Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James: I know this is a little late for a patch or its inculsion in CM2, but what about CM3? What do you all think of it? Has Steve & Charles thought of it, would they consider it? [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: James ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There once was a thread similar to this. My contention was that computer platoons should use "drills" instead of the piecemeal antics that individual squads, mgs, etc now use. To me, the computer player is modeling a novice CM player all the time. Cover, concealment, covering fire, etc doesnt come into his method of play. In retrospect, the coding should have just had evryone rush the nearest enemy as soon as they found them. It works for me. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: [QB] SO: nothing in modern wound ballistics proves that velocity is bad. The .30 carbine, being closer to a handgun cartridge in performance, diminishes the range at which it is an effective incapacitator. On the other hand, at ranges over 100m we are not as worried about a few seconds of hostile capability after impact. We would still like to penetrate cover and vehicle skins. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say that the enemy would have more than a few seconds. I will just point to the battle reports. Most everyone I have read backs up what I am saying about the M1 Carbine. No one here has shown otherwise. Most modern armies carry weapons that are higher velocity than the carbine. Nuff said. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: Posted by username: He would have been better served by an M-16A2. More velocity, and it doesn't tear the tin cans or squirrels up so bad. After all, look at what happened to him in the end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Considering they werent thought of yet.. Maybe he should have taken the Lewis MG off the ship?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Lewis, once again you've proven that your posts are rarely worth reading. Thanks for the reminder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh dont mention it. I find your win/LOSS record worth laughing about though.. http://wargames.freehosting.net/pbem.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Why does everyone (everyone not talking about 30.06 rounds or FALs) insist on comparing the BAR to the MG42? A better comparison would be the FG42: A squad-level automatic rifle with a 20-round (7.92mm) box magazine issued to German paras.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but did the german paratroops (who used the FG42) have a Garand based squad? I believe the german paras mainly had MPs and also MGs (when used as infantry). I kinda like the idea of a FG42 and a MP44 squad. Overall, it allows the greatest flexible assault and defense squad. And they shoot varmits good too. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: Hmmm... Perhaps a new thread on small arms stopping power is in order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that the present thread is apropo. If someone would offer me a MP44 soldier to support my M1 Garand squad; I would tell them to get lost. If someone tried to replace any of my M1 garand soldiers with a M1 carbine; I would shoot them (point blank). If someone tried to replace my BAR guy with a MG42,; I would thank them (If they threw in a half dozen guys to carry ammo). If anyone thinks Steve McQueen could have carried any other weapon in the closing scenes of The Sand Pebbles...... MAN!!!. Oh Man. WOOOOHHHHH I'M gettin pissed... I think I am about to really lose it. (sheeeeesh) Maybe you squirrel jagers and tin can snipers better get away from me real quick. Lewis P.S. BARs, Apple Pies and Chevrolets. Nuff said..

