Pak40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: A full box of MG42 ammo weighs more than 18 lbs; carrying 4 of them at a time, farther than across a room or something, is unrealistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're kidding, right? I'm a small guy. I'm about 5 foot 5 inches tall and not as strong as most men. I can carry a 110 pound girl 50 yards at a faster than walking pace. I have every reason to believe that a trained & conditioned Germain soldier can carry this weight for 100 yards. I agree that in NON-battle (marching/traveling) conditions this would be very hard on a man but then the ammo would be spread across other members of the unit wouldn't it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Also, particular loads can be dialed in up to 50% above the default figures. Anyone care to explain how the team is supposed to move 6000 rounds? That is ~90 lbs per man, not counting their other equipment besides the gun itself and its ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did explain this. But you seemed to think the idea of multiple trips as silly. I suppose you're correct. It's impossible for a MG crew to carry most of their equipment in the first trip and then send one of the men to get the rest of the ammo <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: And the practical combat load limit of about 70 lbs per man for -all- equipment is well known. Attempts to get men to carry much above that result not only in slow, clusmy movements but in rapid physical exhaustion, even for picked men in peak condition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, the HMG WAS slow, clumsy and hard to move, hence the use of the lighter MG42. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: As for AT guns, the movement of the gun itself is what is being shown and it is vastly slower than that of an HMG team. And in practice, they scarcely move at all during combat, except by being towed. The whole analogy is rather silly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You fail to see the point of the analogy. My point proves that an entire team in CM can't move a gun and its ammo in one trip. If it's possible for members of an AT team to make a second trip to get ammo, then it's possible for members of a MG team to make a second trip to get ammo. Since CM cannot model a single member of a team making a second trip to get the remaining ammo, it makes the overall unit speed a little slower than it would be in real life. It is NOT a question of weight ratios, it's a question of who's going back to get the rest of the ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung: Well, well, do I sense a bias here? When we are talking about the US Army's official take on German weaponry, we are inevitably fed with the cliche "MG42 bark is worse than its bite," "MG42's cheap metal stampings and loose specs are indicative of the material strain the Germans are experiencing," etc. To them, it is obvious that .30 cal. Browning is better than MG42, Colt .45 is better than P08/P38, Grease gun is better than Thompson is better than Schmeisser (MP38/40), etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Neither I or the HANDBOOK OF GERMAN MILITARY FORCES said any of this. This book is was not a propaganda tool like what you mention above. It was an educational tool that was published before the war was even over. This book gives credit whrere credit is due, but it only had negative comments on the MP44. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung: MP44 was also one of the most underrated and misunderstood weapons by the US Army which could not embrace the concept of selective fire assault rifles using reduced power rifle rounds until much later on. The German Army ventured ahead, and the troops using it - especially on the Eastern front - immediately saw its utility. Hitler later became a convert of the weapon, and christened it 'Sturmgewehr.' I don't know what the heck "poor firing characteristics" means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While the M1 Carbine is not in the same league as an assault rifle, it did use a shortened round and it did have versions with selective fire. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung: The fact of the matter is that metal stampings are the way to go for military small arms because milling chunks of steel blocks into intricate parts just is not cost effective. The cost and weight advantage of metal stamping construction is negated if the design and production flaws make it prone to breakage. The idea is to make it strong enough so it will survive most battlefield usage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I completely understand why they used metal stampings. It was easy, cheap and fast. The handbook, however, views the stampings on the MP44 as thin and hard to fix on the battlefield. This is not the only source where I have read this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung: I forgot which but several (US Army?) weapons going the way of metal stampings were considered to be failures because of sorely lacking stamping designs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The grease gun didn't have the reliability(or the looks) that the Thompson did. What's your point? I think all countries at some point, developed cheap guns so they could easily be mass produced. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Jung: Sure it may not be as reliable as MP40 or Thompson, but does that mean it was so unreliable as to become a liability (surely better than a Sten)? It's a quite an interesting subject that I'd appreciate hearing more of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was simply stating a possible reason why the MP44 doesn't have more firepower than the MP40 or Thompson(in CM)

Jason, Another major reason that they didn't smoke the beaches is that the landings were planned by unit, time, and location. Every unit, once on the beach, had their specific orders of where to go and what to do. Therefore, every landing craft had to arrive at a specific section of beach at a specific time. The ONLY way to effectively get the correct units in their specific places at their specific times was to use landmarks as their guides. Even without the smoke barrage this proved to be a hard task, many units landed in the wrong place. And we can all say once again that in hindsight, it would have been better to smoke the beaches and let every unit land wherever they land. Then again, all units could land within a small strip of beach and the Germans could easily cause massive casualties with their pre-sighted artillery.

