flamingknives Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 7. (probably a joke) a AP round would go thru without doing any major damage! Probably true. The sides aren't thick enough to produce much in the way of secondary fragments and as long as the AP shell doesn't hit anything important, it'll just go straight out the other side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 @ Hans: Mine was called that first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emar Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Most of what I have read seems to indicate that the M3 was a cheap and easy to work on vehicle with good reliability. The German HT's on the other hand are considered to have better off road ability (because of their longer tread length. It would be more realistic to consider them 3/4 tracks than 1/2 tracks.) but achieve this using a much more complex and difficult to manufacture steering system design. The open top HT proved too vulnerable to air attack and shell splinters. Towards the end of the war the Germans had a very modern looking replacement on the drawing boards. It used the the pzkpfw 38t chasis lengthened with an extra roadwheel and was fully enclosed with rear doors and a 20mm turret. However, as with most of Germany's late war projects, it became just a pipedream. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: @ Hans: Mine was called that first. I don't know I did that one a few months ago based on a scenario in the Marine Gazette, about combat engineers-unfortunately the AI wouldn't behave and the scenario, complete in all respects sits there unused. Every once and awhile I look at it and try to figure out how to get the dang thing to work. I'm rename it Small Battles, All in a day's work, NOT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hans: You can say that again . Mine's pre-CMAK, the current version's been on TPG since January. I win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Hans: You can say that again . Mine's pre-CMAK, the current version's been on TPG since January. I win. What is it CMBO! Yeah if I ever go back and try and fix it I'll change the name 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacestick Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hans You have a terrible stutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by Boo Radley: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by junk2drive: in night battles i lead with them. the resulting fires light the path for my survivors. I like that. Sound tactics. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Here's my two cents on halftrack tactics. If you have a few you can load up a squad in the rear and then wait for developments. You will be ready to deliver fresh reinforcements at any point in the field. With the armor and .50s you can get closer than a truck. I keep them away from areas with tanks, guns, and HMGs. But there are always places where you have mainly infantry to deal with, and the HTs shine there. As mentioned before by someone, you can run across open areas as long as there are no tanks around, or plenty of smoke. Basically, I just hold them for the missions that come up where they work well, otherwise, I just set them in relatively safe places, covering obscure enemy lanes of travel. It's kind of like fishing, you sit there doing nothing, then all of a sudden you catch a few. Will 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Right now I'd give my LT for a few in the Stalingrad scenario I'm playing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Oops, I meant my LN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 "Why (especially) did the Germans go from the 251 to the 250 which (in CM at least) carries half as many men?" Remember, the U.S. has the ubiquitous M3 troop transport halftrack, but also the M2 halftrack based on the same chassis but with a shorter/lighter bed area. in-game graphic not withstanding, the M2 didn't even have a rear door! The first was designed to haul infantry squads, the latter was designed for recon duties and later hauling 6 pdrs about.. In the end the U.S. came to the same conclusion as you on the halftrack's utility and had already stopped halftrack production my mid-44, if memory serves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 In CM terms, the M3A1 and M5A1 are just fantastic at sitting about 500-800m back and supporting your infantry with their huge ammo load, all of which is usable by the long-range .50cal. You can get about 3-4 for the price of a Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 7. Probably not a joke. If you were in that HT you would want that AP round to through without doing much damage to the occupants inside. An M113 can't say the same thing. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Real life was like in the game. Either nothing from multiple penetrations or KABOOM (the troop seat-backs were actually the vehicle gas tanks)! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I guess the thing I still can't understand is the universal carrier. If you're going to design a tracked APC primarily for ferrying soldiers, and if you have a thinly-stretched industrial base like Britain, why would you build UC-sized vehicles when you could build half as many somewhat larger vehicles to carry the same amount of men? (I assume that a "half-capacity" tracked vehicle required rather more than half of the resources required to build a full-sized one, since each vehicle requires a complete drive train, steering mechanism, etc.) To put it in CM terms, why would would you base your mechanized divisions on team-carrying vehicles instead of squad-carrying ones? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by Martyr: I guess the thing I still can't understand is the universal carrier. If you're going to design a tracked APC primarily for ferrying soldiers, and if you have a thinly-stretched industrial base like Britain, why would you build UC-sized vehicles when you could build half as many somewhat larger vehicles to carry the same amount of men? (I assume that a "half-capacity" tracked vehicle required rather more than half of the resources required to build a full-sized one, since each vehicle requires a complete drive train, steering mechanism, etc.) To put it in CM terms, why would would you base your mechanized divisions on team-carrying vehicles instead of squad-carrying ones? But did they have a operational concept of mechanised infantry? Was it not "motor" thisandthat? I'm not really the right man to speculate here I guess, but it seems to me that the UK/CW did not seriously contemplate - in a coneptual sense - mechanised units until very late in the war, say 44. And then the Kangaroo appears, concentrated in special armoured transport regiments, and US LL Halftracks are seen equipping the now armoured infantry. If so, the UK would not have developed any squadsized armoured carrier because they saw no need of one, nor a place for one within their concept of mobile warfare. A small fast scout/supply/medical vehicle was perhaps all they ordered from the industry. The carriers were, as far as I know, never assigned to carry motor battalion infantry. They appear in scout platoons, in liaison units and as GP vehicles. Or is this impression wrong, anyone more UK-grog-ish? Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Dandelion has the right idea for the UC, although it was used in some places as personnel carriers. There was also another type of vehicle - the loyd carrier - which was designed to carry full squads, but generally ended up as a gun tractor. Although the British did design the first example of an APC, the MkIX, they then left off until the acceptance of the US halftrack and the later development of the Kangaroo. Up until then, softskins were used to transport the infantry. Motorised infantry was lavishly equipped with trucks, with armoured carriers for scouting, carrying ammo, command vehicles etc. In terms of transport, a British infantry unit was often better equipped than a German mechnized unit of the same size. 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.