantry is ok in my book.
If you put an FO in that church tower that provides great observation to the entire match, don't get upset when I blast the snot out of it as soon as I have a LOS.
H
-
Save game?
H
-
12 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
It certainly seems unlikely at this point that the Chieftain will hold up better against 125mm or 115mm HEAT or APFSDS rounds than the M60. Though maybe once we have it in CM the various unusual angles that it might get shot at from in dynamic combat will show that it's actually more resilient than the youtube simulations suggested (maybe its frontal armor can bounce a 115mm APFSDS round if it comes in from about 30 degrees to the left while the tank is in a hull-down position that is tilting the hull up a bit to put the upper front plate at an even more extreme angle...or something).
In any case, I think one of the first things I'm going to do when we get the module is set up a Chieftain and an M60 on a shooting range and see if I can't find something that the Chieftain is more resilient against than the M60. It sure would be a shame if it turned out that all of that extra armor was nothing but a waste of steel and hp/ton. But based on what I've seen so far, my current guess is that the French and Germans probably had the right idea with their light armor/high mobility designs in the AMX-30 and Leopard 1.
I suspect you're right. If thicker armor can't keep out typical threats why bother dragging it around? More weight brings significant penalties to the entire AFV, both tactically and logistically.
H
-
Chieftain isn't going to bounce ****e all from the Sov 115mm or better tank guns, is it?
H
-
6 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
I don't think so. The Chieftain hasn't gotten its newer better L23 APFSDS ammunition yet in the game's timeframe, so it's still using the L15 APDS that it had when it first entered service in 1965. I believe that performs better than the M728 at certain ranges, but not better than the M735. In practical terms the chance of hitting a point on the T64 that it can penetrate should be exactly the same as for the M60, though it may be more accurate than the M60A1.
They aren't that slow. Their mobility certainly doesn't stack up well compared to a modern tank. But I really don't think modern standards are the right standards by which to judge Cold War equipment. The M60's mobility feels about on par with a WW2 medium tank to me.
If I think the M60 is slow I'll have a new low point when we get Chieftain? At least drivetrain reliability isn't modeled in CM.
I do find it interesting both the Sov and UK arrived at opposed piston MBT engines, although they oriented them differently.
H
-
7 hours ago, Alternativeway said:
About that...
I would think the best way is fooling the Soviet tanks, if one of your units Dragons, M150s or M60s gets a chance and has a line of sight on them while your opponent's armour is distracted. That could still be workable and score a hit. Yet, you should always be aware that your enemy will try to deploy their troops to sweep around and attack, they will backed up by APCs and IFVs, or bring in additional they might just send with tanks to deal with you, let alone to mention the potential threat of enemy fire support might already be called, which you should better be trying to keep your units alive longer enough before it's got the perfect opportunity to take a shot.My problem is I frequently run short of distractions to entertain the enemy with as they my distractions seem to get big holes punched in them and/or explode.
Playing the US w/early M60s kinda sucks. They are huge, the ammo struggles against anything better than a T62, the armor is vulnerable to RPG7s from the front, and they are slow.
I'm Playing Meet & Greet right now and my best anti-armor weapon is TOW, but even those struggle to get thru the T64 from the front. My M60A1s have not had a great day of it, but you use the units you've got, not the ones you wish for.
To be honest, I'm expecting Centurion and Chieftain to be similar to how the M60 plays, although I hope that the 120mm can actually get thru a T64 from the front.
H
-
Yet the AI will unfailingly deviate from the route you've set to take a quicker way straight through a kill zone.
Copy/paste orders like Tacops had would solve many of these problems.
H
-
11 hours ago, Butschi said:
I'm convinced that in CMCW I've seen more AFVs die to Dragons than to US tanks (especially the non-TTH variants), so you wouldn't be in such a bad spot there.
Against the T64 & 72 Dragon & M60A1s can get kills from the rear or sides. It's just arranging that setup that gives me problems. The Sov, not being completely drink addled, frequently avoid providing flank shots, the buggers.
H
-
1 hour ago, pugstorm said:
How reliable was the swingfire and striker?
Can't be worse than Dragon...
H
-
1 hour ago, Ultradave said:
No. A 155mm howitzer shell has approximately 2 - 3x the warhead charge of a 120mm mortar. (comparing a US 4.2" mortar HE shell to a US 155mm HE shell). I'm sure other country's ammunition would be in the same ballpark.
Battalion mortars are more versatile, are under the infantry battalion's direct control, so therefore can be more responsive to the infantry. They are also less susceptible to counter - battery fire as they can pick up and move and then re-emplace move faster than a howitzer battery. This becomes more important the more modern the era. It is also more of a difference with towed howitzers than with SP howitzers. Even so a 155 battery is a lot of stuff to move and it's all heavy. In the Cold War period to the present, there is usually a 155 (or 105) batter dedicated to each maneuver battalion, and that association is permanent, so that units train together. Obviously that can be modified depending on circumstances, so there is usually a dedicated direct support artillery battery as well as battalion mortars, so response is fast. In WW2 this wasn't the default organization, so call times to the artillery would be a little longer, not even counting the advances in comms since then.
A 155mm howitzer has significantly longer range. While that may be important for targets of opportunity in the rear areas of the enemy, for CM game purposes it doesn't matter much. The normal real life doctrine would be to select firing positions for both mortars and howitzers so that the expected ranges to targets fall at around 2/3 of the max range of the weapon. Mortars then, would be placed closer. In game purposes, if you have off map assets, then they are already placed appropriately and can reach the whole map. If you were playing a game a scale level higher, where you control the batter position, it matters more.
One last pretty important thing. A mortar section can put A LOT of rounds on the target in a short time. The sustained rate of fire is faster than a 155mm howitzer and they can keep it up longer before having to slow down. A 155 can fire at a high sustained rate but not for very long, if you want to use it again. It just takes longer to load and fire as well.
Dave
The TM referenced here https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TM-43-0001-28-Army-Ammunition-Data-Sheets.pdf says
M107 = 15.4lbs of comp B vs
M934 6.59lbs of comp B
for a ratio of explosive about 2.8x in favor of the 155mm. Which isn't how I thought this worked.
H
-
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
I like to see Penal Battalion 999 scenario. Veterans with a Zilch for motivation.
Does the TO&E include their Feldgendarmerie minders? I'm imagining lots of MGs and removed friendly fire limitations.
H
-
120s are thinner walled than 155s because they have less stress in firing, so the 120s have about the same explore amount as 155s.
120s will absolutely wreck exposed infantry in the open, particularly if you use VT fuses. Buildings will protect from any artillery fire.
Since the 120mm is frequently the most responsive artillery available I like it.
H
-
Backup for the CO and/or liaison with the forward deployed company commanders if needed.
H
Best way to learn the game
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
For me the WWII titles are more difficult because pretty much most battle devolve to an infantry foot attack, which I find hard to coordinate. Getting the troops there on time to meet up with the artillery support ends up being really difficult. Not to mention micromanaging a battalion infantry attack can get really tedious.
My favorite is CW: you have forces that are balanced and everyone is motorized. Plus even a Sov battalion of motorized infantry is easier to manage than the WWII equivalent.
H