firebugs

Registered Users
  • Content count

    2,295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by firebugs

  1. This began in 1941. Rifles made 1940 and prior did not have provisions for the sight hood, but often were modified by unit-level armorers to accept them after the fact... I guess what I'm getting at is that tier 0 they would be incorrect, and tier 1 kind of maybe correct. But I suppose no worse than No.4 mk1's, Stens, and Grease guns....
  2. I could go for some bush or grass on the helmet, painted face and hands, and maybe a little bit of something on the shoulders to help blend in with bushes/rubble. I tend to think this game's terrain is too open and full of repetitive features for it to make much difference. Especially with the nagging 1st person mounted in the 3rd person gut while prone issue... Another thought, would be a PPO or two that offers cover/concealment specifically for snipers. Perhaps rubble, grass, and/or bush in addition to the fighting position.
  3. I was thinking today that it would be cool to put parachute-drop ammunition from the Ju52's and C47's. For example, have 5 canisters (A bridge too far comes to mind) act like bombs in the Ju52 pilot's position that he can drop along with the troops.
  4. I never said anything about FMS spawning. If Para FMS is going to happen I think it should be via a towed glider that remains visible after the FMS is established. The canisters are literally no different in principle than if someone coasts a truck in from the next town over with an engineer on board (and DOESN'T set up a FMS), whereby the engineers resupply at the truck (or if the truck leaves an ammo crate and despawns) in terms of FB's getting rooted from behind attack fronts. Adding an ammo canister to the drop zone is by FAR not going to cause the "great majority" of para missions to be FB busts of active attacks. The difference is that the para mission would require more effort and more time because: A) Paras don't have 4 satchels each. To get the same HE effect on the FB requires 4x the personnel or 4x the time of 1 engineer. (I'm not up to date on what does what, but para riflemen have 1 HE and 1 HEAT, so those "4x"s could be "2x" if HEAT satchels damage FB's the same) B ) the ammo can't be moved from where it's dropped, so if it's 800m from the drop zone to the target, that's a mile round trip to resupply that 1 or 2 satchel(s) C) It's either going to take a massive number of paras to blow an FB in 1 shot (same as now), or slightly less than massive number of them if they can re-arm (assuming they live through the first assault), OR an entirely defenseless, empty FB, which is not the defender's fault if the attacker can't defend his stuff. It's ridiculous to say an ammo canister is going to ruin even a minority of attacks because of having the FB blown out from under them. Busting EMPTY Fb's is a sidebar conversation. Busting guarded FB's would be 99.8% as hopeless as it currently is. There's a laundry list of more applicable scenarios, namely defending towns with no garrison/ground brigade, attacking large cities or towns with isolated CP's, etc... Where paras are one of the main forces present. Much more than replenishing a HE satchel, you're going to see mortarmen, lmg's, ATR's, etc... with a little more wind, IF they can get to the canister (not a trivial IF). There's no willful disregard. I've thought about it much more than I should have and still can't come to anywhere near the conclusion you have. The more I think about it the more I wonder if you're not just trolling?
  5. Consider, there are 1 or 2 satchels max per infantryman in a para unit. So an FB bust would require absolutely nobody guarding and quite a bit of time, or a pretty substantial amount of teamwork. One could argue invisibly transporting an entire brigade of infantry/supplies via one truck is pretty garbage. I seriously doubt a parachuting ammo canister is going to be the end of FB's as we know them. In my original context, I was thinking about empty FB's, but it applies to pretty much all applications of para units, towns without supply lines, etc... Mostly a nifty little addition that won't have a huge impact on the game either way. I think you're reaction is a lot overblown.
  6. The idea is for satchels on FB busts, or resupplying units far out if you're a good enough aim, regardless of para or not.
  7. Fidd, No extra no.4 mk1 magazines were issued as far as I know, and the K98 has an integral box magazine, there is no way to detach it (well, you can, but the trigger guard comes with it and it requires unscrewing 4 screws... obviously it doesn't work for reloading). It was specifically stated in German manuals not to remove the scope in the SSR and LSR models to reload via stripper clips, also. Though it is technically possible, I doubt it's faster, and it risks losing mechanical zero of the weapon. Theoretically possible that the No.4 could reload with a complete magazine swap, but I think more research needs to be done to see if this was actual practice or not, my gut feeling is "no".
