Cauldron Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 As to flail carriers etc etc most of the quierry is to do with " changing obsticles or terrain". I HOPE that CM engine 2 can add this as well. I am sure for example a 20 minute 150 mm stonk on a mine field would have dislodged a few mines. I am also pretty sure wire would have been vapourized as well. The idea that all these obsticles or enbuggerances just stay there is pretty incredible. PS: I am starting to like 210mm artillary, it makes a really big blast radius and I'm just hoping to see a AFV flip over.. Come on BTS - do it )))) Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 In terms of artillery disloding/exploding mines, I have no idea. A hunch says yes, but no evidence either way. In terms of artillery 'vaporizing' wire, perhaps you could try to find a WWI vet and ask them how well artillery bombardments 'vaporized' wire? Artillery tends to chop wire up and toss it around, making it a nightmare rather than a mere bitch to get through. In any case, this is all stuff that would be done before a battle, not during, and thus falls outside of CM's scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cauldron Posted September 19, 2001 Author Share Posted September 19, 2001 Well excuse me for thinking an operation could actually involve some foresight such as "Golly Gee Sargent, thats a obsticle over there, I wonder if we could get arty to remove it for us?" Needless to say, I disagree entirely with the fact that it is not within the scope of CM. Whether it is reality or not is not the isuue, it's whether and how CM decide to include it. I might also add my own bent here, which is also added by many operations designers, for G*d's sake, fix the perimiters issue. That alone would bo worth 50% of the game. Ta eric :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cauldron: Whether it is reality or not is not the isuue, it's whether and how CM decide to include it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another classic CMBO line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 A while back someone (it might have been an überFinn) posted a couple quotes out of an artillery handbook from their local army on how to clear mines with arty. I don't have a pointer to it, but it may show up in the FAAQ somewhere. At any rate, the amount of fire necessary to clear a minefield was truly amazing, and well outside the scope of CM. You could sterilize a good sized map with that much arty, and you certainly wouldn't bother using it on a minefield if you had it. As for wire-- listen to Chuppie. Wire is nice floppy stuff that's mostly air. The probability that a bit of sharp stuff from an artillery shell is going to hit a piece of wire is fairly small, and the chance that it will cut it (if it manages to hit) is most likely small as well, since it will probably just flex the wire a bit and ricochet off somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 Look at the following: WO 291/455 Cutting of wire obstacles by HE. A single 25-pdr shell will cut a gap of about 10 ´ 1½ feet. A single gun or a battery of 25-pdrs ranged accurately on the same point will require about 1000 shells to cut a gap through a wire obstacle. One cut per foot is considered sufficient for an effective gap. Bangalore torpedoes cut gaps of 19ft in British wire, 15ft in German wire. So, get 4 25 lb spotters, have them laucnh about 250 shells each, and IF they are accurate, in about 20 minutes you can cut the wire. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Bangalore torpedoes cut gaps of 19ft in British wire, 15ft in German wire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OH, so you are saying that GERMAN wire is more effective than BRITISH wire, hmm? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, get 4 25 lb spotters, have them laucnh about 250 shells each, and IF they are accurate, in about 20 minutes you can cut the wire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a rather fun scenario. We could call it "Arty Fest '45" and . . . oh, itsbeen done? Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: OH, so you are saying that GERMAN wire is more effective than BRITISH wire, hmm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait until he gets to discuss Australian and Finnish wire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Wait until he gets to discuss Australian and Finnish wire...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then launches into whether MGs can run. Speaking of that, I think we need to discuss whether Flamethrowers can run, too. I propose they be allowed to run only when under fire, like this poor sap: What say you all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: And then launches into whether MGs can run. Speaking of that, I think we need to discuss whether Flamethrowers can run, too. I propose they be allowed to run only when under fire, like this poor sap: What say you all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or how about when on fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 Oh my god... That's not a flamethrower, you gits!! It's a mobile cappucchino carrier, model '43 (MCC43). And it loks like a late model with a modified nozzle for extra-creamy milk. The italian army used it with great success during WW2. The above photograph shows a US soldier using a captured MCC43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 Actually I didn't say it, the British did in their WO report. Wire envy perhaps? Don't make me talk about Finnish wire... Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 19, 2001 Share Posted September 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Actually I didn't say it, the British did in their WO report. Wire envy perhaps? Don't make me talk about Finnish wire... Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hell rune, the Finnish mobile cappucchino carrier's make espresso that is twice as strong as French and Italian models, it is only rivaled by the model 1943. Everyone knows that. You are just a cowardly dink for not wanting in on this fray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 20, 2001 Share Posted September 20, 2001 I think Finnish wire is called 'concrete bunker', or maybe 'insta-death nasty younogohere place.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted September 20, 2001 Share Posted September 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Hell rune, the Finnish mobile cappucchino carrier's make espresso that is twice as strong as French and Italian models, it is only rivaled by the model 1943. Everyone knows that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I often wondered how WW2 would've ended íf the finnish army had used the Suomi Überschäumer nozzle device on their FMCC41 (finnish mobile cappucchino carrier mod. '41). Maybe Rexford can help us here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts