Sgt Joch

The main aim of WW2 strategic bombing was not to kill German civilians, but to destroy German industry. Unfortunately, with the technology available at the time, you could not do one without the other. The 1991 bombing campaign against Baghdad shows what can be done with precise weapons and only about 10% of the bombs dropped were smart bombs; its up to 100% now. Let us not forget that for a long time, bombing Germany was the only way the Allies could help Russia. From June 41 to june 44, Russia was doing the bulk of the fighting (NA/Sicily/Italy were sideshows). In 41/42, Stalin kept dropping hints he might sign a separate peace. Bombing Germany was the only way to keep up the pressure. The British switched to night bombing because they could not afford the losses. They wanted to bomb military targets, but at first, they had trouble just hitting cities, which is why "breaking morale" became a primary objective. The U.S. bombed in the daylight, in part to minimise civilian casualties, and suffered high losses because of it. Do they get any credit for being so considerate? Why does this topic always generate such heat? German U-Boats also deliberately targeted civilians, but they get a pass. p.s.- "Twelve O' Clock High" is now on Bluray. I picked it up a few weeks back. Still one of the best war movies ever made.

Of course Munich was a mistake in hindsight, but history is a series of real time events where individuals make decisions under pressure with imperfect information, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. I am pretty sure Hitler regretted "Barbarossa" as well... No one stood up to Hitler when there was time, not the French, not Roosevelt, not Stalin, why keep blaming poor Neville... Since then "Munich" has been used to justify the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt in 56, U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. I presume those were not mistakes?

standard operating procedure for any war in the past 8,000 years. Even in the Age of "civilized" warfare, the 18th century, civilians still got the short end of the stick. yes. agreed.

JK, nice find. However, I disagree with the interpretation. What I glean from the article is that a supply shortage occurred in early-june 44, right after the landings and in october 44, when the Allies outran their supply lines. If you look at table 6, you can see there was more than enough ammo in theater to meet average daily expenditure. The problem was getting it to the units at the front. The article also states than even in the worst period, 12th army group had a minimum of 15-20 day's supply. During the heavy fighting in december 44 and january 45, artillery fire was "unrestricted". No direct mention of Sicily, but the article does mention that the U.S. had built up a huge stock in all theaters by late 43, especially in North Africa.

We are getting off topic, although the history of the Soviet Union after 1917 has always fascinated me. You can blame Stalin for many things, but the real causes of the Ukrainian famine are still being debated. I always saw the causes as a combination of Soviet economic policies, natural factors and pure political powerplay. During the civil war, the Reds let peasants take and farm their own plots. In the late 20s, Stalin brought in collective farms and everyone was obliged to participate. Those who refused were dealt with harshly. The switch to more "Statist" policies was done to consolidate Stalin's power in the Party. Trotsky had just finally been forced out and Stalin was still consolidating his support. During the switch to collective farming, economic disruption naturally occured and food production suffered. At the same time, it appears the crop yield was poor for a few years. These problems caused a food shortage in major cities such as Moscow and Leningrad which were the political base of the Communists. The Communists "requisitioned" food from the rural areas to make sure the cities had enough. At the same time, it appears recalcitrant areas, like the Ukraine, were obliged to deliver up more food as "punishment". All these factors lead to the famine. I dont think, although no one knows for sure, that Stalin deliberately set out to cause the famine, but once it occured, he had no problem using it for political purposes.

Near St.Lo on july 11, 1944, U.S. 2nd Division artillery fired 20,000 rounds to support a two battalion attack on Hill 192 which was 1,000 yds from the U.S. front line. That works out to over 1,000 rounds for each of the 18 platoons. U.S., CW, Russian doctrine all emphasised massive artillery support to break through the enemy line. According to the Germans, who were in a position to know first hand, U.S. artillery was more effective than the Russians. German official doctrine was the same, but by 1943, they were short of tubes and ammo and had to use their artillery more selectively. Back to CM, artillery is probably a bit too effective for WW2 and will probably be tweaked further in the future, although this is easy to workaround now by limiting the number of rounds available.

