james10

Registered Users
  • Content count

    648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Green Tag

About james10

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Hello merlin, how are you? The KwK36 and the FlaK18/36/37 are effective the same weapon. That being the case performance figures for the KwK36 and/or the FlaK18/36/37 would apply equally. Both weapons have a barrel that is 56 calibres long and they all use the same ammunition. There are differences between the two but the differences don't effect either guns performance. Therefore the performance will be pretty well identical. The KwK43 on the other hand is completely different and is related to the Pak43 and also the FlaK43, I think it was. The KwK43 has a barrel that is 71 calibres long and uses different (larger) ammunition. Cheers James10
  2. Hello Ltaralex, how are you doing? Just a couple of observations: While your proposal does outwardly appear to have some merit, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered however. In September 1939 everyone pretty well had very similar AA defences. How does this relate to World War II Online? WWIIOnline commences a little after the start of the German attack into France and the Low Countries in 1940, approximately 6 months after the commencement of WWII proper. I am unsure of the exact start date of WWIIOnline but it was not the very beginning of the German Campaign in the West either. Please note, the Germans are at the doorstep of Antwerp, so Holland probably hasn’t as yet fallen. Here is the situation from a historical perspective, in relation to the AA defences at the commencement of WWIIOnlone: 1: The capabilities of all of the major combatants were ostensibly identical. The exact equipment was different i.e. the Germans had the 88mm, FlaK 18/36/37 while the British used their 3.7” QF 3.7inch AA. Off the top of my head I am unable to remember that the French heavy AA gun was but I’m pretty sure they had one. Heavy AA guns were barrage fired by battery and controlled by a central director. All sides also had various light AA guns, all direct fired and locally optically directed using either open sights or other. All of these weapons are represented in-game now, although the in-game heavy AA gun model for the Allies is the British 3.7”. 2: The only combatants that had any indication of the need for significant AA defence capability in relation to what you are suggesting, was the British. This was due to their experience with the German Zeppelin campaign during WWI. Spain would potentially be the only other Nation that had experienced heavy bombing prior to WWII. China may or may not have at this point. Very few nations if any, had experienced what would eventually be called “Strategic or Terror Bombing” as it would eventually be known. At the start of the WWIIOnline campaign, Warsaw had been bombed from the air as Spain had suffered during the Spanish Civil War. Antwerp may or may not have suffered the same fate at that point. There may have been others smaller bombings as well. To your well known “fact” that is the basis for your suggestion: In a 1945 context this is partially true. Yes the Germans had “far more” AA defences that the Allies. Primarily because they had been subjected to sustained heavy concentrated aerial Strategic Bombardment for several years at that point. Initially from the RAF and eventually from the USAAF as well. At the commencement of WWIIOnline these events are in the future. Now as for “superior AA defences”. This is not true. The major combatants AA defensive capabilities in 1939, was not significantly improved by 1945. On that however, the Allies had developed a proximity fused AA round, while the Germans were developing AAGM (Anti-Aircraft Guided Missiles). From a WWIIOnline point of view there is another not insignificant consideration as well. The “AA defences” you are referring to are targeting a specific weapon, the Heavy Massed Strategic Bomber. These bombers (unfortunately, I might add) are not in-game. Historically speaking the Germans didn’t really develop an effective heavy bomber anywhere near as capable as the aircraft the Allies developed. Yes the Germans did build the He117 Greif and it was designed to be a Strategic Bomber. It did see service but not as a strategic bomber. Why you might ask. Well it was a decision. When the decision to invest in the heavy bomber was being made, for the Germans it appeared the war was “in the bag”. For the Allies, specifically the British, it was the most effective way to battle the Germans with the limited resources at hand. Once the US entered things were different but Strategic Bombing was an effective way to attack the Germans until the “Second Front” could be opened, D-Day. Even discounting the actual destruction and interruption directly caused by the Allied Strategic Bombing offensive, it had a significant detrimental effect on the German capacity to wage war. The Allied Strategic Bombing offensive tied up significant resources, manpower, guns, aircraft and material in the “Defence of the Reich”. These resources could have been utilised more effectively (from a German perspective) on the front lines. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10.
