ASL Veteran

I stand corrected . Oh, all that Soviet armor looks alike anyway . The ROF that my source has specifies the ROF for both the tank and the SP gun as being between 1 and 2 IIRC, but I would need to look at it again. Could possibly be 2 - 3 for the SP gun I suppose.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: IS-122 was a tank. We were talking about self propelled guns. The key difference was tha SPGs had two loaders, whereas IS-122 had only one. I think, that's where most of the confusion is coming from. [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The IS-122 was a self propelled gun. Perhaps you are thinking of the IS-2? I have some printed sources at home that also state a ROF of between 1 and 2 per minute. Sorry, can't cite them right at the moment though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Oh, I expect you understand it well enough. You just probably don't like it. But it is possible I've simply been unclear. A few hundred times. And you along with a few hundred others still haven't gotten it. Or don't want to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are presuming too much. The reason I don't understand it is that it doesn't make any sense to me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The basic thesis I advanced is that thick armor plates are over-represented in QBs, because players scarf up ungodly amounts of the stuff, because it is useful. Some of that usefulness being historical, some not, and some real historical usefulness is obscured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting thesis. I don't play any QB so I can't comment on what you see in QBs. The thesis itself can be addressed without having played in QBs though since, as is your usual style, it contains many broad generalizations that are not specific to QBs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Which part is "not", in the sense of game usefulness in CM, far beyond historical usefulness? Flanks anchored by the bottomless pit of tartarus, and small numbers engaged vs. small numbers. Which real historical usefulness, is obscured in CM? Very long range dueling. Because of those features and the way CM prices things, thick front armor is powerful and a relative bargain, and people buy way more of it than the historical participants actually had.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting, but I don't see how this relates to the general rarity of Panthers on the battlefield as compared to other vehicles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now some silly persons on this board pretend (endlessly) that uparmored AFVs were common, or the rule, in the late war, or for the Germans in the late war. This is simply not the case. The common practice by the late war was to upgun vehicle types indeed, but uparmoring remained rare by comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess the only way they could have uparmored would have been to weld more steel plates onto the vehicles - and that was actually done fairly frequently. The Pz IV was itself uparmored. If by 'uparmoring' you mean something brand new that was built with more armor to begin with, then you really seem to be mixing apples with eggshells. At any rate, I understand your basic point, and yes, the Germans did 'upgun' many vehicles during the war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which does not suffice to make uparmored AFVs common or the rule. It does mean that only the Panther, of the heavy types, was common enough to be an operational reality, rather than an occasional episode. It was not the "average" late war German tank. It was the upper portion of the produced fleet, numerous enough to be palpably present, far enough out on the range of weight and capability to be well above the average German late-war AFV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say that the Panther was an average German late war 'tank', but I see that you count all manner of SP guns in your definition of 'tank'. Perhaps the term 'AFV' would be better here, because I believe the common WW2 usage of the term 'tank' is something fully armored that has a turret. If you include all manner of SP guns in your statement, then sure, the Panther was comparatively rare in the context of the grand total - but so is the Pz IV proper - or any other vehicle looked at in isolation. The Pz IV 'tank' the thing with the turret not some SP gun, would be just as rare as the Panther. Why single out the Panther and not the Pz IV? Using the logic you have put forth, the Pz IV should also not be showing up on the battlefield very often either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I then immediately pointed out how rare the Panther was compared to Sherman 76s and Allied TDs. This draws the comment that "the relationship between allied vehicles and axis vehicles seems irrelevant". Which is an eye-watering, hold your sides screamer. As though how many powerful AT guns there were for each thick armor plate weren't the single most important question about the respective historical usefulness of each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure I see your amusement at my statement. Where did the AT guns come from? Are you going to start throwing them into the mix too? We might as well start counting Axis AT guns too then. Fortunately we don't have to since you say that it is the Panther that should not be showing up as often. Well, the Pz IV shouldn't be showing up as often either since there were only 100 more on 10 June than of the Panther. How many StuGs were there? You say around 500 not in Panzer divisions? Okay, combine that with the 150 in the Panzer divisions and you have around 2000 AFVs split approximately evenly among three vehicle types. Why is any one more likely to be on the battlefield than any other? Besides, I thought we were discussing how likely something is going to show up on the 'German' side? