Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 85735 times)

Offline CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.448
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #195 on: 18-02-2013, 10:02:08 »
Thanks for the answers about barbed wire. I have a new question I bet a lot of you can answer.

What is the most common weapon you rarely see in FH2, and the least common you see a lot? I'm thinking of hand weapons but you can include vehicles if you want. To elaborate: suppose you got a friend to play FH2 and he knows absolutely nothing about World War 2. He plays for a week and plays all the maps 10 times. What weapon would he walk away thinking was really common (when in real life it was super rare) and what weapon would he think was hard to find (when in real life it was used lots).

I was curious because of reading some old threads here that had some people moaning about how the G43 is so common in FH2 (apparently), which added to my own thoughts about how hard it can be to find a faust in Europe but you could have an endless geballte army in theory.
« Last Edit: 18-02-2013, 10:02:17 by Christie.Front.Drive »
Quote from: TASSER1
you suck. noone likes you. and your mother isn't pretty

Quote from: Eightball1182
Andrew.Drunk.Drive...I love u man. You get it...u get it 100%. Stay cool Canada brother.

Offline Steel_Lion_FIN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.475
  • Mostly drunk.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #196 on: 18-02-2013, 11:02:19 »
One of the "common rare" weapons would be the FG-42, especially the ZF-version, and the "rare common" would be the M1A1 Carbine, since we have many airborne maps and the majority of Carbines we see there are fixed-stock M1s and Garands.
I'd rather play Kimble with my ass!


Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.125
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #197 on: 25-02-2013, 21:02:20 »
Two questions on the Pacific war:

1) Is it true that the US didn't attack Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor (not talking about the Doolittle attack, but on an all out attack to defeat Japan asap) because of
a) lack of carriers
b) distance
c) reaince on airpower which needed airfields close enough to Japan?

2) Is it true that the battle of the Philippine Sea was the biggest naval battle in world history? (Or is it a case of Prokhorovka?)

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #198 on: 26-02-2013, 01:02:24 »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_naval_battle_in_history

And yeah, we were on the defensive for the rest of 1941 and into 1942, and didn't secure the naval aspect until after Midway really.  Beyond that, Roosevelt made the agreement to deal with Germany first, probably due to the need to aid the Soviets and British before dealing with an enemy whom we had much greater buffer zone from the various nations engaged.  Add in that Japan, due to the distances, had to be defeated methodically one island chain and fleet at a time, versus general ground offensives in Europe, Japan would have been thought to be the longer lasting foe.

Offline Korsakov829

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.751
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #199 on: 26-02-2013, 01:02:46 »
2) Is it true that the battle of the Philippine Sea was the biggest naval battle in world history? (Or is it a case of Prokhorovka?)

Biggest as in number of ships or troops? Which battle of the Philippines?

I believe the battle at Chi Bi was the largest in history, with General Cao Cao claiming to have almost a million troops (real number estimated at 200,000) and the coalition having about 50,000. Hard to prove since it was almost 2000 years ago however. A lot of ships would have been needed to carry that size of an army, horses and supplies included.

Offline Oberst

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 854
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #200 on: 26-02-2013, 12:02:01 »
What about first world war and the Battle of Jütland aka Skagerakschlacht?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.125
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #201 on: 26-02-2013, 13:02:37 »
Thanks for the asnwers, I didn't realize that you can name "biggest naval battle" in so many different ways. At least the battle I meant was in the list :)

@ Korsakov: before I asked the question I thought it'd be in the number of ships, but it turned out to be the largest single naval formation ever to give battle in tonnage. Also it was the largest carrier battle, and the largest one of WWII. I meant that Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944.

@ Oberst: that battle is in the wikilink too which Mudra posted.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #202 on: 10-03-2013, 15:03:17 »
Okay guys, since this is a "General" questions thread, i feel like posting this, even tought it is science fiction

I always had a huge thing for alien invasion movies. And War of the worlds (2005) is a favorite. Its a movie with flaws, but those tripods are just so fucking awesome. And the horror that they create...Brilliant

but

there is one flaw i just cannot...cannot get talk good.

Now in this movie about 2/5 down the way, Ray ferrier meets up with a TV crew after there first encounter with these tripods. The TV crew said that they were attached to a national guard unit and they said that "Shells and missiles detonate before they impact because of a shield".

Now here is a thing that puzzles me. You later see M1A1 Abrams tanks engaging these tripods with the above result. The shells detonate before they impact.


But..

How can a 120mm APSFDS Solid tungsten shell "Detonate" when it is a shell that relies on kinetic firepower and does not contain explosives? Issent this a big flaw in the movie as M1A1 abrams primarly use these APSFDS shells over HEAT rounds????
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline PanzerKnacker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.912
  • Tommyjäger
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #203 on: 10-03-2013, 15:03:44 »
it's not such big of a flaw, IMO, I didn't know that until now. Heck I don't even remember Abrams shooting the tripod.

Researching the shell types (even remembering to research the nature of the shells) is a bit much to ask of Hollywood, and later to explain to everyone not familiar with the tank shells of the US Army why didn't the shell go off like every other shell....too much work for that 2 second blast.
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #204 on: 10-03-2013, 15:03:28 »
Still they mention that the shield makes the shells "Detonate" BEFORE they can impact. So basicly something is done that makes the explosives detonate prematuraly.

Still a bit of a flaw IMO. They should have said that she shield stops "Anything" before it impacts. Would have made more sense
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline ajappat

  • "Cheater"
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.599
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #205 on: 10-03-2013, 15:03:35 »
Well what if the shield just smelts the round into spectacular shower of steel and what ever other stuff that shell has.

Edit: Watched that part on youtube and I couldn't see single hit on those tripods that was shot by abrams.
« Last Edit: 10-03-2013, 15:03:33 by ajappat »

Offline Turkish007

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.060
  • Mini-mod necromancer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #206 on: 10-03-2013, 15:03:31 »
Was the Canadian Ross rifle still in use during WW2?

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #207 on: 10-03-2013, 16:03:32 »
Was the Canadian Ross rifle still in use during WW2?
Only in training did some canadian soldiers got there hands on them

and the Royal Canadian Navy, the Veteran's Guard of Canada, coastal defense units, training depots, the British Home Guard, London Fire Brigade and such


But only Mark 3 Ross rifles
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #208 on: 10-03-2013, 20:03:26 »
New question

did german WW2 ammo has corrosive primers?

And if so, what type of rifle bore cleaner did they used?
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline ksl94

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 739
  • British Imperialist
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #209 on: 10-03-2013, 20:03:15 »
According to my rather poor knowledge about German equipment, they were corrosive just like the British ones were. I am not shure if the German practice of cleaning barrels was much different from the British one. Usually, you would simply run piping hot water through the barrel, but avoid causing any spills, since guns don't like water at all, especially if it leaks below the furniture  :P . After that you would dry and oil it. The German gun oil of the time has been Ballistol Universaloel. That stuff is quite good, I have used it to great effect. I'd say it beats Rem-Oil in many ways.