  3. Hello All. I would have to agree in regard to the M3 halftrack. The overall US listing should be filled out as a priority, which would include the M3 halftrack. All of the Allies could easily use the M3 halftrack so it would be a good "bang for buck" resource/utilisation wise. The US requires the addition of its own 60mm mortar as indicated above also. Other units for the US list would be potentially 2 different types of trucks (both new), the 37mm Light ATG (new), M8 Greyhound Scout Car (new) and probably the M3 Lee/Grant (also new). These additions plus the repurposing of the current US built, French aircraft would nicely fill out the American TO&E with relatively minimal New modelling. It would be interesting adding the Kubelwagon / Austin Tilly / Laffly V15R / Willys MB for some definite colour, however I don't feel the way the game is usually played their presence would greatly enhance the gaming experience. One current in-game issue is still the "over performance" of ALL wheeled vehicles off road. I am not saying don't add these vehicles, maybe keep them in mind for a later date. I do feel there are more pressing requirements i.e. filling out the US list for one. Thank you for reading, Cheers James10.
  4. Hello disi, how are you doing? Something to be aware of, when you despawn you can still end up back at the FMS. If you are too close to the FMS when you despawn that is where you will end up. When you hit ESC to despawn you will be presented with the despawn timer. Ensure the location displayed within the timer window is the intended CP. If it isn't cancel (you do have 10 sec so there is plenty of time) and move a little away from the FMS and attempt again. Sometimes the ML will place a marker on the map indicating the "RTB - Warp Depot" range. Cheers James10.
  5. Hello frantish, how are you? I am unaware who conceived the use of gliders for military purposes but I will stand by my statement: It is also worth noting the Soviets helped the German paratrooper and armoured forces by allowing German participation in Soviet programs aimed at improving both of those forces. Cheers James10.
  6. Hello All. I for one, believe the MG 34 as used in-game currently is unrealistic at best. Having said that however, I would not support the complete removal of stationary (read immobile) hip fire by the current MG 34 and the soon to be introduced US M1919A6 as a viable/valid option for both of those weapons. I have stated this in all occasions where the hip fire issue has been raised. Whatever is applied to the MG 34 should be applied in equal measure to the M1919A6 when it is introduced. My concern is, if the MG 34 has its functionality reduced to a more appropriate level (as it should be) this would result in a functionality imbalance between the Axis - Allies. The Allied would receive a weapon equivalent to the MG 34 in the form of the M1919A6 while the Axis would loose the functionality provided by the current MG 34 and available to the Allies by the presence of the BREN and the FM24/29. Please notice I am not referring to the FG42 or the BAR as both are present in their respective armies. A solution to the resulting functionality imbalance would be to include within the Axis TO&E a weapon similar to the BREN / FM24/29. Fortunately history does provide such a weapon in the form of the Czech ZB vz.26 or as it was designated in German Service the MG 26(t). Introducing this weapon, which was used by German forces during World War II, would redress the functionality imbalance caused by the necessary modification to the MG 34 usage in-game. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10.
  7. Hello All. The use of combat glider borne infantry forces was pioneered by the German forces. German DFS 320 Assault gliders were first used to assault the Eben Emael fortress guarding the Albert Canal in Belgium during the early stages of the Battle for France in 1940. Later the British and US used glider borne infantry forces to assist in the D-Day landings, Market Garden and other operations. The Glider pictured was the Waco CG-4A, a US built glider. The still on the video shows the remnants of a British built Airspeed Horsa. Another British glider was the General Aircraft Hamilcar. Other German gliders included the Go 242 and the largest glider being the Me 321 Gigant. Both of these gliders were eventually converted to transport aircraft by adding surplus aircraft engines to the glider airframe. In both cases that also included adding undercarriage as well. Adding Glider operations to World War II online I feel, would add a unique dimension to the in-game experience. Cheers. James10
  8. Hello all. While mostly correct some significant information is missing from the account. This is my understanding of the History (potted) of the weapon that ultimately defined infantry combat in the modern age. The Sturmgewehr 44, or StG44. At the beginning of World War Two the common infantry weapon was the Bolt Action Rifle, relatively heavy, single shot, metallic cartridge magazine fed repeating rifle. This was the service rifle of the age based on years of wars and a long history. The final development of the rifled musket of the Napoleonic era. All armies used this form of rifle during The Great War. It was only near the end of the “War to end all Wars” was there some other movement in relation to common infantry weapons. It was in the form of the Sub Machinegun. The basic concept the Bolt Action Rifle was an extension of the “Volley Fire” doctrines of the musket era, taken to extreme. A black powder musket in Europe was on average about .50 cal and had an effective accurate range of about 50 yards. A pre-WWII rifle was about .30 cal and had an accurate effective accurate range of in excess of 1000 yards. Not mention the sheer quantity of rounds a unit could put down range towards an enemy. At the commencement of World War Two all combatants relied in the Bolt Action Rifle as the mainstay of their Land Forces. And yes even the US as at September 1, 1939 was still primarily equipped with the Bolt Action Springfield Rifle. The bolt action rifle had the following advantages: Everyone had lots of them, mostly from World War 1 stockpiles. They were robust, resistant to fouling and easily maintained. Had