Los

Well I guess there's no reason to read the book now since you posted the whole damn thing here... Los :cool:

If you are talking real life then the chain of command is ALWAYS reestablished. Certainly the sub-units are normally working to a prearranged plan but that doesn't eliminate the need for positive control at all times in every chain of command be it squad level up through Army level. Los

"I lived in Germany for a time and found them to be a very pleasant people. Not what one would expect from a Nazi." Anyone who thinks there's something singularly or biologically evil/different about Nazis should consider reading Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland It was actually written at a time when the terror in the Balkans was just starting to come to light, and people were having a hard time grasping how the scourge of genocide could possibly be raising it's ugly head all over again. "Browning ....He takes the readers through the horrific scenes, showing just how easy it was to succumb to the dictates being handed down through a long chain of command. Browning sees it is a fault-line that runs through humanity and is not specific to any one racial or ethnic group, but is an outgrowth of the devastating conditions of war." As it applies to the various horrendous bombing missions which were undertaken by both sides during the war, given living in that environment at the time, locked in life or death struggle between nations, or even knowing what I know know, I would have had no hesitation in being a crew member at the time those raids on Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki were undertaken. Los

"Glantz is a specialist in Soviet history. He uses primary source material for that." Actually Glantz will be the first one to tell you that there are serious problems with primary source materials especially on the Soviet Side, (Where he has great experience) as most Soviet AArs were written to make sure commander X didn't get shot or thrown in the Gulag after the fight was over. in some cases he feels that consulting a military's promary source materials should be one of the last places you look. Glantz goes into this in his book "Zhukov's greatest disaster". (IIRC the title) While Carrell makes for a great read I too think it's far from the "Gold standard" (BTW I wouldn't call any one source the gold standard, that's inane). It is however another source in the tapestry of history of history on the Russain front and certainly a good idea generator for scenarios. But then again being a nazi or even someone who once worked for Signal does not automatically make one a poor writer or historian. "Is Andreas on a Holy Mission against former Nazis?" I think his anger management issues have less to do with Nazi's than his perception that those who read about them and go "aww cool"? Los

"The really, really heavy ballistic vests can apparently stop 7.62mm ammo, but the wearer looks like the Stay-Puft marshmallow man, and isn't practical for field use." B.S. Our interceptor armor w/ trauma plate (Makes it level IV) has stopped numerous 7.62 rounds in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact in both areas soldiers felt a lot more confident in "trolling for contact" (AAR quotes) in their interceptors. One can manuever in the vest and it doesn't look like a "stay-puft" man. You are perfectly manueverable in the vest, in fact many have taken to shucking off LCE or web gear completely and attaching the molle ammo pouches and accessories directly to their interceptors. They're pretty much standard equipment now. If you have access to Center for Army lessons learned you can read extensive AAR reviews on the interceptor and accounts of the interceptor in combat. in AFghanistan, one guy in our battalion took two 7.62 rounds in an ambush, got up hopped over a stone wall, and killed both assailants on the other side. Other than that you are correct, unless you have a trauma plate in your concealed wear "second chance" or "point blank" vest it's only good for 9mm, but then again that's better than nothing. Los