MG42 gunner, One thing that went into consideration, I think, was that the MP44 was not a very reliable weapon when compared to the MP40 and especially the Thompson. It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts. Here's a quote from the HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This weapon has not proved very successfull because it is impossible to repair in the field and because of its poor firing characteristics. The stampings forming the gas cylinder and body casings are made of thin material and are very easily damaged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This weapon deserves some respect because it was the first "Assault Weapon" but it was the Russians who improved it into the powerful AK47. BTW, I play DOD also. Day of Defeat doesn't take into account weapon jams and poorly constructed casings. Believe me, if had your choice of a weapons that worked as well as the Thompson and and one the broke quite frequently, you'd choose the one that's reliable. Nothing's worse than getting killed while trying to fix your weapon. [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: For me this little fact raises the single greatest military question about the day. Why on earth didn't the prep bombardment conclude with a thick smoke barrage, on purpose? Hindsight is 20-20. Lack of foresight in military matters sometimes borders on the criminal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I often wondered about this myself. But some of the reading I've done lead me to the answers. Their resoning was that they needed to be able to view the land in order to have any Naval artillery support, which they viewed as more important than providing a smoke screen. In retrospect it's easy to say what they should have done.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The real story behind Saving Private Ryan came from an account from Band of Brothers (with a number of significant errors), except that the protagonist was an Army Chaplain. Rangers did indeed land with US Forces at the toughest points of the beach. [ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Band of Brothers had nothing to do with the Omaha Beach landings. I think the SPR beach landing sceenes were more inspired by Ambrose's other book, D-Day. [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Jason, I think you're over-analyzing how CM is modeled. Most things in CM are abstracted, including the ammo load and speed of the unit. Your figures of 'weight carried per man' isn't really accurate because in reality most of these crews could carry the equipment in multiple trips. For example, do you really think a 5 man AT gun team can really move a tank gun and all of its ammo in one trip? No, it can't. The AT gun team would have to move the gun and maybe some of the ammo in the first trip, and then go back and get the rest of the ammo in the second trip. The same thing can happen for the HMG teams, just on a smaller scale. The Very Slow movement rate of the MG42 HMG in CM abstracts the the entire moving process: this includes taking down the gun, making multiple trips, and setting up the gun. In reality these teams can move faster than at a walking pace but in CM they are slower due to the abstraction. Also, I don't see why you consider 50 pounds believable but 60 pounds unbelievable. This is only a 10 pound difference which most grown men would be able to accomodate. And, as stated by someone else, one man can carry 4 boxes of ammo. 4 men X 4 boxes X 250 rounds = 4000 rounds.