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of the 6k Panthers produced, only around 2k probably saw action in the west. Not 3k, since they were used in Russia longer and on a longer front. The good tanks faced the Allies mostly in the two waves, Normandy and the winter counteroffensive, Ardennes and Alsace - around 700-800 Panthers on each of those occasions. If they are allowed to stand in for the rarer heavier types, one might round them out to 3k all told, and that would be generous. They faced 9k US-built TDs and 8k 76mm Shermans (not counting LL to Russia) plus ~5k Fireflies, etc. Upgunned anti-armor Allied AFVs in the west were more common than StuGs and Pz IVs combined, in the whole German fleet on all fronts, over the whole period from 1943 onward. There were at least 7 of the things for every uparmored German tank in the west.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> None of which matters as far as how likely a specific type of German vehicle is going to be on the battlefield at any particular time. Whether or not a German vehicle is going to be on the battlefield has nothing to do with how many Allied vehicles were in the field. The only relevance that has is how often an Allied vehicle will be found on the battlefield. I would also point out that along with the 700 Panthers there were probably around 700 Pz IVs - once again, why are you singling out the Panther? Shouldn't the Pz IV 'tank' be just as ... uncommon? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If one wants a realistic sense of the commonness of uparmored and upgunned AFVs in the west in late war, then, one might approximate it with the following ratios. For the Germans, 1 Panther, 1 Pz IV, 1 StuG or Jadgpanzer (realistically the StuG - in CM the Jadgpanzer), and 1 "other" = Hetzer, Marder, Wespe, Hummel, etc. Facing on the Allied side 3 TDs, 3 Sherman 76 plus 1 Firefly, 1 Sherman 105, 1 Priest and 1 Sexton, 8 Sherman 75, 2 Cromwell, 7 Stuarts, 4 M-8s, and 1 Daimler. Plus one Firefly, Sherman 105, and Cromwell additional, perhaps - in that range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't really argue with that logic in the broad sense, but if the Panzer Lehr Division is attacking the Big Red One, then of course, the Germans will have an advantage in armor wouldn't they? The ratio is going to be dependent upon the situation on the ground in the specific locale of the fighting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ignoring the real match up to focus on each force, this magically becomes 1 Panther, 1 Pz IV, and 1 Jadgpanzer against 1 TD -or- Sherman 76, 1 Sherman 75, and 1 Stuart. Why? Because it sounds better for the Germans, I suppose. Then the Stuart gambles with its life, and the Sherman 75 maybe gets the Pz IV before vice versa but dies to either of the others, and the TD or Sherman 76 might get lucky against the Jadgpanzer, but Panthers rule. Right? Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to admit that you lost me there. Very vivid though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously there is all the difference in the world between having 1/3rd of your AFVs carry powerful AT guns while you have only even numbers of them as the enemy has, and having 1/3rd of your AFVs carry powerful AT guns when you outnumber the whole enemy armor force by a large factor, and proportionally, more of your AFVs have powerful AT guns, than of his AFVs have thick armor. What does it mean for taking forces in CM? Should people stick to abstract ratios? No, of course not. It means #1 the Allies should generally be attacking and #2 they should often have "armor" as the force type, and almost always "combined arms", while #3 the Germans should mostly have the "infantry" force type, only rarely even "combined arms", and only in about 3 battle periods (Normandy, Bulge, Alsace) have "armor" occasionally. And #4 when the Germans do have "combined arms" the armor should generally be of the "other" types (SPA, etc), or StuG/H. And when they have the "armor" type the tanks should be Panzer IVs about half the time, and Panthers the other half of the time. And #5 when the Allies pick their armor types, they should not take Churchills or Jumbos, but anything else they want should be considered fair game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't really argue with that logic and it is interesting in theory, but if a QB player picks a German armored force, then you have to assume that he has the 'armor' available to purchase. After all, we are simply playing a game about WW2, and if I want to always play as the Panzer Lehr division, then I can do that if I want. Therefore, in every battle I participate in, I should only have to worry about the ratios of AFVs in the Panzer Lehr division. If I am playing in June 44, I would be choosing from 9 StuG, 101 Pz IV, 89 Pz V, 3 Pz VI, and 12 Flakpz38. The ratios of allied tanks to these numbers is irrelevant since I am playing as the Panzer Lehr today. The number of StuGs in the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier division is also irrelevant for the same reason. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for 655 Panthers in the west on a given day, yeah, the Germans sent around 750 Panthers to Normandy. Out of around 2500 AFVs of all types.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, yeah, and there were only around 750 Pz IVs out of 2500 AFVs of all types so why should a PzIV 'tank' be more common than a Pz V? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Notice your totals are "Panzer units". Did it ever occur to you that there were other units in the German army? