civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
Ok, really obscure follow-up question for extra credit;
Why did the Marines stop wearing leggings during the Korean War?
-
Barney Fife, otherwise known as Don Knotts.Originally posted by Bigduke6:CivDiv,
1. Don't know.
Douhot theorized on Strategic Bombing, not tactical. The USMC invented it during the Banana Wars.2. I am sure there is a Marine answer, but I would say that was Douhot provided the theoretical base, Fuller the tactical, and guys like Gudarian the first real implementation. Sorta depends on how you define CAS, I guess.
USMC during the Korean War.3. Hmm...how about the French moving troops around during the latter stages of Indochina? That would be early to mid 1950s.
Union Captain Robert Ellicombe was checking the pickets one night during the American Civil War. At about that time there was an exchange of fire between the Union and the Confederate pickets and Captain Ellicombe went to investigate. Several Confederate soldiers had been killed, and Ellicombe helped pull one body out of a creek that lay between the lines. The body belonged to his son, who though born in the North, pledged his allegence to the South. Ellicombe went through his son's pockets, and found a scrap of paper with some musical notes scribbled on it (His son was a bugler.). Captain Elliscombe asked General Grant to allow his son to be buried with full military honors, and Grant granted permission. Captain Ellicombe had the notes played by a military bugler at the service, and it was 'Taps'.4. Don't know.
Correct. It had to do with the bolt slamming home on the firer's thumb as he was loading the clip. Many veteren's have damaged thumbnails to this day.5. I'm guessing, it's from a Springfield-trained rifleman using an M-1, and smashing his thumb on the chamber clearer after each shot, since he was trained to operate a bolt.
The truck is the big ball at the top of a flagpole. True 'trucks' only exist on Commanding General's flagpoles. They contain a 45 caliber bullet, a match, and instruction for burning the flag. In the event the base is overrun, the flagpole is to be knocked down, the flag burned, and the person burning the flag shoot themselves with the bullet to avoid capture.6. Japanese WW2 Naval Base. No, just kidding. Uh...since I doubt Studebaker's the answer, don't know.
Correct. It was due to the high leather collars worn by the Marines up until somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century. Their is an ongoing dispute as to whether the origins of the nickname are with the British Royal Marines or their superior descendants.7. Another guess, but I'm pretty sure it's because the Marines kept the high-neck, closed-throat tunic a good deal longer than the other services, I'm pretty sure into WWI.
It was a nickname given to the Marines during the Battle of Belleau Wood during WWI. They called the Marines Teufelhunden, german for 'Devil Dogs'.8. Don't know, but would love to find out. -
Ok, now some for you, and these are not all USMC questions;
1. Who is known as 'The most feared USMC drill instructor'?
2. When was Close Air Support developed and who developed it?
3. When was the first helicopter assault and who conducted it?
4. What is the story behind Taps?
5. What is 'M1 thumb'?
6. What is a 'truck', in reference to military tradition, and what is contained in each 'truck', at least in the USMC?
7. What is the origin of 'Leatherneck'?
8. What is the origin of 'Devil Dog'?
-
You are talking about Nassau. I am not sure what Hopkins has to do with it. Basic USMC knowledge.Originally posted by Bigduke6:Civdiv,
As to the game show...
1. It was an anti-indian camapign, but that's all I know about it.
Hmm...I could be wrong here, but I thought that was the Marines' first foreign deployment, 1775, Bahamas. I looked that one up in a book on Navies in the U.S. Revolution, maybe I'm mistaken there...
You're wrong. The 2nd Raider Bn was one of the first USMC units to receive the M1 Garand. And some USMC units were issued the M1 as the Guadalcanal Campaign went on. There is also anecdotal evidence that Chesty Puller carried an M1 ashore during the initial amphibious assault so he could test it out.2. Hmmm, maybe rocks with tin cans in them as part of an early warning mechnaism and Chesty cam up with the idea?BING! Well done! Yes, Chesty worked that one out in wars in Central America in the 1920s, in the Honduras I'm pretty sure. On Guadacanal he had his regiment rig the cans with gravel on the perimeter wire, the Japanese rattled the cans, and the rest, as they say, is history.
3. This is where the M1 was first fielded, or maybe it would be more accurate to say this was its baptism of fire. There were only two real problems with the M1, and one is not a real problem. The 'ping' sound that was made when the stripper clip is ejected was cited by many as a clear audible tone that the rifle was empty. However, as that sound is MUCH less than the sound of the weapon firing, it is really a non-issue.
The other issue was the stainless steel gas cylinder was pretty reflective. That issue was never really solved, except by a myriad of field expedient methods.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, 'M1 thumb'?
