Call of Duty scene

m1garand wrote:

By the way, Germans used 7.92X57 (also referred as 8mm mauser, diameter in inches .323), not 7.62mm (which is the diameter of U.S. 30.06 and .308 nato bullets) for their infantry rifles (98K mauser) and their machine guns.

Looks like we are all thinking alike tonight.

HeavyArty wrote:

m1garand wrote:   By the way, Germans used 7.92X57 (also referred as 8mm mauser, diameter in inches .323), not 7.62mm (which is the diameter of U.S. 30.06 and .308 nato bullets) for their infantry rifles (98K mauser) and their machine guns.  Looks like we are all thinking alike tonight.

I guess so my friend! 

Okay, but wille jeeps did had the .50 caliber gun on it, right?

I have a small 1/72 wille jeep with a .50 caliber gun on it, I could use it on a scene.

The bazooka, as we all know it was a U.S rocket launcher, but unlike the panzershrek, it only had one shot, is this true?

T-rex wrote:

Okay, but wille jeeps did had the .50 caliber gun on it, right? I have a small 1/72 wille jeep with a .50 caliber gun on it, I could use it on a scene. The bazooka, as we all know it was a U.S rocket launcher, but unlike the panzershrek, it only had one shot, is this true?

U.S. Jeep (willys jeep) did carry .50 Cal as well as .30 machine guns.  Panzerschrek was also a single shot weapon, not multiple shot.  Both U.S. bazooka and Panzerschrek had to be reloaded after each shot.  

Again, good history book or even online resources can offer you ton of knowledge.  If you are really taking building diorama seriously, then you also should invest good amount of time spending reading and researching.  

Good luck. 

kcmat wrote:

HeavyArty wrote: I wouldn't use any video game as reference for a dio or model.  They are not that historically accurate or detailed.  You will get much better info from good old research on internet sites or (heaven forbid) a reference book.  You will be amazed at what you will be able to find with some good ol' fashioned research. For inspiration yes! Referance no. I too enjoy WWII games on my comp and find myself inspired for a dio idea from either some action or a cutscene from the game. But As HeaveyArty said not for referance. Get the inspiration then do some research.

Okay, for now that's all, but the only thing that is accurate is the intro video of the game, with actual clips movie of the battles, whether its market garden or avalanche its a good thing that there some bonus material in the game about the vehicule, artileryand guns in the game!

I don't know if I still have a copy of it, but a decade ago I used to be heavy into the Advanced Squad Leader board game. One of the things that I enjoyed most were scenarios generated so your opponent didn't know your complete OD of units. To this I modeled off of someone's scenario generator for recon units one based upon the battle of the Bluge. As I said, this was great fun, better than most of the video games as both sides didn't know the all of unit types the other had until they moved and both sides had different objectives. You could have had both sides advancing (colliding) or both defending (probing reconaissance). Some of the situations that occured were when a panther goes down a road only to have a hidden paratrooper bazooka team send a round through its tail. This caused the German player to reconsider his advance as the only road was cut off and advanced his halfracks over the open field which had intersecting fields of fire from concealed M-10's and M-18's along the tree line. A quick end of the scenario occured.

I just wish that there was a video game (armor/infantry sim) out there that could encompass this type of structure. Most of the shooters out there are more fantasy than anything else. This would be great, especially if the game could be played either against another opponent or against the computer.

But true simulation games don't seem to sell well

Just day dreaming,

Mike T.

U.S. Jeep (willys jeep) did carry .50 Cal as well as .30 machine guns.  Panzerschrek was also a single shot weapon, not multiple shot.  Both U.S. bazooka and Panzerschrek had to be reloaded after each shot.

Exactly.  Panzerfaust was a true, fire-one-and-discard weapon; Panzershreck could be reloaded.  I want to remember Pz.Shrk was 88mm; the US Bazooka in WWI aw 2.3" bore (the 3.5" saw action in KW).  The rounds for the Bazooka came in cardboard tubes which were in mustard khaki carriers, three to the pack.  (I've seen a QMC reference to an OD bag, but every bag I have ever actually seen was the mid-war mustard color.)  In a jeep, you probably would find as many reload bags as could be cadged, some as ditty/musette bags for swag, too.