  8. I just started playing again recently after a couple years of on/off due to garbage internet service and work and pursuing a mechanical engineering degree. There are a few things I've noticed that could use a once-over-- some of them have been around for a long time. - K98 zf39 and No.4 mk1(T) reloading via clips through the scope. This was a shortcut taken when the sniper class was first introduced into the game to get the patch out before whatever year's Christmas it was. Both of these rifles should reload like the Lebel and M1903a4 currently do, 1 round at a time into the top of the magazine. -G43 Reload is too fast -MG34 Reload is entirely too fast - Sniper scope drops while moving I don't know why/when this was changed but it's garbage. I have a couple WWII era sniper rifles and I'd be happy to give a live-fire demonstration video on how they can be used while walking forward, just like open-sighted rifles -SMG accuracy is hideous. What is going on is there is a really wide cone of fire (dispersion) applied to the weapon in general, along with some recoil effects. What it should be is a small cone of fire with some recoil effect. These style weapons are literally the easiest thing to control and deliver accurate (albeit close-range) fully automatic fire. I was issued an Mp5 for 2 years and we would routinely dump 30 round magazines into a torso target at 25m in one continuous burst during training. Pure mechanical accuracy of the system should be no worse than about a fist-sized group at 25m-- ANY other dispersion is from automatic recoil. Taking single shots or small bursts should be deadly effective to 100-150m. What currently happens is about the same "spread" whether you fire single shots, small bursts, or one continuous burst. That's not right. -Pistol accuracy is pretty loose It could be significantly better. Whatever dispersion you're using, like halve or third it. -K98 zf39 sniper rifle shoots about .5 milliradians high and favors the left, a simple zero audit. -LMG hip firing My suggestion: -Mg34; Should be able to hip fire, 10-15 round burst max, NOT while moving. -Bren/Fm29; Should be just like the BAR is currently. -I've heard through the grapevine Scotsman is working on small-arms ballistics; my age-old gripe yet remains. Ballistic coefficients being used are pretty much all wrong. Wrong enough that I can tell outright, except the French 7.5mm stuff. Unfortunately I've lost most all of the research I did on this subject but I'm willing to help and see what I can do towards solving this issue. I have several hundred rounds of each caliber used in game (minus 8mm Lebel) of original WWII ammo, as well as quite a bit of chronograph, range-finding, and ballistics equipment/software/experience. I may yet be able to make some real-world testing happen to prove my point.
  9. Muzzle flash is overplayed in most games, especially during daylight hours. I think it's a trade-off because there's a lot of smaller effects that happen that you can't see in the game. For example, when a MG opens up from a prone bipod, typically the muzzle blast kicks up a bit of dust. If there's light foliage in the immediate area, it also blows around, and that movement (unless it's a windy day) is pretty quick to pick up on. Here's a dusk shot shooting 1940's M2 ball out of my M1 Garand. That's the biggest flash of the night that was caught on film. The ambient light was much darker than the picture shows because the camera auto-corrects for the lack of light with increased sensitivity, longer exposure, wider aperture etc... I couldn't see the sights below the horizon. Full auto occasionally builds up more heat and unburnt powder at the muzzle and will make a very quick (like a mini-detonation) larger flash with a sustained burst. Nothing like the opaque white flash in WWIIOL, but again, you miss out on some of the other (harder to model) nuances.
