Halmbarte
-
Posts
460 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Halmbarte
-
-
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
-
The original Bradley could swim after erecting a swimming screen.
H
-
I don't know if the Tac AI deliberately targets lower front if that's the only place they can reliably get a pen, but I suspect not.
Right now I'm playing CW vs Sov T64s w/M60A1s. My tankers bounce shells all day long off the turret front and upper hull, even when the lower hull is visible.
I swear I'm shooting all the subsystems off the outside of the T64s because I can't get a pen.
H
-
6 hours ago, Brille said:
Hard to tell by the pictures alone but I guess those hedges might be a problem. The first line might be ignored by the vehicle, just like when you drive close to hedgerows.
Though the second line might pose a problem with the LOS and LOF. In my experience they are not as clear cut as it shows you in game...much like with treebranches.
And while I know that the optics of these tankdestroyers are mounted on the roof it can still cause problems, be it to a blocked gun or by the game engine...it´s just my experience.
Yes, you have been shot by the other tank but I guess thats because he is taller/has a turret. That sometimes gives you an advantage in spotting and shooting...not always.
So it can be that while you could not spot over the hedge (or just bad) due to the low profile the turreted tank got a small glimpse of yours over the hedge.
Not saying that what I say is 100% fact just ideas and personal experience.
And a save file would be still appreciated to get a better view on the situation.
Only got very rare encounters with those and those times that I personally fielded them were even rarer. However in one PvP match their spotting was very bad, even though they were defending.
It was a CMRT scenario from which I forgotten the name: My handful of Panzer 70 had to delay a T34/85 push. The weather was not the best due to snowfall but you could see and shoot at least 600m out. In at least 3 cases my Jagdpanzers were spotted before they even got solid spots on moving T34. Though I must say that they were just regulars, while some of the T´s were veteran and my opponent rolled them very slowly through the field, while using hull or partial hull down positions where he could.
On my part there was mostly only flat ground, so they often were standing in the bare open.
On a side note it was a bit suspicious that almost all of my Panzers got taken out through the lower hull, except for one that got his gun damaged and later was taken out from the side/back as he retreated.
Were the only hits on the lower front or just the kills shots?
I suspect it's the latter. Panther is proof against a whole bunch of pokey things on the turret front and upper hull, which means (barring shot trap shots) your tanks are going to die from lower hull hits from the front.
H
-
3 hours ago, 'Sapper' said:
India still manufactures and uses the 7.62 variant of the Bren.
As their general issue support weapon or for reserve troops?
H
-
I think the best answer to the debate is that the MG42 is still being manufactured and in service (as the MG3). Plus the whole GPMG class of weapon introduced by the MG34 and MG42 is used by every army in the world while mag loaded LSWs are not.
H
-
1 hour ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
Ahhh, Thanks
I would argue with the Dev team this is not correctly modeled.
Wikipedia says "Spaced laminate armor offering 14.5 mm all around protection. " link
Citation says "Also know as M2A0/M3A0 Bradley, it was amphibious and was capable of protection against 14.5 mm AP." but doesn't say over what arcs.link
H
-
On the Sov side NBC protection goes back to the T55. One of the major changes from the T54 to the 55 is the addition of the NBC equipment. H
-
3 hours ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:
It's a workaround for an engine limitation. Vehicle weapons can't be rearmed within a mission or dismounted.
But certain vehicles, here the Jeep, can dismount their weapons.
For this reason, they have a second TOW launcher with it's own ammunition as their team weapon, while the model of the TOW disappears, when no crew is mounted.
As this is a combat vehicle, only the original crew can mount it.
As the TOW launcher carried by infantry, and the TOW launcher mounted on the vehicle are independent weapons, they can't share their ammunitions.
It also works the other way around. If you dismount and shoot all 3 three missiles, they jeep will still have its original 5 missiles loaded.
But this way, it is possible to simulate the team to dismount with the TOW launcher at least in a similar way, as it would be in real life.That's about what I figured but it's nice to have confirmation.
It would be nice to get the dismountable weapons sorted out. BMPs, Marder, and I'm sure some other vehicles all had ATGMs that could be dismounted and used separately on ground mounts.
H
-
The other factor regarding buttoned vs unbuttoned is that the Sov trained a lot assuming a NBC environment.
What was Western tank doctrine for fighting in NBC conditions? Fight closed down or heads out in MOPP4?
H
-
I didn't try to get them to mount up again in the scenario.
H
-
Playing the very enjoyable Defense at Checkpoint 23 scenario and it's the 1st time I've had to depend on TOW jeeps. I'm seeing some odd behavior.
The jeeps start with 5x TOW, and when those are done the team won't fire any more TOWs. They do, however, still show 3x TOW in their personal inventory.
When dismounted the team brings their launcher and now they have access to the 3 TOWs that they were carrying?