a high rate of fire. Were accurate out to over 1000 yards. In close combat they were fitted with a bayonet. There were disadvantages, they were: The rifle was expensive to make as it used extensive machining which required skilled labour and machine tools to produce. It took time to train the troops to be proficient in the firing drills. It took time to train the troops to the level of accuracy desired with the rifle. Mostly it took training to allow an infantryman to utilise his rifle effectively in battle. The basic rifleman was supported by MMG’s in defence and LMG’s and pre attack artillery in assault. Everyone used similar methodologies. In relation to infantry weapons the most significant change was the increasing numbers of pistol calibre SMG’s in use by combatants. This was accelerated after the disastrous losses suffered by the Soviet Union. It took significant time to train a rifleman. It took almost no time at all to give a raw recruit a mass produced SMG and point him at the enemy. Enter the Soviet PPS and PPSh-41 SMG’s. Platoons of troops armed with SMG’s could successfully attack the more conventional Rifle/LMG based platoon then in use by the German forces. As a direct result of the 71 round magazine of the PPSh the Germans introduced a modified MP40 with a dual side by side magazine holder. This gave the MP40, 64 ready rounds but it was unsuccessful due to weight and reliability issues. A problem waiting for a solution - Enter studies. Army studies showed that the average engagement range was between 200 - 300m. The Kar98k firing the 7.92x57mm round was accurate to over 1000m while the SMG firing the 9x19mm round was only effective to about 200m. Solution: Automatic Rifle. Problem solved. Well not really, as the FG42 demonstrated. Firing the full powered 7.92x57mm round was difficult to control on full auto but it was available. What was required was a longer ranged SMG. Enter the prototypes of the StG44. To solve the issue of the 7.92x57mm being too powerful for controllable full auto fire it was decided to reduce the 7.92x57mm to 7.92x33mm. A lighter propellant load, less recoil on full auto. Add a SMG style 32 round magazine and you have it. Not quite the StG44 but getting there. Enter Adolf Hitler. He suspended all new rifle development programs. He also ordered newer smg’s were to be built. To keep the Stg44 (not that it was called that at the time) on track, it was redesignated MP43 Machinepistol 43. I.e. a redevelopment of an existing smg (MP34, 38, 40 etc) to comply with the new orders. Eventually Hitler discovered the redesignation and halted the program again. Eventually he relented and allowed the program to recommence for evaluation purposes. The evaluation proved promising allowing for its redesignation to Machinepistol44, MP44. Eventually it received its final designation of Sturmgewehr 44 or StG44 and laid the ground work for a “New” class of weapon, the Assault Rifle. The advantages of the StG44 Assault Rifle: SMG rate of fire for close combat and suppression. SMG magazine capacity. Greater range than a SMG. Not as far as a full powered rifle but well within the common engagement ranges. Selective fire capable. Semi-auto for ranged accuracy and full-auto for close combat as required. Designed for “Mass Production” as a result of the extensive use of pressings and stampings. Very little use of machining. Something not to overlook as well. The ammunition being smaller 7.92x57mm vs 7.92x33mm and a lighter powder load, allowed for more ammunition to be carried. This is my understanding. Thank you for reading. Cheers James10
  9. Hello All. I do find this discussion very amusing. The Allies actually already have an equivalent to the FG42. It is in fact the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Both the BAR (which was introduced before the FG42) and the FG42 itself, are effectively the same type of weapon. They are both Automatic Rifles. The BAR was pressed into US service as a LMG but was very poor in that role. Fortunately for the American Forces in Europe the M1 Garand Semi-Auto was widely issued so the under performance of the BAR in its role of LMG was mitigated. What the Allies actually need is an equivalent to the MG34. Strangely enough the best candidate for that would most likely be the M1919A6. Even more strangely I believe there are well advanced plans to introduce the said same weapon into World War II Online for the Allies. Along with the StG44 (Axis) and the M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine (Allies as well). As far as the Johnson Machine Gun I believe it only saw service in the Pacific. Cheers James10
  10. Hello All. This is my understanding in relation to AA and Aircraft HE rounds in-game. All player controlled AA and aircraft mounted cannons in-game use contact fuses so you are still going to have to "Hit" a target to detonate the round. With the increased fragmentation count there is likely to be more damage inflicted on the target. e.g. the round hits a wing tip and detonates. Most of the aircraft will be affected by the greater fragmentation numbers generated. One would think that those kind of near but not square hits will be more devastating than they currently are. Just more fragments for damage stuff. I am aware that pretty well all Air/AA rounds from about 13mm (may be 15mm) and up in-game time out and detonate resulting in the puffs you see when firing at aircraft. This may actually trigger fragmentation. I would have to defer to one of the Devs for that information. The in-game AI AA on the other hand seems to be a bit unusual. Unusual in the way that they all appear to be firing time fused rounds. From a historic/real world perspective this should not be the case. The light (20/25mm) and medium (40mm) AA guns didn't use fuse setters and time fuses as they would directly engaged the target using contact fuses. The heavy (88's and 3.7") did use fuse setters but unlike the in-game versions did not directly engage individual aircraft. In addition I would suspect being too close to one of those "puffs" could be very unpleasant. I also suspect the range (post HE Audit) that will be "too close" will be significantly further than it is now. It will be interesting to see the results. Cheers James10.
