ASL Veteran

<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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: As for finding the figure of 900K MPs low, take it up with the folks at the Panzerfaust site. "Total production of MP 38 and MP 40 combined was 908,317". Rather more specific than "over 1 million", isn't it? I suspect the 1 million comment is an approximation of all real MPs and the "alone" means "not counting the MP44 assault rifles".[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, let me see. Who do I believe, Ian Hogg, the most respected and well known authority on weapons in the English language or 'the guys at the Panzerfaust website'? I'm sure they are swell guys over there, but I think I'm sticking with Ian Hogg. The number I gave you was my recollection, but why don't we just see exactly what Mr Hogg had to say so you can decide for yourself what he meant: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This became the MP38, later the MP40, the familiar 'Schmeisser' (a misnomer) without which no film portrayal of the German soldier is complete. Undoubtedly it is one of the classic weapon designs of all time; absolutely functional, without an ounce of ornamentation or excess material on it, the first weapon to be laid out for mass production by methods far removed from traditional gunsmithing techniques. It is uncertain how many MP38s were made, but it is known that Production of the MP40 amounted to 1,047,000 - over 700 a day for four years..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Mr Hogg is very clear that he is referring to the MP40 and only the MP40 and that he is not including the MP38. He is also not including the MP44 Because the MP44 is not a Sub Machine Gun as everyone knows, so I'm not sure why you keep including it in the discussion.

This thread has been completely overrun by Steely eyed Finn Ubertruppen who can take bullets to the forehead with nary a flinch!! Where are our Russian friends? We need this thread cleansed. BTW, when the British were looking for an SMG design at the beginning of the war they thought that the Suomi was the best design they tested. However, since the Winter War was in full swing they came to the (rather obvious) conclusion that it would be impossible to obtain these SMGs from Finland so they had to settle on taking Thompson's from the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Is it true that a SMG soldier carries less ammo loadout then a rifle soldier? I am just trying to understand this a bit more as I don't really know anything about small arms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Standard ammo load out for a German rifleman would be 45 rounds in 5 round clips. An SMG man would probably have seven clips of 32 rounds in each clip for a total of 224 rounds of ammo. I'm not positive about the SMG ammo load out though. I'll have to check. The SMG man would carry roughly five times more rounds of ammunition than a rifleman.

While I find this exercise in production figures meaningless, I must state that Ian Hogg has the Germans producing more than 1 million MP 40s alone. He also states that it is unknown how many MP 38s were produced, and this is completely ignoring all the other various SMGs produced by the Germans and all the various captured SMGs used (such as the French SMG). I think the number of 900k SMGs produced is low.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Willful blindness is not an argument. I will spell out the relationship. (1) CM overmodels SMG effectiveness by giving them the same ammo endurance in shots as rifles, the same cost in points, but much greater firepower per shot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point about CM, but how was it that this relates to total war production figures for SMGs again? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) CM then allows German infantry varieties with any desired level of SMGs in the mix<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point about CM, but how was it that this relates to total war production figures for SMGs again? Seems to fit the TO&Es just fine though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(3) CM then restricts Allied infantry varieties to nearly pure rifle, or moderate SMG for Paras only<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point about CM, but how was it that this relates to total war production figures for SMGs again? Seems to fit the TO&Es just fine though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(4) CM thus models a superior performance of German infantry as being due to higher availability of SMGs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point about CM, but how was it that this relates to total war production figures for SMGs again? Oh, and superior performance is going to be terrain dependant. Also the higher availability of SMGs is in perfect agreement with the TO&Es of the forces present. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(5) the Germans did not have higher availability of SMGs than the Allies did, to start with<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point about total war production figures for SMGs, but how was it that this relates to CM again? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Conclusion - CM presents an historical unjustified "thesis" of the cause of superior relative German infantry performance - greater availability of automatic weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the fact is that the TO&Es for many low grade German divisions (Volksgrenadier etc) in the late war period did have a substantial number of automatic weapons in them - assigned at the squad level. The availability in CM of SMG squads for the Germans and the lack of them for the Western Allies fits force TO&Es perfectly - unless BTS failed miserably in researching these TO&Es (which I doubt).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: [QB]In answer to ASL Vet, I am interested in his theory of the use of Allied SMGs. Does he think they were used as crowbars? Hoes for kitchen gardens? Ad hoc wheat scythes, perhaps?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An army has a voracious appetite for weaponry and it would be difficult to account for every single weapon either in the inventory or that was produced. What did the US do with all their Springfields? Use them for crowbars? Maybe they just didn't use them at all? At any rate, one simple way to prove that Allied AT gun crews etc had more SMGs would be to post the standard personal weapons assigned to those troops. The bottom line is that I don't have any theory about where all these SMGs are - nor do I feel there is a need to find one. The TO&E of a specific squad type or crew can be found without regard to the use of production figures. I guess I just don't see any relationship between the production figures of SMGs and CM.

