Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

183 Good

1 Follower

About Kilroy115

  • Rank
    Brigadier General
  • Birthday 11/29/1995

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

897 profile views
  1. Test New Vehicle Handling On Prototype

    Hmm, I'll have to wait and see myself on that then. Can't right now as I'm knee deep in the last two weeks of college and my history professors are out for blood.
  2. Test New Vehicle Handling On Prototype

    Haven't gotten to play yet, but seeing one complaint about handling from many people. Just remember one thing, vehicles in the 1940's didn't all have power steering. From what I've seen and read, for the Allies the only vehicles that had power steering were armored road vehicles and the heaviest of transport vehicles like tank recovery vehicles, who absolutely needed it due to their sheer weight. However, it seems most vehicles, even up to the CCKW, relied on Manual Steering. Don't know if this is what's happening in game, but with manual steering it is extremely hard to turn the wheel when the vehicle is stationary. When the vehicle is moving, however, it is much more like steering with power steering today.
  3. Make the Game More Realistic!

    Just want to point this out, but the US Army used designated marksmen because they didn't start training up full snipers till 1955, when it actually opened a Sniper School. Designated Marksmen was all the US Army had in the second World War. The Marines had something a bit closer to snipers, but then again, the Marines weren't exactly in Europe. The Extent of US Army designated marksmen training was: If you're a good shot, we'll train you in the basics of using a scope. Also, if we go for realism, then say goodbye to the 8x that recons have. That 8x long scope was used by the Marines in the Pacific. The US Army used the 2.2x scope in-game. They wouldn't get better sniper gear because, once again, the US Army did not have a sniper school or really train snipers. They trained infantry in the designated marksman role, which was little beyond training them to shoot with a scoped rifle. I'm relatively certain the 4x scope was the most common one used by both snipers and DM's in the Wehrmacht, although don't quote me on that. So, if you want realism, understand that it works both ways, and it won't benefit you as often as you think. They're already working on an armor update for a somewhat more 'real' armor system.
  4. Anti-Tank Guns and Artillery

    I plan on returning to this, but for now, it has to wait as I'm working on my undergrad research paper among other things. I'm thinking this will be for artillery and guns that require a vehicle or man power to move them, another thread can be done for the various self propelled weapons and artillery.
  5. 1918 FUN

    It's my main weapon. (Although I've been on a bit of a vacation for a while) It does me well although it does get outplayed by certain guns. As for it sounding like a Kar, I've used that to my advantage and to just scare people. Always funny to watch people drop to cover when you just shoot a single shot. Or for German snipers to not react when you shoot their buddy in the back of the head.
  6. Random city's lower right of map

    Due to how the game is programmed, the locations for staged matches have to be placed on the war map as well. So, those cities are all of the staged match locations, moved far away where others can not mess with them.
  7. Pershing will be the slowest tank in the game post armor 2.0

    If I remember correctly, it wasn't so much that the Pershing had a Sherman engine in it which slowed it down, but the transmission gearing. After all, the tank could still reach 35 kph on roads (Proper paved roads) which if it was engine troubles one wouldn't want to do. The Sherman Jumbo and the Armored Sherman's of Patton's Third Army experienced similair changes in weight but not the same issues as the Pershing. I guess the comparison I am trying to make is that while the Sherman is like a car, able to keep a respectable speed even in its lower gears. The Pershing is more like a big road tractor and trailer. On a good flat road it can get a good speed once it gets moving, but on grades, or on dirt roads, all of the engine power in lower gears is shifted to torque. I don't pretend to understand everything about transmissions, but it seems the Pershing had the same Torqmatic short transmission used in it as the Hellcat. A three speed transmission. The Sherman's meanwhile had a five speed synchromesh. Now I know from those names alone that there is bound to be some differences in design, but it seems to me that five speeds offers a better range for the power of the engine when compared to three.
  8. broken tankers

    Just take a gander at this thread @Sunleader
  9. broken tankers

    On the Hellcat, that all depends on terrain type Sun Leader. The Hellcat will be slower on terrains, yes, but I don't know how it will affect acceleration, which would be your main concern. I've seen videos of a few tanks in testing with the new movement physics, and while some are slower (Pershing will now be the slowest tank on an off road surface. 8 km/h) their acceleration isn't all that different or possibly even more responsive. Turning while moving is better as well. As for balancing the anti-tank guns vs tanks. Well, that'll also hopefully be part of armor 2.0 as the main part of it is a properly modeled armor system. Plus the anti tank guns have the advantage of being way easier to hide.
  10. broken tankers

    This isn't even a discussion any more... it's more of a 'Who has the bigger E-Peen' competition. While I love a good history debate, this is no longer a debate and there's more insults being thrown around than there is history. Both sides are going around in a perpetual loop. I've made my points in these arguments before, that it isn't the weapons themselves but transportation. Rapid movement is what allows the AT Rambo to do what they feel is necessary. This is why I'm waiting for the spawn system and armor 2.0, because Armor 2.0's movement applies to infantry vehicles as well, and many of them will be slowed down/loose maneuverability in a lot of the terrains. Tanks will too, but not to the degree that vehicles will. At the same time this points to spawn system might limit both overuse of tanks and planes and the overly abundant spam of vehicles by infantry. Something I hope will promote some more team work. Of course, I'd also like to see actual anti tank guns in game. Feel like it'd be something preferable for both sides, and it is something that Reto is considering to one degree or another.
  11. Tanks in danger of extinction!

