• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
frogdeth

Axis vs Allied, Balance vs Bias: Myth vs Reality.

46 posts in this topic

""Blitzkrieg" in 1940's France, as a planned way of war, is a myth. Discuss."

I don't think anyone would deny that.

However: Whether planned or not, you can't argue with the outcome and the fact that the WW2 Wehrmacht achieved in a few weeks what the WW1 Reichswehr couldn't achieve in four years of bloody trench-warfare.

Question isn't so much whether they planned it or not, but how and why they achieved this success and how much of it was down to what the defenders were doing.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again actonman. Very amusing responses.

Who cares, I`m right I`m always right if you want to agree with me that makes you right too - if you want to disagree then you are wrong.

I`m an expert on WW2 and have a BA Hons in European Studies.

Jutland is Denmark btw so if it was hostile it could block Kiel, Willemshaven, Bremeshaven, Cuxhaven and Lubeck.

With the Norway airfields in LW control Royal Navy was contained mainly in Scapa Flow in Scotland.

Just a few unfortunate details.

Someone who baldly states “I`m right I`m always right” is from the very outset “wrong” and has pretty well lost you any potential credibility you may have had, outright from the very start.

An expert hey? Here is a concise definition of “expert” you should consider:

X - the unknown quantity.

Spurt - a drip under pressure.

expert aka Xspurt.

The evidence, despite being presented over three posts, shows no indication of anything more than an ability to cut and paste from at the very least from the following website: naval-history.net, regardless of your declared possession of “BA Hons in European Studies”. Additionally the presented text as far as I’m able to discern presents nothing to support your claim that occupying Denmark had anything to do with planned combat operations in other areas, other than Norway. Just on that point alone your actual possession of a “BA Hons in European Studies” is very dubious at best. As someone who does actually possess a BA in European Studies, especially at the “Honours” level, you will already know and understand that unsupported claims are just that, unsupported.

Jutland is in Denmark. The Battle of Jutland was a Naval battle and occurred in the North Sea during WWI.

Now in answer to your very first question: “Who cares”? Well obviously you do. Your next post will be very interesting I’m sure. What more will it disclose?

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi! Can you take your pissing match about Denmark to PM's? We're trying to discuss game balance, not methods of German invasions into France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

===

And unlike the absence of radios, this is a shortcoming that could be modeled in the game rather easily.

===

I've thought about ways to simulate non radio vehicles. Ideas I've come up with are:

1) Can see no marks on map

2) All radio channels disabled, except mission

I hadn't considered the reloading time, be interesting if the ROF (rate of fire) of one man turret tanks is realistically modeled.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what was said by Frog. It is often a matter of skill with a certain piece of equipment. For example I absolutely adore my 190. I've put a lot of hours in flying that plane. And I am very good with it. I jumped in a p38 over intermission, a plane that I used to be very skilled with but it has been a long time since I've flown one. I killed a few EA but for the most part was fairly unremarkable due to not being practiced in it.

I am curious as to what they will find when they do the armor audit however. I will not scream for one side or the other as I know that there are some strange happenings on both ends. I just want to see everything performing as it is meant to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly, yes. A single ping is often enough to render a 109 or even 190 (which was a much more durable plane than the 109 in RL) useless.

This point is probably more important than any of the other "nerfs", "fixes" or shortcomings of our simulated equipment. One reason why the Wehrmacht "blitzed" the French was that they had much better communication. Starting inside the tanks where everyone could talk to everyone else over the intercom. While French tankers had to live with one-man turrets with overworked commanders and had to use flag signals to communicate with other tanks.

Which leads to another point: One man turrets don't seem to suffer any penalties to their "effectiveness" in the game. Last I checked, an S35 or Char can reload its main gun just as quickly as a Pz III or IV. Considering that the commander had to command the tank, aim the gun *and* reload it between shots in the French tanks (while the German tanks had a dedicated commander, loader and gunner) this doesn't make much sense. At the very least, reload on one-man turrets should be slower and you shouldn't be able to keep looking through the sight if you want to reload your gun.

And unlike the absence of radios, this is a shortcoming that could be modeled in the game rather easily.

S.

Good idea. Let's add all the historical things that made Germany win the Battle of France and NONE of the things that made the Allies WIN THE WAR.

Yes. Let's make it so NO ONE wants to spawn Allied. :rolleyes:

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly, yes. A single ping is often enough to render a 109 or even 190 (which was a much more durable plane than the 109 in RL) useless.

