ASL Veteran

<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.

Did somebody mention the Somme? How about this for the extreme end of the scale? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 30th Division had lost a total of 3011 casualties, while the 18th Division lost 3115. It was, on the whole, a successful day for the 13th Corps <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This Corps did the best on the first day of the Somme. Here are some others <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>General Horne, commander of 15 Corps, upon receiving reports of success to both his right and left, ordered the 22nd, 62nd, and 50th Brigades to assault Fricourt at 1430. Although the 1st Royal Welsh Fusilers of the 22nd Brigade actually reached the outskirts of the village, 50th Brigade was decimated and made no progress; 7th Green Howards lost 15 officers and 336 men in 3 minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like to point out that there were more MGs per unit in WW2 than in WW1, and that the lethality of the squad was much greater in WW2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For this, 7th Division lost 3380 men, 17th Division 1155, and 21st Division 4256; a heavy price for such gains. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moving on down to the 34th Division we see this <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The assaulting battalions left their trenches at 0730, within ten minutes 80% of their troops had fallen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now the 8th Division <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The three battalions of the 25th Brigade lost over 50% of their strength and the 1st Royal Irish Rifles succeeded in getting only ten men across no-man's land.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> finally an overall look at 3 Corps <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Out of approximately 17000 troops of 3 Corps who went into action that morning, 11500 were casualties, mostly by 0800, and the German line remained unbroken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the start time was 0730 - that's only 30 minutes BTW. All these casualties are for the first day of the Somme - about 12 hours. Overall the British army lost 60000 men on the first day, some 19000 in the first 30 minutes. The spots where the British did the best was where they beat the Germans to their trenches after the bombardment lifted. I've never had any issues with the casualties generated by firepower in CM. Overall the firepower in CM feels about right. I do think that the MGs are undermodelled for one specific reason, and that there are other issues such as cover states and squad behavior which I think Jason has alluded to. I am also sure that MGs will be more effective in CMBB and that the increase in effectiveness will not be sufficient for me since I doubt that true grazing fire will be included (do to its difficulty to code). The Major (my goodness, we have a Major and a Captain in this thread :eek: ) has stated that: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would argue therefore that CM models things pretty well (with room for future enhancements) in terms of MG effectiveness. 1 MG vs. 1 squad, whether the MG has them in enfilade or the squad is making a frontal assault, and the squad is going to suffer heavily. Once you start adding more units, the MG can't cope with the numbers. In the former case, men will get by and in the latter the MG is doomed (but the infantry will still suffer some stiff casualties). From what I can tell, this is realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course this is just flat out incorrect. The problem is how Grazing Fire is being defined. You are referring to a Beaten Zone as if it is the only thing involved. Grazing Fire is fire where the line of fire extends no higher than 1 meter off the ground. A Beaten Zone is the spot where the 'cone of fire' lands on the ground, but if you are using Grazing Fire you aren't necessarily engaging the enemy with the beaten zone, you are engaging the enemy with the danger space created by the line of fire. In other words, the Machine Gun is engaging all troops along the entire distance between the muzzle of the MG and where the beaten zone is hitting the ground. This line of fire is going to be a few meters across and will correspond to the width of the beaten zone at the far end of your line of fire. This is a fundamental method of employing MGs, and I'm sorry to say that it will not be included any time soon (perhaps the rewrite - although with the number of features put off for the rewrite they can't possibly put all of them in ) The reason it won't be included in CMBB is that the current engine does not recognize squads or tanks etc. between the weapon and the target point. This is obviously not realistic, and it is the primary means by which an MG will put effective fire on multiple targets all at once. If you remain unconvinced Major, then I can repost a paragraph or two I made (with my own commentary between quotes) of a current US Mechanized Infantry FM (well, 80's, not current anymore I guess) which defines these terms and explains the proper employment of the Machine Gun.