  10. Mostly a place-holder. I have 5-7 years of long-range shooting experience both in the Marine Corps, and outside of it in competitive long-range/precision shooting. Additionally I own (at least some variant) of many of the rifles and munitions used in this game. This post is in the interest of realism and historical accuracy because I believe that is one of the key points of the game and every attempt should be made to have these weapons perform as they did (do) in the real world. Current G1 ballistic coefficients (either info given to me by GOPHUR or what I've found via testing). K98k/G41/G43- .210 No.4/Bren/.303 aircraft and co-ax brownings- .251 MAS 36/MAS40/FM29/7.5x54mm aircrat and coax MG's- .309 MG34/Fg42 and coax/plane 7.92x57mm MG's- .31ish (tested only) M1903a3/M1903a4/M1 Garand/BAR- .20ish (tested only) Obviously there is some disparity here as the ballistic coefficient is bound purely to the bullet (and is somewhat dependent on its velocity, but for what I'm talking about, the difference in velocity between two different weapon platforms firing the same ammunition has a pretty negligible effect on ballistic coefficient difference). So we have, for example, the K98k, G41, G43, Mg34, and Fg42 that all fire exactly the same ammunition (same bullet), but have two drastically different ballistic coefficients being used-- Both of which are entirely too low. In fact, everything listed above excluding the 7.5mm French stuff is absurdly low. The effect is that the bullets shed energy (velocity) faster and faster than they should the farther they fly. This means impact energies are lower than they should be for all ranges beyond point blank. Bullet drop and bullet flight time is exacerbated for all ranges beyond point blank. I will continue to add information to this post as I get time, and at some point I would like to begin real-world testing with original era ammunition and/or components at some point to prove my theory.
  11. Things are coming along slowly but surely. Here's a picture of some of the original WWII era bullets pulled out of their cases. The three .30 cals I'll be able to load into a .308 winchester casing and get some useful data out of. The .303 british bullets are .312" or so in diameter, so they'll experience a bit of a squeeze but nothing too drastic. About half the thickness of a sheet of paper diametrically. The German 8mm stuff is too big to shoot in a .308 bore. Physically won't fit into the chamber, and even if it did, the change between initial and final diameter is big enough that I wouldn't trust the BC results from it (assuming it shot accurately enough to test). What I'm thinking for the actual test is that I'm going to zero the rifle for the given bullet at 100yd. Then I will shoot a 10 round group at 100yd to verify exactly the point of aim (POA), and point of impact (POI) relationship. I will take note of it, but won't correct for it. Then I will shoot at a 4x4 foot target backer with estimated elevation adjustments at 600yd (I may shoot on a steel target first to get me in the ballpark). This will be either a 10 or 20 shot group because odds are it's going to be a couple feet wide. The more data points there, the more accurate the exact center of the "cone of fire" can be pinpointed (there's software specifically for this). All told I should be able to get the data I need with 30-45 rounds of each bullet. What the testing will give me is exactly what angular deflection is required to change my POI from 100yd to 600yd. I will have the muzzle velocities, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, scope height over bore, and bullet mass which will allow me to back-solve the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.
  12. Before I get into testing these bullets, I'll recap and outline a few pointers. 1. The game uses a G1 ballistic calculator for trajectories in-game. G1 calculators use muzzle velocity, bullet mass, and ballistic coefficients to generate trajectories and impact energy numbers. 2. G1 ballistic calculators, within the super-sonic region of a bullet's flight correspond EXTREMELY close to the actual trajectory of small-arms bullets. 3. The muzzle velocities and bullet masses are correct via repeated testing I have done previously. What I have a hunch about is that the ballistic coefficients are low. This is based off of some documentation (military pub with .30-06 M2 ball ballistic data), original weapon sight settings, and my experience shooting at long range with original era weapons & ammo, as well as similar calibers of newer manufacture. 4. Ballistic coefficients are tied to the bullet. This means I can pull 7.5mm French bullets, and shoot them out of a .308 winchester rifle at similar speeds, and based on the trajectory that the bullet takes, can back solve the same BC that would be found if I had shot it out of a 7.5x54 French rifle. 5. I have several thousand-dollar optics and rifles that I can fire most of these bullets out of (excepting the 8mm's, unfortunately) that will produce more precise trajectories than the original rifles, which can be tracked positively to within 0.004 degrees. I have weather meters that give me barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity, allowing me to take into account all environmental factors that affect rifle bullet trajectories. I have a chronograph that is accurate to within ~3m/s or 10fps that will let me both see what the original ammunition in the original rifle had for muzzle velocity, as well as track each shot in a newer precision rifle to more accurately back-solve for BC. So here's my plan for testing. Pull Ball C, Mk7 ball, and M2 ball bullets from original military ammunition. Load those bullets into match-grade Lapua .308 win cases with a powder charge to mimic original muzzle velocity for the given projectile. Confirm an exact 100m zero for the .308 rifle and optic. Fire the rifle at 600-800yd on a large target backer to determine the exact adjustment necessary to compensate for the given distance, noting all environmental data, and recording muzzle velocities. Use www.jbmballistics.com to back-solve a ballistic coefficient using the data collected on the range. Using this method will give CRS the exact information needed to adjust their BC numbers for historical trajectories and energies over distance. At this point I'm only able to do the .30 caliber stuff, but may be able to do 8mm in the future.