This point is probably more important than any of the other "nerfs", "fixes" or shortcomings of our simulated equipment. One reason why the Wehrmacht "blitzed" the French was that they had much better communication. Starting inside the tanks where everyone could talk to everyone else over the intercom. While French tankers had to live with one-man turrets with overworked commanders and had to use flag signals to communicate with other tanks.

Which leads to another point: One man turrets don't seem to suffer any penalties to their "effectiveness" in the game. Last I checked, an S35 or Char can reload its main gun just as quickly as a Pz III or IV. Considering that the commander had to command the tank, aim the gun *and* reload it between shots in the French tanks (while the German tanks had a dedicated commander, loader and gunner) this doesn't make much sense. At the very least, reload on one-man turrets should be slower and you shouldn't be able to keep looking through the sight if you want to reload your gun.

And unlike the absence of radios, this is a shortcoming that could be modeled in the game rather easily.

S.

If this nerf happened, does this mean we could actually have more tanks than the Axis in T0 like history says we did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this nerf happened, does this mean we could actually have more tanks than the Axis in T0 like history says we did?

LOL-BRAH-NOT-GONNA-HAPPEN.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about ways to simulate non radio vehicles. Ideas I've come up with are:

1) Can see no marks on map

2) All radio channels disabled, except mission

Teamspeak.

Although the "no marks for you"-idea might work.. but that would be taking things a bit too far, I think.

Whereas the reload-time and the one-man-turret thing is a perfectly valid point, IMO. Just like it's perfectly ok that a Stuart is faster than a Tiger - because it was faster in RL.

Or can we have 100mm of frontal armor now on our IIIFs, too? I mean.. nobody likes to play Paper-Panzers in Tier0, either.. so we should make early war Panzers more attractive. :rolleyes:

I don't see why modeling deficiencies of certain units is ok when it's the other side's deficiencies, but not when it's on a vehicle on your side. It's a pretty well known fact that the one-man turrets that some French tanks had were a serious drawback. Heck, it's just a question of what's physically possible: One guy is looking through a gun-sight, then fires, then has to reload a 47mm cannon. And yet he can still keep looking through the sight while doing so *and* does it as fast as a dedicated loader on another tank? I guess the French commanders had four arms and two sets of eyes?

Seriously though: All cannon could probably use a "reload-time" audit. I suspect that the Stug IIIG's cannon would take longer to reload than the puny 37mm on the IIIF for example. In-game, they all seem to take the same amount of time - except for the Char's howitzer which is *slightly* slower than all the other tank-cannon in-game.

I'd also love to see CRS do something with the loader on the tanks that had them. When my crew member 5 dies (which I assume must be the loader), I don't suffer any negative consequences. But if you lose that guy, your reload-time should get quite a bit longer.

Same goes for other weapons, too. I doubt for example that you could reload the MG34 as quickly as you can in the game. That's still a belt inside that drum, right? The Panzers' reload time for their MG34s is quite a bit longer and seems a lot more realistic.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to focus on the matter at hand. A good discussion is being derailed here.

Edited by GVONPAUL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which side has the better infantry weapons?

In terms of rifles I prefer the Lee-Enfield and the MAS 36 to the Karabiner 98.

Haven't really tried the other types of SMGs but I like the Grease Gun over the MP34.

The others I haven't tried yet except in offline mode, so I can't really tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which side has the better infantry weapons?

In terms of rifles I prefer the Lee-Enfield and the MAS 36 to the Karabiner 98.

Haven't really tried the other types of SMGs but I like the Grease Gun over the MP34.

The others I haven't tried yet except in offline mode, so I can't really tell.

In terms of ranges over 100m I'd favour the allied rifles.

Once you get to 100m or close quarters the axis one is significantly more suited imho.

The MAS36 has less stopping power so needs to be able to take 2 shots more often but it's closed sights over range make it a great marksman rifle.

The Enfield has a similar problem but that is more due to it's wobble when you have used any stamina at all. It has great stopping power but needs range, especially against semi autos.

The kar's open sights make it easy to lead and better for snap shots in close quarters, stopping power between the enfield and the mas36.

This is all just in my opinion of course.

The lmgs there is no comparison. The axis one is a league above the allied ones.

SMGs since the sten and grease gun came in changed, dramatically.