Getting back to Jason's main points we have a series of assumptions and deductions from the evidence that he has gathered (production figures for SMGs - which may or may not be accurate), <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: So, where were they, and where are they? Tank crews? Gun and infantry teams? Drivers? Rear echelon you-know-what-ers? If so for a large numbers, it raises two additional interesting questions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The assumption here is that the 4 1/2 times as many SMGs in use by the western allies are all assigned to the various Allied troops described in a proportion greater than the Germans may have assigned to these same troops (perhaps 4 1/2 times greater since that is the ratio from the production figures?). Therefore, the "interesting" question that is raised: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One, isn't it rather distorting to disallow these "side arms" to fire (e.g. mortar crews, etc) while infantry does, when the weapons mix varied along the lines of this rule? (I.e. Allied crews more likely to have SMGs, German crews more likely to have rifles?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This statement uses this logic: IF the Allies produced more SMGs than the Germans THEN all these 'extra' SMGs must have been assigned to the various service troops described in a ratio greater than the Germans assigned to their service troops. THEREFORE, it is unfair to the Allied player in CMBO to remove the ability of mortar and gun crews to fire these 'secondary' weapons since the German player gets to use the SMG to its full advantage and the Allied player does not. Naturally the IF, THEN statement is loaded with some very BIG assumptions that are presented as a 'rule' as Jason said (none of which backed up by any TO&E data). This assumption being that more Allied gun crews were issued SMGs than German gun crews and that the ones issued were done so in a larger ratio - and we come to this assumption SOLELY based upon some production figures for various SMGs in use by the warring powers and some reasoning based upon these production figures. This assumption ignores (of course) the notion that the Americans had a purpose designed weapon for these types of troops (the carbine) and does not show us any TO&Es to prove that SMGs were in fact used by any of the combatants in the manner and ratios put forth as fact. Even taking these assumptions at face value, there are other issues as well. Game related issues that have been discussed in depth before. Presumably where Jason sees the Allies making full use of this 'feature' of gun crews is in mass SMG rushes when their primary weapon has run out of ammo or perhaps after they have bailed out of a tank. The 'gamey' crew rush complete with SMGs locked and loaded. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Two, how many of these abundant SMGs found their way to the front?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This one really isn't all that relevant since CM uses TO&E information. If you were to start straying off into 'field' TO&Es you could start getting all sorts of wierd and inventive combinations based upon ... what really? Common knowledge or possibly the same type of reasoning displayed here? I'll take a pass thank you.

Actually, what I find more interesting than where all the Stens went is why the Japanese didn't really spend the time and effort to produce an SMG. Can you imagine fighting the Japanese in Burma or Guadalcanal with 15 man SMG squads? :eek: It would seem to be the ideal weapon for that environment too.

I might also point out that the MP44 really isn't an SMG as postulated by Jason in his initial post. The SMG uses a pistol round and the MP44 used the 'Kurz' round - which was more of a cut down rifle round and this round was significantly more powerful than the pistol round used in the SMG. The proper designation for the MP44 would be more along the lines of an automatic rifle (in which section it will always be found when thumbing through books about WW2 infantry weapons). However, the Germans did also use the MP28, the Solothurn S1-100, the MP34, MP35, Maschinenpistole EMP, the MP38, the MP41, and the ZK383 (Czech design used by the SS) along with the MP40 that Jason mentioned. The Soviets used the PPD 1940G, the PPSh-1941G, and the PPS42

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee: In actuality, I believe a large number of guns were "scavenged" on all sides of the war. Picking up an smg that was lying on the ground was commonplace. The germans even envied spotting an unused soviet smg on the ground, they were highly valued finds for german troops in that meat grinder called stalingrad. Us troops were seen using mp38 and mp40 models. Us troops in the pacific especially would scrounge their own dead to get a bar, a colt .45 pistol, or a thompson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The main reason the Germans might pick up the Soviet SMG was that it used a 71 round drum rather than a 32 round box magazine so the Jerries were caught reloading sometimes. The way they solved that was to create a way to have two box magazines put together so they could be slid over when changing mags (or something along those lines - I can check my sources if necessary). The problem with using captured SMGs though revolves around ammunition supply and sound. You don't have a steady supply of enemy ammunition and when you fire you can easily be mistaken for the enemy. Two good reasons why you might prefer your own weapon to that of the enemy. Anyway, captured SMG use is not really what the topic of this thread is about - otherwise domestic production figures would not have been used as the basis for the ... thesis (for lack of a better word)