    I'd be careful with the whole Five Sherman's for one Tiger stuff. It's more myth than fact. There's no evidence that it consistently took five Sherman's to take down one Tiger. The myth originates with Belton Y. Coopers Death Traps. Which is Coopers personal memoir of his time with an armored unit in Europe. It's something he said with no basis, and while I thank the man for his service, his memoir is not something to be taking statistics from. Even the name is more based on Coopers view than reality. Cooper was and wasn't a tanker. He was attached to an armored unit, but wasn't part of its combat armor. Cooper was a Lieutenant in supply. His job was to come up to the the front bivouac for the tank units, and take stock of how many Sherman replacements they would need, either by counting the amount of knocked out tanks, repairable or not, or by getting numbers from the tank units themselves. Then he went back and guided the needed amount of Sherman's and their crews up to the armored unit. As such, Cooper's view is skewed, because he only ever saw the knocked out tanks without really seeing what had knocked them out or what they'd done to the enemy. He had a few moments in combat, but that was more based on his trips up to the front, not direct armor combat. Stuff like Mortar Fire and snipers. Between this and the constant Tiger phobia spreading through US ranks and you can see where he'd get his idea from that these tanks were death traps. The only basis for the Five Shermans myth is in US Army organization itself. The smallest unit of Sherman tanks you can dispatch is a platoon sized element. 4-5 tanks. Doesn't matter what you're dispatching them against, that's the smallest you can send to an area for operations.
  12. Alternative history

    Okay, here, I will admit my slip. I'd misread some information, and see where my mistake was. The railways I was thinking of were built later, my apologies. I'm sure they still had to do rebuilding, if anything to help handle the influx of supplies and to build up industry further to supplement what was lost. As for magic teleportation. The US did manage to get some 2.45 million tons of supplies to Russian shores in 1942 despite all of that, although not so much propping Britain up in 1942 as starting to stand alongside it and take a bit of weight off Britain's shoulders. Here is my point. If anyone could have won the war alone, I think it would've been the USSR out of the big three. The US was just too far away, and the British Empire was wide spread across the globe, and I don't know if they could've consolidated enough troops to fight both Japan and Germany. The Chinese might have resisted Japan, depending on the factors, but not Germany, both because of lack of need to fight Germany, and Germany's industrialization compared to China. (Factors being the other nations) However, the USSR had all of its cards close to its chest. An abundance of resources like the US has that aren't super spread out, an abundance of people like the British Empire, and a leader who was willing to sacrifice millions. Even then, if it was just the Russians alone. No US (in any way shape or form) and no UK. At the very least the war would've likely gone on for many more years. At the most, the Germans I think, could've won it.
  13. Alternative history

    --With Lend Lease, which passed in 1941 with him already gearing the US up for war. If the US just wasn't going to go to war, FDR wouldn't have gotten it passed in all likely hood. No, seems like they were pretty important. These were railways that had to be built to replace the natural resource centers that Russia lost to Germany. If Russia was going to set a defensive line then these would've been their direct supply of resources till the Germans were spent. I'm not talking about rebuilding the track in recaptured land, but building new track to access the resources in the Land the soviets controlled.
  14. Alternative history

    Your suggestion that the British just keep buying from the US would've bankrupted them. Lend Lease left the British in a tough economic spot anyways if I remember correctly, and that was with a lot of the supplies being leased at extremely heavy discounts. Even with all of the benefits of Lend Lease, the counter leasing, the renting of bases to the US, and the return of equipment, the British didn't pay off the debt to the US until 2006. The US had laws in place, The Neutrality Acts, that forbade the sale of material to warring nations on credit, or the loan of money to those nations. Lend Lease was the work around to this. By 1941 the British had liquidated so many of its assets to pay for material from the US before FDR got Lend Lease passed that they were nearly depleted on money without causing heavy inflation. No Lend Lease, the British run out of stuff to pay the US with, the US stops selling to the British or the British bankrupt themselves with hyper inflation. The Germans started narrowing down Soviet Rail lines in captured territory as soon as they could. Of course they often had to anyways because the soviets ripped up and destroyed as much as they could. Another big part of rail lend lease is railroad track that the US delivered. The USSR had to do a lot of track building to access resources it needed to replace what it lost to the Germans. So, even if the Soviets did save a lot of their rolling stock and locomotives, you still have thousands of miles of steel rail to produce.
  15. Alternative history

    Unless the Soviet's oil refineries, factories, and training bases were right behind the front, and I mean Stalingrad Tractor Factory behind the front. You still need logistics to get stuff to those defensive lines. Maybe not as much as you need for an advancing army, but you still need it. The USSR might have made due in a defensive situation without the extra trucks, but the railroads I'm not as certain of. How much rolling stock and locomotives did the soviets loose in the retreat, and how quickly could they have replaced it in a near total war economy where the factories that are good for producing heavy locomotives and train cars are in a better position to be producing tanks? People often don't realize the importance of a good, solid, railroad structure. A single train can transport a company of tanks, their crew's, and a fair deal of their maintaining supplies in a single run. Without that train, the crews have to drive those tanks there from the factory, risking breakdowns, using more supplies, requiring maintenance when they reach the front before fighting, and fatiguing the crews in the rush to get more tanks there faster. Even if you just have driving crews to get the tanks to fresh crews at the front, you still have to do maintenance checks on the tanks from long distance driving.