ASL Veteran

As much as it makes me want to hurl, Jason's estimate about how much the MG team would carry is about right according to Alex Buchner. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before the beginning of a battle, the "gun leader" took the machine gun's sight and a case of ammunition from the cart, the Gunner 1 took the machine gun, Gunner 2 the folded mantelet, Gunners 3 and 4 carried two ammunition cases each, making a first supply of 1500 rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think he guestimated around 1700 rounds in one of those posts that were too long to completely read through. Every HMG squad consisted of 2 heavy machine guns: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus a two horse field wagon with driver for machine gun mantelets, equipment, ammunition, and baggage. The heavy machine gun group consisted of a leader and two crews, each with one "gun leader", gunners 1 through 4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So although the 'first' ammunition that would be carried by the team would be 1500 rounds they could always send a guy back to visit the horsey and grab a few more rounds.

What is my definition? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The final solution took on a fairly common form; a gas operated weapon firing from a bipod, controlled by one man, using a magazine holding thirty or so rounds, and usually with a barrel that could be rapidly changed for a spare so that it could be allowed to cool down before the wear problem became serious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ian Hogg, "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War 2" All the weapons I listed meet this criteria (other than the BAR - which is an oddity anyway). You still have not explained what the difference between the Bren and the DP are. Very simple question. Can you provide the answer - or would you rather flop around and avoid the question because you have no answer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I would like to see another taxonomy, especially the hoops that will have to be jumped to make a Bren into an MG42.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Seeing as how the MG42 and the Bren are in a different weapon class, there is no way to make a Bren into an MG42. A Bren is an LMG while the MG42 is a GPMG. Even Lewis can see that

Okay, let's look at the DP then. You say that is an LMG, but that the Bren is not. What are the primary differences between the Bren and the DP? You have already ruled out the difference in feed - you had to because of the HMGs that I listed earlier. So, what differentiates the Bren and the DP - other than the feed? Originally posted by Slapdragon <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you read my earlier discussion, feed mechanism does not matter, nor does ammunition caliber (as long as you do not peak into the cannon class) but ability to lay down fire, keep up with an infantry unit, and be carried / operated by one person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you misinterpret the thrust of my question. The question was "name one weapon used in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG" You say there were 20 that I missed. That either implies that there are 20 weapons that fit your definition, or that I already listed many that fit your definition and that there are an additional 20 that you would like to add to that. The reason that I am asking the question is that I am trying to ascertain what a weapon that fits your definition is. If you say there are 20, then you certainly can name one of them can't you? I'm really not asking for much am I? I will not dispute your weapon of choice, merely examine it's characteristics vs the Bren. The reality is that you can't name a single one. Therefore, what you are arguing is that the LMG as a weapon class did not exist in WW2. If you would like to show my assumptions about your position to be false, then name one weapon in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG - or admit that there are none. Quite simple really. Once we have established a baseline, we can then move the discussion forward.

Alright Slapdragon ... you got me. Not only did I list the three heavy machine guns, I also listed every weapon used by any nation during WW2 that is commonly categorized in the LMG class in exhibit D (include the BAR which was used by Poland BTW). Using your definition of an LMG, name a single weapon used during WW2 that fits that definition. Don't bother trying to find out which nations used which weapons - I have listed them all for you in my post. Every single one. Go ahead and name one, then explain why that one is an LMG and the others are not - or why they all are and the Bren is not (makes no difference to me). Remember that the MG34 is a GPMG and is not a choice.

A well thought out and reasonable response. Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon - or anyone else for that matter?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: "Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’." Logic like this means that since I evolved from a line of hairy apes so ergo I can only be classified as a hairy ape? BS aside. People are getting hung up on names and analogys. The fact is the game looks at performance levels and things like belt feed is a quantum leap in firepower output. A green/regular unit with a belt feed MG might only be approached by elite units with magazine fed weapons. The game is going to make green/regular the norm. You dont have to reply to me ASL. But feel free to respond to issues. Its called a discussion. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That analogy was used because that is the same analogy that Slapdragon used when describing the history of the Bren. It is certainly not an analogy that I would consider valid. It was an analogy that was used within the context of its earlier use in this thread (by Slapdragon). Weapon classification is what this thread is about. Weapon classification is what I addressed. If you would like to make a contribution to the discussion of how the Bren should be classified, then please tell me what that classification would be and why.

