Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Am I the only one who has seen a round fired from a tank land behind the tank?I can't speak for what you've seen, laddie, especially after a long night of hitting those textbooks, eh? And i am a college student getting a degree in neurobiology...Additional proof of the failure of our educational system. Some of you guys are silly willys.Uh-oh, guys, he's on to us. It's all over now. Perhaps some wine will help.Why thank you. It's still early where I am so I'll have rosé. The Americans should have made a low profile tank destroyer like the stugIIIG.You mean without a turret? So you have to turn the whole vehicle? What a splendid idea. A pity the dolts at Ordnance didn't think of that. The war might have ended a year earlier. Michael [ November 11, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioneyes Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 W :eek: W! The sarcasm on this thread is at a very high level. You guys realize that this tends to make newbies think twice about posting? Or is that the idea? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Did someone make a noise just now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Ah! Found it. Hope the pic works: View the code to see the connection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 So what are we looking at? Re: M10 vs assault gun, I'll take the turret if I'm going to be on the attack. CMBB style cover arcs and slow vehicle turning should make a real difference here. There's also quite a bit of slope on the M10s front. And then the M10 becomes the M36... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: So what are we looking at? Total Tranny Destruction 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: So what are we looking at? Total Tranny Destruction </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Ya don't say. Is that the goop coming out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 The main reason the M10 TD never became a first-class tank destroyer is because the Germans ran out of tanks to be destroyed! Most M10s (at least in italy) were relegated to artillery support. They managed to get pretty darned good at indirect fire over time. The M18 Hellcat took the M10 philosophy that extra mile, keeping the open top, with MUCH thinner armor and MUCH higher road speed, and a gun with identical(?) performance to the M10's 3 inch. And the M18 had a commendably high exchange ratio against German armor. [ November 11, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades. Sadly, too true. Even against things like SPW 251/1s that ought to really take notice when a Molotov is tossed into the crew compartment. [ November 11, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: demoss ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by demoss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades. Sadly, too true. Even against things like SPW 251/1s that ought to really take notice when a Molotov is tossed into the crew compartment. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: About the open-topped tank destroyers, I thought they weren't meant to be used in close terrain without infantry support. That was a lesson I learned very quickly (and painfully, if a bad gaming experience can be called painful) in CMBO: to let the TDs snipe from range. The best was for them to engage while the enemy tanks were busy fighting something else closer. Then the TDs can pick off the tanks with ease. [/QB]Which was exactly my tactics vs the TDs. Either the tanks/JPz/StuGs got them, or those threats close got them. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by demoss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades. Sadly, too true. Even against things like SPW 251/1s that ought to really take notice when a Molotov is tossed into the crew compartment. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patton21: In fact, some of the rounds from my m10, would land behind the m10, now that is one heck of a bad shot! Thank you, Dr. Science. You've discovered a CMBO vehicle that would eject rounds through the back of the turret, or did rounds circumnavigate the game world and come up on the other side?</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 To illustate this I have a QuickTime movie of a Soviet tank haunter team (reduced to one man) singlehandedly trying his hand with a Molotov, getting bored and using a grenade to successfully take out a Dorosh Slug. I minute of death & destruction (2.3mb) Edit: Movie file reduced in size from original raw 38.9mb!! Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by demoss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades. Sadly, too true. Even against things like SPW 251/1s that ought to really take notice when a Molotov is tossed into the crew compartment. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: You shouldn't forget that IRL Molotov Cocktails were not the best weapon either (unless wielded by Finns, of course), and that the grenades are just simulating a close attack (i.e. not grenades thrown at a distance), which may well be much more successful than a Molotov attack. Good point, but the effective range increases from 30 to 40 meters when the Molotovs are gone and grenades come into play 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: About the open-topped tank destroyers, I thought they weren't meant to be used in close terrain without infantry support. That was a lesson I learned very quickly (and painfully, if a bad gaming experience can be called painful) in CMBO: to let the TDs snipe from range. The best was for them to engage while the enemy tanks were busy fighting something else closer. Then the TDs can pick off the tanks with ease. Well, only partly. What you describe is German tank destroyer tactics and what they did with turretless vehicles driving around in defensive lines with or behind their infantry. In particular: - few tank