BZZZAT! Sorry, that was a trick question, only Army troops had M-1s at Guadacanal; the Marines had to make do - and they did very well indeed - with Springfields.
Your score is reduced to zero, would you like to try again?
No googling was done for the initial answers, though I did google for this rebuttel. This is basic USMC knowledge and it is beaten into our heads. And as a former USMC SNCO, I was expected to know this stuff.4. Tun Tavern is where the first meeting for the formation of the Marine Corps was discussed. Discussions were led by the eventual first commandant of the Marine Corps, Captain Samuel Nicholas. Congress had authorized the raising of 2 battalions of Marines. However, as Gen Krulak points out in his book, 'First to Fight', there is no evidence that these 2 battalions were ever raised.
Oooh...impressive, I didn't know all that. All I knew was that where the first Marines were raised. You out-grogged me there, I admit it.
BBBBZZZZTTT!!! You are talking about WIlliam Manchester not Mitchener. I have read 'Goodbye Darkness' and his book about Macarthur, so no googling was necessary. Go google to part about Manchester talking about how well hung he was.5. I have no idea. Could it be that the movie and musical were adapted from a James Mitchener book and Mitchener was a Marine during WWII?BING! Your score is doubled, well done. Mitschner was on Okinawa, and wrote about it in Goodbye Darkness, a book a lot less fun than South Pacific.
Basic USMC knowledge.6. Howlin' Mad.BINGBINGBINGBING! Well done, your score is doubled again, would you like to try for the bonus round?
Well done Civdiv!
I gotta say, as a former Joe, the Marines always impress you with how bright they are, how they are just a little bit more on the ball than the Army infantry.Well, almost all Marines, anyhoo...
-
Don't let the antagonistic many on this board turn you off from the game. No one who has not served in the Corps will ever understand what it means to us. The Corps is a special place, and whether it be the leadership, the professionalism, the esprit de corps, whatever, the other services will never understand it. They don't understand the exactness of our closs order drill, or our studying of our own history, or our marksmanship standards.Originally posted by GasMask:I don't understand why all you people are trying to make me sound stupid and are attacking my intelligence. I admit that I was wrong about the occupying force comment but you people keep trying to fight me. I just don't understand why you can't stop being jerks and be mature about this.
And about the "challenge". What I meant is you will never know what it's like to be a Marine till you are one. You can read all the books in the world and try to understand the Marine Corps, but being one is the only way to "get it".
Maybe instead of trying to insult me you could talk to me.
Knowlege is power, yes, but it doesn't mean you understand everything or comprehend it.
Today is my son's birthday, so I'm not spending a lot of time online for you. I will however tell you that any Marine that doesn't know that the Marine Corps was founded in Tun Tavern on 10 November 1775 wouldn't be a good Marine.
I had a funny about a year ago. I was at an joint command and I accidentely parked my rental car in one of the army company commander's parking spaces. When I had to leave a motorcycle was parked behind my car, attempting to park me in. I had to get on the road for an appointment about an hour away, so after spending a couple of minutes looking for the person, I just moved the bike, and drove away.
The next day I went looking for the company commander. I was in civilian clothes, and my hair was out of regs (I was going to a duty out of uniform), and I walked into the company commander's office. I asked the 1stSgt if I could speak with the company commander. He asked me what my business was, and I told him I was here for my ass chewing as I was the one who had parked in the company commander's parking spot the previous day. At this point the company commander came out of her office. The 1stSgt laughed and said;
'You must be a Marine, right?'
I told him I was and asked him why he said that. He said no soldier would ever show up to receive his tidings the way I had.
Now the next day I was leaving for Afghanistan. So if I hadn't shown up, there was nothing they could do about it. It wasn't like they were looking for me or anything.
On another day I was driving down the PCH south of Monterey. There had been a mud-slide, and a flag guy stopped my car as they were clearing the road. I got out of my car, and mine was the only car stopped, there was almost no traffic on the road. I wandered over and started talking to the flag guy. We had chatted for a minute or so, and then, out of the blue, he said;
'You're a Marine, right?'
Now I was in civvies, in a rental car, and like litterally hours away from any Marine base, so I was sort of floored. I told him he was right, and asked him how he knew. He said that you could usually tell someone was in the military by their haircut. But you could tell a Marine by the way they carried themselves. And when I asked him he said he had never been in the military.
You can read all the books you want, but you will never understand.
[ February 12, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
fusilier;
You are wrong about Desert Storm, period. The whole reason the Army's offensive was moved up a day is because the Marine's were moving a lot faster than they Army thought they would. And I know all about the Battle of 73-Easting. But that fact remains, the Marine's mission was to recapture Kuwait and Kuwait City. They succeeded. The Army's mission was to destroy the Repulican Guard, which they did not do.