As much as I have resisted being sucked into this discussion, I guess I can resist no longer. I am simply going to discuss the issue of the classification of the Bren as an Automatic Rifle rather than as a Machine Gun, and as that is my objective, this is directed more toward Slapdragon and David. I am not going to speak to any of the various side issues and irrelevant comments that have been put forth by Lewis. Apparently, the issue of classification revolves around the feed mechanism – at least that’s what I am interpreting from reading Slapdragon’s posts. I would like to put before you Exibit A: 13.2mm Mitrailleuse Hotchkiss d 13mm 2 Mle 1930. This is a 13.2mm weapon commonly referred to as a Heavy Machine Gun. Method of feed? 30 round box magazine (overhead) or 15 or 20 round strips. If we are saying that a weapon with a 30 round overhead box magazine is classified as an Automatic Rifle then this model of Hotchkiss would be classified as an Automatic Rifle. Note that not only does this ‘Automatic Rifle’ use an overhead box magazine but it is a gas operated design (like most smaller ‘man portable’ weapons). Note that this ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 87 lbs (37.5 kg) and was mounted on carriage as well as an AA mounting similar to an 88’s but with two of these guns side by side (the Japanese used this arrangement as well) Exhibit B: Mitragliace Breda modello 37. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Italian HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 20 round strips. Yep, here is another weapon that Slapdragon would have us believe is an Automatic Rifle. This weapon also used a gas operated mechanism. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 84.3 lbs (38kg) and could be used on a variety of mountings. Exhibit C: 6.5mm Heavy Machine Gun Type 3. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Japanese HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 30 round metal strips. Yes, another weapon Slapdragon would have us believe is an ‘Automatic Rifle’. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs in at 122lbs (55.3kg) Okay, so either you accept that anything with a magazine or strip feed is an Automatic Rifle or you have to decide that the feed method doesn’t have anything to do with the classification of a weapon. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that we are going to classify everything that doesn’t have a belt feed as an Automatic Rifle. Let us then examine every nation’s weapon that was used in the LMG role. Exhibit D: ZB vz/26 Method of feed: 20 or 30 round overhead box Main users: China, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Japan. ZB vz/30 Method of feed: 30 round overhead box Main users: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Iran, Spain, Rumania, Turkey Madsen MG Method of feed: 20, 25, 30, or 40 round overhead box Main users: Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Holland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Norway. Automaattikivaari Lahti-Saloranta Malli 26 Method of feed: 20 round box or 75 round drum Main users: Finland Hotchkiss LMG Method of feed: 25 round metal strips Main users: France, Greece Chauchat Method of feed: 20 round curved magazine bottom feed Main users: Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania Chatellerault Method of feed: 25 round overhead box Main users: France Fucile Mitriagliatori Breda modello 30 Method of feed: fixed magazine taking 20 round charger Main users: Italy 7.7mm Machine Gun Type 99 Method of feed: 30 round overhead box magazine Main users: Japan For space purposes I will leave out the other two Japanese LMGs – suffice to say they are overhead feed box on one and overhead hopper on the other. Bren Method of feed: 30 round overhead box Main users: UK Lewis Gun Method of feed: 47 or 97 round drum Main users: Estonia, Holland, Japan, Latvia, Portugal, US, UK Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP) Method of feed: 47 round drum Main users: USSR Okay, I have left off the BAR and the MG 34 for the moment. Examining this list we see that there isn’t a single nation between the period of time from 39 to 45 that had an LMG – they are all categorized as ‘Automatic Rifles’. In other words, the gun classification of Light Machine Gun doesn’t exist. What would be the point of having a weapon classification that no weapon meets? There would be no point would there? Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! Yes, well the MG 34 is a whole different classification of weapon – the General Purpose Machine Gun. Even so, let’s take the logic of classifying the Bren as an Automatic Rifle because of what it was developed from and apply that to the MG 34. The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’. Moving on to the BAR we see that the US classifies this weapon as an Automatic Rifle. However, I think it is probably more appropriate to refer to the BAR as a weak LMG. Other than the BAR there are no Self Loading rifles that fire full automatic. The MP 44 and its kin are referred to as ‘Assault Rifles’ – a whole new classification of weapon. You see, the BAR is the oddball of the whole gun world – an automatic rifle that performs like an LMG (without a barrel change). Perhaps it could be referred to as the first ‘Assault Rifle’ – although it uses full sized rounds and Assault Rifles use short rounds. There should be no confusion in classifying the Bren – it is the BAR that is difficult to classify.