From that website.... "Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as the Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss? The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity that is produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the torso. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock.1 The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness usually occurs in a matter of seconds. The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals. A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down. For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity that is slightly less than 4 inches in diameter. Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body. In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he was able to fire a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped.2 The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to have any effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets." I think I am going to puke. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I don't know about "actually snuffing someone out" because my snuffology is a bit rusty. If controlled studies have been performed with snuffometers I would be interested in the data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The airborne guy Burkett speaks about using AP in their weapons and "meat on the table". I am not a snuff expert but I can point the way. http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm Heres a good website. Its my opinion that HV bullets not only penetrate air, foilage, walls, dirt mounds, etc. but deliver what you need in most MILITARY situations. High Velocity. Usually some boring civil service guy at a bar will tell you about "knock downs" from pistol fire (which use non-military ammo). Its my contention that to really take out (kill/incapacitate) you need to penetrate. A good wound is a deep wound (over 12 inch penetration..out the back is better). A great wound is one that get to the vitals. An unknown effect of this "expanding hole" effect that a HV bullet does, is the effect on the spine and other nervous system components. I wont argue the point. Lots of powder stuffers here that have lots of planks to shoot, etc. But in a military situation; Give me velocity. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: Originally posted by Username: As they would shrug off a hit from a Garand in the same spot. The time one would want a fast handling, twenty shot, easy to reload weapon like a carbine is when faced with a horde of foes like the above. Small arms, with very few exceptions, do not "knock 'em down" without regard to shot placement. It was not meant to replace the Garand, nor could it. If anything it was more in demand in the Pacific where firefights took place at shorter ranges, in hot weather where layers of winter clothing were not a problem for the blunt bullet to overcome. As to small arms fire penetrating jungle or brush, it just ain't done with aimed fire. Very small branches send bullets careening off course. If you want to penetrate a log, than by all means a Garand of BAR is better than a carbine. If you want to aim at a point target you can barely see 50 yards away through the jungle undergrowth, no rifle issued will do that reliably.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 20 round clip? http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/M1+Carbine/7/*http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1carbin.htm I think you are very confused. Take a break and think before you make a speach. The M1 Carbine I fired had a 15 round clip and was a WWII issued weapon. The 15 round M1 semi auto is what I am speaking about. In the M2 form (which I have already acknowled as being a different beast), full auto was possible and a 30 round clip was available. It was good in korea in this form (except for the cold). It actually had these requirements as an initial design parameter but was only met with the M2! What does aimed fire have to do with anything in the jungle? The fact is that higher velocity weapons like the Garand and BAR were better suited to penetrating foilage than weapons like the M1 Carbine or 45 SMGs. Believe it or not, real jungle stops bullets. If you cant get your mind around that, then thats fine, but dont go twisting my points around with "aimed fire" through foilage. Another fact is that high velocity weapons set off a shock wave through flesh that is devastating. It will "knock someone down" by this effect (actually snuff someone out if its a body hit, a limb hit can be an amputation). Many troops used AP (like the BAR guy states) because of this effect. This effect is lost when the weapon scrubs velocity (either through the air or from whatevers in the way). Being a low velocity weapon to begin with doesnt help. Cop stories impress civies. Thanks anyway but I'll pass. Stories about flat nosed, soft tips, hollow points are for off-duty types. Also thanks for backing up my premise; it was not a replacement for a battle rifle. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ts9: I would also like to speak up in defense of the M1 Carbine I have a 44' GM/Inland and have found that it is extremely accurate out to about 150 yards, beyond that performance does drop off. It was intended as a weapon for those who had no need for a full sized infantry rifle and in that capacity it performed very well. Would it drop an enemy at 500 yards, probably not, but it wasn't designed to. At close ranges I'm sure it was more than capable of stopping an attacker. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what part didnt you get? The part where I said it WAS issued to front line troops and/or made its way to the front line? So you need to go on record as saying you agree with me? At close ranges a knife or grenade is good too. But unless the terrain is such that close fighting is the norm (city, bocage, etc); I wouldnt want one. I believe the marines prefered the M1 Garand and BAR even in jungle or not. Since Marine doctrine is built on markmansship and dropping targets for good, they made wise choices. Jungle growth has the need for a penetrating round. Psychos drunk on saki and wrapped in bandages can shrug off a hit from this pop gun. So all you beer-can-hunters and slayers of woodchucks, buy an M1 Carbine. If you are under 5 foot tall or just need to carry ammo or drive a truck; then get one also. But in a battlezone, get a weapon that can put out determined firepower in the 200-400 meter range. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: "Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston. Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you often have the most responses to your own posts; what do you win? Will you make a speech like: "We have decided to give me (Half of we), the winner of the prestigious "Postus Oftenimous" a self autographed copy numbered 1". "And as a surprise additional bonus to meself, we have decided to throw in a signed autographed copy of a color poster of me to me (half of we)." By the way. Is the book going to only be about armor penetration or will you finally explain your vertical dispersion data/theories? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Yeah, I always get a couple every time I do a QB. I put one on each end of my line to protect my flanks. I've never been beat yet. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You buy the optional thermonuclear warheads? Its gamey but cool. To all you "augmenters" with your MGs esconced away supercharging your infantry: 1. See who does the killing. 2. See how far they have to be from the real fight.

