RE: You guys are killing me!

RE: You guys are killing me! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series

Message

borsook79 -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 5:59:03 PM)
It seems that you are forgetting how fragile tanks are. Sure, artillery fire may not destroy a tank beyond repair. But really damaging the tracks, wheels or the engine/cooling system is very easy. So easy it's bit scary actually. If a turn is 6 minutes and a typical scenario has 10-20 of them such a tank should be considered destroyed. So far nothing unrealistic about the things described in this thread. The only issue is when you're playing a campaign, and such damage would be repaired 1-2 hours after the end of the scenario. This could mean that reinforcement rate should be made higher. Although that would allow you to replace tanks that were reduced to few burning scraps of metal too...

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 6:49:43 PM)
How many instances in the battle of kursk or even in the hedgerows...they were immobile but still fired....and got kills

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Borsook It seems that you are forgetting how fragile tanks are. Sure, artillery fire may not destroy a tank beyond repair. But really damaging the tracks, wheels or the engine/cooling system is very easy. So easy it's bit scary actually. If a turn is 6 minutes and a typical scenario has 10-20 of them such a tank should be considered destroyed. So far nothing unrealistic about the things described in this thread. The only issue is when you're playing a campaign, and such damage would be repaired 1-2 hours after the end of the scenario. This could mean that reinforcement rate should be made higher. Although that would allow you to replace tanks that were reduced to few burning scraps of metal too... And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have. Tanks are NOT fragile at all. I have knocked down good-sized trees with a US M113 infantry carrier, and that's a lightweight aluminum vehicle. It takes a LOT to damage a full size MBT. And I place the MKIV and larger tanks in that class. Good grief man...these are NOT armored cars we are talking about. This a monster made of steel that stops at almost nothing. That's WHY the Germans gave special awards to infantryman who took out tanks single handed. Artillery is NOT an effective anti-tank weapon. It's an anti-INFANTRY weapon. TANKS are effective anti-tank weapons. Anti-tank guns of decent size are effective anti-tank weapons. Anti-tank rockets (Panzerfaust and Bazooka) are effectivie anti-tank weapons, IF you can get close enough to use it and put it in a vulnerable spot. Most artillery, unless it gets REAL lucky and scores a direct hit on the engine compartment, is only going to scratch the paint on a tank. Artillery fire is almost the same as mortar fire. it fires in an arc and the shell is coming almost straight down, depending on how far away it is from the target. It is NOT accurate against tanks. It wasn't made to be. It's an area fire weapon that is made to kill infantry...period.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:11:17 PM)
M113....those were the days at Benning.....a bit bumpy and crowded but alright...I do know that in that Light Vehickle you did not want to be in it if a round hit......gave you a hell of a headache....40mm will swiss cheese the side plate up on a M113 APC...even the M-60 we had to let those bad boys run over us while in a fox hole....talking about making yourself small...then pooping up with your law and hoping there wasn't follow up infantry behind it......hell we watched traing film that t-72 slicing up a M-60...then The M1 came along, anything below 76mm was pointless...they taught you to aim for the treads...disable...go on top with mag and phos grenades with fuel jug...mag and phos burn through top armor and fuel you pour in thru the hole and ignite all inhabitants..... 60mm mortar against a MK IV or even a MK III highly unlikely on kill

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:21:01 PM)
We had the M113 at Fort Lewis, WA in the 3rd Armored Cav. In Nam they took the governors off of them and they could really tear ass. They also did makeshift improvements of the armor protection. I qualified at Yakima, Washington on the M60. Geez that tank was TALL!!! Would have made an easy target for the Soviet tanks. Lucky they finally came out with the Abrams.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:37:28 PM)
how true...i was 11 bush AB 10....had a ball benning, bragg, polk, and jackson

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:41:37 PM)
I was 11C20, Leonard Wood, Gordon, Nam, Okinawa, Lewis. Got a secondary MOS of 11E20 after I filled in for a tanker as a loader and later gunner on an M60.

borsook79 -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 8:22:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have. I'm sorry, but is not an argument. Unless you're saying that you've served in a WW2 armour unit? Do have a look at malfunction statistics of those tanks, read some journals and see what the reasons were. Again I am not saying that WW2 tanks were going to pieces (well, maybe the American ones ;) ) under artillery fire. All I'm saying is that artillery fire was perfectly capable of inflicting damage that was fixable, even quite fast, but considering the game time scale it can eliminate such a tank for the rest of the scenario. Although Barker is perfectly right, most of the time it would be damage preventing movement, not firing. But this is the limitation of the game engine, with this scale it should allow the vehicles to be immobile but able to fight, true.