I thought I read somewhere on this board that motorcycles were in , but horses and bicycles were out . At any rate, motorcycles were standard TO&E in the recon portion of an early war Panzer Division. Panzertruppen Vol 1 has numerous first hand accounts of motorcycle troops fighting alongside tanks. There is even a photograph on the web where there are several German motorcycle troops ducking for cover behind a wall or a fence of some kind with their motorcycles sitting nearby. For horses, thinking of them only in terms of German use would be short changing them since there were Soviet Cavalry Corps running around throughout the war. There were a few Italian Cavalry Divisions on the Eastern Front (who conducted at least one full blown cavalry charge - something every Italian should be proud to refight in CM2) along with several German Cossack formations (combined into an SS Division I think) who were used for anti partisan activities. I also read somewhere that Partisans are in too - so BTS does listen to popular demand if it is possible to add something . The more variety in units and choices the better I say.

I heard that there will be something on the order of 200 vehicles in CM2 - which 200 they are I haven't the foggiest idea though. The full catalog of Soviet vehicles in ASL comes to about 50 something so I am sure that a lot of those 200 vehicles will include minor variants and oddball Rumanian and Finnish thingies.

How about 'dummy' minefields and AP minefields that are set up in plain sight (ie really marked with signs or whatnot). Is it a minefield? Is it a dummy minefield? Is it a dummy minefield with a concealed one nearby? I would like to have the ability to search for minefields in locations where you can have infantry poking around with sticks. Could be time consuming (or not if they find a mine right away), but at least there would be a way to spot a minefield before exploding in it. Especially for AT mines since they are so devastating. As it is now, you can't even poke around for one if there is a 'suspicious' spot where a field may be located. All you can do is drive and pray.

Jason C is standing at attention on the viewing platform. I walk slowly toward Jason with a huge medal in my hands and slowly pin the medal onto Jason's chest. I turn toward the crowd of 6000+ consisting of all the members of this forum and begin to speak. "I am now pinning this medal on Jason's chest for the dramatic improvement his idea has made for all of our gaming experiences. I believe that all gamers should use this swell idea for limiting SMG ammunition because if you do not your quality of life will suffer. The idea of lowering SMG ammunition by ten points is so life altering that I can't believe that I ever played CM without it. Since this discussion on SMG ammunition will never ever end until everyone on this board admits that this is a fantastic idea I suggest we all give Jason a fabulous round of applause to show that consensus has been achieved!" (a deafening roar erupts from the crowd as every single member of the CM community shouts out with approval) "Jason," I say "would you like to say a few words to the admiring crowd now?" "Why thank you, I don't mind if I do" Jason replies. Jason adjusts his uniform and draws himself to his full height "Ahem" tapping the microphone "I would just like to thank all of you for finally admitting that there is a massive flaw in CM with regards to the German SMG squads. Not only have I proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Allies had more SMGs, but I have also proven that the German SMG is overmodelled and demonstrates a pro Nazi bias from the team at BTS. I am so happy that everyone has finally seen the light and that this new idea of reducing SMG ammunition will be implemented by the entire community. This is a very great day in the JasonC household because I have prevailed at last!" (Roaring applause and shouts erupt from the crowd) Jason raises his hand for quiet, "fair people of the CM community .... please do not applause for me for I am but a humble servant of the game of CM. I only wish to see my ideas forcibly implemented because I think that it is in the best interests of all of you gamers who don't see the problem as I do. This idea is good for you whether you realize it or not! All I ever asked for was consensus on my fantabulistic idea because I know that this will cure all of CM's ills. Now that we have reached consensus though, I think we should turn our attention to celebrating my triumph. It is a triumph of the sparkling intellect of my gargantubrain over that of my dimwitted and peabrained opponents. They have finally come to their senses and pinned a medal on my chest as I so rightly deserve. Thank you all and goodnight." (a roaring standing ovation from all the members of the forum erupts relieved that Jason is finally finished.)

