Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Posts

    9,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B

  1. The M1 only has a significant FP advantage vs the Lee-Enfield at faily short ranges (less than 100m) where ROF is most important. At all other ranges there is little or no difference.

    Let me repost my little FP table from earlier in the thread, since no one seems to have looked at it the first time (why do I bother?):

    ...

    Lee-Enfield ROF: 15 aimed shots per minute.

    M1 Garand ROF: 25-30 aimed shots per minute.

    CM firepower rating.

    Firepower at: 40m 100m 250m

    M1 Garand:___13___7____3

    Lee-Enfield:__10___6____3

    ...

    Once again, where is the problem?

  2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    Rather I started out by making the point that according to the information I have, not ever infantryman in the US Army was armed with the M1 Garand, yet the game assumes they were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Once again, were some 1903s used as sniper rifles throughout the war, but they were not carried by the typical US infantryman in the ETO 1944-45 (period of the war covered by CM and therefore the only one relevant to the game). I have seen no information here to refute this.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It also seems to assume that invariably the US Army's firepower was greater than the Commonwealth armies' because the ROF for US weapons was higher than that of Commonwealth ones, and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    US infantry firepower advantage over British units in the game is mainly due to the larger size of the squads (12 men vs. 10). If you take away 2 riflemen from the US squads and then compare apples to apples, you see that overall firepower is fairly even. The US squad has more at close range (40m), the British has more at long range (200m and up). At 100m they are about the same. I fail to see the problem here.

    If the Lee-Enfield were to be given the same FP rating as the M1 Garand, the British squad would actually have more firepower than the US squad on a man for man basis at all ranges (due to the Bren MG). Maybe this is what some people actually want and are unwilling to come out and say it, but I have seen no evidence here to support this.

    This is the second time I have posted this information. Hopefully it will be read this time.

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  3. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    IIRC there were two models, one selective fire, one full auto only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I believe all or nearly all BARs in use 44-45 were full auto. I know all BARs made from 1940 were.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Judging by the fact that more full-auto capable weapons were taken up it must be concluded this technical advantage was not utilized IRL

    Hence the M1 Garand should be toned down in CM in relation to the bolt action rifles... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Cripes.

    Last time: The 2 BARs had nothing to do with M1 ROF vs. bolt action. I have no idea where you get this. They took the 2nd BAR so as to have a 2nd full-auto weapon with serious power. Simple as that.

    Now I'm going for real. I can't keep Terry Farrel waiting any longer smile.gif

  4. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    The "problem" is the fact that the TacAI is the same for ALL units regarless of the differences in the official tactics and doctrine. Most of the actions in CM are determined by the TacAI, not the player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    One last blurb.

    The problem of programming it into the TacAI is that it is then set in stone for all Scenarios/QBs, regardless of date or troop experience. So playing a QB in April '45 with crack troops, you would see your Ami units use the same dumb tactics they did in the bocage when they were fresh off the boat. Not good. Not realistic.

    If you want to have no-shooting Amis vs. blazing Germans, just play Green Amis vs. Reg or Vet Germans and you'll get the desired end result. But this way, you're not forced into it all the time like your ideas would.

  5. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    judging by the need to take up extra BAR's to increase the ROF of a platoon regardless of the fact that the M1 Garand was more than capable technically to handle the job. Instead "proper" high ROF weapons, (but not the SMG smile.gif) were taken up to work the suppression angle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Your logic is off here. The M1 is semi-auto. The BAR is full-auto. That's why they took an extra for more FP. To suggest that this somehow indicates the M1 had no higher a ROF than a bolt action is nonsensical.

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  6. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    He rarely even SAW a target but how RARELY did he SHOOT at it if he saw a it (or a bush that acted like a target) ? Let alone hit it. :cool:

    I just absolutely love semantics. :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Uh... if you're shooting at a target you can't see, and likely only have a general idea of his location, that's not an aimed shot, that's area fire.

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  7. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    Not really. The big stuff going off just masks the inferior small unit tactics. And that is counterproductive as the brass back at the capital do not understand your needs to make changes in the armour production so you get heavier (and more expensive) tanks to the front. And they sure as hell will not understand how the hell were you able to squander ALL the artillery rounds sent your way to pound that little patch shrubbery on that small farm. :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There is some truth to this, but tactics could and did evolve seperate from official doctorine. The grunts on the ground who saw their buddies being mowed down while doing "Walking Fire" did not wait for the brass to figure it out. They learned overwatch and suppression, even though it wasn't "official". Just like carrying 2 BARs was not official TO&E. This is why forcing all US squads in CM to follow official US tactical doctorine (as you want) would not be any more historically correct than it is now (leaving it up to the player). But that's a different thread (I hope).

  8. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    Then how can it be said that the rifle was an insignificant cause of casualties if 30% of the total number can not be verified accurately enough ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    A disproportionate number of unaccounted for were likely killed by artillery, as opposed to bullets. Think about it and I'm sure you'll see why.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aimed fire was not RARE at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Depuy: "He was trained to shoot at and hit a target, but in combat, in the attack, he rarely ever saw a target."