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: OH! I dont know if these are the correct answers? According to my sources, each clip weighs 2 3/4 lbs each. A box with a dozen would weigh 32 lbs plus the weight of the box itself. OH! OH! Can anybody hep us PLEEEEZ? Ive always relied on the charity of strangers in times like this.. (bats eyebrows) Thanks Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously the fact that the Bren magazines have their weight distributed differently from the weight of the MG 34's is beyond your understanding. However, since I am in a charitable mood .... the thrust of the original question regarding a comparison between the weight of an MG34's ammo 'box' and the Bren's ammo 'box' was to compare the bulk / weight of the boxes in action. The question was posed in such a way that it implied that the ammo was carried in a similar fashion between the Bren and the MG34. It was correctly pointed out that the ammo is not carried in a similar fashion, therefore a comparison between the weight of a MG34 ammo box and a Bren ammo box was irrelevant to the weapon's weight in action - since the ammo for a Bren was not carried in a box in action (did you get that last part?). Just in case you are still confused I will spell it out even more plainly. With an MG34 (early war) Gunner One carried a 50 round drum, Gunner Two carried four 50 round drums as well as one ammo box carrying 300 rounds, and Gunner Three carried two ammo boxes of 300 rounds. Later, the other two boxes were split between the other squad members, but two boxes are two boxes. Even if you want to say they are carrying more than two boxes - the odds of every single squad member carrying a box is pretty low as it would impair their ability to move quickly on the battlefield. With the Bren, however, each man takes a few magazines - the weight is not concentrated in a few boxes carried by one or two men. In this way the squad is able to stay light and maintain its ability to move quickly. I don't know how many magazines each man carried, but I have my doubts that they carried as much weight as one MG34 ammo box would. Plus the method of carrying would be different as the weight of the magazines would be carried by the body while the weight of the boxes would be carried by the hand, arm, shoulder. Lewis, since you profess to be an 'engineer' I am stunned that you haven't grasped this simple weight distribution concept. Should be basic stuff for smart whippersnapper like you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: I've seen pictures of drum magazines on MG34s early in Russia. I don't know if they were used on MG42s or were used later. I think that the use of these drums is relevant for comparison with the Bren, as I believe that they only held 50 rounds. This is still more bullets than a 30 round clip, but not 5 times more. I'm not sure how these were employed, either. They don't look like they would be as easy to reload as a clip, for example. But it's also possible that belts would be fed into the MG after the drum ran out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is my understanding that the drum was used when the weapon was moving - much more handy than having a 250 round belt flapping around. Once you have established your firing position you would switch to the belt feed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: Im betting you were doing a fast move, try the same thing with a move command. With Fast move I get immobilized a lot, but never in AON with just move. Speed is a factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've actually played AON about six times PBEM as German and I've bogged numerous times using both move and fast move. I did bog using fast move the first time and I've been using move ever since. However, they still bog quite frequently using move as well. The tracks where they cross the paved road and the tracks by the 50 ATG always end up with at least one German truck or kubelwagen stuck on one or the other everytime I play. There is enough transport to get the job done even if one vehicle bogs though so it is just a little annoying - not a game breaker.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: There's a documented case of a Fijian soldier in Malaya in the 50's using 2 Brens at once - one in eahc hand. From teh hip. so yes, you are right - 1 Bren = 1 Handful. But on a more average note I've fired the Bren from the hip, and I'm not a 6'6" 250 lb Polynesian. It's actually very easy to do. accuracy is another thing of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I remember Rambo firing an M60 from the hip at the end of the first movie ... He was pretty PO'd too!