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhh, yeah, but I guess that would only apply if I was selecting an 'Infantry' force in a QB wouldn't it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And incidentally, there were around 500 StuG that fought in Normandy, many of them in the SS mobile divisions, others in several independent StuG brigades, and others parcelled out in divisional AT battalions (along with Marders). Jadgpanzers also filled out the AT battalions of the mobile divisions, when StuGs weren't used to fill in for them instead. But by the first week in August, they had less than 300 operational AFVs in the entire force sent, 10 mobile divisions. Then they didn't have fleets of Panthers anymore, until the Ardennes practically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I'm just not seeing the Panther as being all that rare". All what rare? Rare enough to appear in platoon strength in every company meeting engagement from the channel to Berlin? (Like in CM?) You don't see anything rare about tank totals in the mid hundreds at peak force levels, before major battles and after major re-equipage, on a frontage of all of France, facing enemy AFV totals in the mid thousands? Have you worked out how many Panthers it is per mile, at the other times when all the divisions aren't still on the trains, not having seen any action yet? Per Allied division faced at those times? How about, how many could be lost per km of front per -month- without the total disappearing altogether? (Hint - it is not an integer).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hate to state the obvious, but the German tanks were not spread across the entire front, they were mostly concentrated in units commonly known as Panzer Divisions - and if I want to play as a member of a Panzer Division today, then, by golly, you're gonna see some tanks! And no, I don't see anything rare about tank totals in the hundreds when it is put in the proper context. In other words, if I select a German armored force in a Quick Battle, a Panther is just as common as a Pz IV or as common as a StuG. Any one of the three are equally as likely to be on the battlefield as any other one of the three. The number of Allied vehicles is irrelevent to this whole argument too, since I am composing a German force not an allied one. I can certainly understand the Americans surprise in the opening hours of the Ardennes now. They must have said to each other "Hey Joe, those Germans are just not playin' fair. Don't they know that we have 10 times as many tanks as they do those gamey kraut bastards? Don't they know that in every battle we should have ten tanks for every one they have?" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panther is the only uparmored AFV that is common enough it ought to appear in CM QBs. But nothing like as often as it is actually used. Again, buying upgunned vehicles is realistic, because there were tons of the things, both sides. Buying uparmored things all the time is not, because they were scarce. Panthers occasionally, when the Germans have "armor" at all, which should be "rarely". That is all. They are overused regularly today.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you should just stipulate that your opponent pick a German infantry force all the time, and you pick an Allied armored force all the time. I think that would solve your dilemma. You might not find many opponents with that stipulation though. Besides, the same logic you use for the Panther can be applied just as vigorously for the Pz IV or the StuG since there were just as few of each of those available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: As for AFVs, Churchills, jumbos, Tigers and Panthers are also overused, as people grab for invunerable front armors. Historically, "eggshells with hammers" - upgunned but not particularly uparmored AFVs - were much more common. The Panther was the only common uparmored AFV, and on the -western- front was much more rare than Sherman 76s and Allied TDs. Like, by a factor of ten (since most Panthers made overall, were used on the larger eastern front).[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure I understand your eggshell theory as regards the Panther. At first you say the Panther is rare: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Historically, "eggshells with hammers" - upgunned but not particularly uparmored AFVs - were much more common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you then say it is common: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panther was the only common uparmored AFV, and on the -western- front was much more rare than Sherman 76s and Allied TDs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The relationship between allied vehicles and axis vehicles seems irrelevant to me since a player buying German stuff should be weighing how common it is in the German army, not how common it is in relation to the allied army. The only place an argument comparing vehicles of the axis and allies can be made is whether the axis player can buy armor at all (and that's a whole different ball of wax). As far as how common the Panther is for the German army, "Panzertruppen Vol 2" gives the following totals for all Panzer units on the Western Front on 10 June 1944: Pz III 39, Pz IV 758, Pz V 655, Pz VI 102, StuG 158, French tanks 179. Looking at the OB for the Ardennes, there actually seem to be more Pz V than Pz IV (I would have to add them up by unit - and I'm just not that motivated). I'm just not seeing the Panther as being all that rare. While the 'eggshells with hammers' theory does have a catchy name - it just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny (unless there is some part of this theory that I don't understand). Attempting to apply that theory to allied vehicles is also kinda silly since most western allied vehicles could be described as eggshells with peashooters. Sure, the 76s and Firefly's could be eggshells with hammers - but in the case of the allies are you really saying that there were more 76 armed Shermans than 75 armed Shermans since that is what your eggshell with hammer theory states? The Churchill would be, what, a ... ostrich egg with a peashooter? Applying the eggshell with hammer theory to the western allies makes no sense, and applying it to the Germans is incorrect since the Panther was just as common as the Pz IV. If you are facing a German player who is going to buy armor, then historically you have just as great a chance of meeting a Panther as you would a Pz IV. Of course, maybe I am just completely misunderstanding the 'eggshell' theory.