  13. Rubble state is a good idea. More incentive for level bombing a town, immersion, etc.
  14. Ok, back at it a little today. Life caught up with me and I forgot about this stuff for a bit Most military bullets are going to be FMJ (full metal jacket) construction. This is true for all of the small-arms projectiles used in WWIIOL-- another word for plain-jane FMJ is "Ball". Full metal jacket means just what it says. There is a copper, copper-plated steel, or copper/nickle alloy jacket surrounding a solid lead, or a mixed core of lead, steel, wood, and/or aluminum. Russian 7.62x54r ball, for example, has a copper-plated steel jacket, primarily a mild steel core (no AP ability), and a lead plug behind the steel. Prior to WWI, most modern armies switched over to "spitzer" projectiles. Spitzers are just pointed more than the previously used round-nose projectiles. The pointyness cuts down on drag, and increased ballistic coefficient considerably. All of the rifle/lmg/ATR projectiles in WWIIOL were of spitzer designs by the time WWII rolled around. On the back end of the bullet, there were (are) two main types of bullets. Flat-based, which is exactly what it sounds like, and boat-tailed. The boat-tail bullets have a tapered rear-end that maintains laminar flow of air past the bullet longer, and also serves to reduced the diameter of the flat part on the far rear of the bullet, both of which reduce drag and increase ballistic coefficient. Some bullets also have a groove cut for crimping the brass case into the bullet called a cannelure. Crimping is done to prevent the bullet from sliding in the case, moisture protection for the powder, and can have some beneficial effects on muzzle velocity spreads. That said, it does very slightly reduce BC because it creates a little bit of drag. Here is a cross-section of a 3d model I made of a bullet that is roughly a Mk7 ball projectile used in the Lee-enfield with labels of the different parts. This is a generic FMJBT model with some more labels So a quick list of what the game uses and it's construction/type. M2 Ball (M1, M1903, BAR, US .30 cal MG) .308" Diameter 150 grains Full metal jacket, flat base Lead core Mk7 Ball (.303, Bren, Lee Enfield, .30 cal brit plane/tank coax MG's): .312" Diameter 174 grains Full Metal Jacket, spitzer flat base Lead core with wood or aluminum in the nose Ball C (7.5 French, MAS 36, MAS40, FM29, tank/plane MG's) .308" Daimeter 139 grains Full Metal Jacket, spitzer flat base Lead core Ball N (8mm Lebel, sniper) .323" Diameter 198 grains Full metal jacket, spitzer boat tail Lead core SS Patrone (K98, MG34, Fg42, G41, G43, Panzer and LW MG's) .323" Diameter 196 grains Full metal Jacket, spitzer boat-tail Lead core More later. I own a few hundred 7.5mm Ball C, SS Patrone, M2 ball, and Mk7 ball-- My intent is to eventually test fire them at various ranges (real-world) to back-solve a ballistic coefficient for each of the bullets that I can.
  15. Fms

    Sandbags with earth and bushes or camouflage netting would be more appropriate. Wooden beams for roof support, with sand bags on top.
  16. Unless it was the latest patch, I don't believe so. A few nights ago, I could see friendly infantry on my map ~800m away, but could not see their tags, and there was no obstruction between myself and them. Some others 600m away were visible w/tags.
  17. I agree on the infantry render issue. I'd like it if the infantry render distance as at least returned to 1000m. More preferably 1500m. Tracking infantry movements, hearing shots of ATR's/LMG's at long range plinking your AAA/ATG/truck, level bombers being effective on infantry, etc. 700m is a relatively small bubble.