The BAR was the M1 Garand equipped squad's support weapon. The K98 was the MG34s ammo bearer(s) counter weight (luckily the MG34 had about 10 of these counter weights in his squad...). The poor British had neither a MG34 nor a Garand. They had a super-BAR with some bolt-action-running-targets called infantry. In any case, I would rather squeeze off 45 (you could pop single rounds from a grease gun) slugs and maybe hit nothing than shoot a M1 carbine and have a guaranteed miss. In any event, a full auto burst of 45s has a serious "get the hell away from here effect". Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: Is it just Marximus and me who have noticed that all HMG units are very effective if you team them up with an ordinary Rifle squad? It seems like you get a small combined arms bonus when a rifle and a MG unit "gang up" on a single enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hey, is it just me or did you ever notice how a water cooled belt fed is augmented by a B52?

The game models the little known clip fed vickers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: No kidding, Lewis. That's what it was designed to be - a replacement for the pistol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was carried also by main line troops as a battle arm. It was used by the US paratroopers (folding stock) as a standard weapon. I would rather have a grease gun than this pea shooter. In the full auto M2 version (sort of a poor mans assault carbine), it might have been OK. But if you have ever fired one (or more specifically, tried to hit something with it), then you would know. Its a daisy rifle. Lewis

There was a pretty good BAR thread a while ago. So a real search could dig that up. A squad with a BAR is enhanced when everyone had M1 Garands. A squad with springfields or K98s WASNT such a lucky bunch if it had a BAR to rely on. They NEEDED a belt fed to make up the difference. See? A guy with a BAR can give adequate cover to an advancing element (guys with garands) CAUSE THEY WILL BE FIRING ALSO FROM THE HIP!!! This distributed firepower has a suppressive effect. Its a subtle point but unless you have actually done the "COVER ME WHILE I MOVE OUT!!!" drill, you dont get it. Would it have been better to have a belt fed "MG34-clone" covering a squad of scrambling M1 garand squad members? Maybe. But the scramblers will have to carry alot of ammo for the "hog". I think the US doctrine was OK. Grab real estate with LOTS of arty/tanks providing cover for fast moving troops with personal arms (that means 1 man weapons). M1919 could get up and defend these guys and sometimes assist the assault but wasnt a true manuver element. M1917 could KEEP the real estate and give serious covering fire in an attack. Water cooled weapons, Maxims, Brownings and Vicks do this like no other. But lets get down to brass tacks. I HATE THE GODDAMN M1 CARBINE!!!! Any fool that would carry this piece of crap into combat was a certified fool. I firmly believe a strong fart would blow this weapons bullets off course. It cant penetrate a deck of cards and without full auto (later versions might have been OK) was just a defensive weapon. I almost bought one for two hunnerd bucks but insisted on firing this girl scout can opener first. ITS FOR FAGS MANNN!!! Its a twenty round pistol. The full auto M14 was called the M15 BTW. The M14 had a really short time in service and never had a war of its own. It was on the out before nam. Lewis

It would be nice if they released the demo with a small infantry action and something with mainly tanks. It would show that alot of the issues have been addressed and premier the updated (hopefully) AI and graphics/interface.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: I was under the distinct impression that kubels were air cooled... Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another trick is to have a vehicle with an over sized radiator (like a modified kubelwagon) That would make it a modification I guess.

I believe the germans needed diesel for the sub fleet primarily. But they had diesel armored cars (air cooled I believe). In any case, when the temp dips down to -40 C (or F for that matter), the main problem is the motor oil turning into mollassas. Tanks can put logs that are glowing from a fire (that gives away the position) under the belly so that when the engine is off, the oil doesnt become hard sludge. It is wise to take snow and shovel drifts on three sides of the tank so that the heat is trapped. Dont let the drifts freeze though. This is very dangerous around gasoline vehicles BTW. Another trick is to have a vehicle with an over sized radiator (like a modified kubelwagon) running all the time. It can then pump its hot antifreeze into a tanks cooling system and get the block hot that way. If one tank is always left running, then it can get the other tanks up from the freeze. You can drag a tank that is in gear and get the oil moving around alittle. Not the best solution but you do what you have to under combat conditions. I once had a car that got a load of bad gas in the tank. I used every trick including the following to get it started in -20F weather: Heat the carb with a hair dryer(there was frozen water inside) pull all the plugs and turn over the engine to clear out the cylinders (dont smoke when doing this) put the plugs inside an oven and insert all 4 quickly into the block Hit the plugs with a torch also run an extension cord to a electric barbecue and put it under the oil pan After it got started with a jump, I let it run for two hours and bought the biggest battery I could afford. Took forever to clear out the bad gas. Lewis