Oh, and how about Schwartkof designating the site of the surrender at a location still controlled by the Iraqis? He had received an erronious POSREP from one of his units, and thought the site he had selected was controlled by the Army. It wasn't, so, despite the ceasefire, he had his units attack the Iraqis to seize the position.
Did you know that Schwartkof was considered a bit of a boob by the Army? That CENTCOM was literally a couple of weeks from being eliminated before the Iraqis invaded Kuwait? Schwartzkof had 'been put out to pasture' at CENTCOM because it was going away. He was slated for retirement.
In regards to the press, it is a big deal, because ultimately it has an effect on future US policies, and on defense appropriations. You talk about the USMCs PR efforts, but then say the press isn't important?
Also note that the previous Commandant, for the first time in history, was asked to stay on and become CINC-E, which has tradionally been an Army comand. That sure pissed the Army off. And then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs becomes a Marine, for the first time in history.
Let's not forget the severe angst Camp Rhino caused the Army in Afghanistan. The Marines had to go in and seize the terrain because the Army, despite all this 'expeditionary' talk they had been spouting, they couldn't conduct the mission.
In regards to my talking about the pause, and mentioning Kuwait, I agree I wasn't clear. I meant the Army couldn't keep during Desert Storm I. And the pause in Iraq during the latest conflict was because the 3ID couldn't keep up. IMEF didn't want to stop, but CFLCC ordered the halt because 3ID needed to stop and rest and refit. And in regards to the Army travelling further than the Marines, that is bologny. Go look at the maps. 3ID went directly to An Nasiriya, and then button hooked to the west. IMEF took Um Qusr and the penisula, and then moved north to An Nasiroya, and came into Baghdad from the east. And then they went all the way up and took Tikrit.
And again, I am NOT bashing the Army. As a Marine I have much more in common with an Army soldier than I do, even with our brothers in the British Royal Marines, who we have an EXTREMELY close relationship with.
We do some thing better than you guys do. You guys do some things better than we do. We have seperate, but closely related missions. But the fact remains, we are smaller, and we can be more selective, and we can be elite. While the Army has elite units, the Marine Corps is elite.
bigduke,
Quit comparing the USMC to the SS, that is absolutely ridiculous, inappropriate, and downright hateful. The subset is elite formations, of which, arguably, the SS AND the USMC are members. The subset is not the SS. By your logic then the Army Rangers, the British Royal Marines and Commandos, the Janniseries, all can be compared to the SS. Stop it, it's inaccurate and downright nasty! And if you want to argue by analogy, I propose an accurate analogy, at least more accurate than the comparison of the SS and the USMC. While the USMC shares NOTHING with the SS, except an elite status as warriers, the US Army can be very directly compared to the French military. At the dawn of the US Army, the French military was copied almost verbatim. This close relationship and imitation was reinvigorated during WWI. It was only when the French military was savagely handled by the blitzkreig that the US Army was weened from the French teat. But you can't get rid of almost 200 years of influence in a couple of decades, and the mark of the French military is still clearly present on the US Army. Myself, having been in a previous life, a USMC Forward Observer, and hence, trained by US Army doctrine, can testify that the present US Military field artillery procedures are almost a direct copy of the French WWI procedures. Yes, they have been modernized, but the influence is still there. So if your going to tout you SS/USMC anaology, where there is absolutely no connection besides battlefield acumen, then the French Army/US Army comparison is more accurate to an exponential degree. And if you want to be compared to their dismal historical record, fine.
In regards to your questions, I'm not sure of the purpose, but I like trivia.
1. It was an anti-indian camapign, but that's all I know about it.
2. Hmmm, maybe rocks with tin cans in them as part of an early warning mechnaism and Chesty cam up with the idea?
3. This is where the M1 was first fielded, or maybe it would be more accurate to say this was its baptism of fire. There were only two real problems with the M1, and one is not a real problem. The 'ping' sound that was made when the stripper clip is ejected was cited by many as a clear audible tone that the rifle was empty. However, as that sound is MUCH less than the sound of the weapon firing, it is really a non-issue.
The other issue was the stainless steel gas cylinder was pretty reflective. That issue was never really solved, except by a myriad of field expedient methods.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, 'M1 thumb'?
4. Tun Tavern is where the first meeting for the formation of the Marine Corps was discussed. Discussions were led by the eventual first commandant of the Marine Corps, Captain Samuel Nicholas. Congress had authorized the raising of 2 battalions of Marines. However, as Gen Krulak points out in his book, 'First to Fight', there is no evidence that these 2 battalions were ever raised.
