Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoopenfaust 101: If you look closely at his first picture you'll notice in the left it looks like a bren carrier. That looks like a nice mod. Where did you get that pup from? I want it cuz I'm playing Bloody Buron and the bren carrier from far away look like black rectangles. I want green rectangles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it looks good it is Marcel's mod. Might be able to get it at Der Kessel. Not sure, I got it from him directly. Because I am special...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Whether or not they were armed with Sextons, I don't know. I think the SP guns in infantry divisions were Priests (105mm) and armoured divisions had the 25 pounders. I am hoping Germanboy or someone else can cast some light on this; perhaps it is just late and the references I have in my lap are saying something else and I'm too dense to get it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You called? AFAIK only the armoured divisions would have SP guns. These were a mix of Priests and Sextons at the beginning of the campaign in Normandy (I have a picture of a UK Priest in action on 7th June, just inland from Sword). From what I have read, the Priests were taken out of service (turned into Kangaroos I believe), because the Commonwealth armies thought the 25pdr to be a more effective gun than the 105mm gun. It would also reduce supply problems by being able to focus on one calibre of shell. Blackburn in his book never mentions SP guns in his division (2nd Canuckian Infantry), and I have not seen any references to the flatfoots having SP guns. That is not the gospel though, especially since it comes from me. Maybe Simon can confirm or call me a clueless git. Funnily enough, production figures for towed and SP guns might give us a clue here (there I said it...) Edit: nice mod, BTW. I love the Polish eagle on the front. Why don't the Poles have squadron markings? Would Sextons have had squadron markings at all, them being in batteries of the RHA and the Yeomanry regiments, and not in squadrons? I don't know the answer, not being a uniform grog [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I love Ami rifle squads... wish they had organic AT capability. And Panthers and 3" mortars. You'd think they would have switched over to Panzerfausts, Panthers, and 3" mortars around August '44, seeing how effective they all were.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That really made me smile. Thanks for chipping in Steve. It wasn't actually that boring, I learned a lot about General Custard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: It's like I was saying: "bicycles use less fuel than cars", and someone would respond with "let's see how far you get with your bicycle after I've ran over you with my car". I agree about the MG modeling BTW, but fail to see how improving MG performance would fix things between SMG's and rifles. Well, that's it. I'm off the thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry to hear that. I think it is very simple. Your example says it all - yes a bicycle is more fuel efficient than a car, but what matters is not how far you get on a unit of energy, but how you get there. In war, it does not matter how many bullets you need, but what matters is that you win. Therefore your point that the rifle is more economical is only true in the short run. In the long run it is not, because you will lose the war. Your other points about MGs and their modelling, it matters because we are looking at combined arms battles. If MGs are undermodelled, then SMG squads have better chances to assault a position, getting close and bringing their SMGs to bear. If MGs were modelled to be more efficient, they could stop the SMG squad far out (actually, they can now, if the SMG squad is green - try it). So there are two important points where I am convinced you are wrong. Rifles are not more economical (because all other things being equal they will lose you the war), and MGs matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Besides, I personally think the problem of the 'SMG Rush' is more due to the lack of HMG or even LMG effectiveness. The rushing SMGers shouldn't be able to cross open ground in front of an HMG using grazing fire across their route of advance. Just shouldn't happen. I think when BTS takes a hard look at the HMG / infantry in open behavior issue, the 'SMG rush' will become a thing of the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After doing some very simple tests last night, I would fully agree with this. Infantry and mortars against running green SMG types in the open have a nice cooling off effect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: So the rifle is the more economical choise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why every army in the world is now using rifles, and none use automatic weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The other aspect of the case that people seem to me to be overlooking, is the logic behind the "where are they?" question about Allied SMGs. It is possible on the one hand that SMGs were dramatically more effective in combat than rifles, and it is possible that CM overmodels them on the other hand. In the first case, however, it is unbelievable that the more abundant SMGs the allies had available did not make their way to the front. In the second case, it is possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you are still not addressing the point I made - in the Bulge, the German SMGs were mostly in the hands of less well trained (green in CM terms) troops who went up against the US soldiers of the 1st, 28th, 82nd and 101st divisions amongst others (Regular to Vet, some might argue Crack). All these US soldiers were well supplied and amply supported by tanks, TDs, air and artillery. I am therefore not surprised that the US Army as an instiution did not see the SMG as a sufficient threat to abandon their approach to small arms, without further research. They were winning the war equipped as they were, why should they change the winning formula? Related example, they knew that their Repple-Depple system was crap, and did not change it. I therefore don't buy your logic for two reasons: 1) It remains to be shown that in CM, when you try to REALLY simulate (i.e. not a QB) Anyday, January 1945, the Germans will come out 'rocking'. I doubt they will, but am open to this. 2) Armies are essentially bureaucracies, and bureaucracies are funny beasts. So even if the frontline commanders had decided that SMGs were what it took to win the war, would the brass have assented? On the available evidence, I doubt it. Having said all that, I will give this ammo tweak a try.