"You have two radios, one for yourself and one for the mortar section. What is to stop you from leaving the mortars behind cover, and hiding a few hundred meters away and directing fire from there? seems reasonable to me." First off mortar platoons in WW2 did not have two radios, they were lucky if they had one radio. When you see a single mortar crew on map it is just that, one mortar crew, without FDC capability, using direct lay (direct fire) to engage target. We have already made amends to deal with pre-setup mortars using a spotter within Command radius of the tube, and also takig advantage of TRPs (as long as you don't move)simulating wire or hand signals. If you want the full capabilities of a mortar platoon then the game already allows us to purchase the spotter, which abstracts the fact that the platoon is set up somewhere to the rear with commo, with their tubes layed, stakes out and FDC set up. It is the FDC capability that allows a platoon to do direct fire via radio contact, the guy is set up with map, plottter board w/ grease pencil perched upon his knees and radio/land line headset in one hand. This is completely seperate than buying a single crew that is going to accompany a rifle company. Both capabilities were prevalent in WW2 tactical operations and both have been taken into account. "Buildings should have rooms in them. Why can I shoot across large buildings as if they were just huge hollow blocks? And why can i enter a building at any angle?" In the current versions of combat mission the math is hapening behind the engine to take into account terrain effects occuring from firing within buildings at each other. The current engine just doesn't support the graphical representation you are asking for thus I suppose the confusion of thinking it isn't happening.. "Imagine the possiblities of using crews from knocked out tanks, jumping into abandoned tanks, or even enemy tanks! Or maybe normal infantry squads making use of abandoned vehicles or artillery" This isn't Day of Defeat, Kelly's Heroes or the Dirty Dozen. Please provide references other than the one off happenings where this occured within the time frame of the typical CM battle (i.e. 20-60 minutes) to justify inclusion. Los [ January 21, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Los ]

I've fire both submachineguns a number of times and prefer the Thompson all around. It's heavier and much more stable to fire, thus more accurate. Just my opinion, but then again I probably have more trigger time behind both of those SMGs (and others too btw) then most. Los

"The potential of running out of ammo in longer battles creates the interesting situation of having to decide which units to keep in reserve, if any." Some tips. In designing a long battle (60+ turns) first thing I would do is boost up ammo loads to max. If you know you are going into a big fight you take as much ammo as possible. (In RL I've carried as much as 18x30 round magazines, four frags, 2 smokes, flashbangs and breaching charge, plus 9mm ammo on an operation where I knew we were going to have a huge fight) B: You can use moving in concealed terrain, covered arcs, or hide commands to limit people popping off at targets outside of effective range. It is critical that you control unwanted shooting particularly on bigger open maps and particularly with your critical heavy weapons like HMGs and mortars. Thirdly, normally you don't have the whole bn online fighting all at once. Pace your platoons so they hand off the fight from one to another, as is often done for real. Someone mentioend establishing phase lines corodination points, hand over, etc. Los

If for some reason you really did want to do a 6 hour battle, better to break it into operation with 6x60 turn battles. That way you get some resupply in there! Los

If a wine bottle of gas can wreck a tank why would it surprise you that a flamethrower can? Los

Since Combat has a hard C why not "Kuh-Mack? Don't agree? then : Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Oscar Foxtrot Foxtrot or ..-. ..- -.-. -.- --- ..-. ..-.! :cool:

If you want to design an airborne op showing the troops as they land do something like this: 1. Research the battle & design the map. Select and emplace defense. 2. If you have historical data on status of troops as they landed use that and attrit your purchased forces by X percent (i.e unit starts out at 70%). This represents guys kille dor wounded on the drop. Select your unit form the unit editor. 3. You can also attrit whole squads by deleting them off the OB. (units that landed off map or too far off the DZ by mistake. You can also spit squads on the map, then go back to the unit editor and delete half squads. 4. Determine scatter. Either you have historical info as to where they landed, or you can use ASL/TCS paradrop scatter rules or or you can develop your own scatter diagram using 2 dice: Select release point for drop. (For ea plt or Coy) Scatter squads (or half squads)manually. You can randomize this by: Colored die + distance (1=20 meters or one tile 2=40 meters) and direction: (Other die equals distance 1 being direction of flight, 2 being 45% off direction of flight etc) 5. You can also set supression or fatigue levels higher than normal. I recommend doing this with heavy weapons crews. This represtents them stuck in place while they recover bundles or equipment canisters. After 5 mins on the ground they should be ready to move out. 6. Now you have before you an airborne force that had the misforturne to have landed amongst the enemy. Some units will be OK some will have to fight for their lives at the start. You will need to assemble forces before accomplishing anything significant. 7. You can purchase platoons (Suitably attrited for reinforcement) These represent guys that landed off map (Maybe the ones you deleted in set up). Paras are trained to form up with whoever's around and the highest ranking man takes charge and continues with the misison, so don't worry about cohesion at that point. Anyway that's one way to do it. Los