I have a very nice example of one of those bags that I've yet to find dummy/training rounds to fill.  I keep meaning to set done the size of the thing if only to leave on the workbench in case I need to cobble one together.

T-rex wrote:

What I hear is when a bazooka fire its shot, the missile or rocket heat is so intenst that it burns the inside of the gune, after the shot the bazooka was too damage to use agin and was useless, is this true?

If I remember rightly (and that is subject to some question), US Bazookas (mostly) had the rocket motor burn entirely in the tube.  The muzzle lip was added after '43 and that turned any of the exhaust following the rocket out of the tube away from the firer (which was hugely preferred over the rubber protective mask). 

Most of the rocket exhaust on the US Bazooka was right out the "breech" end of the tube, until the rocket began to accellerate up the tube.  Not that much tube-exhaust contact.  Which is why the M6(? either that of M9) bazooka could be split into two tubes with an interlock between them (for both carry disassembled, and locked together in firing mode).  The tube joint was a simple slip-ring joint with (IIRC) a 180º turn to close.  That joint would be just behind the firer's ear, so any "leaking" flame would likely been commented upon to this day <g>.

The Panzerschreck's rocket motor, though, was still burning on exiting the muzzle, thus the need for the big metal shield for the operator.  That PzSck rocket was most of 2cm bigger around, too--needed a bit more push to get down range.

Now, the Panzerfaust used a wooden staff when first issued, and IIRC, it had a blackpowder launching charge rather like a shotgun blank (but not a seperate cartridge per se).  That charge "lobbed" the round off its "stick" igniting a fuze train to light the rocket motor on the charge a couple meters or so in front of the shooter, so they could duck to not "eat" a bunch of rocket exhaust.  Once fired, the PzF "handle" was useless.  I've heard that some of the first Soviet RPGs, (which owed a lot to the P'faust) had some trouble with corrosive exhaust down the launching tube, making that tube much less useable with one's reloads.

T-rex wrote:

What I hear is when a bazooka fire its shot, the missile or rocket heat is so intenst that it burns the inside of the gune, after the shot the bazooka was too damage to use agin and was useless, is this true?

Nope, not true at all.  They were designed to be reusable and were quite effective for continued use.  As stated above, the majority of the exhaust just went out the back of the tube.  They had no issue with the tube burning out.  Again, a little bit of actual research will yield you great results to understanding the weapons and other aspects that you keep asking and assuming about.

HeavyArty wrote:

T-rex wrote: What I hear is when a bazooka fire its shot, the missile or rocket heat is so intenst that it burns the inside of the gune, after the shot the bazooka was too damage to use agin and was useless, is this true?   Nope, not true at all.  They were designed to be reusable and were quite effective for continued use.  As stated above, the majority of the exhaust just went out the back of the tube.  They had no issue with the tube burning out.  Again, a little bit of actual research will yield you great results to understanding the weapons and other aspects that yo keep asking about.

Bazooka team had the shooter and the loader, which means after each shot, the loader reloaded the round.  If you look at Band of Brothers, there is a scene where Lt. Welsh and his paratrooper shoots a round and then reloading it. 

Now, if you are thinking about LAW system, then that is different story.   

Instead of relying on video games as your source of references, check out some web sites and/or books for further detailed information.    

Hermesminiatures wrote:

I've gotten good diorama ideas from company of heroes, and while it's not completely accurate, it's a whole lot better than COD as far as historical accuracy!

Company of heroes is a great game.  I wish they come out with more games like that.  Problem with that game is that you never have A company size man power.   

I wanted to buy a german heavy artilery team but it won't do with the tiger scene, there already a big artilery. and just to remind you that COD won best WW2 shooter game, its way better than metals of honor also the creaters are trying to make it at historiecly accurate as possible, all the levels are real battle and operation, but the action that your character is doing is mostly fake.