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: As I mentioned earlier, the US history of the Bulge (which featured a lot of attacks by SMG armed troops) and which contains a lot of small unit actions, doesn't suggest that the use of SMGs gave the Germans the type of overwhelming advantage that they frequently have in CM on the attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you tried this with green SMG squads attacking regular or veteran US infantry? Which to me would really reflect the Bulge battles. Unfortunately we are also lacking the fitness rating that will come in for CMBB, where again the Germans should be a notch below the Americans. The backbone of the German army in the Bulge were infantrymen with little training and insufficient supply. Also, the Germans suffered from the US artillery. I am quite unsure whether this historical evidence can be used to support this case, because your average QB simply does not follow the historical realities. I look forward to seeing the test results if someone does it. I would suspect the German SMG squad to do much less well. Maybe I try it later tonight myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philistine: As I understand firepower, this is not necessarily so. A large part of firepower is also made up of suppressive effect. An assumption being made by CM is that an SMG has a higher suppressive effect than an equivalent rifle per "round" of ammunition. Whether this is true or not may be the subject of debate, but it seems to be generally accepted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is the core of the counter-argument. As someone so incorrectly pointed out, SMG bullets kill people. That is not necessarily true. What they are supposed to do, together with the squad's lMG is to keep the attacker pinned in the killzone, where you throw mortars or artillery at them. Which then kills the enemy. Looking at the squad in isolation will give you false results - WW2 armies fought combined arms battles, so the squad was only one cog in a wheel. Again, when you attack the SMG was supposed to give the squad the ability to suppress the enemy, thereby being able to move through the enemy's killzone, closing and avoiding shelling. The Germans might have done rather well at that, judging by the number of times I read of Allies calling artillery on their own positions, by definition that is something you only do when the enemy has bypassed your killzone alive. So unless someone now tells me that the raw firepower only models killing and not suppressive power, I am inclined to not change the ammo load-out in my scenarios. I keep an open mind about this, but I am not convinced that there is a case for corrections. Edit: just read Jeff's post. I don't have an opinion on the range of SMGs. Don't know enough about these things (apart from the fact that the Uzi is easy to disassemble and usually more dangerous to the bearer than anyone else). As to the effectiveness of SMG Squads in CMBO, I have never had a problem with that, but then again, I don't play much these days. I would have thought that you should be able to defeat them with a good mix of weapons. May well be wrong though. [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Germanboy, While I found the post rather interesting, and it certainly a convincing singular point of data suggesting that the Germans really did use high-supression weapons more, I think the issue of communication is seperate from the issue of weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well yes and no I see it as 'good weapons won't do you much good if you don't have the C&C structure to use them properly. For the purposes of the argument here, I agree. But IRL, I think it maybe hard to divide the two neatly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: On a related note: Why is direct fire not allowed beyond LOS even if it would be physically possible ? I am currently engaged in a night/heavy fog PBEM and the LOS is down to 20+ meters. Is this yet another relative vs absolute spotting issue ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC - yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: I don't think he mentions American SMGs once. Does that mean US troops didn't use them at all? Noooooo...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He mentions a lot about suppression from small arms and how the US was a lot worse at it than the Germans. What I also found very interesting is that the Germans talked more. Reminds me of my Sunday footy (soccer for North Americans) games, where often the team that talks to each other plays better even if player by player it would be weaker. Surmising here: if you have a lot of short-range weapons, you probably have to talk a lot more to achieve favourable positioning of your squad, since every single weapon is much more important than if you have a higher number of guys with lower firepower per soldier. So C&C would be an element that could affect effective (as opposed to raw) firepower dramatically. Would that be correct? Since I have never been properly trained in infantry combat, I don't know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I missed that thread where can I read the calcs on encoutering an MP44? does it factor in year Ie, in Dec 1944 the Germans shipped tons of MP44s to troops participateing in the Ardennes offensive. In fact Danny Parker claims the MP44 was the most prominent German inf SA in the Ardennes offensive. Is that reflected in the calcs?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err no, otherwise it would not have been so amusing, but actually useful. There was no reflection of production dynamics or doctrine for use at all. Just straightforwarf 'that many were produced in total, therefore X% chance to encounter one on anyday, WW2'. Been a long while back. Jason has a knack for asking the right questions, something that is very important for a researcher (the question of what happened with all the Allied SMGs is indeed very interesting, and I learnt a lot from the debate), but he also has a knack to give the wrong answers because he focuses almost exclusively on the numerical evidence, only using qualitative evidence to support his argument, instead of using it as evidence in its own right. That's my opinion, anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: 2.3 In addition to the reasoning in problem one, tests presented showed a 2:1 point odds US infantry attack by airborne and engineers on German SMG infantry in foxholes, defenders in regular woods attackers moving through light woods. The result was a clear German victory, with the Paras and their target platoon exchanging off, and the engineers wiped out for slight loss. A reciprocal attack with the same set up but with only 1:1 point odds for attacking SMG-armed Germans against regular US infantry in foxholes, resulted in a crushing win for the German attackers. Nothing about rushes or assault movement was involved. It was not the run command. The SMGs gained fire ascendency in a few minutes in either case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you please state whether your test involved arty preparation before the Allied attack, or defensive arty support when they were attacked? Otherwise it is not reflecting reality. End of story. In case you did not know, German infantry overran Allied infantry in a number of cases, although usually with tank support. Your test does prove that ceterus paribus the Germans rock. Unfortunately for the Germans (and fortunately for the rest of the world) ceterus was not paribus, and the Allied arty, air and tank superiority negated the advantage of the 'rocking' German infantry. Nice try at testing, shame it was pointless. Back to the drawing board. Andreas (who no doubt will be painted a naziworshipping sickening sycophant of BTS next)

