Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 1270
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search

Search found 23 matches
Close Combat Series Forum Index
 
 
Author Message
  Topic: Airstrike too weak against tank ?
W_Model

Replies: 9
Views: 11044

PostForum: CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword   Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:23 pm   Subject: Re: Airstrike too weak against tank ?
Massivattack wrote:
In the game, it is quasi-impossible to damage a (german) tank with aerial support.
However it is well known, that air-force was the best way to "kill" panzer.


For all I know allied air power was not very effective in hunting german armor. However, the the relative low no. of tanks lost due to CAP might be because germans tried to move during the dark hours.

In GJS it is my experince that a Typhoon attack results in a kill maybe 1/3 of the times. Spitfire run doesn't drop bombs.
  Topic: Söker spelare
W_Model

Replies: 9
Views: 11157

PostForum: Skandinaviskt Forum   Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:21 pm   Subject: Söker spelare
klart det finns svenskar på GS.
  Topic: Jiipiii!!
W_Model

Replies: 4
Views: 6059

PostForum: Skandinaviskt Forum   Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:08 pm   Subject: Jiipiii!!
"kom" :Cool
  Topic: The Military Channel dropped the ball
W_Model

Replies: 4
Views: 4481

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:42 pm   Subject: The Military Channel dropped the ball
Hello

I have some experience in the EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) field where IEDD (Improvised Explosive Device Disposal) is one field. Generally all tactical procedures, such as positioning and movement, are classified. This is specially important when it comes to IEDs. This is to provide security to the EOD personal. When I had my IEDD training we got some good info on the importance of not letting the enemy know your tactical deployment pattern by british EOD operators. In their "war" against the IRA the IRA started to monitor british EOD units tactics. They could then predict the deployment (where the vehicle will be parked, what way the EOD operator will advance towards the IED etc) and place the real bomb in an nearby garbagecan, thus blowing the whole EOD unit to pieces on arrival.

I haven't seen the film as described, but if I was in Iraq I would not like the fact that media aired my units tactics. You don't have to make it that easy to the other side to study your tactics... Just a thought...
  Topic: Should B1 bis 75mm heavy tanks be considered heavy tanks?
W_Model

Replies: 16
Views: 8783

PostForum: Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy   Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:15 pm   Subject: Should B1 bis 75mm heavy tanks be considered heavy tanks?
ronson wrote:

Anyone out there with knowledge of French armour and tactics?


To understand the design and use of AFVs in the beginning of WWII you have to look back at WWI and the time in between. France and UK were of the opinion that defence, not offence, was the future in warefare (they "won" the WWI by defending themselves from the germans). Armour enthusiasts as JFC Fuller, Liddell Hart and JB Estienne didn't get much attention. The tank had made an good infantry support weapon in WWI, therefore it should stay as an support weapon. There was no need to think ahead since the tactics employed won the war.
The fact that tanks probably would meet eachother on the battlefield was vaguely foreseen, but in some way accounted for by thick armour in France and speed in England. No allied tank in the outbreak of WWII possesed any real AT capability.

In USA the tank was restricted by law as an auxilary infantry weapon and therefore the development of tanks and tactics was very slow.

Before the outbreak of WWII France was forming Armoured divisions, but it could not resist to fragment these for distribution among the infantry divisions. The tank was seen as an support weapon, to use against infantry and strongpoints. The idea of tank vs tank was not considered in any extent.
  Topic: P47 vs German armour
W_Model

Replies: 9
Views: 9158

PostForum: Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge   Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:49 pm   Subject: P47 vs German armour
another nice munition is the M93 Hornet. It's an AT mine that uses sound to identify targets. When the sound of an enemy tank is identified the Hornet jumps 100 m up in the air, there a IR-sensor acquire the heat-signature of the tank. Small propellant charges aligns the munition with the target and fires a EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator), aka "slug", thus penetrating the top of the tank and disableing it.
That's a nasty mine if your in a tank...
  Topic: P47 vs German armour
W_Model

Replies: 9
Views: 9158

PostForum: Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge   Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:53 pm   Subject: P47 vs German armour
What I can understand is that the Typhoon and the Thunderbolt didn't carry the same rocket armament.
The Typhoon carried the british RP (rocket projectile) 3-inch rocket, which was designed to be used as anti-aircraft barrage in the 1940's. It was then adapted to be launched from aircrafts like the Hurricane, Typhoon and Mosquito.
The P47 used the M-8 rocketlauncher. It was a 3-tube, 4,5-inches "bazooka" system with poor accuracy.
In mid 1944 the HVAR (High Velocity Air Rocket) was introduced to the american air force. The rocket was more powerful and much more accurate than the M-8 or RP systems.
  Topic: New Mod Scenario
W_Model

Replies: 30
Views: 15439

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 10:31 am   Subject: New Mod Scenario
If you like the westernfront maybe operation EPSOM could be interesting.
A massive allied bulidup in the area northwest of caen. Germany had to put it's best divisons here to fill the gap stop the advance. The german buildup with the XLVII, II SS, I SS pz korps was originally intended for an advance towards Bayeux and thus splitting the allied bridgehead. The allied operational goal with EPSOM was to secure the high ground south of Caen and establish a foothold across the Orne river.

