Jump to content

Duckman

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Duckman

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Osprey book Osprey World War II Infantry Tactics - Company and Battalion by renowned expert Stephen Bull has some info on frontages: Of course those are ideal circumstances with a full strength unit, and some situations (notably urban combat) would be much denser. From what I can find even late WWII attack frontages were significantly smaller, demonstrating the increase in firepower and support weapons between the wars. Cold war frontages were much wider but that's hardly a 1:1 comparison given mechanization.
  2. Zaloga in Armored Thunderbolt says the 4th AD at the time of Arracourt was "equipped with mostly older M4 tanks built in late 1942 and early 1943, but which had undergone the blitz upgrade in the summer of 1943 with the new M34A1 gun mount with telescopic sight and applique armor over their ammo racks". He says they were offered some 76 mm Shermans but turned them down.
  3. Interesting topic. Couple of comments: - Battle fatigue has probably always existed (there are likely references to it in older texts) but one thing that may have mitigated it was that war and combat was more a seasonal thing, not the multi-year and all-year deployments seen in modern conflicts. In other words there was more recovery time. - Van Creveld goes into the WWII situation in some detail in Fighting Power where he compares the US and German armies. He blames the much higher US incidence of battle fatigue on the lack of primary group bonds caused by the lack of regional recruitment policy as well as the well-known replacement system, and also the lack of unit rest and rotation. The Germans despite the pressure they were under managed to do those things right, partly because of tradition and experience from WWI (the US situation improved towards the end of the war when some issues were fixed). He also mentions widespread acceptance of Freudian ideas in American society as a possible secondary explanation. - Research I think suggests humans are somewhat like a battery, with soldiers managing a max of 300-ish days in the combat zone. Rest can recharge the battery but not up to full power. Of course there are outliers in each direction, but for the vast majority those figures should hold.
  4. Belated thanks for the replies. I'll look into your suggestions.
  5. Seems the legacy games went the way of the dodo with the new website and store. Probably because of this I feel an urge to buy the CM1 bundle (had them ages ago on CD but would really like a digital version). Is this impossible? I'll pay!
  6. - Best artillery model. - Best armour model. - Best graphics in a wargame. - Real-time is fun. - Did I mention the artillery model?
  7. They're working their way backwards through WWII, sort of. Whether they'll ever get to 1941 i don'y know, but I hope so. The reason for starting backwards is that there's more of the stuff that people want and recognize (like cool tanks and the invasion of Normandy) then.
  8. Which is the Battle of the Atlantic game? As for the last part, I agree. The lack of a WWII tank sim is puzzling for starters.
  9. Super interesting article, thanks. In a WWII context i guess it validates the sometimes criticized German choice of a fairly accurate (low shot dispersal) machinegun and the tactic of firing (fairly) aimed bursts with it, even if they may have made those choices for other reasons. The Garand should also fit the bill. I know the general thesis is that theoretical weapon accuracy is the least important parameter, but he also specifically noted the difference in efficiency between the Minimi and SA80 LMG.
  10. I've noticed over the years that there is often a disconnect between the things discussed by wargamers and the things discussed in manuals and memoirs. Wargamers (and history buffs in general) often turn tactical discussions into technical ones that focus on gun size, armour thickness, etc whereas tactical instructions stress things like speed, surprise, coordination, and violence of action. On defence the main things points are usually fire discipline before opening fire and volume of fire after opening fire. One of the many good things about CM is that the increased fog of war compared to most wargames (both board and computer) can lead to a more realistic mentality in my opinion. More overall planning and less micromanagement, if you will. I quite like real/continuous time for this reason.
  11. Pictures of US soldiers in camo in Normandy: https://www.atthefrontshop.com/category_s/97.htm You can definitely see how misidentification would be a problem, especially in this picture:
  12. That's what I remember reading as well. It just wasn't worth the hazard. I think the US Army used some camo gear in the Pacific, as well as the USMC of course. I've also read somewhere that many Allied troops automatically thought German troops in camo were snipers, since they were one of the few Allied troops (as well as British paratroops) that regularly wore camo in the ETO. This apparently contributed to a bit of a sniper scare in Normandy when individual German troops left behind were considered snipers and thereby extra dangerous. (It actually went both ways: there is at least one instance of captured British paratroopers being executed in Normandy, probably because they were mistaken for commandos.)
  13. You can actually play the Total War games like that, with the camera slaved to the general. It's quite an interesting experience and has you running around the battlefield. It also puts even more of a premium on sound prebattle deployment.
×
×
  • Create New...