  18. Will there be snipers?
  19. I go back and forth with this. Ultimately I think anything bigger than a LMG and light mortar is going to have to be implemented similarly to ATG/AAA. Requiring team-work and all of that is great, but you get one player doing something and one or two players sitting there. As time-investing as this game is, it's nice to get something out of it, other than "kudos for being a crew *****". Another option is to retain the mechanics of an infantry character, but attach 1 or 2 extra 3rd person characters with him. Each guy carries a part (tripod, barrel, receiver, tube, whatever), then once deployed you aim/fire with the mouse like you do an LMG/light mortar now. No sprinting. If a crew member gets killed while you're not deployed, you can no longer move the weapon and have to deploy it right there (deployment could take longer potentially). If it's already deployed and a crew dies, reloads take longer, but the gun stays operable until all crew are dead. The unfortunate thing here is that without proper defensive positions (hopefully in the works with the new PPO's XOOM is talking about), life expectancy for these guns/mortars may be low. Mortars maybe not such a big deal, but MMG and HMG's may be a bit helpless. Then again, this requires planning on the part of the guy placing the weapon system, which is correct. .50 cals and even .30 cal MMG's are employed vastly different from squad automatics, and have much more standoff range. The .50's especially are put in vehicles and defensive positions because they are a ***** to move and deploy--- Certainly not something you want to do under fire without cover.
  20. Since the No.4 mk1 didn't arrive on the scene until 1941, and since the RATS are into modeling and implementing various infantry type tools/weapons... Why not give the British rifle classes have a No.1 Mk3 rifle for the first two tiers? Going off of memory here, but I believe there was a grenadier variant that used the same type of cup that the no.4 mk1 did. Also, for a sniper class, there were no.1 mk3 variants, as well as P14's equipped with scopes leftover from WWI and the inter-war period. P14 modified with telescopic sight no.1 mk3 w/scope
  21. G1 Ballistic calculators... For a more in-depth read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient For an even more in-depth understanding specifically to small arms and long range performance, I suggest picking up Bryan Litz's book, "Applied Ballistics For Long-Range Shooting". Without getting too technical, ballistic calculators are programs or apps that use formulas that have their origins in the late 1800's. They take several inputs and produce a predicted trajectory. For the type of shooting and competitions that I do, obviously you want the calculated trajectory to match the real trajectory of the bullet as closely as possible. So, there are different types of calculators (see the wikipedia article for more info) for different types of bullet shapes. They use an "ideal" projectile with a BC of 1.0 (again, BC's can go over 1.0, especially in G1 calculators-- the "ideal" part of it may be a misnomer) in various shapes. G1's ideal projo is a fairly blunt artillery shell looking thing, G6 is a flat-based spitzer, G7 (what I use a lot) is based off of a 7.5 degree boat-tail bullet with a very pointed tangent ogive (nose). So what happens if I try to fit a VLD bullet into a G1 ballistic coefficient (use the "wrong" calculator type)? Not a lot. The G1 system, which is fairly universal-- almost all published BC's are in G1, unless otherwise stated-- is really pretty robust for most projectiles and provides data that is very accurate to a point. That point is the trans-sonic region. When bullets approach the speed of sound (because they're constantly slowing down in air), there can be some divergence between the true trajectory, and the G1 calculated trajectory. It's not a big deal, however, because typically that is 800-1500m away from the shooter, and not a whole lot of shooting is done at those ranges (except for guys like me, and we make up a small minority of shooters). As it pertains to WWIIOL, infantry only render to 700m (last I looked), and the sights only go to 1000m on infantry weapons. What am I getting at here? The G1 system that the game and most ballistic calculators use is fine for what we're trying to accomplish-- an accurate representation of historical performance. The game uses a G1 system with (what should be) G1 ballistic coefficients, and it uses it for all projectiles, regardless of shape, mass, caliber, etc... And that's OK. G1 BC's are not at all interchangeable with G2, G3, G5, G7 etc. etc.. ballistic calculators. Each type of G# calculator has it's own BC's. I'm just stating this as a warning that you can't plug a G7 BC into a G1 calculator and get accurate data, and visa/versa. It will be completely wrong. For example, a 6.5mm bullet that I shoot has a 0.626 G1 BC, and that same bullet has a 0.305 G7 BC. Obviously the scaling is totally different between G1 and G7 and you'll get garbage info back if you mix them up... Speaking of ballistic calculator inputs... Different apps have different options, but the bare-bones inputs that are necessary to get good data back are; Muzzle Velocity Projectile mass (for energy) Ballistic Coefficient Sight height over bore (how far above the bore centerline the sights are) Temperature Air pressure Humidity The last three there in some calculators can be cobbled together as "Density altitude", one value that represents air density and replaces those three lines. My guess is that CRS is using a "standard" sea-level temp/air density value, but I could be wrong. Air density can change trajectory considerably, but as far as I know, in WWIIOL it's the same at all positions/altitudes (otherwise at higher altitudes, you'd notice that impacts were higher than the sight settings represent... and I have not noticed that trend). What I'll be using for Temp, pressure, and humidity for WWIIOL calculations is 59 deg F, 29.92 inHg, and 0% humidity. Next up (tonight or tomorrow probably), I'm going to go over different bullet constructions, shapes, profiles, etc... and how it relates to BC, and why.
