argie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is the system, called the US system, where individual infantry officers control artillery, and works just like this for the individual platoon leader (or anyone with a radio in fact trained to use a map). JonS, I was merely pointing out that CM has simulated the communication system in the game, and that dozens of discussions have mulled over this very topic on this board without the nationalism clouding everything. Do a search for these discussion to find out the reasons why BTS choose to simulate things the way they did. [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All I've read, which is not a lot and wasn't read in a scholar way, indicated that CW Arty, mostly the British, had one of the better Communications systems in WWII. It was so effective that was used instead of the regular communication system when was available. As FOOs or the Rgt OiC was in direct contact with the unit he was supporting, the communications set of the Arty was co-located with the HQs of the ground forces, allowing them to use it if the other fails. CW arty communications had the reputation of never fail... But I read almost the same about USA comms. [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: argie ] [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B: A lot Scott B. (Edited for spelling/grammar.) [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Scott B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suggest yo to go to the link I posted above. Is a very comprehensive essay on British Arty in WWII, including such things as training, FDCs and FOOS, and SOPs and procedures.

As every time this discussion flourishes, I will point the participants to : http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ Must be noticed that also was customary that the COs from Batteries and even Regiments in CW armies were doing FOO activities, or liason with other units... Guess who get the fires first I forgot! Seems like in CMBO the FOs are simulating the batteries AND the FOs. Is an elegant abstraction to do both and with any RL Arty system. And before the flames started, I want the 25lbers firing faster and the M16s too!!! And also at least some of the heavy Armored Cars the British had [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

You can already simulate mine density by adding mine markers in te same tile. But having specific density fields could be great

Nobody wants to talk about mines? I like to know if what I want is feasible and if it is in the scope, and if is still fun... The game with those modifications, I mean.

Bumping because I like to see my name in the main page

I think this very minor tweaks are in the scope and are feasible with the actual engine without a lot of coding (I can be wrong, of course): 1 - Make the Mine Tiles having "directionality" (a face in which they are more effective). The RL measure of density in minefields is linear density: the amount of mines you have in front in a path. 2 - Make normal Mine Tiles visible, as Daisy Chains, but not allowed to automatical removal, as actual Mine tiles in CMBO. And cheaper. 3 - Make a Phony Mine Tile. Same price as the cheaper visible Mine tiles. 4 - Keep the invisible Mine tiles to use as booby traps and such. 5 - All above, I think will lead to the concept of mine tile as a segment of a mine field more than an isolated obstacle as is mostly used now. I have to say it. Is long time having it in my chest

Seems like a variant of the Holy Hand Grenade from Antioch bug that... errrr... bugged one of the beta demos. I suggest you to send it to BTS.

I really don't understand the point here, except maybe for the name calling I don't remember the time in CM in which my troops fired AGAINST my orders. If you wants to have fire discipline, just put an ambush marker away from the enemy troops, and they will not fire until under fire themselves. If you forget to do that, then is like if you didn't give the appropiate orders. Just that simple. There is nothing wrong with that in CM. Plus,you have a very good TacAI to make better decisions than you in targeting: they knos which markers are juicy targets before you

MHofbauer, Engineers uses their demo charges to blow up minefields in CM. The only ones they remove without demos are the Daisy Chains. The_Capt, I think the problem with simulating Bangalore against wire is that in CM you eliminates the obstacle or don't. No way to simulate paths, as the ones are don by Bangalore. However, this also could be said about minefields, but its are so abstracted that I prefer don't even start to speculate

Thanks! I just found the same Plus the Taperworm: a flexible tube, like the Conger, but already filled with explosives, like the Snake and Bangalore.

You can found some data in http://www.combatmission.com/CMMC/cmmcfront.htm Also, you can visit the Forums used as communication device in the CPX done before of the start of CMMC to test the system at: http://www.delphi.com/cmmcallied/start http://www.delphi.com/cmmcaxis/start

The "Snake" was one of those fabric tubes filled with explosives they used to clear paths in minefields, ala aerial bangalore torpedo?

Bah! We don't need the AI to model that! I bet this Forum is plenty of leaders bad enough

The heaviest vehicle I killed with a 2" was a Panther :eek: I'm not joking... I don't remember the scenario, I was playing against the AI (because Bullethead was playing such scenario against somebody and was spoiling it to me through ICQ ), and this armored column pass just over my TRP. I unleash hell. That turn a lot of 25 lbers and 4.5" falls over the vehicles, immobilizing and damaging a few, and destroying this Panther. After the turn, I look into the kills of the FOs to see who was the killer... No one was credited... Further research showed that a tiniy 2" that was close to teh TRP open fire over the column as well, and was credited with the kill of the Panther

I found it... They changed the nomenclature http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-34.2/appc.htm#pgfId-1026881