I do rely on web but there are so many info that its gets quite confusing, that why I check up here just to make sure (heck if I didn't came here my tiger would be totaly green) that's why I join this forum. Althought I really should buy more books on modeling, only one I have is FSM how to paint and weather book, which is really useful.

Here's another question, Did british, canadiens and U.S soldiers had exploded charges with them, or at least smoke bomb? charges are use to blow tanks up, while smoke bomb were to tell the location of a target to air support.

The British and Canadians (or should we say all Commonwealth troops) had some personal anti-tank weapons, the largest being the PIAT (Portable Infantry Anti-Tank). It was a spring loaded spigot type of weapon. Some of the problems with it is that it couldn't be shot below the horizontal as the shell would shift with gravity and the strength needed to pull back the spring. You can see one used in the movie "A Bridge Too Far" and also in the Polish film "Kanal". The latter also has a German "Goliath" remote controlled demolition vehicle in use. It had a HEAT type of shaped charge for the warhead which didn't require high velocity to penetrate the target. A high intensity flame directed by the shape of the charge did the work. This is similar to the Bazooka, Panzerfaut and Panzershrek.

Gammon mines were also carried by British, I am not sure of the particulars, but they might have been magnetic.

Smoke grenades used by the US were of two types, chemical smoke and White Phosphorus(WP or Willie Peter). WP because of the heat associated with it as well as the choking smoke had an offensive capability. It could be used to clear out a building or a vehicle due to its toxic nature. The disadvantage of WP is that it didn't cling well to the ground generating a taller cloud than the chemical smoke grenade.

Mike T.

T-rex wrote:

Here's another question, Did british, canadiens and U.S soldiers had exploded charges with them, or at least smoke bomb? charges are use to blow tanks up, while smoke bomb were to tell the location of a target to air support.

If you are talking about anti-tank mines, yes.  They were used by all the Allies and by the Axis Powers as well.  Smoke grenades of various colors were also carried by the Allies and Axis.  They were used for much more than marking for aircraft though.

T-rex wrote:

Here's another question, Did british, canadiens and U.S soldiers had exploded charges with them, or at least smoke bomb? charges are use to blow tanks up, while smoke bomb were to tell the location of a target to air support.

U.S. Soldiers carried Sachel charges and hawkins mines, which were explosives.  They had smoke grenades, which were used to signal, mark targets/landing zones or conceal/cover movements.  Those were also used to confuse the enemy as well. 

Now, big question is, is METALS of HONOR some sort of heavy metal band that I do not know about?

Metals of honor isn't a band, it's another WW2 shooter game, similar to Call of duty.

I'm sure there were magnetic mines, but some tanks have anti-magnetic armor, its like a clay substance made it invoruble to magnetic mines.

Sinpers were they on teams or alone? I think it would be better alone for less chances of begin notice. The movie "enemy at the gate" is about snipers but not in britain, its a true story in stalingrad about a russian sniper.

The anti-magnetic coating was called Zimmerite and was only used by the Germans.  It was in response to a perceived threat of magnetic mines.  However, the Allies did not have any magnetic mines and after a few months it was no longer applied to German tanks. 

Snipers work in 2-man teams.  One is the shooter, the other the spotter.  They often alternate positions as well.  You never send out a soldier alone.  We always work in buddy teams. 

Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth.

HeavyArty wrote:

Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth.

Loose is right! Both Germany and Russia used snipers, and Stalingrad existed. Other than that...

Mind you I enjoyed the movie, it was well acted, and the CG aircraft were great. For history buffs, it was a great disappointment, as are most war movies.

Bgrigg wrote:

HeavyArty wrote: Enemy at the Gates is about German and Russian snipers at Stalingrad (not Stalingraph).  It is loosely based on a story of dueling German and Russian snipers, more of a legend than truth. Loose is right! Both Germany and Russia used snipers, and Stalingrad existed. Other than that... Mind you I enjoyed the movie, it was well acted, and the CG aircraft were great. For history buffs, it was a great disappointment, as are most war movies.