Niether the germans or the Allies managed to obtain their goals maybe a CC player could do better?
  Topic: Diameters of 17pdr and 6pdr shells
W_Model

Replies: 11
Views: 11814

PostForum: CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword   Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:49 pm   Subject: Diameters of 17pdr and 6pdr shells
ok, It seems ronson nailed this one.

What I can understand is that the M7 gun is a modified version of the M5, which is the AT version of the M1917 AA gun. I have only found one type of AP ammunition used, APC (Armour Piercing Capped). However at 1000 yards the gun penetrated 4 inch (100mm) of armour with the APC shot. The brittish 17pdr penetrated 118mm with the same munition, same dist.
The 17pdr also fired the APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot), the shot is a sub-calibre projectile which gives many advantages such as a more "flat" trajectory that makes it easier to aim. The armour penetration value for this munition is 231mm at the same distance. It's a kinetic penetrator which means that the shot is solid and no explosive is carried in the projectile. The muzzle velocity with the APDS munition was 1200 m/s.
The muzzle velocity for the M7 gun was 800 m/s with the APC shot.
The small difference between the 17pdr and the M7 with the APC shot indicates a much lower m.v. for the 17pdr using the APC shot than with the APDS shot. Not sure about that though. Maybe someone have good data on both guns and different munitions used?
  Topic: Diameters of 17pdr and 6pdr shells
W_Model

Replies: 11
Views: 11814

PostForum: CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword   Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 8:55 pm   Subject: Diameters of 17pdr and 6pdr shells
My best guess is that the M10 3inch and the M10 17pdr are the same.
The calibre for the 17pdr = 76.2mm = 3 inch. The M10 nickname was "Wolverine".
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:02 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Pzt_Kami wrote:
Hi guys;
Ahhh...Its very good that we have discussions such as this one.I hope we
have more like this.


Starting a new.

Dima wrote:
But if iam not mistaken St.Lo was the main objective in Omaha sector


I would say like this:
The main objective with the Utah landing was to secure the Cotentin Peninsula (the area north of the line Carentan - La Heye du Poits) and the Cherbourg harbour.

The Omaha landings primary objective was to link up with with forces from Utah on the right and the brits on the left, thus creating a corridor from Cherbourg to the brittish sector.

GJS beaches. Primary objective for the Brittish/Canadian army was to capture Caen in the first days of fighting.

This was to be phase one.

Phase two was to be a mass of forces in the Caen area and then a breakout south towards Falaise, thus not having to go through the bocage and primarily giving the brittish forces the credit of breaking out..

Monty was a sneaky one... Very Happy
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:36 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Dima wrote:

can be, iam not french.
But if iam not mistaken St.Lo was the main objective in Omaha sector.
In Utah sector the main objective was Cherbourg.


true
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:33 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Dima wrote:
No FJ-Division was in Utah sector, neither St.Lo.
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:33 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Dima wrote:
No FJ-Division was in Utah sector, neither St.Lo.
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:18 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Dima wrote:

Discussion is about Utah sector and Cotentin Peninsula.


well, all I did was to put some info regarding FJDs that saw combat in the area, since it was on the carpet. There I mentioned the 3rd FJD that faught in the St. Lo area. You replied that there were no FJDs in the vicinity of St. Lo. I'm not so sure how the french define the Cotentin Peninsula, but according to wikipedia.org St. Lo is located there.

cheers
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:52 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Dima wrote:

St.Lo is not on Cotentin.


I have never argued that it is.
  Topic: any one from sweden?
W_Model

Replies: 23
Views: 13631

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:48 pm   Subject: Re: Tja
Hoj!

Stalk, vad blir det för vagnar i fall sverige?
Om du inte varit där kan jag rekommendera pansarmuseet i Axvalla Hed. De har typ alla vagnar som rullat i svenska armén.
Som kuriosa kan nämnas att Guderian såg sin första vagn här i Sverige!
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:48 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Glote wrote:

But after some reflextion (and a look in my history books) I'm with you Dima.


No FJDs in the St. Lo area?
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:47 am   Subject: where are the tigers?
Quote:
No FJ-Division was in Utah sector, neither St.Lo.


Well you seem pretty sure..

What I know the II Fallschirmkorps, consisting of the 3rd and 5th FJDs, was sent to the brest area, subordinated XXV Armeekorps in beginning of 1944. After the invasion in Normandy the II FJK was ordered up the line and elements of the 3rd FJD arrived in the St. Lo area, June 10. The 3rd FJD reported deployment complete by june 22 and had taken up position in the St. Lo - Caumont area. Parts of the divison had been in combat since mid june, fighting the american VII corps. The 5th divison was delayed in the brest area awaiting to be relived from its positions, german comanders still didn't see the normandy landings as the allies primary objective and was waiting a second assault. The unit thus was commited piece by piece and it's regiments was subordinated other units.

There were 2 (two) FJ divisons in the Normandy fighting. Very Happy

Cheers
  Topic: where are the tigers?
W_Model

Replies: 32
Views: 14650

PostForum: The Mess   Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:09 pm   Subject: where are the tigers?
Later there were two FJ divisions 3rd and 5th which held 7th Armys right flank in the St. Lo area. 6th FJ regiment was part of 2nd FJ division which was undergoing training in germany. Later the division was subordinated to 15th armeekorps.
 
 
 
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2  Next
Time synchronized with your computer time
Jump to:  




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!