5. I have no idea. Could it be that the movie and musical were adapted from a James Mitchener book and Mitchener was a Marine during WWII?
6. Howlin' Mad.
[ February 12, 2006, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
This is a site I found last week. Probably not what you are looking for, but it does have a street map of Villers-Bocage.
-
Hmmm, I have to chime in as I pareticipated in both operations. The reality is that in Desert Storm the USMC completed its mission while the Army failed to. The USMC's mission was to force the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. And they succeeded, a lot faster than was planned.Originally posted by Fusilier9:"I'm also very happy to read that you will have Marines in the game, because let's just face it, the Army is in Iraq to stabalize it, while the Corps is in Iraq to hunt down terrorists..."
The Marine Corps is full of first rate warriors but the ability of many of you to exaggerate is also remarkable. I think there is also a bit of an inferiority complex among some marines. Just because the marines weren't assigned the main offensive effort in either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Desert Storm doesn't mean you should feel slighted.
The Army was supposed to cut-off the Iraqi forces as they retreated and destroy them. They failed to do this.
In regards to Iraq (the latest edition), it's actually the Army that is very jealous of the Marines, because we got all the press. An Nasiriya was the most publicized engagement of the war. And it was the USMC that essentially saved the remainder of Jessica Lynch's unit, Lynch herself, and all the other Army POWs.
CFLCC (The Army Command) was very upset that the USMC in Iraq was getting all the press, and after An Nasiriya they really made an attempt to push the USMC out of the limelight. And The same thing happened between IMEF and IIMEF on the USMC side. IMEF had the bulk of the forces, but An Nasiriya was a IIMEF fight (TF Tarawa). IMEF was upset that IIMEF got all of the press.
And don't forget, that just like in Kuwait, it was the Army that neeeded the pause in Iraq, because they couldn't move fast enough, and it was the USMC that fought so hard against it.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I love the Army. But Marines jealous of them? Please!
-
Ok, I set-up a little scenario with a US infantry squad ambushing a German unit on a paved, wooded, road. The US infantry squad is hiding in a foxhole, facing the paved road that is less than 5 meters away. This is the same situation pictured and discussed above, but I cancelled the US squads covered arc. The German unit proceeding down the paved road consists of the following;
Lead Vehicle: Regular SPW 250/1 with a 4 man Regular HQ section embarked. The HQ is Combat +1, Stealth +1. The vehicle is proceeding under 'movement to contact' orders.
Trail Vehicle: Regular PzIVH with a 9 man Regular 44 Fusilier Squad embarked. The vehicle is trailing the SPW by approximately 10 meters on
'hunt' movement orders.
The US squad is a 12 man, regular 44 Infantry Squad. In this situation I skipped the covered arc, intending to let the vehicles pass, and
then engage the trail vehicle (Pz IV from behind), so I gave the squad no covered arc. The squad is within the command range of a HQ
section deeper in the woods, with +2 Command and +2 Stealth.
Attempt 1;
Halftrack spots the squad after it has passed it (by about 5 meters) and stops and begins to turn. The squad engages, and hits the SPW with
the first rifle grenade, causing 1 casualty to the crew, shocking it. The 2nd misses, and the 3rd penetrates the turret of the Pz IV, causing one casualty. The 4th misses. The Pz IV buttons up and is shocked, and the infantry squad dismounts and is engaged by the ambushing squad, and wiped out to the last man. The US squad takes 1 casualty. The 2 shocked vehicles retreat in reverse up the road.
Attempt 2;
This time the SPW doesn't see the ambushing squad but the tank does. The US squad reacts and misses w/ it's 1st rifle grenade (versus Pz IV, I think), hit but no damage w/ 2nd, forcing the German squad to dismount. The 3rd rifle grenade misses, and the 4th is a front turret penetration, but no damage. The US squad then engages the German squad, taking 1 casualty and breaking the German squad and inflicting 3 casualties. But then the SPW and the Pz IV turn and engage the US squad, and the turn ends with the US squad taking 2 more casualties. And next turn isn't looking good.
Attempt 3;
Again the SPW misses the squad, but the Pz IV spots it. The US squad initiates the ambush against the Pz IV, 2 hits for no damage, 1 miss.
The infantry squad is forced to dismount. The SPW quickly turns and engages (Basically the SPW is on the US squads left, and the PZ IV on the right.). This one turns ugly as between the SPW and the German infantry squad, the US squad takes 6 casualties, while the German squad takes 2. And next turn looks grim w/ an undamaged SPW and now outnumbered by the German squad. The Pz IV proceeded down the road.