The sten and grease gun are a match for the MP40, the mas38 and tommy are very situational and in honesty seem to perform on average much like the mp34 overall.

This is Tier0 bear in mind. Once the semi autos and eventually americans come in it's another kettle of firearms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SMGs since the sten and grease gun came in changed, dramatically.

The sten and grease gun are a match for the MP40, the mas38 and tommy are very situational and in honesty seem to perform on average much like the mp34 overall.

I do find it kind of ironic that the Axis primary SMG (MP40) is superior to the reserve SMG (MP34), which is how it should be, but on the Allied side the reserve SMGs (Sten, GG) have proven themselves to be superior - and thus the new first choice - over their official primary SMGs (M38, Thompson).

I'd still happily trade our entire Sdkfz232 list for even just two Pumas per brigade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh man, the mp34 is soo awfull.

sights are set at 0m(well sure feels like it) and are close to the barrel, so you can't see where you shoot.

idk about the tommy over sten, i died to a lot more tommy hosing than sten putters.

best to worse smg's imo are

grease gun, cause it's easy to use

tommy, long sprays ftw

mp40, accurate but the recoil

mas38, its trick sight is weird

sten, difficult to use consistently (long vs short vs hip range)

snipers pistol

mp34, it feels like im making rude noises toward EI's instead of shooting bullets.

if CRS went with more historic-like TOE's the tank numbers would be ok.

s35's, 4d's, stugs, and matties all maxed out at 10-15%

3f's, 38t's , a13's, and h-39's at 15-30%

scouts at 5-10%

and the rest junk tanks.

our s35/char/matty/4d/stug balence totally screws over the lower rank stuff, and most atg's start obsolete

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh man, the mp34 is soo awfull.

sights are set at 0m(well sure feels like it) and are close to the barrel, so you can't see where you shoot.

idk about the tommy over sten, i died to a lot more tommy hosing than sten putters.

best to worse smg's imo are

grease gun, cause it's easy to use

tommy, long sprays ftw

mp40, accurate but the recoil

mas38, its trick sight is weird

sten, difficult to use consistently (long vs short vs hip range)

snipers pistol

mp34, it feels like im making rude noises toward EI's instead of shooting bullets.

MP40 is anything but accurate in full auto mode. Even in burst mode it's pretty bad. If you can manage single rounds, you may get close to target.

The grease gun is excellent. I've used it a few times during intermission and really enjoyed it. The sight is average but the gun performs very well and it's quiet!

MP34, you're right. It's a dog of a gun. The gun shoots lower than the sight. Should really be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the K98's open sights make it harder to aim, especially at night.

As for SMGs, I agree with major. The MP40 is decent but a lot of recoil. My main issue with the MP34 is that it fires too fast. It pumps out ten rounds a second, which means you're out of ammo in just over three seconds. This is a disadvantage in close quarters fights, say CP battles, because you sometimes have to keep firing for a second or two because of lag. So once you've taken out one guy in a CP using a 34, and you see another guy coming toward you, you pull the trigger, but, click, you're out of ammo and have to reload. This would not be an issue if you can control your burst, but the 34's poor sights mean you might miss, even at close range, making it harder to control bursts.

The Grease Gun has a much slower RPM, and better sight, so even if you're firing for three or four seconds, you still have ammo even though you have two rounds less in the mag than the 34.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a disadvantage in close quarters fights, say CP battles, because you sometimes have to keep firing for a second or two because of lag. So once you've taken out one guy in a CP using a 34, and you see another guy coming toward you, you pull the trigger, but, click, you're out of ammo and have to reload.

EVERY Axis player knows to use the Rambo MG 34 for CP clearing. And use the RG Shotgun for backup. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVERY Axis player knows to use the Rambo MG 34 for CP clearing. And use the RG Shotgun for backup. :rolleyes:

Axis rifle grenade got a stealth nerf at some point, probably during the HE audit. It's worthless now.

And rambo LMGs could be stopped tomorrow if they just forced them to be deployed like ATRs, but there is rambo cheese on both sides. Years ago when we still had truck mobile spawns that practically the only source of complaints about the 251; if you kept a 251 manned there was no way for a light machinegunner(the go-to for allied HC) to take you out.

Other game changes have really hurt proper LMG usage like the inclusion of that awful radial clutter everywhere and changing LMGs to have tracer rounds. I don't know what CRS was thinking when they did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.