I had a Kubelwagen, on the road, bog down crossing over the rails where they intersect with the road in All or Nothing. It has actually happened to me several times in that scenario. I've had several trucks do that too (going over to where the 50mm AT starts). Try to explain that one :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: Having played SL/ASL for many years, I've had the opportunity to use cavalry, as well as wagons, sledges, motorcycles and bicycles. Although each provided some interesting aspects of warfare and required the player to develop ways to use them to best advantage, I found all to be extremely vulnerable. The idea of riding any of these conveyances into battle is folly. Their best use is to move troops and weapons to jump off points at which time combat units dismount and fight on foot. Pretty much the way one uses trucks. Sure, it would be nice to see horses, et al, in CM2, but I doubt that they would add much to the game. Are there any other SL/ASL players on the Forum willing to share their experiences?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've played "Assault on a Queen" a couple of times. The most fun was when I played as German. My guys rode in (amidst numerous Harley Davidson / leather jacket jokes) - Tienham and his platoon mostly got knocked off their bikes and died with serious cases of road rash :eek: , but Obr Greup got into the tower where the Queen was hiding. Unfortunately when he finally grabbed the queen in the tower all the Dutch reinforcements came in driving their trucks (my friend rolled a boxcars so 12 squads came in ) and they promptly surrounded the tower where Obr Greup and his boys were holed up. I was trapped and couldn't escape, so my friend mimicked speaking through a bullhorn and said "we have you surrounded, come out with your hands up!" Yep, I lost. However, from that day forward, anytime the German 10-3 was in a game and had a platoon stacked with him they were referred to as "Obr Greup and the Raiders" . Anyway, I could have sworn I saw written on this board that they were going to include motorcycles in CMBB, but no horses or bicycles. I can't recall where I read that, but I'm pretty sure it was on this board. I did see in one of the articles with a mag that they said that Partisans were in though.