  11. Hello All. It is my understanding the difference between the various After Action Report (AAR) results are as follows: KIA = The unit has "Critical Component Damage" recorded against it. Someone has been awarded a "kill credit" for hat unit as well. It is possible for a unit to suffer multiple "kills" in this situation as there are many "Critical Components" to damage, depending exactly on the unit, however only ONE "kill credit" is awarded. The "kill credit" is awarded to the "first" player that causes the target unit "Critical Component Damage". The unit returns to the Sapwn list as determined by the RDP system, including and factory damage modifiers. Least points awarded. MIA = The unit has no "Critical Component Damage" recorded when it was despawned. At the moment the unit despawned it was too far from friendly facilities to qualify for other AAR results. The unit returns to the Sapwn list as determined by the RDP system, including and factory damage modifiers. Points awarded. RES = The Unit also has no "Critical Component Damage" recorded, however the unit despawned within a distance (I'm not sure exactly what that is possibly 1000m) of either any Friendly Army Base or a Forward Base. For Aircraft it is near any friendly town. This unit returns to the spawn list in approximately 15minutes. Points awarded. RTB = The Unit also has no "Critical Component Damage" recorded, however the unit despawned within about 500m of either any Friendly Army Base or a Forward Base. If the unit is infantry then depots and FMS/UMS are used as well. For Aircraft it is on/near any friendly airfield. Within the chat there is a message displayed indicating the unit has RTB at XX facility and is reserved. The unit is available immediately for you to respawn (refuelled, rearmed and repaired) and as already indicated is reserved for you for about 5 minutes. If you do not respawn the unit immediately a message indicating "The unit is no longer reserved" when your reservation lapses. The unit is then available for anyone to use the facility (controlled [friendly facility/friendly town] not just captured [friendly facility/enemy town]) you despawned at. The reservation is also cancelled if you go to the Unit Selection screen or leave the mission as well. Most points awarded. As I don't play Naval all that much I cannot state with any certainty exactly what happens. The above would be a good guide though. It does appear this is not exactly how it happens all of the time as there seems to be something else involved I haven't been able to work out as yet. Generally however, the above is what happens. I hope this helps. Cheers James10
  12. Hello haupt, how are you? I do feel you miss read what I had said. to quote me: I am in no way suggesting the complete removal of all non-bipod fire at all. Just limiting it. Also I am conforming my proposed limitation to what the game appears to be able to deal with. "No movement" in relation to actually changing your actual position within the world space on the horizontal (forward or back, left or right) and vertical (standing, kneeling and prone) planes. The traverse for the weapon is also limited specifically to stop people from doing the 360 on the spot. Some of the videos posted above, graphically demonstrates the immobility/restrictiveness of the stance required to hip fire the MG34/42. "Fire while prone without the bipod being deployed should be impossible." As occurs regularly in-game when MG34 is fired from the prone position without the bipod being deployed. I would suggest the BAR/FG42 would be awkward at best. The BREN and FM24/29 would be difficult to control and it should not be possible for the MG34/M1919A6. I would agree it would be possible from a "rested weapon state" i.e. window sill, sand bag etc. but the game does not allow for that "state" in its current form so . . . deployed bipod. How often do the Allies enter the AB bunker and see a MG34 gunner lying on the floor covering the door from just near the bottom of the stair well, without its bipod being deployed? Additionally allowing the bipod to be carried deployed would alleviate that restriction. Even with the ability to have the bipod deployed while moving, getting to and from the prone position with the MG34/M1919A6 (slowest) and yes even the BREN/FM24/29 (slower) should take longer than with more compact weapons i.e. rifles, SMG etc. The BAR/FG42 could go either way. They are heavier than a rifle but not by a lot, however they do handle like a rifle though unlike the others. Additionally as is in-game at present the deployed bipod requirement would limit the available covered arc, unlike the current 360 covered arc available to any prone infantryman which I do feel is just a little silly at best. I do hope this clarifies things. Cheers James10.