destroyers - ambushing, waiting for the tanks to come - operation in the protection of own lines The (recognized as flawed) U.S. tank destroyer doctrine called for aggressive attacks on enemy tank formations, characterized by: - many TDs at once - fast movement, especially on roads (needed to gain or maintain superior numbers) - aggressive moves. Not drive behind enemy lines to attack tanks there, but attack enemy tank formations without protection (behind friendly lines or elsewhere unprotected) - exploit superior situation awareness (gained through open turret with 3-4 guys watching and listening) - exploit high ROF That's why the M10/M36 has a turret and was planned to be very fast. But only the M18 actually gained that goal of speed, but at such cost in armor that the whole doctrine was considered junk. The plan was to have TD units so far behind friendly lines that the units get very big from concentrating (e.g. a full battalion 20km behind instead of companies 10 km behind like the Germans did) and then make good with fast movement once enemy tanks are located. But battlefield chaos and inability to make a cheap and fast enough TD doomed the plan. For what the Germans did (ambush TD tactics form smaller units) the US TD doctrine still called for towed guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 So really, by moving my TD's up to the front and beyond, I was helping to rewrite american doctrine. I really am a very progressiv person. If you can get your TD up front fast, into good position, then you can take out the german tanks as they pop over a hill or from a behind a house. That is my doctrine at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: So really, by moving my TD's up to the front and beyond, I was helping to rewrite american doctrine. I really am a very progressiv person. If you can get your TD up front fast, into good position, then you can take out the german tanks as they pop over a hill or from a behind a house. That is my doctrine at least. Sounds like good doctrine on a 1km x 1km mesa, surrounded by a sheer drop into infinity. It gets harder when the earth continues in all directions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: The (recognized as flawed) U.S. tank destroyer doctrine called for aggressive attacks on enemy tank formations, characterized by: - many TDs at once - fast movement, especially on roads (needed to gain or maintain superior numbers) - aggressive moves. Not drive behind enemy lines to attack tanks there, but attack enemy tank formations without protection (behind friendly lines or elsewhere unprotected) - exploit superior situation awareness (gained through open turret with 3-4 guys watching and listening) - exploit high ROF To even test this in CMBO would require a huge fleet of TDs and a very large map. A WWII Tac-Ops would be perfect for trying this out. As it is, I prefer to attack enemy armor formations with tanks, and let the TDs provide overwatch. It's painstaking work, exploiting cover to winkle one's way forward and fight him piecemeal. The TDs fast speed would be mainly used operationally (i.e. out of CMs scope) to get the TDs to the right part of the front at the right time, if they are going to be used as a fire-brigade (or perhaps tactically to boogie if they find themselves in open ground confronted by superior firepower) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 You mock my tactics CMplayer, oh well, if I had time we should play. Midterms are coming up and damnit, this organic chemistry is just damn annoying. 1,2-dimethyl-4,5,6-tri ethylnonane. Draw all isomers of that, stupid question. So you see, im busy studying, but my TD doctrine works well, trust me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Am I the only one who has seen a round fired from a tank land behind the tank? I dont think so. No, but you're the only one I know of who has seen a round land behind the firing tank. I quote you again: Originally posted by Patton21: In fact, some of the rounds from my m10, would land behind the m10, now that is one heck of a bad shot! Perhaps if you worried a little bit more about about what you wrote on message boards, we wouldn't see statements like that one. Neurobiology? Wow! If you're as attentive to its study as you are to statements here, you should set the discipline afire! And I haven't 'become' bitter. I was always bitter. Ever since my hopes for a career in Neurobiology burst like a soap bubble. Couldn't handle the math. I think Emrys might have become more bitter. I blame the crowd he runs with these days. [ November 12, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Seanachai ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 Alright, there seems to be some confusion on my part. When I said that the round from my m10 landed behind the m10, that is exactly what i meant. The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank. When I first started posting on this message board people were all excited about cmbo, and were friendly, i think the smell of gunpowder and beer has driven some of you guys crazy...damn beer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Alright, there seems to be some confusion on my part. When I said that the round from my m10 landed behind the m10, that is exactly what i meant. The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank. It turned around? Like in a Roadrunner cartoon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: You mock my tactics CMplayer, oh well, if I had time we should play. Midterms are coming up and damnit, this organic chemistry is just damn annoying. 1,2-dimethyl-4,5,6-tri ethylnonane. Draw all isomers of that, stupid question. So you see, im busy studying, but my TD doctrine works well, trust me. I don't have time either, sorry. And studying Pa.ninian grammar is harder than organic chemistry. In fact, compared to Sanskrit, organic chemistry is for numbnuts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.