Attempt 4;
I'm not sure if this one should count. Neither vehicle spotted the US squad, nor did the US squad engage. But the movement orders for the German vehicles ended just passed the US squad. After sitting there for a few seconds the SPW spotted the US squad and began to rotate. The US squad then initiated the ambush by hitting the Pz IV with their first rifle grenade, causing no damage to the tank, but forcing the squad to dismount with 1 casualty. The tank buttoned and sat immobile, probably because they couldn't see the US squad. The PSW turned and began to engage the US squad, while reversing UP the road. The 2 squads duked it out with the US squad taking 3 casualties while wiping out the German squad. Next turn could be interesting as the US squad has 3 rifle grenades left, and the Pz IV is just sitting there, but then the SPW is also engaging from further up the road.
Attempt 5;
The SPW fails to spot the US squad, but the Pz IV does, and starts to rotate it's turret. The SPW has just passed the squad, and the Pz IV hasn't quite reached it yet. The US squad engages the SPW first, missing w/ it's 1st rifle grenade and knocking it out with the 2nd, and forcing the HQ section to dismount w/ 1 casualty. The US squad then engages the Pz IV with small arms, and buttons it, forcing the infantry squad to dismount w/ 1 casualty. And then this superhuman US squad, in the course of about 5-7 seconds, eliminates the SPW crew, the HQ section, hits the Pz IV with a round that penetrates the turret, and inflicts 3 more casualties on the German infantry squad crawling towards them. The turn ends with the buttoned but undamaged Pz IV proceeding down the road, the German squad with 6 casualties, and the US squad still unscathed.
-
Ok, I set-up a little scenario with a US infantry squad ambushing a German unit on a paved, wooded, road. The US infantry squad is hiding in a foxhole, facing the paved road that is less than 5 meters away. The German unit proceeding down the paved road consists of the
following;
Lead Vehicle: Regular SPW 250/1 with a 4 man Regular HQ section embarked. The HQ is Combat +1, Stealth +1. The vehicle is proceeding under 'movement to contact' orders.
Trail Vehicle: Regular PzIVH with a 9 man Regular 44 Fusilier Squad embarked. The vehicle is trailing the SPW by approximately 10 meters on
'hunt' movement orders.
The US squad is a 12 man, regular 44 Infantry Squad. It has a covered arc set over the paved road, with the leading edge (The edge from
where the Germans are moving) set-up perpendicular to the paved road. The squad is within the command range of a HQ section deeper in the
woods, with +2 Command and +2 Stealth.
Here is a picture;
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/7139/infantryvsarmorambush7zb.jpg
Attempt 1;
Two hits on SPW w/ rifle grenades, no casualties. Squad ignores tank (Though 1 meter away, it hasn't crossed into the squad's covered arc.) until tank backs up and fires. SPW retreats in reverse. When PZ IV fires, the ambushing squad engages and shoots the commander out of turret, tank is shocked. German squad dismounts with two casualties and is paniced.
Scenario ended.
Attempt 2;
4 hits w/ rifle grenades on SPW, all penetrating but no damage. HQ unit on SPW takes 2 casualties, dismounts and engages squad. SPW panics and routs. Squad destroys HQ unit and engages tank. Commander buttons. Squad on tank dismounts, taking 1 casualty, and panics and routs.
Ambushing squad takes 3 casualties and is pinned. Tank ends up with ass to ambushing squad.
Attempt 3;
3 hits, 1 miss w/ rifle grenades on SPW. 1 member of crew killed, crew bailing out, 2 casualties to HQ. HQ dismounts and engages squad from point blank range. Tank keeps going until abreast ambishing squad while rotating it's turret. Squad engages tank, killing TC, tank shocked, and forcing infantry squad to disembark w/ 1 casualty. Disembarked squad, since it has not crossed the covered arc of the squad, is ignored, while the squad engages the HQ unit. The disembarked squad crawls to the ambushing squad and starts hand-to-hand combat. End result; knocked out HT with 1 surviving crew member bailing out. Tank retreats with TC dead, but recovers from shock at end of turn.
German squad that disembarked from tank routs with 5 casualties. HQ section of 4 men that was on the HT eliminated. The ambushing squad took 5 casualties.
Attempt 4;
2 hits, 2 miss w/ rifle grenades on SPW. 1st rifle grenade destroys MG, causes 1 casualty to HQ section. 4th knocks out SPW and causes 2 more casualties to HQ section. HQ section (1 man now) dismounts with SPW crew. Small arms engagement which buttons PZIV and forces infantry squad to dismount with 1 casualty. HQ section and SPW crew destroyed from point blank range. German infantry squad does a paniced back up road. PzIV reorients turret on ambushing squad but turn ends before it can engage.