Its hard to know the extent to which Germany was de-nazified after ww2. The western Allies shut down their tribunals pretty quickly as the Cold War got under way. Many of the leaders of the postwar German armed forces until the 70s had served in ww2. Many U.S. scientists, like von Braun, had held key posts under the Nazis. On the whole, I don't think anyone was interested in digging too deeply into the background of our Cold War German allies. The BBC produced a 6 hour documentary in the late 90s called "The Nazis" dealing with the rise and fall of the Nazis in Germany. I own the DVD. It is very interesting and includes a lot of previously unseen footage and raises some very interesting points. The really interesting part though are the interviews of Germans who were in the 20s-30s during the war, some were soldiers, some worked in Government , some were ordinary citizens. Most of the interviews, based on the age of the participants, appeared to have been done in the mid-90s. Most of the interviewees, when pressed, still held Nazi views: Jews controlled the German economy, Jews were partly responsible for their fate, etc. Some of the interviewees had served on the eastern front and confirmed that some soldiers readily killed civilians. My view is that de-Nazification in Germany occurred as the WW2 generation retired and died off. In Russia, the process only started 20 years ago and all the current leaders grew up in the USSR, so you can't compare the two.

well, if we are discussing the effectiveness of MMG/HMGs in CMx2 vs real life, there was a long debate about that before: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97252 and we had another one internally which unfortunately came to no definite conclusions. In CM, if an MMG/HMG is part of an integrated defence with interlocking fields of fire, kill zones, mines, obstacles, TRPs, etc., as you would expect in a standard "by the book" defensive position, they will pretty much stop any attack cold. Unfortunately, in CM, you may have a single HMG on its own trying to stop an infantry attack and not being as effective as players expect. That is where the data becomes more fuzzy. However, from the tests I had run at the time and which are in that thread, but which I reproduce below, the MG42 seemed to peform, both in terms of ROF and accuracy, as you would expect. Now, there are two remaining issues which are still up for debate: 1. do troops recover from suppression too quickly? CM, even though it is realistic, is also skewed towards playability. Dropping the experience or motivation levels of troops one level seems IMHO to produce better results, but that is a matter of personal taste. 2. should final suppressive fire be more aggressively modeled? i.e. increasing the ROF of a HMG about to be overrun. This has been looked at as well.

Interesting way to debate. You pull some words out of context and argue against a point I did not even raise. A 1944 British study found that less than 10% of CW infantry casualties in NWE were caused by firearms, 66% were caused by mortars/artillery and the rest by various causes, including mines. These were casualties inflicted by the German Army against British/Canadian troops. Statistics from other fronts, including the Russian Front, were similar, namely that mortars/artillery were the main infantry killers. Now if you want to look at doctrine, we can look at the 1944 CW infantry attack doctrine, which was elaborated before D-Day and used for the rest of the war: 1. the attack begins with a artillery barrage against known/suspected enemy positions to kill, break, rout, suppress enemy troops. As the attack begins, the barrage will lift ahead of the infantry to suppress the defenders as long as possible and prevent enemy reserves from moving up; 2. during the infantry advance, most troops stay out of LOS of enemy troops and advance from cover to cover. Scout units at the tip advance until contact is made and are the ones most likely to suffer casualties from firearms when contact is made; 3. if contact is made with a MG nest/strongpoint, tanks accompanying the infantry will advance to neutralize them (although this could also be from supporting mortars/artillery); 4. steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the unit is on the objective. At that time, troops will dig in, FOs will come up and pre-register artillery against likely avenues of German counterattack and AT guns/AFVs are brought up to deal with German AFVs. During any german counterattack, pre-registered artillery/AT guns/AFVs would provide most of the firepower. Late WW2 U.S. Army doctrine was basically the same. So whether you look at the CW, U.S., German or Soviet Army, the results are still basically the same, the main infantry killer is mortars/artillery and infantry firearms have a very secondary role.

Thought this might be interesting, the video of the shootout at the Empire State building (warning: graphic). http://youtu.be/EYWgrHwrlf8 Although more of a police situation, it is relevant to combat. The entire confrontation from the time the suspect points his gun at the officers to the time he is down is 6 seconds. The officers fired 16 bullets from very close range in 4 seconds and only 7 hit.

