Stalins Organ

Mikey - targeting the automatic weapons is standard practice. Taking it out reduces the enemy firepower by the most amount for a given effort, so it really isn't any sort of measure of the efficacy of the weapon.

Well I give in - how the F*** do you actually vote at Gamespot??

http://www.global100.com/

Echo all full-size rifle rounds weer capable of punching through walls - when I was in the infantry we weer told that 3 feet of tree timber wouldn't stop a 7.62mm NATO bullet! as to why the BAR was popular - well IMO, despite it's shortcomings, it still had moer firepower than a couple of M1 Garands, so adding more to your squad increased your overall firepower. Nothing more is needed to explain why it was seen as desireable by the troops!

I used to play WW2 figure games using rules published by Wargames Research Group (WRG) from het UK. They had a system there whereby any heavy tanks in excess of the number of medium tanks, or any later/upgunned models (of any weight) in excess of the number of the previous version (while it was still in service) cost you douoble points. this was fairly crude, so a few years ago we devised a more complex system whereby every vehicle was graded as common, uncommon, rare or extremely rare. The rating might change - eg Sherman 76's and Fireflys start as rare at D-Day, but become uncommon by 45, and 76's become common by early 45. You were always allowed 1 vehicle of any grade at teh nominal cost provided no other vehicles weer fielded at al (so allowing a single KV-1 on the crossroads scenario), otherwise you paid extra if you exceeded the required ratio of common to everything else. Uncommon vehicles counted as 2 common ones, rare as 4 and extremely rare as 10, and the number of common vehicles had to equal or be greater than the number of "common vehicle equivalents" as represented by uncommon and rarer ones. Price of any excess was doubled (a fraction of a vehicle = 1 vehicle for this), but you got to choose which vehicles you paid extra for, so you always chose the cheapest. Something like this could probably be done dynamically in CM.

Olle the rules are "Flames of War", they're available as a .pdf file from www.FlamesOfWar.com together with sme supporting stuff, are 1:1 scale and being publically playtested. In fact they're so keen on playtesting that they're offering a random draw proze of a trip to Historicon from the reports submitted to them - which is a pretty big deal from New Zealand!! [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

Re readjusting fire missions. I commonly have my artillery targeted on something all the time - trying to pick somewhere where I think the enemy is likely to be, or will go to. That way if they _are_ there my "reaction" time is faster. If they are not there (or I don't see them) I target another point before anything is fired and nothing is lost.

Yeah, well as a Kiwi (that's a New Zealander to you foreigners ) I think "Londoner's" remarks weer a little over the top. NZ & Aus had different nationaly psyche from the "Old country" (ie the UK), and thsi showed in some of the attitudes of the fighting men as you'd expect. But certainly NZ'ers of WW2 were not living a life "closer to that of infantry" than anyone else that I know of. NZ was an agrarian nation, but most of the pop'n lived in urban aeras. Certainly there were many farmers and labourers in the forces, but farmers were actually a protected occupation from teh outset, and farm labourers also later on. When several thousand NZ soldiers returned home on leave in 1943 they found conditions so cushy here that many of them mutinied and refused to return - their cry was "no man twice until all men once" - a fair sentiment most of us would agree I think, but not exactly the warrior's call to arms! [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

YES - DO IT! <UL TYPE=SQUARE>DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! That's all folks [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

A lot of the Hotchkis's and similar Renaults weer armed with a very short 37mm weren't they? Still, as someone pointed out, it doesn't matter if all you've got is a rifle - it might as well be a king tiger!

Yes I think I'd use bigger tubes if I was attacking, but as I said, I mostly defend (I like it - call me a masochist if you will! ), or play the occasional ME.

Johnny for a "myth buster" you repeat quite a lot of them! Firstly the P-2's, -3's and 38t's did NOT defeat T-34's and KV's - mostly they were "defeated" by breaking down, bogging, failure of morale or other "non-kill" causes. P-2's etc defeated Soviet infantry for the most part, and other obsoete armour (BT's, T-26's, etc) for the rest. Secondly the Germans did NOT unhitch 88's when they first met Matilda 2's as a flash of genius (Arras in 1940). They unhitched them (at Rommel's PERSONAL orders) as an emergency desperation measure because everything else had failed! That they worked was fortunate for them, but not necesarily expected!

Try as I might I can never bring myself to buy the big-bore tubes - I always look at the number of rounds they get and just grimace. Generally this is in ME's - I prefer to play defence in other types, and heavy arty doesn't get a look in there either, but I'd buy it if I was attacking! I've bought rockets a few times, but found them too inaccurate to be effective. Generally I buy a bit of medium arty (105's, 25 lbers, 4.2 or 120mm mortars) to kill things, and a few light mortars (81, 3") for quick reaction vs AT guns or smoke. How do other people feel about this?