Attempt 5;
1st rifle grenade knocks out SPW killing the crew, and killing 3 members of the HQ section, which is forced to dismount. 2nd rifle grenade misses. PzIV proceeds forward, and is hit, with no damage, by 3rd and 4th rifle grenades, and buttons, and infatry squad dismounts. In a close range firefight, the German squad does a panic rout after taking 8 casualties while inflicting 1 casualty on the US ambushing squad. The Pz IV ends up facing away from the ambushing squad (Showing its ass.).
I played out the 5th attempt to see if the squad could assault and take out the PzIV because its butt was exposed, and the squad had only
taken 1 casualty. The squad had expended all of its rifle grenades. Strangely, the squad approached the tank until it was maybe 2 meters
away, and then did nothing. On the next turn I retargetted the tank, and the squad just sat there lookingat it until the PZ IV opened up and turned them to mush.
Do you have to have somwething besides regular grenades to assault a tank?
-
That makes it a problem as you can't assign infantry a 'cover armor' command. I'm still playing with this little scenario I built. I tried it a second time, and hot seated it so I could have the halftrack and the tank moving together. Funny, after nailing the Pz IVH with two rifle grenades, both of which pentrated, the second time w/ the HT leading, the HT initiated the ambush (entered the squad's covered arc), and the squad hit it with two rifle grenades, but neither did any damage.
Then, because the HT stopped immediately upon getting hit, the tank kept on moving forward, until it was litterally a meter away from the ambushing squad. But they ignored it because it hadn't entered the covered arc yet. Then the tank backed up about 10 meters and fired, and then the squad reacted and shot the commander out of the turret.
I'll try it a few more times to try and determine what the best course is. It did notice that the Germans could see the foxhole as they rolled up to it, but they couldn't see the squad in it. The AI would ignore it, but I think a human opponent may notice it, and assuming the turn's movement hadn't broken the squad's covered arc yet, started shooting.
I may try to also let them by, and then give the ambushing squad a 'follow' command, and see if the two vehicles see them break cover from behind.
-
Ha, I set-up a little test scenario. I couldn't force the German's to advance the same way, so the Pz1VH came first, with the halftrack nowhere in sight. And I gave the German's a squad mounted on the PZ IV.
I set the covered arc for the hiding squad as above, with the leading edge directly in front of the squad on the road, hopefully to get hits on the flank and rear of the tank or halftrack, whichever came first.
And up my rifle squad popped, and promptly hit the tank with two rifle grenades, both of which penetrated! The first immobilized it, and the second (That hit like 4 seconds after the first) forced them to abandon. In that first burst they also killed 3 of the rifle squad and sent them fleeing to the rear. Obviously I'm going to have to run through this a few times to see if I just got really lucky. I think I'll pick hot seat so I can recreate the leapfrog from the scenario that started all this, and just let the TAC AI take care of the squads reactions.
-
Again, thanks for your advise. I think I am going to set-up a mini-game and explore the options. I'll try all of your suggestions.
-
Thnaks for your quick replies. When I said 'zook, I meant bazooka. That's what I call them, sorry for the confusion. And I think I have like 2 total zooks to defend against at least 6 armored vehicles, which is why I need to rely on my squads to close assault them. And considering they are bazookas, and are not nearly as effective as either a faust or a shrek, I certainly can't rely on them.
Basically I'm trying to figure out how to get a squad in hiding in foxholes next to a road that runs through woods to jump out and assault an armored vehicle that is 'hunting'. Maybe its a bad idea since they only have rifle grenades and regular grenades. They could probably take out a halftrack, but not a Pz IVH. With almost no bazookas, and a couple of engineer squads that I have to reserve for blowing some bridges, I'm sort of stuck with the squad assaults.
What I may try is letting the armor by, and try to hold up the infantry, but I suspect the tanks will just stop and hammer me. I suspect my engineers might do better against unsupported armor.
But with a tank moving passed my hidden infantry w/o seeing it, and going slow, in restricted terrain, and passing only about 5 meters away, I should be able to dash out of cover and assault it sort of Pvt Ryan style.
-
Based on all of your advise, I think I now have licked my prolems with embarking and debarking troops. However, here may be the dumb question of the day;
Can you run over your own troops? I know it sounds crazy. But I had a two-man FO team crossing a road, and there was a traffic jam as a result of the poor pathfinding in this game. I had two halftracks and a jeep all in a little scrum on the road. I was plotting my moves and I was horrified to see my FO team was dead. There was no enemy artyillery or mortars, and there was only one enemy unit in range, and it was an attrited Fuslier squad with 3 men, firing from about 500 meters. I guess they could have gotten VERY lucky and gunned them down, but it seems pretty far fetched.
