Jump to content

Sgt Joch

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Sgt Joch

  • Rank
    CM Beta Tester
  • Birthday 08/28/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Montreal, Canada


  • Location
    Montreal, Canada
  • Interests
    wargaming, military history
  • Occupation
    walking my dog

Recent Profile Visitors

1,064 profile views
  1. or worse, being sure you remember something and when you do check the actual reference, you realise you remembered it completely wrong. A problem as you get older. For example when I did the "Battle of Chaumont" scenarios, I had found a source listing the exact types, i.e. 75mm, 76,mm, Jumbo fielded by the U.S. forces, but now I cannot find the source or even remember what it was...
  2. not directly related, but good summary of the equipment used by U.S. armored divisions in late 44-early 45. https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/
  3. ok war movie, but very interesting because it features the Canadian Army in a semi-realistic scenario. I have actually seen it several times. One interesting bit is that the director/star Paul Gross actually went to Kandahar when the Canucks were still there and filmed a lot of footage, so the footage you see from 20 to 40 minutes in on Kandahar, helicopters, life on the base is all actual footage. The film itself was shot in Manitoba...amazing what you can do in a film. My fav scene is the funeral at the end..something about bagpipes...
  4. bit late to this discussion, but here is another interesting article on the key role suppressive fire plays in successful infantry combat: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/Suppression McBreen 2001.pdf
  5. From what I have been able to find out, there was no clear pattern. Shermans were sent to depots and from there sent to combat units based on their needs. For example, when researching the battle of Chaumont scenario, I found out Patton's 4th armored division in December 44 was equipped with a mix of six month old tanks, tanks at the end of their service life and tanks in need of repairs, as well as new replacements. Of course, at this point, the 4th armored had been in pretty much continuous action since august. I have a list of the exact types present on dec. 23, 44, I will see if I can find it.
  6. sorry to hear about Nidan1, I played a few PBEM games with him. He was a fine gentleman.
  7. many factors go into a AFV's off road capability, i.e. ground pressure, suspension design, MMP rating, durability of components, etc. The game does not rely on any one factor. the Bar rating is only a rough indication of off-road capability. I had run some bogging tests of the T34-85 (3 bar) vs Tiger I (4 bar) some times back and in game performance of both was very similar:
  8. this can be useful as well: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-8-1/index.html
  9. This has been discussed often, not only in RL, but in the forum. There were some good reasons why NATO switched from a 7.62 mm to a 5.56 mm round. Studies in WW2 showed that: 1-most firefights take place within 200 meters; 2-most infantry casualties are caused by mortars/artillery; 3-the principal role of small arms is to suppress enemy infantry to increase the effectiveness of point #2. The reason why 5.56 mm was adopted: 1. 5.56 mm weighs roughly 1/2 as much as 7.62 mm, so you can carry a lot more. That allows infantrymen to keep up a higher ROF to suppress enemy soldiers; 2. within 200 meters, 5.56 mm round can kill/incapacitate as well as 7.62 mm round; 3. with 5.56, you can use lighter, smaller weapons like the M4, which are easier to carry and more maneuverable in confined spaces, i.e. urban, room clearing. Certainly, you can find situations where the longer range/extra penetration of a heavier round might be more useful, but infantry is supposed to be working in cooperation with supporting arms, HMGs, AFVs, artillery, etc. to deal with those situations. Add to that the fact that everyone else, including the Russians (5.45 mm) and the Chinese (5.8 mm) have switched to a lighter round for the same reasons. So yes, these discussions come up very few years, but I don't see a switch away from 5.56 in NATO forces anytime soon.
  10. yes, I have been playing a lot of CMBS lately, night scenarios. There are spotting issues that have to be tweaked. UKR tanks are blind while RUS T-72s/BMP3s have X-ray vision. OTOH U.S. Abrams + drone + 155mm Paladin w. precision ammo = shooting fish in a barrel...
  11. Other polls are consistent with that. Again, as some have pointed out, there may be the question of whether all poll respondents are lying because they are afraid the secret police will send them to Siberia. However, follow up questions in at least one Ukrainian poll suggest most Crimeans would rather be part of Russia than part of Ukraine:
  12. No, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an illegal war. The Bush administration tried to come up with legal rationales, i.e enforcement of existing U.N. resolutions or some made up doctrine of the "preemptive self defense", but those have been debunked by legal experts. but we are getting way off topic.....
  13. That is the simple explanation, but it only provides a small part of the answer. What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low and so poorly run. Speer took over in January 1942 and tank production only started to really take off in early 43 when he used his political muscle to make sure tank production received priority of resources, even Tooze admits that. The advantage Speer had was direct access to Hitler which was the source of all power in the Third Reich. A technocrat with brilliant ideas is useless if he does not have the authority to implement them.
  14. Tooze brings up a lot of very interesting points when dealing with the war economy. For example, the standard view is that Hitler kept the economy at a peacetime setting to keep the support of the German people and only switched to a "Total War" economy in 1943. Tooze however argues quite convincingly that Germany had switched to a "Total War" economy as early as 1939-41, i.e.: -production for the domestic consumer market was cut to the bare minimum; -around 85% of German men in their 20's were serving in the Wehrmacht; -once you add in German women who were working on their family farms, while their husband/fathers were away, the percentage of German women active in the workforce is basically the same as in the U.K./USA. Again the standard view is that the massive increase in armament production in 1942-44 is due to switching from a peacetime to a war time economy. The implication being that if Hitler had switched earlier, he might have won the war. However, according to Tooze, Germany was already in a Total War economy and the increase in production is due to better manpower use and reallocation of resources. In 1940-42, many arms factory only worked one 8 hour shift, not because Germany was in a peacetime economy, but due to lack of basic resources. Germany was facing a labour shortage, since so many men were in the Wehrmacht, and a shortage of basic raw materials. Raw steel production stayed basically the same from 1939 to 1944. Where Tooze's analysis gets a bit fuzzy though is in trying to explain the 1944 "Armaments miracle". He does not want to give any credit to Speer who he views as basically just a politician trying to build a bureaucratic empire. I agree that Speer's reputation is overblown, but he did have managerial skills. According to Tooze, the 1944 production figures boil down to: - increased workforce: the remaining German workers were working 80 hour weeks and there was a massive use of "Slave Labour"; -better allocation of raw resources: by 1944, Speer could allocate resources/labour which allowed him to kick start many projects like the V1/V2; -creative fudging of the books. This however, does not explain why Tank/aircraft production went up 3-4 times from 1942 to 1944. What is skimmed over in Tooze is that rationalization in programs (what was being built) and how they were built were both improved which had an impact, and the rationalization push came from Speer's department However, no matter my quibbles, I consider Tooze's book to be one of the most important book on ww2 to come out in a long time.
  15. Agreed. Hitler's policies made war pretty much unavoidable. Some however have argued that the Nazi economy was a house of cards and that Hitler was forced to start the war to prevent economic collapse. Nothing in Tooze supports that analysis. Hitler could have stepped back from the brink at any time with the only cost being a recession and increased unemployment.
  • Create New...