"Having said that, there is a snazzy sight for pistols that uses ambient light,a prism, lens and filter to create an orange dot that one eye can see and the other can't." And like I tell my guys if you are that far away that you need a scope or even an aimpoint on your pistol to hit something then you should be running in the opposite direction anyways. Los

He's talking about the aimpoint on the M4 rifle not the SAW. And contary to popular belief the vast majority of firing with M4s is done on semi. Use of the aim point on that weapon provides no problem at all. If you are firing at room distance the jump of the dot when you double tap or controlled pair won't throw your aim off much at all. For long range shooting it's single rounds anyways. (though the ACOG is a better choice for that environment) As for SAWs, one should be sing it with very short controlled bursts anyways. Los

"I have heard (and I'm sure it's true) that many GIs did not fire their rifles when first in combat. Constant training and good leadership will usually solve that problem." SLA Marshall (Who I also think makes lots of sense in his writing) chalks a fair amount of this up to, no surprise to us mil types here, training. The vast majority of soldier marksmanship training was done on the flat range against visible known distance targets. In combat the vast majority of time you don't see anything to shoot at. Troops need to be trained to fire at area targets something not done often early in WW2 and something that comes up over and over in comments from WW2 AARs and in many of the Published combat bulletins from 44-45. It's been a tried and true fact throughout several millenia of soldiering, you fight like you train! Los

"Why?,the fact is most serious publishers use the gamespy arcade because it's the easiest way to find opponents, of course your not forced to use it." Do yourself a favor and ditch Gamespy. Use "The All Seeing Eye" instead. Los

Robart, Padlocked units are only padlocked at the beginning of the set up phase. meaning the AI can't redeploy them before the start of the battle. After that it can move them if it sees fit. I too have been occasionally been "taken in" by these pockets which I assumed held troops and have even deployed to eliminate them to find them empty. Which I guess is realistic, hey they were there last time you saw them but the AI pulled them out without you noticing? Now I conduct a little recon first... Cheers. Los

That early T34s had only a 2 man turret was a matter of great consternation to the SOviets. in 1940, they acquired two Panzer IIIs and put them through a series of tests to stack up against the T34. They found that the PZIII was superior to the T34 in every aspect except gun size and armor Well as a gamer, you might say "hey that's enough", but in reality it most certainly is not enough. The Mk III rode better, was more reliable and stable shooting platform, had superior optics, internal crew comms, was quieter and most importantly had a three-man turret crew. You see, the two man T34 turret is essentially no better than a one man turret. The loader sits there loading the gun, and has some ability to spot, but it's up to the commander to pop his head out, spot targets, pop his head back in and then try to traverse the turret to face the target and accquire that target through the sight. These comparative trials resulted to an immediate halt in the production of the T34 until a rediegn could be accomplished. This production halt was suspended when Germany attacked and the Russians went back to cranking out T34/76s until late 42-early 43 when T34s with the new designed turret started making themselves felt. BTW valera's page has soem good details on various Russian tank designs: Los The Russian Battlefield

Glad to see this. Looks like you greened up the smocks a tad also, which is what I was hoping for. Now all we need is someone to put Helmet covers on those helmets and we'll be good to go. Los

Yeesh, is it already that time of the week? Los

Try these two soruces: International Historic Films RZM RZM publishing While you are at it pick up "Die FrontSchau" or "Gebirsjager in Action" (same filmm differnt titles. Los

Of course having said that, your mileage may vary in combat, however I have worked with a certain percentage of cool cucumbers in the past that know their way around executing a plan. Los

Soddball, I appreciated your witty rapier-accurate repost. This whole thread provided a much needed chuckle... Los

