Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SimpleSimon last won the day on October 13

SimpleSimon had the most liked content!

About SimpleSimon

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

339 profile views
  1. I don't see what use a surrender order would be personally. I would much prefer all men simply continue to be present until they can't if nothing else to stonewall an attacker. I totally agree tho. Units in the game are way too willing to fight to the death regardless of motivation and experience.
  2. It's $35 dollars for two campaigns, a bunch of scenarios, and new units. Didn't seem like a bad deal to me.
  3. Most of an XO's duties take place outside of the game's scope, but using them as liaisons and medics are good ones. In a battle these would generally be the things actually expected of an XO until...well...his CO got killed. If you're crazy like me they frequently end up pressed into recon too.
  4. I think they expect too much of the Garand really more than relying too much on it. Don't get me wrong the Garand has its circumstances where its a far superior weapon to a bolt action rifle...I just think those situations are not universal. Some would disagree and their arguments would not be unconvincing. Crucially I think where the Garand shines brightest is in defense, where its high rate of fire can allow even draftees to rapidly punish attackers for even the smallest mistake.
  5. Browning machine guns, the M2 mortar, the BAR, and the bazooka are all still organic to the formation. Those weapons are the chief tools of an American ToE in reducing an enemy position.
  6. It was outrageous to me that the Germans had so many tubes and so much ammo for them. That was really where I drew the line and realized the scenario was rigged. Since the briefing alludes to a huge rocket artillery bombardment that clearly didn't happen I felt tricked and this was the first mission of the campaign. I didn't continue the campaign for years until the campaign extractor became available so I could examine closely how ridiculous it was and it only got worse from there as I figured. The Russians, for a crossing a river in bad weather against a sector of front that has been static for months get....some SU-76s and the battalion mortars... Where's the Division artillery with its generous compliment of ZiS-3 or 120mm PM-38s that were standard issue for this kind of unit and the mission it was tasked with? Why do the Germans have so much support and so many men? You wouldn't think this was Operation Bagration. One would be forgiven for thinking the mission took place in 1941 on the Vyazma front...
  7. Main thing for me when attacking is just that the men spot what's shooting at them. I don't care if they shoot back and would mostly prefer they didn't until I can sortie up an M1917/19/M2/Forward Observer to their position. Once I have a weapon that can overmatch or at least meet the peer-German weapon it's facing off against then the guys can join in. This isn't always what I do and it's mostly dependent upon the timidity of the defense. It isn't always preferable to divide up weapons elements and it isn't always preferable to leave them on overwatch. I'm crazy enough to see M2 teams as mainly assault troops/w a mortar than a mortar team with assault weapons, you know? Potato-poh-tah-to. I'll be giving that scenario a swing soon since im really drawn to the Brazilian scenarios more than I thought i'd be. I love the idea of American-style ToEs….but minus the Garand. I can imagine i'm probably about to pay for my preference for the M1903 in a Meeting Engagement with German forces though.
  8. Oh gods what i'd do to play some rounds with Kotin's monster. For the most part by Operation Bagration there weren't many left. I don't think a single formation of them even existed by that point though they were still around occasionally as command vehicles for SU formations. Probably a good choice for a command vehicle because of the roomy turret. By 1944 all I can find is that one formation near Leningrad was still a KV-1 unit but they converted to IS-2s before the summer ended. If BF ever gets around to a Kursk or Barbarossa module for Red Thunder you'll certainly see em then and lord knows im holding out for it.
  9. Ohhh boy time to beat this horse. Your first mistake is to play Hammer's Flank unmodified which is a mistake we all made. It depicts an extremely difficult, effectively brain-dead attack on a prepared and unmolested German defense that's foolish to challenge without more support, in the given weather. For many Hammer's Flank was their first ever play with the Red Army...and it's a terrible introductory that's overly scripted, overpacked with units and features a misleading briefing. As for the Red Army, remember that the engine portrays "bad" visibility misleadingly good for the player and Red Army infantry squads often don't have binoculars. Everyone's shooting at what they can see with their plain eyes and that isn't much even in good weather. Remember that the squad will report it can "see" and "engage" an enemy if only one man in the squad can actually do that. Most of them probably can't see anything and the only sure solution to that is to close the range. They may even have line of fire but again the game will report an unobstructed line of fire from the one man who actually has it.