    Care to rephrase? smile.gif

  9. Willpower...fading...can't...resist...urge...

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    30 % of the casualties are unaccounted for. Can you provide the breakdown of that part ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If they could be broken down, they wouldn't be unaccounted for.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Today they are. But not according to the British and the American WWII doctrines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As someone who has read Depuy should know, doctrine and practice are not always the same.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not really. Aimed fire was not extremely rare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore everyone wanted to do it, even the Germans, but apart from the Red Army and the Japanese very few armies employed consistent tactics and doctrine that presented suitable targets for it at comfortable ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I see a contadiction in these 2 statements.

  10. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:

    Not good enough, Vanir - perhaps you should answer my question first - how many _didn't_ it kill?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You see, you misunderstand the purpose of the "application of firepower". The goal is not to completely wipe out every last enemy soldier, but to disrupt and atrit. The PBI will alway have to go in at some point, and always with the expection of meeting resistance and taking some loses. So how is it that the lack of mass firepower actually makes the battlefield more safe for the grunts? At the very worst, the enemy is uneffected, in which case losses would be the same as if there was none.

    In short, there is nothing to lose by mass FP except ammo, and potentially a lot to gain (fewer enemys shooting back).

    EDIT: Misread part of the question, sorry about that

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  11. Airpower has only failed in those conficts insomuch as it did not win the war all by itself (well, actually, it did in Kosovo...). That's a very narrow diffinition for success. It could also be said that armor failed in WW2 because infantry, artillery and airpower was also required for victory, and it would be just as silly.

    Boy, now we're way off topic. Anyone think the Ravens will repeat this year? :D

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  12. I can see this is becoming pointless. I'm just repeating myself over and over and you're ignoring the evidence I post to back my statements.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    I'd also suggest that being non-military trained makes you rather unqualified to pass judgement on whether or not military training methods are wrong or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I knew you were going to say that eventually. Never mind the fact that a long time military man has echoed almost everything I have said. Never mind that I have backed up my points with evidence other than my own personal opinion. Never mind the fact that being in the military apparently did not prevent you from being completely ignorant of basic US and German infantry tactics in WW2.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soldiers are taught to hit what they aim at, not just blaze away in the general direction of the enemy. If their section command indicates a target, they are expected to hit it, not metres to either side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Read Dupey and related quotes I provided on this subject. Oh, wait, they weren't British so that's a strawman. Nevermind.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as someone else has pointed out, rather tellingly, they lost. They were unable to prevent themselves from being outmanauvred or plain outfought and they lost. The proof is in the pudding and that one's recipe was

    shown to be somewhat wanting in substance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It's a fatuous arguement. Under this logic, everthing about the losing side in a conflict is necessarily inferior to the winning side, else they would not have lost.

    There have been whole books written on why Germany lost WW2, and you will not find one that lists poor small unit infantry tactics as one of them.

    I suppose you think the Allies had better tanks than the Germans. They had to have. They won. The proof is in the pudding.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was under the impression that people wanted to utilise the correct tactical doctrine for the period, rather than trying to act like the Mobile Infantry of Starship Trooper fame in 1944-45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have posted quite a lot of first hand information about what tactical doctorine was used for the period. Starship Troopers? Eh... right.

    [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  13. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

    For those who don't know about the reduced firepower of the squad organic MG42: The MG42 as part of a squad is reduced in firepower compared to the MG42 LMG that can be purchased separately. This is to account for the fact that one of the riflemen in the squad would be helping with the belt ammo. And since all men in a squad are modeled as firing a weapon, a reduction was made to the MG42 firepower to make up for the ammo loader's duties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    A little off topic, but this is generally not true. Due to what I think is likely a bug, the LMG42 in all German squads except VG Heavy SMG is allowed to fire with only 1 soldier manning it and with no loss of FP. The FP reduction to simulate 1 rifleman assisting the gunner does not exist. It was supposed to, but it isn't in there. I think this is also true for British squads with the Bren as well.

  14. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    Vanir, I have not said that this "did not work". I have made the point that this was not how the British army worked. Stop erecting a strawman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Strawman? The Americans appear to have been trained in a manner similar to the British and found it to be lacking in actual combat. That seems rather pertinent to the discussion to me.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss how the armies of the period acted, and in particular reference to the way in which the game appears to over-emphasise the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles compared to bolt-action ones, I felt my experience might be useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ok, lets leave Tero Country behind and get back to the original point.

    Lee-Enfield ROF: 15 aimed shots per minute.

    M1 Garand ROF: 25-30 aimed shots per minute.

    CM firepower rating.

    Firepower at: 40m 100m 250m

    M1 Garand:__13___7____3

    Lee-Enfield:__10___6____3

    CM actually rates them pretty close to equal until you get to very short range. So, where is the problem? I don't see it.

    [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  15. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    Hey ! Those are MY anti-American national bias quotes you are quoting. Find your own hobby horse, this one is already spoken for. :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yup. And once again thanks for digging them up. I couldn't get to the originals as the links no longer work (the Carlisle-Mil site, or whatever it was called, seems to have disappeared). I'm sure they've been moved somewhere but Google couldn't find it.

    Of course, I'm using them for a somewhat different purpose than you originally attempted to do...

    [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

  16. Colonel Harry B. Shermalt, Commanding Officer -th Infantry, ITALY:

    "In most cases it would be better if they fired even if there is no visible target. A group of riflemen may be stopped by a German machine gun which they can’t locate, but if they will open fire in the general direction of the machine gun the Germans will usually pull out. I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on fire orders and fire control by unit leaders. Men must be taught to open fire at once in the general direction of any target that is holding them up"

    [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

×
×
  • Create New...