Rob Deans

I raise the question of why was this method chosen over the "Number of Men" method. Should not two half strength sections be able to ride in the vehicle that carried one full strength section into the battle? Thanks Rob Deans

1. I was just curious. Why are there no "mechanized" platoons and companies in the Commonwealth Order of Battle. The Infantry Battalion of a (at the time) Type A Armoured Brigade was mounted in integral M3/5 halftracks 12-14 per coy. Was this just a matter of economy and streamlining the game during development? 2. Also I had an example of grazing fire. A platoon of mine was bumped up close to a wood line and two of the sections broke and ran. As they were running away they became lined up with an MG42 that put a burst into the section that was farthest away. The nearer section was displaying two figures and the farther one three. The burst flew in from the MG and as the tracer arrived, both sections lost one figure. From one burst...If this wasn't a bug or something then,.....not too shabby!!! 3. I'd like some clarification on this point ...OK,..large copse of trees with a "finger" jutting out from one of the corners. In the finger is platoon (-). Two sections, an MG and I think there was an HQ. All arranged along the long axis of the finger copse. My assault element, a rifle platoon and a tank are formed up in some dead ground about 150m away oriented facing the long face of the finger. On the flank there is a friendly 50cal the fire from which is perfectly enfilading the objective. Here is the situation, The MG can not see the enemy in the finger copse (actually sparse trees) but can trace a line of fire through the figer to a "area fire" point on the far side near the enemy that is fathrest away. Will this fire that is traced throught the copse, though not targeting any specific enemy, have some effect on the enemy in the "finger"? There was so much fire from other sources directed to the objective area that the effect of any one weapon was lost in the volum of fire. Thanks Rob Deans

Try this http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html Rob Deans

I say the Comet. Not around for long enough to make a real impression (March 45) but I'm sure it did for those regiments that were equipped with it. 77mm (cut down 17pdr) gun and decent speed. And hey,....it was the first British tank to have a "modernesque" shape. The frontal armour could have been slopped though. Rob Deans

Most people know recce as being against the enemy. Just as much recce is done "against" the ground. My thoughts were this.... Would it be possible to build some sort of ambiguity into the ground features that could only be clarified with close inspection? Examples that come to mind are fords in rivers. Muddy fields that can not support tanks. Bush that is impassible. To name a few. This would introduce another aspect of the game and add to its already huge flexibility. The way the game is now, we know everything about the ground with out actual "first hand" experience. "According to our maps, the road goes is covered by bush on either side..." In actual fact the road goes in the open, devoid of any cover. I guess I'm looking at really two different levels of ground ambiguity. That which can be rectified by inspection from afar. (Bush, the route of a road or river, buildings that are not on the map, etc...) The second type is that terain which can only be clarified through direct inspection.(fords, the thickness of bush, the condition of roads, etc...) So much of the tactical battle field is affected by the ground and the lack of knowledge on it. An example.... The attack is setup for a left flanking. The approach will take the mixed company/squadron from behind a copse down into some low ground and launch an attack from the far edge of the depression. As the low ground (which at this time shows only clear ground with a wall through it) comes under direct observation of the column, it becomes evident that there is bush and such at the bottom. Mmmmmm.. will this impeade movement? As the lead tank gets to the bottom, it realises that the ground is soft and he is getting stuck. The condition of the ground was not know until the tank was on it (or close to it). Two more tanks get stuck leaving the infantry to carry on up the far side. The point so far is that the tanks were not sent into a situation knowing full well that they ran a high possibility of becoming immobilised. They were sent blind into dead ground without any recce done at all. Granted lack of recce will be an occurrance if time is at a premium. The infantry carry on to the start line and shake out for the attack. As they come to the top of the dead ground they come under fire from a barn in defilade that was not "on the map". Its location could not be oserved from the original starting locations and only "appeared" becuase a unit directly observed it. I think that terrain ambiguity would add so much to this already wonderful game. It would introduce a realistic information level and add so much to the fog of war. (Obviously not until a later version of the game) As a final point. This could be used as part of an operation as a stand alone "battle" between deliberate attacks (or whatever) to scout routes and find objectives. Things that happen in reality. Comments? Thanks Rob Deans

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html This is a link to a sight that has a thoroughly excellent document on the subject of Orbats. (US and UK). The thing I like about it is that he quotes from many sources and gives notes to explain most of the orgs. This man is well read and his text shows understanding of military org. Rob Deans