  22. Scout cars were put in the game before the world of FRU's, and IIRC they were denied the ability to have troops ride because there was a fear that they would be used primarily as troop carriers vs. trucks, minimizing the use of trucks. It's a different world now with the FRU. I think it's not unreasonable to have infantry ride DAC's, 232's, or panhards.
  23. There are several reload animations and speeds that are incorrect or unrealistic. - K98k ZF39 Sniper reloads through the scope - No.4 Mk1 (T) Sniper reloads through the scope There were notes in the patch update on these two when they were introduced saying the reload animation was a temporary thing to get them into the patch on time and it would be revisited. It's about time. These should be single round loads just like the M1903a4. - G43 reload is way too fast No way this should be faster than the M1 Garand. I believe reloading via stripper clips was more common than magazine swaps to be honest. At any rate, it needs to be slowed down. - Mg34 reload is way too fast/abbreviated I can tell you from personal experience that belt-feds don't reload anywhere near this fast. - No.4 mk1 and Gewehr 41 partial reloads don't ALWAYS need 2 clips Rifles that have a capacity over what a clip holds should only load 1 clip per press of the "Reload" button. This way if a person has only shot 4-5 rounds, they only put in the 1 clip they need to, to fill the magazine. Also, if a person has run dry but needs to get some more rounds off in a hurry, they can just load 5 and get back in the fight without waiting for a lengthy full reload. If I think of any others I'll post them later.
  24. Hearing it, sure. Can you tell the make and model and give a direct azimuth sight unseen? If you have 2 or 3 diesel trucks running 50-150m from you, can you still pick up on that truck 1km away, tell make/model, and give a direct azimuth to it? That's the problem. Sure I can hear the interstate a mile behind my house, but I can't pick out specific vehicles, can't tell how many, and can't track their location along the interstate. I just hear tire/engine noise all garbled together.
  25. What is unfortunate about sounds in the game is that if it makes an audible report at all, someone with headphones can jack up the volume to 150%, do a couple quick looks back and forth, and pinpoint exactly where the noise is coming from. What would be neat is if the engine noises changed in a few ways over distance. They should be louder as the driver gives more gas, not necessarily how fast they're going (how it does it 3rd person now). They should be louder the closer you are, but not on a linear scale-- something 400m away should be less than 10% as noisy as something 40m away. ALL audio needs to degrade over range, both in tone, and your ability to detect the direction it's coming from. I shouldn't be able to tell a Stuart from a Sherman or an Morris from a Laffly and it's direction within 3 degrees at 500m purely on audio. Maybe at 100m, but really I should just hear an engine. I think a lot of vehicles sound too different from each other, and the sounds are no where near what the vehicles really sounded like. Some are OK, a lot are very weird. Same thing goes for MG's and rifles. Sure you could probably tell an ATR from a rifle, and maybe various MG's by rate of fire, but I can guarantee you not a single person that plays this game can tell you (consistently) a K98 vs. a MAS36 vs. a G43 vs. a No.4 mk1 purely by audio 500m away.