 |
|
The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! (/showthread.php?tid=40369) |
RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Herr Straße Laufer - 05-05-2007  LOL! I'm here but, it is not really a half track discussion? :rolleyes: I think the main problem with having a 'carry crew' for the mmg bren would begin to unravel other things that should be 'allowed'? In the game you'd have to program them as "not passenger" when taking fire? Or, like tank crews who grabbed their Thomson's and fought forward? Or, the panzer crew who pulled their ball mounted MG-34's, and/or grease guns, and used them? Ivan, the US half tracks had a bit more AA ammunition? They were known to blast away continuously, right before the crews bailed into the roadside ditches? If you guys want to get back into HT discussions let me know? ;) 
RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - McIvan - 05-05-2007 I bet they did have more ammo, Ed, and so would I! I was just quoting the establishment ammo allowance for a US HT. RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - McIvan - 05-05-2007 But I don't reckon that they would have had ten thousand rounds a gun for serious sustained HMG fire, was my point. It would also have been pretty unusual for them to get stuck in the front lines and have their .30 cal MG's dismounted to use as infantry LMGs. They were way too vulnerable to be on the battlefield. RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Von Earlmann - 05-05-2007 UMMMMMMMM...........what was the question? :-) RE:��The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Hobbes - 05-06-2007 Huib Wrote:The reason of my wondering was that I thought The Cameron Higlanders of Ottawa was an infantry machine gun batallion (this is also how the stock oob editor displays the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa), rather than a mechanized unit. However it seems possible they woould have had carriers. Thats why I wondered why Chris 'overruled' the stock editor. Well the post was made after a few beers, but I was interested in how carriers should be used as I thought it an interesting point Huib. In an armoured formation would a MMG carrier not still be manned by infantry units? Armoured infantry I assume but still units that are in theory detachable from the carrier - so is there ever a justification in using a carrier with a non detachable MG? "With the commonwealth I get the feeling they liked shooting off their ammo from the vehicle rather than dismounting. But I don't see why they couldn't, and they probably did if stealth was desired." Possibly just an issue with the game engine here really then. Obviously if they are a seperate unit they would not be able to fire on the move, but I suspect most players would prefer a dismountable unit? Thanks for the posts. Chris RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Herr Straße Laufer - 05-08-2007 LOL! Ivan, I knew what you were saying and I agree with you!  It was my reference to shooting off the ammo before diving in the ditch comment. ;) There was no sustained fire in the HMG role. Unless it was planned for and utilized by local commanders. But, that would be far outside the parameters of the game and it's scale? Good points though. You always have them! And, I usually always end up agreeing with you? :smoke: Mate!RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - Tide1 - 05-08-2007 Everyone likes a good HT picture RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - McIvan - 05-08-2007 You're such a smoothie, Ed :) Come here and gimme a cuddle! RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - McIvan - 05-08-2007 RE: The Great Halftrack Debate 428! - K K Rossokolski - 05-08-2007 Ivan re your last but one Ed is NOT a sheep!! Cheers KKR |
){kind=link}