"What is the composition of a typical British squad?" A Commonwealth section at the time had a paper strength of 10. A corporal in command and a lance-corporal as the 2ic. The section was broken in two groups. The Rifle Group (7 men) and the Bren Group (3 men). The Rifle Group, under the corporal, was the element used to close with enemy. It was supported by the Bren Group and its Bren Gun under the lance corporal. The section was armed with a SMG (Sten in NW Europe) for the commander, and rifles for all the rest except the Bren gunner who had the Bren. Sections of four or five were commonplace at various times throughout a campaign. Rob Deans

Actually what I was referring to was a situation where "1" section is firing at an enemy in a house. "2" section is between "1" section and the enemy. Will the fire from 1 section affect 2 section? Thanks Rob Deans

Will fire be able to be traced through friendly units without significant penalty? Thanks Rob Deans

"Sabers are not much bigger if at all than the monster bayonet of the Imperial armys, 3 foot long, although once the pesky infantry are close enough its easier to kill or maim a man while one is on horseback with the saber (slashing) than a bayonet (stabbing)." Yes they are. The 1908 pattern sword is almost three times as long as the 1907 bayonet. It was actually designed for thrusting, not for slashing, with a very thin blade and was commonly sharpened only half way down. Ironically it was the best sword ever produced for cavalry, just in time for the mounted arms' demise....... But I guess this isn't really the topic of this thread though is it?

"What makes this even more suprising is that the Australians carried out the Charge with only their bayonets drawn, due to the lack of lances and sabers. " Couldn't resist,......The reason the Australians had no swords or lances was because they weren't cavalry........They were mounted infantry. (yes there is a difference) The bayonet bit was almost certainly a movie thing.....Have you ever tried to reach a man on the ground from the back of a horse with a 1907 bayonet?.......They adavnced at the gallop up to and into the Turkish positions and then dimounted to fight through the town. On another note, I wonder how many of the posters here have had any experience with the Regimental System? I feel a great misunderstanding of this way of soldiering. Thanks Rob Deans

"Rob, I am nearly positive that grazing fire is not in the demo" Mmmmm,...Does that mean that it is in the main game? I recall that in a game of Last Defence I had a view from the left (as the Germans) accross the front to the right flank. My right had collapsed and American infantry were crossing the open ground on the right. My only thought was that I needed a machine gun on the left to deny the enemy the use of that open space. An MG firing on a fixed point on the far side of the field would have stopped the enemy from dashing accross and into the town. This is machinegunning. Traversing left once the Americans had gone to ground and I could have chewed them into tiny bits, forcing them back into dead ground (from my machinegun). This is the power of machineguns (and a reason for having a "rapid rate" order under "target"...I won't harp on that one again) "the platoon wouldn't be nicely lined up for grazing fire" I know that,...It was an experiment to see if grazing fire worked. "I think a lot of wargames overestimate the effectiveness of MG fire." On the contrary, most, if not all, underestimate it. This is based on misinformation and a lack of knowledge of how machine guns really can be, and are, used. Kudos to the guys here that they listen and discuss. Thanks Rob Deans

All this talk of tanks. Don't forget that the British Army at the time of the game was equipped with primarily Shermans (and variants) with Churchills forming the next BIG chunk. Honey (Stuarts) were used in a recce role within the armoured regiment and therefore a lesser role. The Cromwell/Challenger was used in the armoured recce role (1 regiment per armoured div)and equipped completely one of the three fighting armoured divisions during this time (Shermans equipping the other two). Of these tanks, all but the earlier versions of the Churchill had 75mm+ guns. These few six pounder Churchills were fitted with 75s during the campaign. My point is that the British Army was kitted, in tank armament, very much like the other allies. Their undergunning was by no means strictly a British problem. On the Centaur, it was only used by the Royal Marines who fielded two "Armoured Support Regiments". In five vehicle "batteries" the vehicle was the Marines' close support tank. Only 80 were ever produced. The Achilles and the Archer were used by the Royal Artillery anti tank regiments in the Armoured Divisions (a div asset) in four vehicle batteries. They were used in a similar role as the towed 17pdrs in the infantry divisions.

I set up an experiment to test to see if grazing fire would work. Had a 1919 MG hide in house and brought up a platoon of Germans. They were deployed in open ground so that they were in a line with a spacing of about 75m from left flank to right. The MG was in COMPLETE enfilade when it opened fire. I was not impressed. The target selected was the farthest German section so that the MG fire would have to travel along the axis of the platoon before it got to the target section. Well, that section took two cas in the first two bursts. The others didn't even go to ground. They were busy firing at a bazooka in a building that was closer though not more dangerous. The MG had LOS to all German units so there were none in dead ground. The total German cas were 6 out of the platoon after about 7 min firing. The effect of enfilading fire by the MG was, in this experiment, inaccurately ineffective. Thanks Rob Deans