You're right Warmaker - the Marines were absolutely vital to the effort to get the ARMY Air Corps close enough to Japan to win the war! he he he...ducks & puts on flame suit......

Of course it never ends - that's why I got out of "public service" activities!! Thanks Mike

Compared to most WW2 tanks the Pershing was indeed a paragon of all things good. The Centurion was also, but just a little too late to see action. But then what would you expect, since they were both relatively well designed to a decent philosophy and incorporated the best tech available at the time?

Congratulations and Great stuff....now can you please respond to my e-mail asking for my password so I can get back into it??!! TIA aka Kiwi-Mike

Marders use up "Armour" points, so are generally not worth having for any reason except an "Armour" heavy game IMO.

Gyrene Skipper was talking about weight of fuel, not volume - now I'm pretty sure that Diesel is heavier than petrol, although I've no idea by how much. and as for big, round engines - the airline I worked for didn't run them, but the Airforce still had a few at that time and we serviced them (about 25 yrs ago). there's still somethign like 1000 DC-3's and a few hundred Commando's in service around the place.

Gyrene whether you denigrated anyone or not, or intended to or not, is not the point. the very nature of this thread means that people must compare the "performance" of various troops and nationalities, so it was always going to degenerate! Even just by saying "xyz is the best" without saying anything else you are opening up an argument although that may not be your intention.

I believe the secret to the Russian diesel engine was the ability to make an aluminium crank case. This allowed the engine to be light enough at the size for the required power. Even when the Germans captured the engines they still couldn't make the crank cases. sowhy use it? Well that's 30% of the barrel that you can't use otherwise, so you're getting better efficiency from your barrel of crude! Also diesel's tend to be heavier than comparable petrol engines, so are less use in lighter vehicles due to weight. Also diesel is less flammable than petrol, and the engines do not require electrical ignition systems, which makes them a little simpler. as to why their diesel didn't harden? I did read somewhere that it did, but they were better prepared for it - keeping their engines warmed and/or out of the cold and/or making plans that didn't require them! [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

Sights were not "easily supplied" - they have to be designed and made for an already crowded gun carriage. They are "easily" made for the M36's because the gun is removed from teh carriage and placed into a different mount that already has provision for them.

Rather than harp on about how my boys were better than your boys, what were those moments that defined the best and worst about each nation's military in WW2? I'm not after a rose-tinted view of each nationality - war was hell, and many, many unspeakable things were done and witnessed. I guess we all know enough about German attrocities and some of the major allied ones (mg'ing Jap sub survivors and the like) - but did you know about some others? For example New Zealand soldiers managed a couple of noteworthy crimes - during an attack by Italians a grenade was thrown into a hut containing wounded NZ soldiers. Outraged by this the NZ'ers took no prisoners when they retook the position - witnesses describe at least 1 Kiwi soldier throwing an Italian off a cliff. During a break out by a surrounded NZ Bn the troops formed in close order and charged out - they took no prosoners, and many germans weer bayoneted multiple times, shot when clearly wounded adn thrown into burnign vehicles. One officer reported that he saw a soldier shot a captured German in cold blood and did nothing about it. Yet Kiwi's had a pretty good rep in WW2. It just goes to show that people are people - they react in extraordinary ways given extraordinary circumstances. [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

Thanks for the info Jason - but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. You couldn't use the 90mm AA piece as AT, because it did not have the targeting equipment erquired! Sure you could take the tube out and put it in a TD - a gun is a gun after all - but you have to equip it with appropriate sights. so simply taking all the 90's from where-ever & giving them to the infantry would have had no effect, because they couldn't shoot at tanks properly in the first place! [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

My apologies to all the Aussies that I seem to have hit a raw nerve on (I'm also Stalin's organ when posting from home). My point is that while your infantry did a sterling job at Tobruk, it was as useless as anyone else's in Greece and Malaya, then great again in PNG...... Every nation that has ever fought can point to it's own "Tobruk", so why is yours better than all theirs? BTW I'm a Kiwi, proud of the ANZAC's and of course the NZ Divisions - but I just do not hold any illusions about the men that did the fighting. They were all "just" men - no superheros among them, including the 2 NZ double VC winners, doing a **** job, in **** conditions, while getting shot at! And IMO the same applies to the Germans, Italians, Japs and russians et al. Contrary to popular belief, for example, most Japanese "infantry" weer not highly trained jungle fighters - most were half starved conscripts who their commanders did not care about. Many of the defenders of the islands in the Pac Campaign were service troops, Koreans and Chinese - making Banzai charges for the emperor! they had all been carpenters, farmers, accountants and store keepers at some stage - so how do American or Aussie or British accountants, carpenters and storekeepers get to "rate" higher because of their occupations?? Mike Happy that 2 generations since WW2 have not had to do it again! [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]