Sorry Jason, but so far you have failed to convince me - but I am sure you don't mind, because that just means I belong to the camp of 'The ones who don't agree with Jason and are either Naziworshippers or disciples of the Holy Church of the untouchable CMBO'. The fact that you conveniently side-step the issues of marksmanship or weight (have I heard a: 'oops, I was wrong'? Thought not...) whenever it is shown that your rather firm assertions ('anyone can hit a small square at 200m after basic training') are just that, makes me wonder what else in your reasoning is flawed. And that is quite apart from the production numbers issue. But I still fondly remember your calculations from quite a while ago, relating, based on whole war production figures, how likely it was to meet a German with an assault rifle in 1944. That made me chuckle. It is such fun to watch you do this, a bit like watching a hamster in a wheel. Running frantically, but never getting anywhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: The real reason that SMG troops were less effective in real life than they were in CM is because -- in the ETO -- they were usually not able to close to a range where their SMGs could be used to best effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is an interesting hypothesis. Mine would have been that the VG Divisions simply did not get enough training (i.e. should be green).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Also, as I have said, panic is contagious. One man gets up and runs, and suddenly the resolve of everyone else is broken. Someone else who was just managing to hold himself together would then break and follow suit, and soon everyone has lost their nerve and headed for the rear. So it's not completely unrealistic for a whole squad to be running away together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This works the other way round too. There is a story in von Luck's memoirs, when he ordered two of his platoons (he commanded a company then) to undertake their first attack in Poland, and nobody moved, until he just said 'Follow me' and led them. Always easier to go with the group.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: In that case it's amazing how a whole squad of 12 guys panics, and runs screaming all together in the same incoherent direction. --Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is dealt with rather well through the '!' once they have recovered. To me that means that they are just no longer cohesive, and the high losses once they panick and run to me mean that some guys just scuttle off in the 'wrong' direction. The red cross mark does include panicked soldiers, it is not just dead or wounded. And once they have panicked and are gone, why would you want to have them clutter the battlefield?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: But of course, will the brave guy in a two-man team continue to be brave on his own? Panic is contagious...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And when pani sets in with a bag of rockets, we all know it ain't gonna' be pretty...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clubfoot: [QB][edits made to minimize vitriol] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you are well within your rights to be angry. While duplication is called the most sincere form of flattery, I must say I find plagiarism just repugnant. Hope you get the scenario taken off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: The enemy infantry firing at them shot through a crease between a house and some woods so they weren't out in the open for very long. My zook team was crawling away from the enemy too so it's not like they were panicking because they were heading in their direction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, they probably will not have known where the fire came from. 2 secs is a bit too short to figure out something along the lines of: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>'Oh, we are under heavy fire, but it is coming from this place over there, so if I just go over here, nothing will happen. Of course there is noone else around to back me up or suppress the fire, and maybe (but hopefully not) it is not coming from in front of me, sicne I am sure we have not been flanked. I think I just crawl on, because otherwise I am not worthy of being a regular.'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, really difficult, but somehow I think I am with Babra on this one. CM-Player - David knows what you are thinking because you told him so.

W - wet ammo stowage + - added armour (tracks welded on I guess) HVSS - better suspension on later models, IIRC

Err, can we have a list of who's who?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlowMotion: Maybe after you've read enough grog books, the fictional stuff doesn't feel good anymore? Fictional vs Historical becomes like comparing CMBO to SuddenStrike? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if I may say so (yeah right, who is going to stop me...) I think my best scenarios are semi-historical ones, where I used my fairly decent knowledge about Commonwealth OOBs, tactics etc. to produce a non-historical 'Anyday August 44' scenario. Because they are based on the tactics (which are again based on the material) of the Commonwealth in most cases, I would not expect them to work in CMBB. So I have started brushing up on my knowledge ofn that theatre.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlowMotion: [QB]If scenario converter is not possible, how about scenario extractor? Many CMBO scenarios will be used as a starting point for making CMBB scenarios anyway, like all the ASL conversions for CMBO, so anything that reduces the amount of work would be nice.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a scenario designer, I have zero (0) interest in that. I don't know how others feel about it, but I would not use it if I got paid a fiver for every one of my scenarios I convert like this. Waste of programming time. Scenarios are best designed from scratch, based on historic knowledge and events. The weapons used in the Soviet-German war were so different from those used on the Western Front (except for the 11 months following D-Day) that I don't think that there would be any value in having that. YMMV.