Jason, do you feel that the type of movement that the attacker is using should influence the attacker's cover state. Sneaking infantry should have better cover than Moving infantry, and Moving should have better than Running ... ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: You can do tournement save.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tournament save only works with one specific time you are going to play someone, but it won't work if you have a scenario that is downloadable online - or even a scenario on the disk.

As long as the Peng thread succession does not cause civil war to break out I guess it will be okay . Perhaps they need to work on some form of democratic inspired transition of power rather than having numerous petty dictators all vying for the throne?

One reason you may not want to use captured equipment is that the enemy equipment usually has a sound that is distinct from your own weaponry. Friendly troops may mistake the user as an enemy and blast away in his direction. The logistics difficulty would be present too - how do you supply these foreign weapons if you have no ammunition supply? Probably neither safe nor practical to use captured equipment unless the creator nation was conquered (giving you ammunition supply) or whole units were equipped with said weapons (to prevent friendly fire and ease of logistics). BTW, the MG15 was a failure as a ground weapon because it was so long that it was 'unhandy' - something that didn't really matter in an airplane.

I nominate Cormand. Member number 114 with 18 total posts. 10000/18*114 = 4.873 :eek:

Just one minor comment. According to Ian Hogg (not me), the role of the 50mm mortar was replaced by the addition of a rifle grenade launcher in German squads. However, I can certainly accept that maybe a combination of both the rifle grenade and the 81mm was used to fill the void from the withdrawal of the 50mm from service.

The forces of Attrition appreciate your interest in our cause. I believe that our cause is a just one considering we are fighting the evil forces of Maneuver commanded by the legendary Fionn. I have e-mailed each of you the rules by which the operation is played. Let me know what you think.

I have been tasked by The_Capt to ask for some reinforcements for the Attrition v Maneuver slugfest (emphasis on slug). The attrition force has suffered a great deal of attrition at the higher command levels (mostly because our fearless commanders were leading from the front) and we need volunteers to take command of two of our battalions. If you subscribe to the school of "Deutschland Uber Alles" then this is the perfect opportunity for you to strut your stuff. Ask not what your silicon soldiers can do for you. Ask what you can do for your your silicon soldiers!! Yes, oddly enough I am representing the attrition force (I don't know what came over me at the time), but you don't have to think like an attritionist - that's The_Capt's job.

Well, in an attempt to answer the specific question first asked (the view from an outsider), Peng is the name of a member of this community and someone (I believe it was Seanichi or someone - forgive any misspelling) made a public challenge to him on the general forum. These two individuals have a .. off the wall sort of humor and had a great deal of knowledge about strange and arcane philosophy (beyond me anyway). The original "Peng challenge" thread then spiralled into a strange philosophical debate / taunting thread which apparently grew in popularity and has now morphed into this sort of 'super challenge' thread involving teams or something. I have to admit that I have never read so much as one post in the Peng thread (or any of its offspring) after the first few posts in the original thread. I've never had any heated arguments with any member of the cesspool (that I know of) with perhaps one exception - although I've come to the conclusion that the general consensus among "Poolers" is that the game is just fine the way it is. The majority of the "defenders of the faith" are probably "Poolers" (just my opinion). The "Peng" threads have no effect on me since I just don't read them, nor do I have any interest in reading them. Personally, if some people are into that sort of thing, then let them have at it. There are many threads on this message board that I don't read and that is just one of many. About the only thing I would be (mildly) curious about is whether either Peng or Seanichi are even still posting in the "Peng" threads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: "Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston. Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages. We expect to charge about $25 postpaid for the book, in U.S. funds. Thanks for nice comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does that mean that if I say that I want one in three different posts in this same thread that I can get an autographed copy?

My vote for the best troops in WW2 is anyone who was willing to drive around in an FT17 .... especially in 1944. Anyone willing to drive around in a deathtrap like that has to have some serious balls.