The guys I talked to almost never fired at Tanks, they used them against enemy positions, they used Bazookas for AT work which were just as prevalent at the Platoon level. However I did uncover at least one (though it might have been two since it's been I think three years since I did the research) instances in my research where a Tiger tank was knocked out by a rifle grenade in NW Europe. IIIRC this w as avery luck shot with the round basically hitting a vision slit or something. Has anyone ever seen the great german training film "Men against Tanks"? It's made to familiarize soldiers on various AT devices available to foot soldiers from AT grenades up to Panzerschreks. The weapons are employed druing a battle (probably filmed at Grafenwohr) against "Russian" forces. They destroy, for real with live fire, probably 20 Russian tanks during the film. Very neat. But you see rifle grenades being fired, kampfpistole and other things. Los

First off let me say I did the rifle grenade research for inclusion in CM, because if you recall, they were not initially included in the game. Apart from traditional written research, books, manuals, AARs, Combat Bulletins published in WW2, and careful scrutinizing of documentary footage (where it's easy to see a prevalence of rifle grenades on rifles or guys carrying the adapters already hooked to the ends of their rifles if you know what you are looking for.) I also interviewed a number of vets which vetted my research through a nice BS filter. One of the guys in our unit has a dad that was a 3-war vet. He was a Company Commander in the 82d having jumped into Normandy and all the way through to the end. I had the opportunity to speak to him and a number of other vets that served with him and in other units during a gathering they were having in CT. I must say that they were a little taken aback by my questioning since they're idea of telling war stories is about how many Dames they saw in Paris or other stuff. Once I started firing off technical/tactical questions about things they hadn't thought about in a while they quickly rose to the challenge. At the time I was knee deep in Rifle grenade research so it was fortuitous. BTW There were a set of twins there that was in the same platoon (29th ID) from Omaha beach to the end of the war. Two of the guys I talked to were rifle grenade guys and had the same experience as RG guys. For the both guys it was their dedicated weapon. (Others I asked confirmed that the rifle grenade guy wasn't a spur of the moment hey you assignment, but one designated in advance.) He even had a guy that carried an extra satchel of grenades with him, and always went into contact with the rifle grenade adapter attached, as it takes a bit of doing to get it on and not to mention clearing your weapon and having the right boster cartidge. It's not something you really want to fumble with on the fly, it's something you go into action with already configured for grenade firing. (BTW the 29th ID guy carried a carbine for personal defense and the garand w/ rifle grenade always ready. The 82d gunner had a pistol.)It's not something you do on the fly or as an after thought. In the months leading up to D-Day these guys went to the range weekly and hhe fired hundreds of grenades and got very with the weapon. (Same with bazookas and many other weapons.) Keep in mind also that 82-101 fought in spurts and were pulled out of the line for extended periods of time. While the first couple of days were rest periods the majority of the rest of the time was spent in hard training, ranges, rucks and field problems and parachute jumps. (all good units do this. If you are not actually in combat ops you are either resting or training even in the field) New replacements were absorbed and put through the rigourous training like everyone else. My final bs filter is that I have a large amount of expereince in combat arms (25 years) and have some knowledge of what trained soldiers can do with weapons as well as what it takes to get them to that level of expertise and sustain them. I myself have a fair amount of time behind both an M79 and an M203. Mastering these weapons is a function of training and firing enough rounds. It doesn't take a lot of time to get very good at this provided the right resources, range time and ammo). There were several time periods where I could put a round through a window at 100 yards with one or two shots. It's the whole point of being a professional. (It's all in the "english") Then if I went months without using it it would take a box of rounds on the range to get back to this level of expertise. (sidebar I once blasted a man sized target at 100 yards, with an HE 203 right in the nuts at 100 yards. I was aiming for the guy-not the nuts. You can imagine that the little brown guys I was with were dully ipressed). Could that guy have made that shot every time: no. Is it BS that he made a one shot kill. No. It was a good shot, but maybe he WAS a good shot. Los [ December 28, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Los ]