SgtMuhammed

I believe it is you who owe me young kniggit.

It was both. Vehicles couldn't pass the shingle, the same problem that would later be encountered at Omaha. Just a little trivia. Don't go to Normandy today and expect to see what they saw then. Most of the boccage is gone and the Engineers buldozed the shingle away shortly after the landings.

The failure to close the gap at Falaise rests entirely with Bradley. He knew that Patton was in position to close the gap and all it would have taken was a quick call to Ike to redraw the boundry line between the American and British forces. In fact Patton actually joked that he could close the gap and drive Monty into the sea. Bradley's refusal to do this stemmed from professional jealousy. He felt that he had done his part so now Monty should do his. Not one of Bradley's more shining moments. One of the reasons for not changing the boundry was the possiblilty of friendly fire incidents. As it turned out, however, the Polish unit that made contact with the American arm engaged them even with the boundry in place. Given that it happened anyway I don't put much credence in the friendly fire argument. The allies blew it there much like they blew it during the bulge counter attack.

!

Once more from the top. Changes in infantry small arms only affect the operational or strategic level if they are revolutionary not evolutionary. The switch from smoothbore muskets to rifles was a revolutionary change as it changed the entire dynamic of the battlefield. Troops were under a longer period of effective fire which made the effective use of old tactics impossible. The switch from muzzle to breach loading was revolutionary as once again it changed the dynamic of the battlefield. Troops could now reload from low cover and keep up a rate of fire that was an order of magnitude higher. The introduction of the belt fed machine gun made it possible to keep up a constant curtain of lead over an area. It became possible for a handful of men, with minimal preparation, to hold up the advance of ten times their number or greater. All these weapons changed strategy as well as tactics because they made the old way of doing things obsolete. The same is not true of the introduction of the MP44. What it represents is an evolutionary change. Yes it has a high rate of fire but, unlike the squad's machine gun, this cannot be maintained for long periods of time. This is why the machine gun is still the weapon of choice for area supression. Further the higher rate of fire doesn't generally increase the chance that the individual soldier will kill more of the enemy. Bursts of automatic fire are still fired at single targets. If a soldier with an automatic weapon sees three men he doesn't fire a three round burst and expect to put a bullet in each one. He fires a three round burst at each one hoping to increase his chance of hitting each individual target not the group as a whole. Automatic weapons try to put the maximum amount of lead in an area in hopes that a specific target will be hit. They do not put a hail of rounds on a target hoping that each round will hit. The only way the MP44 could have changed the strategic picture would have been if you could reverse this. As it doesn't its effects on the overall picture would be minimal.

This is a general symptom of a lack of history, not just in the U.S. military but in the society as a whole. Preserving our past takes a distant back seat to most other concerns. I wish the Smithsonian would make a ground version of the Air and Space Museum.

I don't think you can import it into an op. You can import it into a QB. I'm not positive though. I will look into it a little harder.

Hopefully the next build will enable designers to give the AI a general stance like hold in place or hit and fall back. I am having problems getting my guys to stay put as well.

The interesting thing is that as much as the U.S. fought being involved in the Med to begin with it did serve one extreemly useful purpose. It allowed the Allies to practice assaulting an enemy shoreline in an area that wouldn't lose them the war. Could you imagine the carnage that would have resulted had the allies landed in Normandy before experiencing North Africa, Sicily, and the Italian landings?

Ok, version for 1.02 and 1.03c are done. The op for 1.03c has been updated so I will send you a new file if you have an older version. Thanks everybody for your time, James

Actually I prefer the beginning.

Oh, the old set up a killing zone and then pound the enemy when he stumbles into it trick. They ought to try this one at the war college. Still better than any count I have achieved yet.

Actually yes. While I am taking my time an picking his guys off one at a time, he is busy spraying the ground and trees with unaimed fire. I will trust my life time experience with firearms and my ten years of training and experience to keep my head. The majority of soldiers do not have this option which is why most armies have adopted ARs in the first place. A man who can remain calm and fire aimed shots can outshoot someone spraying rounds on full auto any day.

Really nice when you check out all the other stuff that is available from that site.

Why are we congradulating Andrew, his wife did all the work. Happy thoughts for all of you. I don't think I ever felt better than the day my son was born. Take care, James

One can get differing figures and impressions depending on whether the author uses losses to all causes or takes time to sift through the figures for strictly tank on tank losses. A big thing to remember is that both the Soviets and the Western Allies were attacking which tends to drive casualty figures up.