No problem, you have been quite informative and have added a great deal to the discussion . Thank you. At any rate (not fee rate of course), it would seem to be the case where there is no clear cut right or wrong without a great deal of research about the various agreements between the parties - and since it seems remote that someone is going to hunt me down and send me a court order in the first place, then I will continue to convert to my hearts content . Give me converted ASL scenarios or give me ... well you get the idea . By the way, I think you may get a lurker award being only a Junior Member with a moderately low member number.

Okay, let's tackle the high ground then . How is it that Multiman publishing has copyrights on scenarios created by various individuals and published by various different companies? I mean, if Michael Klautky creates an ASL scenario "Double or Nothing" and it is published by Critical Hit, how does Multiman even get into the equation? They didn't create the scenario, and they didn't publish it - they only provided the game platform. Who has the intellectual rights to this scenario? Michael Klautky, Critical Hit, or Multiman Publishing? For a CM bent - Dan (Kwazydog) made a scenario that is included on the CM disk called "All or Nothing". What if I wanted to convert his scenario "All or Nothing" into an ASL scenario? Who would have the intellectual rights to that scenario - Dan or BTS? If Dan says - sure, go ahead and convert it - can BTS say no?

While I’m sure that the law itself is not targeted towards profit, the motivations of those pursuing legal action will have profit as their goal (either from the settlement itself, immediate profit, or potential profit). The settlement will have to have a positive economic impact on the party taking the legal action or there would be no point in the pursuit of that action – regardless of how correct it might be to take said action. We are talking about a business here, not an individual looking for a restraining order to gain personal safety from their ex or somefink. The goal of every business is profit, and there are costs associated with the taking of legal action. So, bringing this to our Multiman Publishing situation – they would have to feel that they could either gain economically, or recover lost profits for them to seriously pursue legal action against someone using the ASL name or products (unless they’re stupid of course). The only potential gain Multiman could have in the case of converted ASL scenarios is that for some reason they might feel that the ASL name is being damaged by these conversions and is therefore causing lost sales. Presumably in this situation, someone who plays an ASL scenario converted to CM might think that ASL scenarios are so lame that they would never plunk down their money to buy ASL and that this copied scenario damaged their business. Taking legal action would then recover lost profits. How about the settlement itself? I doubt that Multiman would even be able to pay their legal fees with what they could get from your average Joe scenario converter – who may or may not even have a real job. If Multiman were serious about pursuing every John Doe who converted a scenario, then there would be a physical cost (paying the lawyers and assigning someone to scour the web for illegally converted scenarios – perhaps even as a full time job), opportunity cost (what they are spending on lawyers and web searching could be spent on the next module they want to produce), along with a ‘goodwill’ cost (how does this legal action affect the public image of this company). Focusing just on the goodwill cost for a moment, I think it is safe to assume that the people who are converting ASL scenarios to CM already have ASL products and that Multiman would therefore be taking legal action against their own customer base. Is this really very smart if there is no economic gain involved? They could literally litigate their way out of business! Anyway, that is a financial assessment of the situation rather than a legal assessment of the situation - I'll leave legal stuff to the lawyers and I'll stick to financial stuff . Recognizing the costs associated with this whole thing, I would think the odds of being sent a letter from Multiman's crack legal team would be remote - unless you go into their den and tweak their beard! Hey, then if you get the letter, just cease and you're good to go right? Just my own feeling - I really doubt that Multiman really thought it through if they asked Colonel Klotz to do whatever it was that they asked him to do. They obviously didn't do any research into the potential impact to their business that legal action would entail. It was doubtless a knee jerk reaction from someone who has been fighting too many copyright cases against other companies (such as Heat of Battle, Schwerpunkt, etc) and where copyright protection has become an ingrained corporate habit. Somebody at Multiman thought they saw something sinister and blew a fuse. However, just because you can take legal action doesn't mean that it is the smart thing to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Hasbro issued a cease and desist some time ago<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did you get this information from? Col Klotz never mentioned that (publicly anyway). All we know is that the Col took his site down - the official reason being that he was too busy with school. Did the Col e-mail you directly and let you know that?

While technically Hasbro might be legally correct in taking action against every single CM player who converts an ASL scenario, I have to wonder what the potential gain would be for them. A) Not a single ASL scenario converter is making a single penny from their scenario conversions Multi Man Publishing isn't losing a single penny because the people playing the converted scenarios aren't playing ASL anyway - they are playing CM C) Playing a scenario converted from ASL to CM may actually increase interest in ASL by bringing CM players to take a look at it. So, yeah, Multiman could hunt down and sue the heck out of everyone who has ever converted an ASL scenario for copyright infringement, but what would the damages be? Nobody took any money out of Multi Man Publishing's fingers and nobody profited at MultiMan's expense. Personally I think when that DFDR guy contacted Multi Man for permission to use their scenarios, the guy he corresponded with must not have understood that DFDR was just a mod of CM and not a whole new game in its own right. They already knew about Col Klotz's site, so I can only presume that there was something different about their perception of the DFDR mod. I have to admit that when I first saw the little DFDR 'ad' I wondered if it was a whole new game too. Why he felt the need to contact MultMan when Col Klotz was already hosting numerous converted scenarios is beyond me though. Just post the mod like everyone else. I didn't really want to point at the DFDR guy, but that's how I feel about it (whether it is justified or not). Anyway, if one of our legal beagles can kindly explain how Multiman is being damaged monetarily by those converting an ASL scenario then I'm all ears. Now if I photocopied all my ASL scenarios and sold them on a street corner at a discount - yeah, there would be a problem. But this? Where's the problem?

The reason Corn hasn't got his game yet is that BTS's transporter unit is down. MadMatt is working on it, but he isn't as quick as Scotty would be so it's taking a little longer to get fixed. That's the reason for the delay. Once Matt gets the transporter fixed he can just beam the game disk into Corn's CD slot and the manual into his hands.