If you're interested, Osprey has a great series of books Titled: Ardennes Offensive Order of Battle. There are 6 books in all (3 for US and 3 for germans) divided into the Northern, middle, and southern sections of the bulge. They all have very detailed OOBs and very good maps, although I wish they would zoom in to a bit more detail. Here's on of them on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1855329131/qid=998663561/sr=1-5/ref=sc_b_5/103-8109165-0438234

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by McAuliffe: Hope I will see some more maps that are more accurate, I refer to the nice efforts of Martin Turewizc (Champs) and the maps you can find on the french site of Appuie Feu [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey McAuliffe, exactly what is the URL of this site? thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nick Panzer: Anybody scanned in a map and created a grid overlay on their PC to plot structures and other topographical info? Any freeware or shareware out there that does that? I couldn't find any. Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I did this in Adobe Photoshop with one of the topo maps of Omaha Beach. The bar scale was on the map (1"=100 yards). I did a mathematical conversion to make 20 a meter grid on the map. Photoshop has a grid guide feature that's perfect for drawing straight lines at regular intervals. However, the ideal software to do this in would be a GIS (Geographic Information System) software such as ArcView or MapInfo. You could also do this in CAD software with Microstation or AutoCadd. The real problem with any of these sources is finding the image or line data at the detail that CM requires.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The Bren can easily manage the same ROF as the LMG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's just plain silly in cyclic or practical ROF. Here are the numbers: MG42 LMG cyclic: about 1200 RPM Bren Cyclic: about 500 RPM MG42 LMG practical: about 250 RPM Bren practical: about 90 RPM German numbers from several book sources, including German Military handbook. Bren numbers from several book sources and http://www.brengun.org.uk/index.html

I don't know what BTS's policy is but I'd be willing to bet they'd replace the CD for a small fee to cover the cost of shipping and material, so long as you sent the scratched CD first.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: What is the best position to place a rifle squad in a building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Typically near the edge, so they have the best view out to defend at their highest firepower. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: Assuming that the squad is shooting it out and the building is not in danger of being entered imminently? Should the squad be placed on the first or second floor? Should it be placed in the front, middle, or back of the building relative to the enemy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there are no tanks or guns with HE(AA guns included) able to target the building, then either floor will do. The second floor only provides better views with regard to the terrain, it does NOT give your unit any bonus firepower. Place them in the front (see previous answer) If there ARE tanks or guns with HE able to target the building(especially 105+) then place units on the bottom floor for easy escape. You DONT want your units taking HE in a building, this causes casualties and the enevitable collapsing building will cause more or kill your squad. It is most important that you get your units off of the second floor BEFORE the building collapses. When under HE fire in a light building, I get my units out of the building ASAP. I usually place them directly behind the building and wait for the collapse. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: Assuming that the building is in danger of being entered imminently? Should the squad be placed on the first or second floor? Should it be placed in the front, middle, or back of the building relative to the enemy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd place them on the first floor, except maybe MGs. Place them where they have the best view to the enemy rushing the building. Always put the leader unit further back to keep him safe. I usually hide him except in emergencies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: Assuming that you must assault a building with a rifle squad being held by a rifle squad, what is the best method of assualt? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In a 1:1 situation the rushing squad will surely take lots of casualties an ultimately be the loser. The only thing I can suggest is that you split your squad and rush both teams. The defending squad can only fire on one at a time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: Should you just give your squad an order to run into the building? Should they run to the outside of the building and then sneak into the building? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sneaking or walking into a building that MIGHT have enemies is probably a good idea, it will give you better sighing abilities. However, I would run into a building with KNOWN enemies. The quicker they get into the building the better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: Should you set their ultimate destination in the building to the first or second floor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This depends. If there are enemies on the first floor, then kill them first. If not then go upstairs and kill anyone there. TIPS: The best way to assualt a building is to reduce it to rubble with HE first. This is obvious enough. But, if you have no HE available then make sure that you have a 3:1 ratio of attackers to defenders for a successful attack without taking outrageous casualties. It will be possible to successfully assault a building with less than 3:1 odds but expect what most field commanders would call unacceptable losses. WHENEVER POSSIBLE USE THESE TACTICS: 1) Heavy smoke in front of the bulding you're assaulting. Getting your men to the building is half the battle, this will help. They will usually still take heavy casualties when the enter the building. 2) Attack from different sides of the building at the same time. This will split his firepower. 3) I usually split squads when assaulting. This doubles the number of targets he has to defeat, although it will lessen your firepower. I feel the trade is worth it. 4) Rush with a leader with morale and combat bonuses, have the leader trail the main assault by a few yards but keep all units in command. 5) rushes with flamers usually fail because the flame team dies quickly. The best way get a flame thrower near a building is to sneak him there with use of smoke or through other adjacent buildings or trees. 6) Engineers assaulting with satchel charges are a bonus. 7) Artillery can usually collapse a building. I've seen 3 60mm mortars collapse a light 2 story building in one round. AA guns also are powerful because of their high rate of fire. Two story heavy buildings are a tough nut to crack, I usually use 105 tanks or SP guns.