-
Here's yet another question for those many expert CM players. You are defending with an infantry force against a mixed armor and infantry force. The terrain is fairly congested, and there are two main avenue of approaches up roads that lead through intermittant woods. You are very few zooks, so you are going to have to rely on infantry assaults on the armored vehicles. I set-up a close range ambush with an infantry squad, and give them a very short covered arc, only aout 15 meters deep, with the leading edge directly even with them, on the road that leads through the woods. Basically I'm hoping to go after the flank and rear of any vehicles that come through the covered arc. A tank and a halftrack are leap frogging up the road. The halftrack happens to be leading when it crosses the covered arc, with the tank about 30 meters behind. My squad, instead of using their sticky bombs or grenades, fires small arms at the halftrack and the tank. Of course, they are promptly destroyed by the combined firepower of the tank and the halftrack.
How do you set-up defensively, to get them to actually try to ambush armor in this situation? I guess it could be a case of the TAC AI saying; 'Well, they got that tank in overwatch, I ain't leaving my hole.' Or is it simply a case that you need to have the armor pass, and then give them a follow command?
I know what I want them to do, I'm just trying to translate it into game terms.
-
And yet another question (Don't you hate your less experienced players?).
Victory Flags.
So I know if you don't have units in close proximity to a flag, it displays as a question mark. The first couple of times I went; 'Oh, shiite!!', and rushed a squad or two back to take them again. I think I figured out that if you don't have any units around them, you just can't tell that you have control. So when they go back to question marks, you still own them, right? Unless, or course, the enemy has moved back to them without being seen.
My issue is that it sort of requires you to virtually destroy EVERY single enemy unit on the map, or risk losing a flag. What kinds and steength of units are required to seize a flag? Can a sniper do it? Or a crew? It just seems dumb if you take a flag after a determined assault, and then you move on. And then the 2 man halftrack crew that fled into the woods takes it back. And you can't tell because if you aren't close to it, it displays a question mark. I have been using my knocked out vehicle crews to sort of garrison them. I can't tell if their presence is maintaining control of the flag, or if it's just a matter of having a unit close to the flag, so you know it's status.
It just seems weird to be conducting like a battalion advance and have your FLOT 500 meters beyond an objective. But then a single guy from an enemy tank crew seizes control of the flag from you. And you never know it since you don't have units nearby.
-
I'm not so sure that is strictly necessary, although it is prudent to wait a turn before giving the vehicle another movement command. All that is absolutely necessary is to have it wait a little longer than the personnel's command pause.</font>Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1) the carrier unit is fully stopped for the WHOLE turn
-
I haven't found any rhyme or reason for when they get off their vehicles or on, but then I'm sort of new at this game (CM:AK). The third turn after I had been trying to get them off the vehicles, they all jumped off in like the first second of the turn. It just seems strange that in a group of like 3 or 4 halftracks, all moving as a group, one squad got off 2 full turns before anyone else did. And I do remember that the halftracks arrived at their destinations only about 25 seconds into the turn. I then started trying to get the infantry off of them the next turn.
I'll keep playing around, but I think I'll just use juan and michael's solution, just give them a full turn to disembark. I just keep getting burned trying to save time and move the carrier and disembark in the same turn.
michael, in terms of the command delay, I believe all were in command as I had the platoon HQ with them. But I timed all that out. Including their delay I gave them an additional 10 seconds or so to disembark the first turn, and then like 30-40 seconds the second turn. What I mean is;
If the squad's command delay is like 12 seconds, the first turn I made the trucks delay 30 seconds before moving. The squad didn't dismount, so the next turn I cancelled the trucks movement. Now the squads delay is zero as he already has the movement command. The second turn I gave the trucks a delay of 40 seconds. Still the squad didn't dismount. The last turn, I cancelled the truck's movement and didn't give it ANY movement orders, and I kept the squad's disembark command. Within like the first couple of seconds of the third turn the troops disembark.
-
Pentium-4 mobile (or P4M) is a Pentium-4 with some power-saving features, derived from the 130nm P4s (Northwood) that were not as power-hungry as the awful prescotts (90 nm). But the saving are not great and mostly apply when the box is idle, so useless for gaming. In pretty much no event you want to touch anything Pentium-4 anymore, especially not in a Notebook. Same goes for Pentium-4 based Celerons and Xeons.Originally posted by Redwolf:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:
Guys,
Thanks for the words. I'm liking the nvidia 7800GO, but I'm wondering about the benefits and drawbacks between the various processors. Specifically, Pentium M (760), Pentium 4 Mobile, and the various AMD flavors.