Well Done.... Rob Deans

Actually boresighting is the process of harmonizing the weapon and its sighting system. Registration is the process by which a weapon with a dial sight or Traversing and Elevating mechanism can, once laid on a target, engage that target again and again without seeing the target. There was some disscussion on this a while ago, I think. Like any weapon of this genre (Vickers, .50cal, .30cal, MG42) the target, to be effectivly engaged in the future, must be adjusted by firing the weapon at the target until the rounds land where they are supposed to. Once the weapon is "on", the sight is laid on the aiming post and the data recorded. The weapon can engage other targets and still go back to the registered target by applying the data to the sight (mech) and laying the weapon sight onto the aiming post. The weapon will now be pointing at the target that was recorded. 30 sec from fire order to rounds on target. Rob Deans

You wouldn't believe how much fire buildings attract. Just remember the enemy is as buggered as you are when he opens fire on you........."Fire from that direction.......must be in the house,.....RAPID FIRE!" In reality you were hidden in the yard tucked in your trenches among the shrubery. Definatly a true statement. I haven't actually seen a case of mistaken identity like this in the game. Rob Deans

"HAHA!! I expected I might see you post next" Well, heh......... Guys, I am impressed at your open minds and co-operative attitude. Thanks, Rob Deans [This message has been edited by Rob Deans (edited 11-11-99).]

I don't expect that any suggestions, mine or otherwise, will be incorporated. I just like disscussing things that I see here. Good luck to BTS as the final version approaches. Rob Deans

"Just a side note, there have been changes the the way rounds are called down and the patterns they form." Please elaborate............ Thanks Rob Deans

"(something that only)squads in the same platoon should be able to do." I agree. In contact with the Platoon Commander and touching bases. This makes sense. Only I doubt that it will make it to the game. Can always wish.......... Rob Deans

I'm not trying to antagonize anybody here but redistribution of ammo is alot more common than is being talked about. Redistribution is done at the section level after a firefight. Redistribution of ammo happens after a platoon's attack. Redistribution happens after a company objective is taken though resupply might be more the order of the day. The comment about "a mobile refeuling station.." well to some extent, it is. If the two lead sections of a platoon fight through an objective, once that local area is secure (could be a house, a field, a copse of trees) then the platoon will redistribute from section to section. Mags, grenades and the like are stripped off those who have and given to those who need. No, this can not happen in action to the same extent but at a lull in that platoons battle, yes. When Private Ryan was mentioned I'm guessing that the redistribution scene was the section attack on the MG. What, 30 sec to do this? Imagine this.... a platoon attacking that MG and "one on the other side of the radar". The platoon reorgs and goes into reserve as the next platoon sweeps through and tackles a bunker 100m away over the rise. This is certainly within CMs scale. That first platoon that took out the two MGs at the radar? They are redistributing ammo. The third (uncommitted) section of the platoon reorgs up with the two committed sections and the Plt Sgt and two runners come around and take a bandolier off every man from that third section. The battle rages over the rise as the next platoon attacks their bunker. Those bandoliers go straight to the other sections. This scenario could take place in a built up area too as platoons leap frog through, from building to building. After the building is secure and sentries are posted, the admin takes over. The point is that this is done after a bound. The way the game is, many bounds are encompassed with in a single game (Re: both demo scenarios). I am curious as to the basis that the "against redistribution" argument is based. Please adivse..... Thanks Rob Deans

Yep, just haven't followed a mortar det through for a turn yet. I asumed there was some (albeit a small one) delay. Thanks for answering about the 2". Rob Deans

So this means that the two inch can't fire smoke? I know for a fact that the ammo existed and all the manuals that I have seen state the use of the weapon as primarily smoke laying. Its the sort of thing that doesn't even get questioned when talking of this weapon in military circles. The smoke bomb was marked with a green and a red band and weighed .9 kg. As an interest point, the mortar didn't have a bipod. It's base was fixed to a rotating socket on a small "base plate" that was more of a "foot" than the common conception of a baseplate. When firing, the weapon's silouette looked like the letter "L", with the bottom part as the base plate and the upright, the barrel. The barrel was angled to the "outside" of the "L" so it appeared as an "open" L with an angle between the barrel and the baseplate greater than 90 degrees. I asume that the graphic in the game will have a bipod (too bad) and that the weapon will be treated like a normal mortar in its movement and "into action" time. This is really too bad to. There is nothing to set up with the 2". No bipod or baseplate to set up. The weapon is one piece. Jam it into the ground, point, load and fire. It is no more cumbersome than a Bren Gun and its carrier can move just as fast. Thanks Rob Deans

"Since they can't ever run out..." I was unaware of this. Thanks. Still, a redistribute command with "base to base" contact would be worth while. Thanks Rob Deans