On the incidents discussed above regarding the NYPD, you have to remember they are now armed with semi-automatic pistols and trained to keep firing until the suspect is down. Even if some bullets miss, the theory is that enough will hit to neutralize the suspect. In the Diallo case in 1999, 41 bullets were fired in less than 15 seconds, as I recall, and 19 hit mr. Diallo. Other than stress, on a firing range you can also factor out the environmental factors, take your time aiming and firing until you know exactly how to hit that particular target at a particular range most of the time. In a real life situation, a police officer has to decide in a few seconds whether to shoot or not; he is unfamiliar with the location; there may be wind, dust or poor visibility; he may not be in the optimum firing position and/or moving; the target may be moving and/or worse firing back. You also have to remember that a pistol is inherently difficult to aim. With a rifle, you can stabilize the weapon with both hands and shoulder and you have that long barrel as an aiming point. A pistol is only held in one hand and even with a two handed grip, it is easy to be slightly off and miss completely. With a semi-auto pistol, you also have to contend with the cumulative recoil of all these rounds being fired in quick succession, each one of which will throw off your aim slightly. Getting 1/3 to 1/2 of the bullets in the target in these situations is not abnormal. Back to CM. A pistol is only useful as a very short range defensive weapon. There seems to be an issue with pistols in the game. We have had some internal discussions on possible solutions, but like everything else, there never seems to be enough time to solve each and every problem, but it is on the list.

The SAW's barrel does not overheat as quickly as a MG34/42, partly because the 5.56 ammo has less recoil energy, partly because of the lower ROF, both of which generate less heat and the SAW may have a more efficient design. Reports indicate that it can be used a long time without a barrel change as long as the ROF is kept to around 85 rounds per minute.

sounds like a hasty generalisation. The newest 5.56 rounds (SS109/M855) can penetrate a standard NATO 3.45mm steel plate out to 600 meters. I also have it on good authority that a M249 can reliably engage live targets at that range, although the practical effective range is 300 meters. This is academic however since WW2 studies had shown that most infantry combat takes place within 200 meters. The real advantage of 7.62 ammo is the fact that it keeps a flatter trajectory longer due to its greater mass, although its effective range, as I recall, is around 400 meters. BTW, that is also the reason squads liked to keep a few M14s around, because of the longer reach. However since most combat takes place at less than 200 meters, the longer effective range of 7.62 ammo is not enough to outweigh its other drawbacks. 7.62 rounds weigh twice as much as 5.56 ammo, so a soldier can only carry half as much. 7.62 ammo packs a bigger recoil and requires a heavier weapon making it harder to control the weapon on full auto than say a M4, an important consideration in urban combat. Of course, the bigger consideration in this, both in WW2 and now, is the fact that the main purpose of infantry is not to kill enemy infantry. They will go to ground as soon as contact is made, so opportunities to shoot an enemy are fleeting. The main role of infantry fire is to pin their opposite number, until heavy weapons can be brought to bear on them. 5.56 ammo is better suited for that role.

The current standard infantry firearms of U.S. Army (M4), Russia (AK-74), China (QBZ95), Germany (G36), Britain (SA80), France (FAMAS) all use lightweight ammo, can all be fired full auto and are closer in design to a WW2 SMG than a rifle. All follow the design philosophy that short range ROF is more important than long range accuracy. To paraphrase Capt. Willard, being accused of using a hasty generalization around here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. Back on topic.. There seem to be few videos showing actual combat use of a MG34/42 in action. If anyone has a link, I would love to see it. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CWClQSJM8&feature=em-share_video_user starting at 6:20 seems to show the MGs keeping up a fairly high ROF, namely a long series of short bursts, which would be more consistent with a suppression role. Although these could also be propaganda shots. More recent video from the helmet cam of a M249 SAW gunner shows the proper use of a LMG. The M249 fulfills a role in a U.S. squad similar to the MG34/42 in a WW2 German squad. You can see the SAW provides most of the firepower for the squad and is obviously being used just to provide suppressing fire. The video also shows that in RL, it is hard to spot enemy soldiers when they are shooting at you.

No, you just don't understand the role of squad level LMG/MMG/HMGs. Squad level firearms do not exist to kill enemy infantry, mortars/artillery do that more effectively. The major role of firearms is to suppress enemy troops so you can maneuver around them and/or pin them in place while you call up heavy weapons. For that ROF is more important than accuracy. That is the reason why modern infantry moved to fully automatic weapons and 5.56 lighter weight ammo after WW2.