50 is a great feat considering the hundreds(thousands?) of games that have ever come out since the PC/Mac has been available. But really, this list has some problems. For starters, they list some games as series but Civilization II only gets listed. Civ 1 should have been in there too, especially if they're going to say "Warcraft Series". Because we know Warcraft 1 wasn't all that great. It certainly doesn't fall into the greatness that Civ 1 does. How does Diablo beat out Baldur's Gate? Twitch crowd, that's how.

50 is a great feat considering the hundreds(thousands?) of games that have ever come out since the PC/Mac has been available. But really, this list has some problems. For starters, they list some games as series but Civilization II only gets listed. Civ 1 should have been in there too, especially if they're going to say "Warcraft Series". Because we know Warcraft 1 wasn't all that great. It certainly doesn't fall into the greatness that Civ 1 does. How does Diablo beat out Baldur's Gate? Twitch crowd, that's how.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally Poste by David Aitken The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle. Originally it was only semi-automatic, and the small magazine reflects this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just thought I'd point out that these two sentences contradict each other although it may be true.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally Posted By David A. The Bren is a purpose-designed light machinegun. Pistol grip, bipod, quick-change barrel, large magazine. It starts where the BAR leaves off; only through modification could the BAR approximate the role of light machinegun, and not very well. The Bren is first and foremost a light machinegun, and is suitable for many roles, from a squad automatic, to medium machinegun on a tripod, to vehicle machinegun. Give a BAR a second crewman and there's not much he can do. It's awkward for him to change magazines. He can't change the barrel. If he carries lots of extra ammunition, the gunner won't be able to fire it all because the barrel will overheat. No point putting it on a tripod. With a second or third crewman, a Bren can do all of this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you. Finally there's a good reason for making a 3 man Bren team. I undterstand better now. The only problem I see now is the fact that if you have a 3 man Bren team then at least one of the two "supporting" men in the team are considered to be helping the gunner, which means he wont be firing his rifle very much. Therefore you'd lose some firepower much like the MG42 (squad organic) is modeled in the German squads. For those who don't know about the reduced firepower of the squad organic MG42: The MG42 as part of a squad is reduced in firepower compared to the MG42 LMG that can be purchased separately. This is to account for the fact that one of the riflemen in the squad would be helping with the belt ammo. And since all men in a squad are modeled as firing a weapon, a reduction was made to the MG42 firepower to make up for the ammo loader's duties. Obviously the Bren doesn't use a belt but David makes it sould like the 3 man team makes a big difference to the Bren gun and therefore at least one of these men must sacrifice some firepower to help the Bren gunner in providing ammo, changing the barrel, carrying exra ammo, spotting, etc... [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Well I am not particularly familiar with US squad practices but as pointed out by David the BAR and the Bren aren't exactly in the same league. The BAR may have been a one man weapon in the US squad but the Brit squad actually had a 3 man bren element. The rationale for making a seperate Bren team is exactly the same as that for making an MG42 LMG team: they were part of the TO&E for a higher formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the BAR and Bren are different in their rolls as a squad support weapon. They are BOTH mobile light mgs that support the squad with automatic firepower. Just because the Bren team has a 3 man element doesn't make it's roll different, it's still a squad support weapon. I can assure you that the BAR man didn't operate apart from the squad as a "one man weapon". Sure it only took one man to operate it (just like the Bren) but the BAR man was often complemented with at least one squad member when put into action. I really think it depends on the situation at hand. One could argue that the U.S. squad should be able to split into whatever ratio the commander decides, whether it's 6/6, 4/8, or 2/10.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: err, you can get seperate, 2 man, LMG42 teams. Not as a split from a squad, granted, but you can get them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err...Yes I know. I've been playing this game just as long if not longer than you. But I'm not talking about those separate MG42s. I'm talking about the MG42's that come as part of a squad(hence the use of the phrase "Squad organic"), then being able to "split" the MG42 or an MG42 team off of the squad. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife I certainly never advocated detachment of the BAR or any of the respective SMGs. I believe i indicated in my original post that i understand why CMBO does not model individuals; a 3 man team or 7 / 3 section split with no morale penalty was subsequently suggested - hence the discourse on historical usage of separate Bren teams. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point is that the BAR and Bren performed the exact same duty and were used in similar manners. How could BTS justify the making a BREN team without making a BAR team? I believe they made the 2 man MG42 team because it was often truly used separately from squads quite often.