Regards,
Ken
Pentium-M and Celeron-M are part of the centrino architecture which not only comes with the power-saving processors but whole chipsets with powersaving wireless, optional graphics etc. Certainly the most attractive platform out there right now.
The difference between the Celeron-M and the Pentium-M is not mainly speed, it is power savings. The Celeron-M misses some of the advanced power saving features of the Pentium-M and will hence lead to less battery life, especially when the machine is mostly idle. It will be fine speed-wise.
Note that many time Pentium-4 based Celerons and mobile versions thereof have been mislabeled as "Celeron-M". Don't fall for this trap, a P-4 based Celeron, "M" or not, is a piece of slow power-hungry trash.
The latest AMD mobile CPUs are about as good as Intel's CPUs in the power-savings deperatment and faster in a few areas. However, they lack the power-saving chipset of the Centrino package, so the battery life is still not as good. Chipsets are a weakness driver-wise, too.
The latest AMD mobile CPUs do 64 bit computing, though, from a raw CPU standpoint they are better than the Pentium-M which is basically a Pentium-III. The chipsets are not as nice as Intel's though. </font>
-
And yet another question. I put this here instead of in the 'Questions' string in the CM:BB forum, as I am playing CM:AK, so there is a slight difference.
What are the tricks to getting units to disembark? I've now spent two full turns trying to get some guys to get out of my halftracks. One squad promptly got out of its halftrack the first turn, but the occupants of the other two halftracks are still sitting there. In both turns I made sure the halftracks weren't moving. The first turn I had the halftracks pause for 30 seconds. AFter the delay the squads still hadnlt gotten out, and the halftracks started to turn around. As I said, one squad did get out. Now the order pause (due to command) for the other units was not more than 19 seconds.
On the next turn when they still hadn't exited their vehicles, their pause was zero. I canceled the movement for the halftracks, and increased their pause to 40 seconds. I then ordered them to turn around again. So the infantry occupants had movement/disembark orders with no pause, and the halftracks had a 40 second delay, and still the occupants remained sitting there.
I did order the disembark orders some distance (30 or 40 meters) away from the halftracks. Is it possible they are waiting for the halftracks to move, perhaps closer (even though the halftracks are moving the other way). Does it help to give the first axis of the movement of the occupants (the move command with the disembark order) as close as possible to the vehicles to get them to get out of the vehicle? The latter is what I will try now.
[ February 08, 2006, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
LOL!!! I just got a single Sherman 105 as a reinforcement. I had just moved him from his entry location to the first road (The map for this scenario is HUGE!!!). That maybe 200 meters. And I look at him to keep moving up the road (My forces are still at least 600 meters farther forward), and I notice he is buttoned and has a crew casualty. I must have a sniper in my backfield. I now have 10 tanks, and 8 TCs down!
-
Totally off topic, but one of my favorite alltime quotes just came to mind. I saw a James Schlessinger speach on CSpan. He said;
'This nation needs more strategic airlift ability, so the Army can more adequetely support the Marine Corps'
-
When it comes to laptops you can't skimp on anything, due to the lack of upgrade options. Sink every dollar or spacebuck (EU) into the thing. I've got a DELL XPS Gen 2, which is pretty much the top of the line laptop out there. I'd look at Sager also;Originally posted by c3k:Gents,
I'm thinking of purchasing my first laptop. The most stressful application I'll use will be the forthcoming CMx2 series. I know the requirements for CM:SF haven't been released, but I'd like to solicit opinions on how to best "future proof" a laptop with that game in mind.
Any advice on processors, chipsets, screen sizes and resolutions, video cards, etc., would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ken
http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.html
or here;
and here's some more info;
http://www.notebookforums.com/
These are the top-of-the-line models out there, every bit as good as Alienware (I've been told Sager actually makes Alienware), but a lot cheaper. These are desktop replacement laptops. They also have a limited upgrade ability depending on which model you go with.
Marine Corps: Get Some!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Luckily levity has entered this discussion before too many electronic blows have been struck. I won't attempt to get in the last word other than to say that if anyone cares to do some research they will discover that the points I have made are all true, and well documented. Whether you want to do internet research, go to your local library, or whatever, fact support all of my points. Read some books, whether they be from military professionals, the embedded, or from whomever.
However, one loose end to tie, Maneuver Warfare is not a USMC invention. Is has actually been championed by a former US Army officer named Bill Lind. It was first proposed as doctrine by the USMC, in 'Forward, From the Sea'. In terms of published doctrine, I'd guess that it was a virtual tie between the Army and the Corps.
That said, however, it is just a rehashing of old tactics. The Germans invented maneuver warfare in about 1917.