Ammo Carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center



Message


haruntaiwan -> Ammo Carriers (8/29/2005 12:37:26 PM)

Since playing the Americans, I now know why you need ammo carriers since I fire everything almost every turn. However, I'm not sure how the ammo carrier works...how does it re-load my units?

because I ended up with some 4.2 in mortars that only had one round or no rounds left and never seemed to re-load.

Also, am I correct in suspecting 81mm mortars seem better than 4.2in. mortars?




Puukkoo -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/29/2005 2:30:36 PM)

Ammo Carriers supply all units that are next to them. You don't have to do anything else with them. Americans don't usually even need ammo carriers - they have plenty of ammunition available for all units. Mortars will however exhaust their supply very fast.

81mm bigger than 4.2 inch? Hmm.. one inch is about 25mm's.




Riun T -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/30/2005 2:19:18 AM)

He said Better,not bigger Puukkoo, anyways the 4.2 is a bigger bang but not as accurate and starts from the purchase screen with a lot less ammo. I only buy them as support and only if I can grab a Ammo dump to put them beside. they reload at about a quarter the rate of the 81's and are a real bugger for initial bombardment over and under shooting, and they would'nt bombard any closer than 5 hexes to themselves so don't use them like 81's either. long cross map lobbing from a safe place! RT




omegaall -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/30/2005 3:52:53 AM)

Also resupply speed is depends on things such as unit firing contact etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puukkoo

Ammo Carriers supply all units that are next to them. You don't have to do anything else with them. Americans don't usually even need ammo carriers - they have plenty of ammunition available for all units. Mortars will however exhaust their supply very fast.

81mm bigger than 4.2 inch? Hmm.. one inch is about 25mm's.





Puukkoo -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/30/2005 11:41:43 AM)

quote:

He said Better,not bigger Puukkoo,


Oops! All mistakes are due to Cameron Diaz's birthday. Well, 4.2 is better than many smaller AT-Guns. Poles make good use with it.




Terminus -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/30/2005 1:41:33 PM)

4.2 inches equal 107mm.




Puukkoo -> RE: Ammo Carriers (8/30/2005 6:12:41 PM)

quote:

4.2 inches equal 107mm.


Now we're getting somewhere.




haruntaiwan -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/2/2005 12:47:00 PM)

I think I will convert my 4.2 in. mortars to 6.1 in. SP artillery.

That's 155 mm to the Finnish people. [:D]

I'm pretty impressed with this game for being very old and free to boot.

Are the megacampaigns worth the 79.99 price?

(Again that is about 65.57 in metric money)

Hey, Puukkoo, why is it more money in American dollars than metric money? Hah just kidding. And what's the deal with all the little metric coins, so much more denominations than normal...I guess it's good for collectors.


metric money = €
disclaimer: all comments for humor only. please do not sue, as I have no money.




Puukkoo -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/2/2005 1:00:27 PM)

Europe has been since new currency a collectors heaven. Even little countries like Vatican and Liechtenstein have their own coins and collectors are busy hunting those little b*stards. A Liechtensteinian 2 cents has more value than for example a German 2 cents.

All comments for humor only. If you can see any comments from humor.




Korpraali V -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/2/2005 2:17:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: haruntaiwan


Are the megacampaigns worth the 79.99 price?

(Again that is about 65.57 in metric money)

Hey, Puukkoo, why is it more money in American dollars than metric money? Hah just kidding. And what's the deal with all the little metric coins, so much more denominations than normal...I guess it's good for collectors.




It's because we are not so cheatable as you are [;)][:D][:D]

In Finland 1 and 2 cents do exist but you can't get them anywhere but buying collectors set. So actually we don't have them... or something like that...
[8|]





FlashfyreSP -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/4/2005 3:45:22 PM)

[sm=00000939.gif]
Back on track, guys: the 4.2in Mortar is supposed to represent the chemical mortars used by the Allies. It's primary purpose was to fire smoke shells, not HE. WP shells were also used by this weapon.

As far as game stats go, the British 3" (82mm) mortar seems to have somewhat lower ratings than other 81mm mortars of similar design. Compared to the 4.2in mortar, though, I don't think most of the 81mm mortars are better.




VikingNo2 -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/4/2005 4:05:31 PM)

The only reson I by 4.2 is for range, German 120mm have very long range. But when possible now I use the US 75mm for range




Major Destruction -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/7/2005 4:44:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

[sm=00000939.gif]
Back on track, guys: the 4.2in Mortar is supposed to represent the chemical mortars used by the Allies. It's primary purpose was to fire smoke shells, not HE.


Where did you get that from?




FlashfyreSP -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/7/2005 5:06:18 AM)

I'm not sure...something I read, I believe.
Checked some of my resources here, and discovered that the 4.2 in mortar did have HE bombs. But I still recall reading somewhere that the 4.2 mortar's primary mission was smoke and chemical barrages, not HE.

Memory isn't what it used to be...




Major Destruction -> RE: Ammo Carriers (9/7/2005 5:17:27 AM)

Well, from what I remember - if that is anything to go on, the Canadians used their 4.2's for counter mortar fire, primarily. That is, firing on German mortar positions. The 3in mortars were used offensively.

I read recently about an American battery that was involved in the Sadzot battle (Ardennes 1944) that their job was to bombard particularly obnoxious German artillery positions from the very front lines of the campaign. They always received intense retaliatory bombardments (for which they were prepared) because their bombardments were particularly detested by the receiving end.

Therefore from my meandering readings, I would conclude that the 4.2 was an offensive weapon of particularly offensive nature.

As for WP rounds, I think you will find that these were the norm and not an adjuct. I have heard it said that the Germans had suggested that if the Americans continued to use the WP rounds, they would retaliate with gas. But the Germans didn't use gas and I am not sure if the threat was actually made in the first place. No doubt the WP is a nasty weapon and still not properly modeled in SPWAW IMHO although it is capable of destroying a tank it does not seem to affect infantry appreciably. But I digress........




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125