I would like to know if the T-44 is going to be included

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Look: SMG's fire a lot. Rifles dont fire because they are suppressed. Yet both use up ammo at the same speed. I see a logic flaw here. You do not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM, a squad that is 'Pinned' or 'Cautious' etc doesn't fire as much so it isn't using up ammo at the same speed. It is using less ammo. I'm not sure that is the point Jason is trying to make with ammo usage though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: What I'm suggesting, is that SMG eats up ammo more quickly. That it eats up it's ammo load more quickly. So the rifle is the more economical choise.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interestingly enough - history is littered with Ordinance Boards who thought along those lines. I think the US adoption of the Krag Jorgensen Rifle is a good case in point. They didn't want to adopt the Mauser because they were worried that it would consume too much ammunition in combat. Alas, the Krag met an untimely demise after the Spanish American war because it couldn't produce enough firepower to compete with the Mauser the Spanish were using. I think the consumption of ammunition would be more heavily influenced by unit experience than by the weapon itself. Hand a green unit a pile of SMGs and they will probably blow through the ammo pretty quickly. Hand a veteran unit a pile of SMGs and they will probably have enough sense to use the ammunition so it will last - and when it will count. You could even say the same thing about rifle ammunition. The ammo 'fix' is overly simplistic I think - and not really supported by the standard ammunition loadouts for the infantryman (where the SMG man carries about four or five times as much ammunition depending on how you look). Note that I said 'Standard Loadout' which doesn't go into weight etc. 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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: In other words, something any tactical dunce can figure out about CM after playing "a chance encounter" three or four times for the sake of his amusement, escaped the notice of several hundred thousand professional military combatants whose lives depended on noticing it, for months on end. If the difference were a slight edge this might be believable and chalked up to doctrine. But when it is as huge an edge as CM purports it to be, it is not believable. If SMGs were as good as CM shows them, then allied SMGs (which were more numerous overall, as I have been at pains to show) would have migrated to the front. If that did not happen to any large degree, then the drawbacks of SMGs must of left them reasonable close to rifles in overall effectiveness - even if each stood out in a different aspect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the Soviets seemed to like the SMG just fine. One might even speculate that the Germans gained their 'fondness' of the SMG from their experiences on the Eastern Front fighting back hordes of SMG toting storm squads in Stalingrad. Prior to Stalingrad I don't think the SMG was used by the Germans very differently, or in any greater numbers, than they were by the Western Allies. Could it be possible that the Western Allied approach to combat was different than that of the Germans - or even that of the Soviets? I think it is not only possible, but probable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: [QB]Who ahs made that claim? Certainly not me. Nice strawman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While this claim may not have been made by you, I believe it is pretty clear that others in this thread have made that very claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: And yet another. No one has amde any such claim, and people have provided plenty of research that it was common for US squads to have non-official TO&Es. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it's safe to say that no one has either 'proved' or 'disproved' specifically whether it was common for US squads to have non official TO&Es - and if common what specific variations they were. That question is still open. That was not the original issue in this thread though. The issues of SMGs and non standard TO&Es may be intertwined or they may not (the original post on this thread postulated that these 'extra' SMGs might be in crews). However, I do think the logic used in this thread, specifically in regards to allied SMG usage, is a little dubious. It would be shocking to me if someone as logically inclined as yourself did not find any fault in the reasoning used in the original post in this thread. The specific thrust of this thread is the lack of SMGs in Allied TO&Es, not necessarily the possible 'field' variations that may have existed between squads. A careful reading of the original post on this thread will spell this out quite clearly. For heaven's sake, someone stop this thread. I can't stand being on the same side of an issue as Slapdragon for very long! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: [QB]The cult of the rifle extends to Britain - see my earlier comments on magazine cutoffs in SMLEs in World War One. The FN was not adopted til the late 1950s because of the same feeling that rifle marksmanship was important. The British and Canadians were just as reluctant to adopt "assault" rifles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the Japanese put a bayonet on the end of their SMG. I'm not really sure what kind of a cult that is, but it is certainly a cult of some kind

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: 1.1 million Springfield bolt action 3.8 million M-1 semi auto rifles 6.2 million M-1 semi auto carbines 1.2 million Thompson SMG 0.6 million M3 Grease SMG 0.4 million BAR 0.5 million air cooled 30 cal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Peter Chamberlain has 5,500,000 M1 semi auto rifles, 6,332,000 M1 and M1A1 Carbines, 606,694 M3 Grease Guns, well over 1,000,000 Thompsons (not as specific on those), 43,479 M1919A6 air cooled 30 cal, and 53,854 M1917 A1 along with 68,389 built before WW2. Most of the numbers are pretty close, but your numbers on the Garand are off by quite a bit.