  10. Infantry would've had the weapons either from simply pre-war issue or priority for assaulting formations. The SVT-40 and SVT-38 were both pre-Barbarossa weapons and in fact neither were much liked by the Russians who felt they were complicated and expensive. Notice how most Russian factories switched to SVT-40 production by 1941...the same year as the German invasion per Soviet re-armament plans. The invasion threw all of that off and any factories not overrun had to switch back to Nagant construction because they could get out more of them faster. For a number of years Russian conscripts might well see themselves at the front without a rifle at all so the SVT dropped lower and lower in priority until it became apparent it wasn't crucial anymore and the Red Army expressed clear preference for sub-machine guns for its march into Europe. The kiss of the death for the SVT-40 seems to have been the 7.62x54r cartridge that was standard in Russian arms. The rifle certainly never would've been adopted had it not made use of this round, but it's a rather heavy bullet for a repeating rifle and this usually required a complicated operating mechanism because you couldn't just manufacture the rifle really heavy, or it'd never be accepted into service. Garand originally designed the M1 for a .276 round after all and in the end the Army pressured him to design the M1 around the .306 round...which took some tinkering and caused some problems that were not worked out until just before the war. Then the German's of course had the G41 fail in 1941 producing a battle rifle so notorious for stoppages and failures that the weapon's actual rate of fire was usually lower than a bolt action rifle. The British can hardly be faulted for seeing most of these problems with pre-war rifles and just sticking with the Lee-Enfield...
  11. If you have a clear line of fire for all of your men and are about 200ish meters then yeah all those Garand's fusillading an individual target will work about as well as a machine gun, I just don't think those are the circumstances my infantry find themselves in most of the time in CM. Certainly though, in urban environments and/or defense the Garand's ability to pour out fire is more important than individual marksmanship. If you're going for marksmanship there's not much difference between the Garand and the Springfield. If what you need is suppression though than you'll need the Garand.
  12. Meh. Fixation with the Garand has led to misleading ideas about the firepower of US infantry, which mainly emerged from the many kinds of Browning machine guns which were often detached to Platoons to make use of. The Garand is great....but if you try to treat as your chief source of firepower I believe you'll find it's out its league against the most likely opponent...the MG34/42. In fact belief in the Garand's superiority turned out to be a dangerous illusion that the war broke hence all those panicked attempts to push the M1919 into use as a SAW and why US infantry tended to horde BARs in excess of authorization. Luckily the M1919 and M1917 were so plentiful that Officers frequently let Platoons or Squads have em. The Garand definitely had a role to play in the "Typhoon of Steel" American troops were often known for...but the majority of that was plentiful allotments of assets normally reserved at the Battalion or Regimental level in most armies. Only the German Army tended to be as cool about releasing very heavy equipment to very low ranks. I personally use rifle infantry for screening my heavy weaponry...and little else. I guess much of it is playstyle but tbh I don't find much difference between the Garand and Springfield the way I play. I don't expect rifle infantry to achieve much outside of grenade chucking range and usually task them with that in mind. Screen my mortars and machine guns and trench raid enemy positions once close enough for which the grenade is the tool of choice. The boys could be armed with pitchforks or claymores for all I care.
  13. A hunt command more like a "Seek and Destroy" that will ignore distant contacts or events outside a set range would be pretty nice.
  14. One thing I've found that helps missions is to chose area bombardment for Field Guns and Howitzers and allow them a wide area so that their corresponding tolerance for error is much wider. Shots end up in the selected area more easily and you can get to business sooner. Point bombardment in CMWW2 only really works if the FO has an entirely unobstructed line of sight.
  15. The people's army require merely the will of Marxism to crush fascist tanks Comrade.
×
×
  • Create New...