Personally I can't see the harm in an 'expanded' LOS tool for use in the set up phase. I can sometimes spend hours (literally) setting up my various gun positions and MGs. A LOS tool like that could shave hours off my set up time. Once the game starts you could go back to the current LOS tool - I can't really see the need for it when the game is actually underway. No, I don't see any reason to be able to check LOS from a location you aren't currently in during the game - although I suppose in the initial set up phase it probably wouldn't matter that much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Why costs a German 88mm PAK more then a Elephant tank with the same gun? A hint to the people who will recomment the search function : please don't bore me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CMBB isn't out yet so I'm just curious how you know how much an Elephant costs?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Snake Eyes, no firm date as such, but we do have a prioritised list that we are through. All is going well. Rommel, we are using 3D Max currently for modelling, and I think it is what we will be using for some time to come as it is well suited to the gaming industry. Yup, the BT-7 series are done and I think due to their speed they will prove to be very interesting in CMBB indeed. If I recall correctly you can see one in a render over at CMHQ, though I could be wrong Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well Dan, the ultimate test of how extensive the vehicle list is would be if the Pz Sfl V is included . When the VK3001 heavy tank project was cancelled two of the prototypes were converted into a heavy panzer jaeger mounting a 128mm K40 L/61 in a sort of a Marder type mounting. I was also rather hoping to see the Funklenk B IV (radio controlled demolition vehicle) and the Borgward B IV (a modified Funklenk) Panzerjager with six Panzershreks mounted for rapid surprise attacks in the streets of Berlin. Finally, no game covering the Eastern Front would be complete without the Raupenschlepper Ost tracked heavy truck. There were also a few Polizeisondershutzwagon 1921 (Sdkfz 3) that were used in Berlin (after being taken out of a museum and being refurbished) along with two Panzerspahwagon L2H43 which were parked outside Hitler's bunker. They were a Dutch design from 1933 and only three were ever built (one of which had no armament). You just can't recreate the attack on Hitler's bunker without those two vehicles in the game :eek: . Perhaps we could even have a Hitler unit - sort of like a platoon commander, but with a greater tendency to flee from combat. All jesting aside though, I do hope the T44 is included. :cool: I just wanted to give Dan a hard time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia: Are beaten zones and grazing fire modeled 100% accurately? No. As Lambshank points out, you can't model every bullet. Are they modeled? Yes. What priority should 100% realism for these receive in the context of Western Front tactics, and how much difference does it make to gameplay? I would say little.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Until you can identify situations where full modelling of grazing fire and beaten zones gives the MG the advantage, you can't identify its importance. Jason pooh poohs the full modelling of grazing fire as well - although his reasons differ from yours (he doesn't want the game turned into a game of angles and feels it would be too difficult for the AI to grasp IIRC). Situation: city street in Berlin, April 1945. You are Hans the MG gunner with a WW1 surplus MG 08 and you are set up at the end of this street. The street extends for approximately 500 meters then dead ends at a river. There is a Regiment of Soviet infantry that need to cross that street to continue their offensive toward the Reichstag. The Soviet troops are lined up in the buildings along the road all the way from the river up to within 100 meters from your position. They want to cross the street - only you are preventing them from crossing the street and getting to the Reichstag. In reality you could control the entire length of the street from the river all the way back to your position by using grazing fire. It wouldn't matter if the Soviets crossed simultaneously at points 100 meters from your position, 200 meters, 300 meters, and 400 meters - you could hit them all simultaneously. Obviously you couldn't kill them all, a few would get through, but it would be clear that the Soviets would need to deal with you if they wanted to control that street. Currently in CMBO, you could cross at all four of those different points and only the troops who crossed 100 meters from your position would be affected. All other crossing points would be completely unaffected. In fact, a gamey player could just set up one sacraficial squad to run directly at the MG and let a whole battalion cross further down with no ill effect. What practical significance does this have? It means that you cannot isolate city blocks with MGs - therefore you cannot prevent reinforcements from getting into a city block that you want to take. You change that one thing - grazing fire - and it changes the whole complexion of the game. Anyway, I see little profit in continuing this discussion because I am not only discussion a cold fact - grazing fire is not modelled in CM - but I am also forced into discussing the tactical significance of grazing fire. I have been down this road numerous times on this board. If you can't identify the tactical significance, you won't realize its importance to the game. I guess it is similar to a conversation about cooking Hot Dogs. I can say that fire allows you to cook your hot dogs thus making them taste better. However, If you always eat your Hot Dogs raw you might saw - "aww, cooking Hot Dogs is overrated - I eat my Hot Dogs raw all the time and they taste just fine." I can tell you about cooking Hot Dogs until I am blue in the face, but until you've actually cooked one you will never know what you are missing. Once you eat cooked Hot Dogs though, you will never want to go back to raw. If BTS ever gets full modelling of grazing fire into CM, you will wonder why you ever thought MGs were adequate before.