Link to save file - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/acjoo6v431gucvo306357/Defense-at-Checkpoint-024-007.bts?rlkey=t3gobows8xprcbrzo30wkjl4u&dl=0
H
-
4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Being Dutch born I know the feeling. Now I live in the Philippines for at least a year so far so good. Border security they can teach the Europeans a thing or two.
It helps to be a collection of islands.
H
-
11 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
you have too little samples here.
Yes, in CMCW the Bradleys is supposed to be fragile, it cannot resist the 14.5mm AP.
But in CMSF2 its defense improved a lot. I have seen my AT-4/9M111 stopped by an ERA block.
In CW I ran BTR vs M2 at 25m on a flat range and was unable to get pens from the front, sides, or rear. RPG7 & AT7 get pens from the front.
H
-
12 hours ago, Bannon said:
Just the other day I had a buttoned M60A3 Rise+ sitting on a trail facing downhill with a clear line of sight to the woods at the end of the trail when a T-64 popped out of the woods and with one shot killed the M60. The M60 didn't get a shot off and needless to say, this was frustrating as hell!
When I have T64s I think most of the gunners & TCs are suffering from methanol induced blindness. And don't get me started about the BMP gunners.
H
-
4 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:
I did some digging (and by that I mean I asked around), and none of the armoured vehicles in CMCW equipped with thermal imagers would have allowed the commander to view the commander's thermal imager repeater while turned out.
The M1A2 *might*, if they were to position themselves very very awkwardly to look at the screen, but otherwise it shouldn't be modelled. Which doesn't mean it isn't modelled, but it shouldn't be.
Also, the reason the M60 TTS imager was superior was that it was displayed on a screen, while for the M1 it was displayed in an ocular sight.
Right, but the commander is still limited to seeing what the gunner sees, so the screen doesn't help with situational awareness.
H
-
1 hour ago, Brille said:
Facing those big kitties up front is still a bad idea. However you have some toys where they have to rethink if they want to face you. Speaking of JS2 (later variant), JSU Series, SU 100...
The problem* I mostly have with CM CW is the Americans in '79 & '80 vs the T64 or better Sov tanks. It's like the M4 Sherman vs Panther all over again, except the Soviets made a whole bunch of T64s & T72s. It can be pretty disheartening to get multiple solid hits on the from of a T64 just to have it shrug off hits from sabot & TOW.
H
*And by problem I don't refer to a problem with how the game works, I mean that the US Army (and NATO) would have been in for a total shock when they found out about the composite armor on the T64 & T72 the hard way.
-
Regarding dismounting tank crews, game mechanics wise you dismount the entire crew and they move was a unit. Put them on a short fire arc so they don't start busting caps at the enemy with their AK.
Dismounting the crews isn't w/o risk, but neither is charging out blindly w/o having a clue where the enemy is.
H
-
My notes for using Sov tactics to beat the Germans/NATO in RT/CW:
Time spent on recon is never wasted.
Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted.
Have a plan and execute it.
The artillery fire plan supports the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan and these must be mutually supportive.
A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/NATO tank. If you're fighting a 1:1 tank duel you're doing it wrong.
Take away the better spotting offered by the German/NATO tanker habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness.
When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force.
Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.
Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks.
Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/NATO never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.
AT if you're playing the Sov:
RT: Your best AT weapon is your tanks. Your infantry doesn't have any good AT weapons outside of close assault. Use your infantry to get spots on enemy tanks and relay that info to the tanks. Don't be afraid to dismount tank crews so they can push forward and get their own spots. On the attack push AT guns forward to support the enemy.
CW: RPGs will knock out a M60 from the front. Your man portable ATGMs (>AT3s) are even more scary. Use infiltration tactics to get the ATGMs forward into range to support attacks. Make sure to protect the carriers since they are stuffed with reloads and make big boom if hit.Take your time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time.
Urban warfare:Don't move in the streets. Mouseholing is optimum, then back gardens, then alleyways. Stay out of the streets. Use supporting weapons to create mouseholes and gaps in walls.
Don't go in through the front door. If you can arrange it start at the top and clear down.
Suppress every building that has line of sight to your maneuvering force. If you can't suppress or smoke it don't move that way.
H
-
24 minutes ago, MHW said:
See Robert Stross’ “A Colder War,” which describes the unfolding horrors of a 1980s Cold War gone hot, but in a world haunted by Lovecraftian abominations. The short story is online.
Edited to add: When I say “Lovecraftian abominations,” I am referring to the extraordinary creatures that flowed from H.P. Lovecraft’s imagination, not to the quality of the man’s writing.
Stross is one of my favorites. Maybe if we get CM Cthulhu war unicorns will be available as DLC.
H
-
2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
CM: South Pole, battles set between penguins and explorers/scientists.
If you're going there, make it Lovecraft south pole shenanigans: giant albino penguins, shoggoths, and Elder Things vs intrepid antarctic explorers.
H
Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Can't be worse than Dragon...
H