Diesals usually have a narrow torque range. Thats why truckers are constantly changing gears. They have to stay in a narrow band of RPMs. T34s were not known for having great trannys. Its tiring enough to drive a tank without this added strain. During combat, it would take great skill. But to get back to the point, I believe that the germans did not have the metallurgical resources the russians had and could not build such lightweight engine blocks. Their tanks were heavy enough and with a steel block diesal would have been even larger. The germans had problems starting their gas engines in the cold BTW because of the low octane vehicle fuel they had to use. In 'Death Traps' the author describes torches the german tankers would use to warm up the tanks crank cases. I also remember reading that germans would follow the drop tanks from fighter aircraft down and get some high octane gas to boost up their poor grade stuff. sometimes there would be gallons of teh stuff left over.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: Where's the padlock?? Shoulda clicked by now... Matt must be getting a haircut... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe Matt can buy that lawnmower and cut his hair with that? It has the optional Farfenuggerwaffenflopper overhead grass thrower device.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man: I'm tired of people like Fionn complaining about things they feel are "gamey". Sure, buying 4 elite King Tigers and 3 Veteran panthers when your opponent didn't specify any restrictions is pretty abhorrent and dishonorable (Sound like anyone we know Fionn?). .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You saying you played him and thats what he picked as units? He just likes to have plenty of his uber-nufferwaffleflingythingys is all. They practically turned the tide of the war you know. Hehe. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: See, it's the "glorious" moments like that which the recruiters and the flag-wavers forget to tell wannabes about <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I went to Aberdeen a bunch of years ago. Visited the tanks rusting on the field on that base. There were these two guys, in full gear there, patroling about the grounds. Every time a civvie got up on one of the tanks, they had to go over and chase them off. I started a conversation with the thoroughly bored teen. He was in the service and hated every second he was serving. He refered to the tank guard duty as a **** detail. I told him about the pumper duty and made him laugh a little. He was puzzled why anyone that was in the service would give a **** about coming to see these buckets of old junk (tanks). He had that listless, resigned demeanor that I probably walked around with back in my service days. Everyone commented on my attitude (bad, as they called it) back then. They were probably right. Anyway. If anyone is in the service (I really dont give a damn about a thread for vets); make the most of your time. Take classes and save your money. This sounds corny, but you will look back and laugh at all the crap that is driving you batty. A few years is a short time and its up to you to get the most out of that time. And if you are ever driving the Honeysucker express; wear old boots and bring gloves. Lewis [ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I was in the service and let me tell you something about poo. You think you all can talk it up big here about the poo and how it was flying back-and-forth real thick but I can tell you what the real poo is like. Thats cause I was, thats right, **** pumper detail private. When a military unit goes out in the field, everyone has GOT to go. Sometimes real bad too. Well, its not like the poo is going to jump outta them spot-a-pots by themselves you know. Thats where the real hero of this story, me, comes into play. I drove the ****-pumper-detail truck. Not only drove (blushing modestly) but also was number one guy on the hose too. Had the two stroke engine for the pump humming and was getting them poo's up in the hose real good when an unexpected turn of events brought the operation to a sucking halt. The hose was stalled and was not making its sickening lurch into further piles of loose ones when the real cause struck me. Ditched grungies! I immediately jumped into action and used a screwdriver to get the clamp off the hose. There they were! Firmly clogged up nasty into the pump was some battle worn 38 inch waisties (froot-of-the-loomers)! (I knew that guy too). I mounted them proudly to the radiator of the unarmored **** pumper truck. Over objections from my commanding officer, I saluted those proud shorts that gave their all! i should write a book I think sometimes.. Lewis