You mean Vassili Zaitsev and  Tania Chernova  didn't really fall in love in Stalingrad?  Comrade Commisar Danilov didn't give his life up so that Vassili could take the shot at Major Konig?  

NO CAN'T BE!!! My young Innocent heart is broken!  You bad movie producers! 

Its like they say, "sometimes the trust hurth".

or is it "you want the truth, you can't handle the truth".

Not suprise, althougth Vassili was a real ruissian sniper, his rifle is on dispaly at stalingrad.

One day I will make a diorama of stalingrad with a T-34, maybe beside my czech buliding converded into a ruissan building.

T-rex wrote:

I know this is more of a childish subject but in another forum called "Ideas from images", I learn you can get ideas from anything and so I got alot of ideas from the video game "Call of Duty Roads to victory" for PSP (play station portable). I think it one of the best WW2 base game ever made and funn too, but best of all there are many scene that are mostly accurate events like Operation Market garden 1944, and fairly easy to do for a dio. My head is bobbly with ideas, what do you all think?

T-Rex:

I can appreciate what you're trying to do.  I'm a fan of the Sniper Elite and Brothers in Arms series and actually considered making a diorama modeled after the respective games.

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it. 

I model armor quite frequently and sometimes its a lot of fun to dispense with the rigidness of accuracy.  After all, if you're modeling the game, it can be "accurate" to be "inaccurate"! LOL

Your right, you can never, never NEVER be 100% accurate (unless you been studing on s specifique unti in a battle AKA accuray freak) but its best to make it accurate, just not completely.

Okay I think thats enought on this subject, but I get the point of leaving reality at the door.

m1garand wrote:

Accuracy freaks?

AKA Rivet Counters or Historical Buffs.

Not that there is anything wrong with being accurate, just as there is nothing wrong with painting a flame job on a P-51. Just don't paint the flames, then claim it's accurate.

Accuracy is a point often brought up on the forums. Too clean, too weathered, inaccurate color, zim pattern the wrong shape, width, height, treads sag too much, not enough, shouldn't sag. Tires bulge or don't. Prop shape wrong, or pitch is at the wrong angle.

While all of these things may be true, some of us build for fun and pleasure, and some build to reflect reality. It's the difference between Rembrandt and Picasso. Both are great artists, and in the end it all comes down to a matter of taste.

T-rex is interested in building a dio of a game scene, and why not? Inspiration is inpiration, and should be explored by those who wish to, without limitation or criticism. If this hobby was restricted to only the things that were true and accurate, then you would have to kiss off Star Wars models or Mechs, or Gundam, or Movie Monsters, or ...

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it.

This and all the above by Bgrigg are true.  On the same note, when he asks historical questions (or makes incorrect assumptions) about weapons and battles, he should be given the accurate answers.  Whether one chooses to use them in his model building or not is another issue. 

Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever?? ) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Exactly, do you think I mind that my coirsail is alumiume with a flaming ace on it, No! well maybe a bit it was painted by my brother, but its still cool. Right now i'm painting a mustang blue and silver.

HeavyArty wrote:

In this case, don't listen to the accuracy freaks.  Often the equipment and markings from the games are inaccurate but so what?  Have fun with it.    This and all the above by Bgrigg are true.  On the same note, when he asks historical questions (or makes incorrect assumptions) about weapons and battles, he should be given the accurate answers.  Whether one chooses to use them in his model building or not is another issue.  Likewise, there is no reason to criticise us "accuracy freaks"  (whatever?? ) for providing historically accurate information to historical or operational military questions.  If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Absolutely, Gino! How you (or anyone else) can be blamed for providing an accurate answer or correcting an error, is beyond comprehension. We're all right, and nobody is wrong, when it comes to what we like building as models. As long as we don't misrepresent our work, who should care?

Bill