Valid wish, but I think I can explain why you can't do this in CM. First, the Bren is a squad support weapon used in the same role as the BAR and MG42(squad organic LMG). If you would get your wish of detachment of the BREN, then everyone else would want the detachment of the BAR and MG42. Then people might want their Thompsons and MP40s detached from the squad and so on...This would lead to a lot more units on the fields and would then bog down slower machines and everyone would need a P400 just to play CM at a respectable frame rate. Second, the squads you see are abstractions of where they actually are. The squads are spread out and one could argue that the Bren is bringing up the rear of the squad, which it typically would. Third and probably most important(if I am correct). The squad support weapons are usually the last to die in squad. I believe this simulates two things: squad members picking up the Bren if the original Bren gunner is wounded/killed AND the likely account that the Bren gunner would be further behind the rest of the squad and therefore a bit safer. Of course, I could be dead wrong, but that's the reasoning I concocted in my head.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SirWhoopass: Oh well. I guess you can put it on my wish list for Combat Mission 3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shoot, it better be in CM2! All that's really needed is a copy/paste function for the map. I know it would take some coding but it's one of the most requested features, I hope they can work it in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, there are many many factors that dictate who is better in combat, not just the main rifle for an Army. Secondly, the Americans did, in the end of Normandy fighting, fare better than the British. The Americans broke out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really, how was this proven? The only true test of this would have been to pit two equally trained American and British Squads against each other, armed with only the rifles in question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WHAT?!?!?!? Take a look at your very first post. You state that the Enfield had a rate of fire of 15-20 rounds per minute. Rate of fire, as we all know, is one of the main factors that helps produce suppression. The Garand can EASILY double that in. They are both good long distance shots and reliable but the Garand has the edge with the rate of fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I made some test to learn more about the victory calculation. a) If I destroy an enemy vehicel, I get the pp that it has cost. If the crew was completly killed together with the vehicel, I get the same points. c) If the crew survives, I get additional points if the crew is 'killed' later. I think that's not right, the crew should always be included in the purchase points, so a surviving crew should mean that I get only the points for a vehicel minus crew. We should keep in mind - a tank is a tank, it's the crew that makes it 'Regular' or 'Elite'. In case of a King Tiger for example, this means a difference of ~250 points between Conscript and Elite!!! [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see your point but this BTS did this to discourage people from using crews in an offensive manner. It's a way to penalize someone who does not get their crew to safety. With your way a player is penalized if his crew is killed when the vehicle is knocked out. In other words he would get the same penalty that a careless person(who attacks with his crew) would get. In reality, you're correct: A tank is a tank. It's the crew that makes it good. But this is only true because that crew can go get into another tank. This isn't so in CM. A crew cannot get into another tank and therefore the crew is worthless as a tank crew, they might as well be a bunch of medics or drooling vegetables. Another thing that BTS did with crews is reduce their spotting ability. They cannot see as well as other units. Again, this is done to penalize players who use their crews in an offensive manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: You don't remove the magazine from an Enfield to reload it!! Which makes me wonder how much you erally know about the subject!! You reload it through the bolt cavity with the bolt open the same way as you do a Garand, using 2 x 5-round stripper clips. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My bad, I thought it was a bottom loading magazine. But do you agree that the Enfield takes longer to reload?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The .30 Carbine round is sort of like a .357 magnum on the power scale, and not in the same class as the Soviet 7.62x39 or the German 7.92 Kurz. The blunt .30 Carbine bullet sheds velocity like a stripper sheds a G-string, and M-2 Carbines fired full auto are very hard to control.