Ok... The FM seems to not be online anymore... I will look carefully later. Is the FM 90-13-1 and in its Appendix C says: "Mine rollers can also be used to detect minefield in front of deployed tactical formations, although more than one roller tank is required for good probability of detection. A company deployed across a 500-meter front led by one roller tank, has less than a 40-percent probability of detecting a standard Soviet minefield with the roller. Two roller tanks increase this probability to approximately 80 percent, and three virtually guarantee detection." I think vehicles of WWII could have a little detection probability, as the rollers were less effective.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: I bet it took more to kill a Finn. And you better hope you killed him, 'cos otherwise he's just going to be grumpy. IIRC, the Finns didn't bother with medics and hospitals, either they were good to go, or they were dead. Nothing in between. Eh, Tero? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What!!!!????? You actually can KILL a Finn!!!???? BTS, PLEASE, FIX OR DO SOMEFINK.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think the smallest unit they were parcelled into was the troop, which I think was either three or four flails and one flail command tank (I'll check that). By comparison, Crocodiles had the half-troop as smallest unit, IIRC, because anything more than two of them might border on over-kill for many engagements, and because a lot of them were desired all over the front to roast those pesky Germans. I also think that flails were really only used in the set-piece battle, and to clear rear-areas. I would have to check, but I would be surprised if there were many (any?) cases of them just trundling along on the off-chance that there would be a mine-field. There were still the flat-feet sappers to deal with those minefields. They were really not the best tank for movement, since they were not only overweight/underpowered, but also very front-heavy (there's a surprise). Another ingenious mine-clearing device was the Conger, which I think was just a flexible pipe filled with Nitroglycerine, laid across the suspected minefield and detonated. There was an accident when refilling a container once that wiped out an AVRE troop, IIRC. (working from memory here, because I am too lazy to go and dig out the extremely badly referenced books I have dealing with this)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some not too much reliable sources I have say that flsils were deployed in platoons of 4 or 5 vehicles. 2 or 3 flails in line do the clearing, with another 2 in reserve, as was expected that some flails were lost by the obstacles or enemy fire (an obsctace not covered by fire is not an obstacle ). Usually were deployed in a way to allow to open two lines for Battalion. That gives us an estimate of 2 Platoons (8 to 10 vehicles) for Battalion in an assault operation. I will look if I can found a table I saw somewhere on how effective is this kind of breaching, but with modern mine rollers, though

Ok, you grogs! That's enough! Here is the link! http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/5-277/toc.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: In regards to whether you need troops on the far shore to build a Bailey bridge the answer is yes and no. Yes if the current or wind was great enough and no if not. I was involved in building several of these and it took us the biggest part of a day to do it but then again we weren't in a hurry. Well, other than the officers wanting it up quick but course they weren't the ones busting their asses either. Had there been the need to hurry we could have done it somewhat faster I suppose. Another factor of course is how wide the river is as to how fast it would take. You also don't just put one up anywhere. Vehicles have to be able to get to it. And whoever designed the thing should be shot dead. I know it was some British guy but he still should have been shot. That crap is heavy heavy heavy. But yeah it is an amazing idea and design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you ever done a double/double? One of those in which you have to guide the upper external panel charged in your back,standing over the edges of the two lower panels and with 5 guys pushing it without other consideration than take away their own charge? :eek: For non sappers here, each panel weights 262 kgs. But anyway, is quite a good piece of engineering, not bested until the development of the Ribbon Bridge for the Soviets.

For an interesting accountt on combat use of 5.56 against 7.62, I suggest to found something about the Top Malo House combat between Argentine Commandos and British SAS in Malvina's war. An Argentinian Commando receved 5 shots, IIRC, from a M16, plus a nother one that hits his FAL and continues teh fight until he got surrendered. This don't means that in any case 7.62 is better than 5.56. But, for instance, teh 5.56 round that hits the FAL didn't disable it. Reports from Argentines shoted by M16 said that the 5.56 has a tendency to overpenetrate at close range. Strange, considering that test done with pigs (a sort of semiliquid sustance) shows that the terminal ballistic of 5.56 has a different behaviour. Anyway, Argentine Army wanted to switch to 5.56 after Malvinas. Another thing to have in mind is that those combats were fought in very cold climate conditions: the bullets lose speed faster (the lighter ones more faster) and the ballistic is a bit different. This could have also affected terminal balistic in some way. But, I'm not an academic and I don'yt know squat about firing weapons

I forgot! We were Conscripts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eumundi: As for the Bailey bridge mister smart guy, have you ever set one up? If not then you have no place to talk. I think when it comes down to it none of you can prove that it was not possible to set up a Bailey bridge in combat, just like you can't prove that the Ark could not be used under fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have set up two Bailey bridges: one over an obstacle for an exercise and one over plain terrain just for training... Making the one over plain tarrain take us a whole morning (was a Double-Double, we have all the construction stuff stockpiled at hand and was in light snow conditions). The other one takes us all the day, including moving and stockpiling material to make the bridge (a Single-Single, around 20mts long), not including survey and simulated assault operations to secure farest shore. And I can tell you that a Bailey is one of the last things I want to do under fire, just after pooh-pooh, but before mine clearing [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

Why are you so bitter? I'm not playing any side because I have too much intelligence on both to play any. Was decided that GMs were not able to play in CMMC, a thing which I support from the begining. If people is not having fun, they leave. Is just a game after all. Anyway, there are permanently 100+ players playing. Some of what you said sounds like having something between lines. I hope not.