Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:32 pm
—
why do alot of people think they should be extremly hard to see? in COI ive had recon under 100 meters still invisible and REAL RED is worse. we are talking a 1500+ lbs gun. some say it could be camoflauged i say artillery camo is primarily for air recon. you can tell its a big ass man made object that is throwing some big ass rounds out. this is close combat people, an american soldier qualifies at 300 meters with a m16 i qualified at 1 mile with a m2 50 cal yet they cant see the at gun? granted it should and would prob get thefirst shot but to stay invisibe as if it had some sort of star trek cloaking devise WTF! the creaters need to keep it realistic cc2 was a simulation but the later u go it fills more arcade im not sure about cc 4,5 and the remakes but the russian front is rediculous right now cc3 regular seems it could be a good sim but cant find anyone to play regular everyone is rr or coi.

#2: Re: AT guns Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:40 pm
—
People think AT guns should be hard to see because they are hard to spot in reality.
Camo is not primary vs air…. Where did you get that from?
3000 lbs gun (Pak 40), but consider the m2 surface that is visible from the front…. Consider it dug down, consider branches and trees as camo..

A gun crew is trained extensively to camouflage so the gun is not spotted from any enemy ground unit, because if it’s spotted it will be barraged, thus dead.

Spotting it from the inside of a vehicle is very very hard.
A gun in position, that had some hours’ to prepare its camo is really hard to spot even for infantry, you may well stumble on it before you see it.

When it’s fired, and if you have infantry around, the gun position should be reviled rather fast, if not after the first round, then most likely after round no 2 and so. Thus SP was preferd later on.

#3: Re: AT guns Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:07 pm
—
"On August 17th 1941, a single 52-ton tank attacked positions of 3rd Infantry Regiment. Light AT Platoon of 37mm gun that was located on positions opened up at 20m distance at the rear armor after tank has turned.
Several hits and ricochetes of PzGr.40 were visible.Tank turned right and continued movement. First gun followed it by fire at side armor from 30-60m distance without visible success. Second gun opened up from 70m distance at tank's turret, turret ring and hull side. Five PzGr.40 shells fired from 70-110m distance have ricocheted. Tank has turned again. Both guns fired 6+3 PzGr.40 at frontal and side armor without results."

So it's obvious that KV didn't spot Pak36 at 20-100m even after numerous shots Wink

#4: Re: AT guns Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:30 pm
—
Illustrative Dima.

Thanx for the discription.

/St

#5: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:39 pm
—
camo on vehicles and artillery primarily for air. i got that from my experience in the united states army. at gun doug in thus invisible?
trust me when it fires withen a k of you you will get a pretty clear idea where it came from. gun bunnys dont rely on camo in a fire fight they require protection from other ellements u make it sound like its some sort of sniper instead of artillery and it is artillery. spotting from inside vehicle tank apc whatever u are right we tankers relied on the eyes on the ground but thats why we have eyes on the ground. and ther are alot of eyes to see defencive positions and giant guns. and dont get camo twisted its not some miracle that makes everything invisible. infact night time was the only time it impressed me.

#6: Re: AT guns Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:04 pm
—
Yeh, take the square meter of the front of an AT gun, detract the aria that is dug in, and then the aria that is camod behind barnshes and small trees etc. Whats left? Why dont you read the acounts from MW and Carios etc.

And btw, Artillery is not in the front line and is thus not camod in the same way as an front line AT gun. See the diff? The threat is not the same... no?

So u have first hand experiance, wow, so have I.... I served in AT platoon, AT gun at first.. (Im old) Never ever did we get spoted by APC or tanks or its inf before we open fire. Never ever... Dint happen... And we always opend fire FIRST... You know why................?

:)

#7: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:34 pm
—
let me put it simply whats harder 2 see infantry? or a at gun surounded by infantry? its pretty clear mathmaticaly to me

#8: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:38 pm
—
oh and i just read your post and yes it is classified as artillary by your reasoning a light and heavy bomber wouldnt both be bombers becouse one goes farther maybe your alil 2 old Smile

#9: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

#10: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 pm
—
not 2 mention u are going off base if its dug in it better be in a gun whole otherwise its not dug in in coi and if it isnt in a forest there isnt trees and shit around it ive seen it on the top hill in the second map first op invisible. in real life my recon on the 1st hill under 300 meters should see it but i even moved them under 100 meters still nothing and yes its shooting i can see the plums of smoke but my men cant see it its like they need glasses and if u read my original post you would see that i agree at guns may get the 1st shot(most defenders do) but they give there positions away and yes most of your camo is for Air recon(pre attack) purposes that way i dont have u marked on my map. i take the close combat map litterally that at gun sits where it sits your adding all kinds of speculative thinking "oh it could have this it could have that dug in bla blah blah" also theres a big difference between buttoned up driveing and driving open top which is standard until u get a read on the enemy its also how they man the mg and comunicate with infantry (radio sometimes work shity)

#11: Re: AT guns Author: Fiestita, Location: Santa Fe

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:35 am
—
Seriously, AT camo in CC isn't such as you point out NeOmega. Dima can tell I'm used to argue everything, but seriously, if someone fire 2 or 3 rounds to a panther in CC4 without killing the tank, most of the time, that AT gun is dead. And as Dima pointed out, there are ways to conceal a medium gun. Krauts were specialist in such duties.

#12: Re: AT guns Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:40 am
—
I agree that in COI gun visibility is ridiculous.

#13: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:40 pm
—
thats all this post was about coi and rr at guns are crazy i love the russian font but blind fireing everywhere? all the time with line of site issues its crazy and unrealistic

#14: Re: AT guns Author: NeOmega,

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:06 pm
—
or let me restate that for the purpose of the game it dosnt add up vs lets say getting an option to surpress a large section of a wheat feild or whatever otherwise u are telling them to fire at a small section of ground in real life u surpress a larger area therefore for in the game the offence needs to be able to target back

#15: Re: AT guns Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:33 pm
—
The problem in CC3/COI IMO is flawed spotting as MMG squad firing at you at 100m will not be visible to a recce squad either.
Hopefully that's another story in CC5 where spotting works just fine.

#16: Re: AT guns Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:52 pm
—
So how would you feel if someone modded a Howitzer concealed in a bunker and could have indirect LOS like
a Motar team?
These would be limited few and far in between Veteran Teams

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1