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 9:37:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Borsook quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have. I'm sorry, but is not an argument. Unless you're saying that you've served in a WW2 armour unit? Do have a look at malfunction statistics of those tanks, read some journals and see what the reasons were. Again I am not saying that WW2 tanks were going to pieces (well, maybe the American ones ;) ) under artillery fire. All I'm saying is that artillery fire was perfectly capable of inflicting damage that was fixable, even quite fast, but considering the game time scale it can eliminate such a tank for the rest of the scenario. Although Barker is perfectly right, most of the time it would be damage preventing movement, not firing. But this is the limitation of the game engine, with this scale it should allow the vehicles to be immobile but able to fight, true. Whoa!! We weren't talking about malfunctions. We were talking about COMBAT DAMAGE from artillery/mortars. What are you basing your opinions on???If you haven't served on a tank at all and are just basing it on hearsay from others, then that opinion is flawed. And if a tank receives FIXABLE damage, then it CAN be represented in the game via disruption, NOT DESTRUCTION. I don't understand why so many are in such a rush to destroy tanks with artillery and mortars. Are you making units of strictly cavalry and infantry and other soft targets? Good grief...this isn't a game about the "charge of the light brigade" and Gunga Din!!!! [8\|]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 9:40:39 PM)
My uncle as a matter of fact was in the 3rd armor...their order of fire was 1st round Phos then imeediately followed by 2 more rounds of AP in quick successing. The actual penetration of 1 shot from a sherman was not that good. That is why 2 or 3 sherman had to go up agains a tiger or panther. The SU 85 and 100 was not an effective AT but very effective against Inf and in support role. HE shells had an Immobilizing effect more then a kill factor

Achsah -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 9:42:57 PM)
[:D] lol..still not convinced...a panicked crew is all you need to effectively knock out a tank..but you guys might be right about the disruption issue. But i caution you all to consider what that would mean in head to head play! Those disruptions could turn into captured tanks right quick..so remember playabilty can sometimes trump realism.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 9:47:51 PM)
A US tanker favorite was to fire a WP (white phosphorus) round into the German tank first. This had two useful qualities: 1. It was a virtual certainty that the tank would be blinded and unable to return fire because of the smoke. 2. The WP almost inevidably got sucked into the tank by the ventilation fans and would choke the crew rendering them unable to function momentarily. The usual follow up was for the US tank to pump another half dozen rounds in quick succession into the tank destroying it.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 9:56:51 PM)
http://books.google.com/books?id=OaKMl8QFSA8C&pg=RA8-PA241&lpg=RA8-PA241&dq=Analysis+of+75mm+Sherman+tank+casualties+between+6th+June+and+10th+July.&source=web&ots=7ZcbkqfUGt&sig=DL6xwUAi-GvOScy6bEmp0LnXwi4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA8-PA208,M1

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 10:01:51 PM)
Note also that against the Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks, only the Wolverines 90MM gun was effective. The armor on the Panther was effectively sloped so that it deflected the shells, and the Tiger's armor was so thick the Shermans couldn't penetrate it. Only hope for a Sherman was to disable it from behind. A very tricky thing to do. Let's see...a crew in a German tank with outstanding leaders and years of combat experience/training vs an Allied crew who knew their tank could be penetrated like a hot knife going through butter and then up in flames...who would be more likely to panic? [:D] Head-to-head play? What's that??? [:'(]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 10:13:00 PM)
Deputy you think I made some valid points

borsook79 -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 10:36:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: Borsook quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy And have you ever served on armored vehicles in real life? I have. I'm sorry, but is not an argument. Unless you're saying that you've served in a WW2 armour unit? Do have a look at malfunction statistics of those tanks, read some journals and see what the reasons were. Again I am not saying that WW2 tanks were going to pieces (well, maybe the American ones ;) ) under artillery fire. All I'm saying is that artillery fire was perfectly capable of inflicting damage that was fixable, even quite fast, but considering the game time scale it can eliminate such a tank for the rest of the scenario. Although Barker is perfectly right, most of the time it would be damage preventing movement, not firing. But this is the limitation of the game engine, with this scale it should allow the vehicles to be immobile but able to fight, true. Whoa!! We weren't talking about malfunctions. We were talking about COMBAT DAMAGE from artillery/mortars. What are you basing your opinions on???If you haven't served on a tank at all and are just basing it on hearsay from others, then that opinion is flawed. And if a tank receives FIXABLE damage, then it CAN be represented in the game via disruption, NOT DESTRUCTION. I don't understand why so many are in such a rush to destroy tanks with artillery and mortars. Are you making units of strictly cavalry and infantry and other soft targets? Good grief...this isn't a game about the "charge of the light brigade" and Gunga Din!!!! [8\|] Of course I'm basing my opinion on the accounts of others, I have not been alive during WW2. And please, WW2 tanks =/= modern tanks. I mentioned malfunctions to illustrate that several parts of the tanks were easy to damage. Panzers V and VI/VIb had superb armour but their tracks and quite elaborate wheel system were easy to damage, also by artillery fire. Hell, even infantry grenades with a bit of luck were able to stop the tank for an hour or two. And this in game terms is not disruption, disruption is rather about morale, the unit is still able to move, which is the problem here. Also the problem is that you have only general rules in the game, e.g. it was perfectly possible to destroy Panzer I completely by a mortar shell. And unless I am mistaken artillery gets a chance for a "kill" regardless of the target. So actually both new and old rules are unrealistic, the old ones were not better just different. PS. As I do not enjoy arguments that are quite futile in their nature (nothing will change before the next patch, that will not be here for a loong time) I here by give you the field. PPS. Somehow all this talking about CS flaws makes me want to play Steel Panthers :)

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 10:49:12 PM)
i agree with you totally....that is why I have turned my attention to earlier wars as in the war of northern aggression....very simple.fix bayonets charge.......

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 11:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Deputy you think I made some valid points Yes, most definitely [:)]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 11:31:43 PM)
All I asked in another thread was what about Matrix Technical Support and no response.....the usual...don't get me wrong I applaud others for doing their work and not get paid. I bought the game from Matrix not the Beta Brigade and there is some product issues that can only be answered by their support team.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.9375