  13. Hello all, how are you doing? Hang night, most sights are too bright during the day and have infinite depth of field. A valid point is being made about the black glass marking as used in-game being difficult to see. In actuality the black ground glass marking used in optical sights are significantly easier to see during the day and in the case of some sights at night as well. The basic issue with the black ground glass in-game is that it is exactly the same colour as the in-game visual blacks. Video Game Black ie RGB(0,0,0). In the real world visually, the blacks are usually a very, very deep blue and not jet black. Therefore the black markings are easier to see against the very, very deep blue, except of course when all of the real world is also the very, very deep blue, ie night. Cheers James10
  14. Hello All, I would have to say there is probably too much supply on the map currently. However, I would also have to say there are far too few people on the map at any given time as well. Cheers.
  15. Hello All, Just a couple of clarifications to start with. As bradly pointed out there would be very little difference between the MG34 and MG42 in game. There are differences however and they are: ROF: MG34 - 600-800rpm approx. MG42 - 900-1200 rpm approx. The MG34 is capable of firing single shots while the MG42 it was up to the experience of the gunner and not part of the gun. Both can use the in-game 50rd saddle magazine (Assault Magazine). The MG34 did have the option of a 75rd version as well. Weights are similar. Both weapons required frequent barrel changing for prolonged continuous fire. Both weapons however were designed with a quick change barrel for this very purpose. From what I have seen the “standard kit” for the crew included 2 spare barrels in a purpose built container. The common use of the LMG designation within WorldWar II Online: While the in-game weapons labelled as “LMG’s” consist of 4 weapons (American M1918A2 BAR, British Bren Mk II, French FM24/29 and the German MG34), only 2 of them are actually LMG’s. All of them are used in the role of LMG in a World War II context however. The M1918A2 BAR was pressed into service as a LMG but was actually designed as an Automatic Rifle, not unlike the current German FG42 in-game now. The BAR was a very poor LMG at best, however the American forces did have the M1 Garand as the standard issue semi automatic rifle effectively from the very commencement of their involvement in the war in Europe. This did significantly offset the underperforming LMG they were using. The German MG34 and MG42 were not LMG’s either. They were a then NEW type of weapon. The GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun), although GPMG is a post war term. They were very successfully used in the role of LMG’s throughout WWII. They were a bit heavy in that role though. This leaves the British Bren Mk II, French FM24/29. Both of these weapons were true LMG’s in every sense of the term. Both designed to be capable of “walking fire”, a French practice used from 1916. This was where the gunner advanced along with the bolt action rifle armed infantrymen to provide suppressive fire for the advance/assault. The weapons were significantly lighter and therefore more portable than the then current MG’s in use. Vickers Maximum (British) and the Hotchkiss M1914 MG (French). Here is my take on the “Ramboing of LMG’s”. I firmly disapprove of the current in-game use of all of the weapons under “LMG” label. With the given that the BAR and by association the FG42, are Automatic Rifles, these should probably have very little limitation on their use. I would however suggest that running and firing should be extremely difficult/ineffective mostly due to recoil control issues. Significant turning whilst running and firing should be impossible. Shoulder firing would be the same as any Rifle. The British Bren Mk II, French FM24/29 both should be capable of hip fire from the walk to be consistent their design. Running should prevent any firing at all. These may also be fired from the shoulder although accuracy will be significantly impeded. To keep side capabilities consistent, the introduction of the MG26(t) or MG30(t) to the German small arms list should be considered if not done outright. As an aside the MG30(t) is almost a metric BREN MkII firing 7.92mm Mauser ammunition in place of the British .303 ball. The MG34 should be restricted to “Hip fire stationary”. No movement (horizontal or vertical) is permitted, save a limited traverse range. Fire while prone without the bipod being deployed should be impossible. The weapon may deploy its bipod and be carried with it extended but if it is deployed “Hip fire stationary” should also be impossible. These restrictions would provide the imperative for the introduction of the MG30(t) to the German arsenal. They would also apply to the “Coming” American M1919A6 and if introduced the MG42 as well. Cheers James10