One big thing to remember is that real combat is nothing like CM. In a real squad if you take 2 or 3 casualties you are pretty much stopped. You very rarely see the lone rifleman bravely advancing for the honor of his fallen buddies. More likely he is trying to keep at least some of them from bleeding to death, or is so scared he is behind a rock soiling himself. Casualty figures experienced in CM are much to high. That aside one must consider that most fire wasn't to kill any specific target nor was it aimed. Enemy positions were located or guessed at and then rounds were sent in that direction. Most often the effect was to keep the enemy pinned down till heavier weapons could be brought to bear. Which is why those weapons, especially arty, account for a higher proportion of overall casualties. It is simply a matter of evolution of battlefield tactics. During the Napoleonic era the musket, and later the rifle, reigned supreme. This was in large part because of the technical state of weaponry at the time. Arty wasn't the terror it would become so soldiers COULD stand and face it like a man, so to speak. As weapons became more effective tactics changed. While there is only so much you can do with small arms there is much more room for improvement with larger weapons with bigger shells. Rates of fire of infantry weapons dictated the change in the weapons used. Rifles were only adopted when they could match the rate of fire of the musket. Breach loaders were adopted because they improved on that. Self loading, magazine fed weapons were adopted because they improved on that. It was rate of fire that propted the adoption of assault weapons rather than their effectivness against any specific target. Militaries realized that as aimed fire was the exception on the battlefield it was more important to put a lot of lead in the air. While it might be more efficient to put a few shots on target most soldiers are incapable of doing this while being shot at. The decision in most armies was to increase the number of rounds being fired to increase the number of rounds that find their target. This is especially important when one considers that most armies were short term conscript forces built around a professional core. It takes a while to train a rifleman to keep his cool when real bullets are flying. One has to make aimed fire an instinct rather than a luxury. The British took this approach before WWI by having a long serving, highly trained but small professional army. When casualties demanded more rapid training of replacements they increased the number of machine guns in the infantry units to make up for the loss in effectivness of the individual riflemen. (The American gun culture gave them a bit of this same advantage as a larger portion of American infantry had years of experience with firearms.) It is the ineffectivness of individual riflemen that causes the increased reliance on heavier weapons. Machine guns firing from a stable base such as a tripod or even just a bipod, are capable of, relatively, more accurate and sustained fire. More rounds in the target area better chance of causing casualties. Increasing the overall firepower of the individuals in the squad, which the AR does, naturally also increases the likelyhood of causing casualties, regardless of the effectiness of the individual trigger pullers. Of course this brings us to the question of whether or not this increase is enough to change the overall tactical situation. Not really. At normal engagement ranges of between 100 to 300 meters only the first round of automatic fire from an AR is likely to be effective. Yes soldiers do fire full auto at ranges of several hundred meters in the belief that if they put a lot of lead down range then they have a better chance of hitting. While it is easy for us to sit in front of our computer and scoff at this belief, we are not being shot at. As even the first shot is not likely to be aimed the soldier is partially correct. So there is a slight increase but it is not anywhere near what one might think. Beyond that one must consider that this increase in rate of fire isn't really going to give one side a revolutionary advantage but rathter an evolutionary one. A bolt action rifle isn't as fast as a semi- or full-auto but is is no muzzelloader either. You can still keep up a respectable volume of fire, especially when supported by other weapons. The AR would make an army invincible against one armed with single shot rifles but it loses its revolutionary character against more modern opposition.

It was pretty close to that in the West as well. One thing to consider when reading about crews having multiple tanks is that because of the Allied superiority in material it was often easier to replace tanks while the original was taken to depot for repair. These repairs could be from mechanical or combat damage. Abrams went through four tanks during the war because he just ran them ragged.

Well I know that a couple of FOs I worked with would often pick the best observation position regardless of its position on the line or ahead or behind it. I guess there is no reason to assume they weren't as crazy during the big war. Plus it does give the ability to begin interdiction fire without exposing the MLR to discovery. An important consideration in the open terrain of NA, while the terrain in Italy (South and central) would have provided ample opportunities for FOs to place themselves ahead of the line an still remain relativly secure.

Ok, 1.03c version is out. Will have 1.02 shortly (changed the size of the map so now everything has to be reset).

They would be more effective than a regular 37mm round. Still not as good as a regular HE from a larger gun though.

Looks good, very eastern Germany-Poland.

Hold tight a bit guys. Did a bit of revamping on the map and now I have to reset all the troops. Will have it out by monday. I can send it in 1.02 or 1.03 format so let me know which one you need. Thanks in advance for the help.

This is a virus hoax. The program is a Java app that is supposed to be there. Removing it wont do anything unless you use Java. You can just leave it alone.

Remember that the attacker's points depend on the type of battle and the amount of defender's points. I can't find the exact breakdown though.