In the video, he fires mostly 2-3 second bursts and you can see the barrel jumping from the recoil. It does not matter if the aim is true, the recoil will deflect any bullet. This is a problem with any machine gun, especially when firing those heavy WW2 7.92x57mm rounds.

very interesting. The MG34 has more recoil than the BAR which makes it less accurate, especially when they fire long bursts. The video shows this quite well. Of course, the main purpose of a LMG/MMG like the MG34 is area suppression, so accuracy is secondary to ROF.

IIRC AFVs that don't move also get the camo bonus.

IIRC, based on a British survey in late 1944, two-thirds of all CW casualties in NWE were caused by artillery/mortar and about 10% of those were "friendly fire"(i.e. leaning into a barrage too closely ), only about 10% of total casualties were from firearms.

more info on WW2 unit frontage, from Doubler, "Busting the Bocage": 1. pre-D-Day doctrine: 2. early attempts at breaking through Bocage: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp

The problem with a lot of these discussions is they take place in a vacuum. You have to look at the bigger picture. From the player's point of view, the CM model is unrealistic in portraying WW2 tactical warfare. The player has a god's eye view, can see the position of all of his units, has all available intel on enemy forces and can instantly change the plan of all of his units and coordinate their actions to a degree which would have been completely impossible for any WW2 commander. Certainly, in RL, a squad/team leader could order 3-4 privates to split off in a group and go occupy another spot, but let's look at what would happen in a RL 1943 Italian squad. The "group" would have no radio, probably no map and no training in acting on their own. Once they were out of sight of their squad leader, they would most likely be killed or captured or hunker down in a spot, that is if they did not desert outright. If they did see something useful, they would have to go back, find their squad leader and report what happened and get new orders. Now in CM, as soon as the "Group" is detached, it is magically equipped with a GPS, a Radio, a laser range finder and Blue force tracking, allowing the overall commander to instantly know where they are, what they are seeing and the exact position of suspected enemy units allowing the commander to coordinate the movement of all other forces. In addition, the "Group" can act as an independent unit all on its own. Yes, the Italian units are inflexible, but the Italians went to war with that organization and never changed it. The inflexibility is part of the reason why their combat performance was abysmal unless they were backed up by German forces. I recall reading somewhere that part of the reason for the large squads was to allow squad leaders to keep an eye on all their men so they would not desert. Let's not forget that in 1943, most Italians saw the Allies as liberators and not invaders. We are not talking about the Waffen SS here. Even with large unsplittable squads/teams, the performance of Italians in CM is still way better than it would be in RL, because of all the other limitations of CM. The same is true of Syrians in CMSF. If you allow the Italians to split down further, you turn them into an ersatz flexible German Army and increase their performance even more. This seems to me to be much more unrealistic than the current system. Not allowing squads/teams to split may appear to be a blunt instrument to deal with what is essentially a C2 issue, but so were command delays in CMx1 and many players still hold that up as a Gold standard.

I still play CMSF regularly. I prefer the fact that it is "finished" and therefore you can concentrate on strategy and tactics without having to wonder what changes may be made to the program. The only new update this game really needs is the "Target Briefly" order, but we wil have to wait for CMSF2 for that one.

On Syrian v. Blue, it is more balanced with the NATO module. The Germans/Dutch/Canucks do not have Javelins and their AFVs are not as deadly as U.S.Army/USMC. The Syrians also get new equipment like the "Shilka". I have a PBEM on the go as the Dutch, my oppo has a "Shilka" and has been shredding my recon/light AFVs.... I hate that thing. :mad:

This command is when you just want to lob a few main gun shells into a target. Right now you can do it by combining pause+time+move orders, but it is time consuming. Ideally there would be time increments, but at the moment, that is still on the drawing board. 15 seconds is the best compromise since most AFVs can fire 2-3 shells in that time.

yes, WW2 infantry AT weapons/tactics were more a morale booster than anything else. The higher % of AFVs knocked out by Panzerfausts towards the end of the war can also be partly expalined by the fact that the Germans were running out of ATGs/AFVs.