I think this should be turned around. Will there be Soviet troops included in CM5 (The Rising Sun - if they venture into the Pacific )? It would be more appropriate to add Soviets to a Japanese focused game than to add Japanese to a Soviet focused game (if that makes any sense)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: CM in the Pacific would be bit boring, I have to admit. The Japanese Army was poorly equipped, and its doctines were Medieval. And both of its real enemies were technological and industrial giants. In the Pacific, the Stuart Tank was the Panther, and the Sherman was the King Tiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One man's pile of trash is another man's pot of gold. Pacific fighting would simply be more focused on infantry fighting where tanks take a back seat. People who love huge tank battles would probably be bored to tears. People who love infantry combat would find the fighting in the Pacific and CBI to be an excellent diversion from your endless parade of Panthers and Tigers vs (fill in the blank)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Horses - here you are way off. I agree that there were not many cavalry charges on either front (and none I can think of after 1943 on the Western front), but they were used in the early war years, particularly by the Russians. The horses were actually not engaged in mass charges, but used in about the same way Gen. Buford used them in the American Civil War - ride your horse to the battle, then dismount and fight. I would imagine they could be treated that way in CM. See the above suggestion for cycles for implementation. MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, cavalry were used in mass charges in world war 2 - probably not very often, but it happened. One time that I can think of right off the top of my head was the Italian Savoi Regiment (I think) conducted a full up mounted saber flashing charge in best Napoleonic style and overran several Soviet infantry units who were guarding a bridgehead of some kind. I don't remember the specifics of it at the moment, but perhaps someone who does can comment on it. Anyway, I agree with Peter on one thing - no need to drag up "The Great Horse Controversy" again . Personally, I think that would be an excellent scenario to make . The Germans actually conducted a motorcycle mounted assault during the invasion of Holland in order to capture the Dutch Queen and the government. I'm sure the Germans were all wearing their leather biker outfits at the time - very fashionable in Holland so I've heard :eek: . Anyway, I never play quick battles and my interest in these things is as a scenario maker exclusively - I can certainly see where someone who mostly played quick battles may not see the usefulness of these items (or just focus on any percieved gamey issues). I am glad to see Partisans on the list of items that was to be included in CM2 in the article. I think that will allow scenario designers a great deal of freedom for East Front scenarios. I will be curious to see how BTS handles them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Horses - here you are way off. I agree that there were not many cavalry charges on either front (and none I can think of after 1943 on the Western front), but they were used in the early war years, particularly by the Russians. The horses were actually not engaged in mass charges, but used in about the same way Gen. Buford used them in the American Civil War - ride your horse to the battle, then dismount and fight. I would imagine they could be treated that way in CM. See the above suggestion for cycles for implementation. MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, cavalry were used in mass charges in world war 2 - probably not very often, but it happened. One time that I can think of right off the top of my head was the Italian Savoi Regiment (I think) conducted a full up mounted saber flashing charge in best Napoleonic style and overran several Soviet infantry units who were guarding a bridgehead of some kind. I don't remember the specifics of it at the moment, but perhaps someone who does can comment on it. Anyway, I agree with Peter on one thing - no need to drag up "The Great Horse Controversy" again . Personally, I think that would be an excellent scenario to make . The Germans actually conducted a motorcycle mounted assault during the invasion of Holland in order to capture the Dutch Queen and the government. I'm sure the Germans were all wearing their leather biker outfits at the time - very fashionable in Holland so I've heard :eek: . Anyway, I never play quick battles and my interest in these things is as a scenario maker exclusively - I can certainly see where someone who mostly played quick battles may not see the usefulness of these items (or just focus on any percieved gamey issues). I am glad to see Partisans on the list of items that was to be included in CM2 in the article. I think that will allow scenario designers a great deal of freedom for East Front scenarios. I will be curious to see how BTS handles them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: This includes scouting, patrolling and so on. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, then why are all those armored cars etc included in CM? Or maybe you are arguing selectively here? Motorcycles are part of recon TO&Es and you don't like them so they are out. Armored Cars are part of the TO&E of recon units, but you like them so they are in. Did I get the essentials of your argument correctly? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you're proposing "we should include the BMW bike so it can scout out positions and shoot its mg while in a CM battle", well i'd call you a gamey son-of-a- and argue there is no point in including it so people can use the BMW in such an ahistorical manner. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's ahistorical about that? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The BMW motorbike and sidecar simply wasn't a part of front-line equipment. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Motorcycles were standard TO&E for early war German recon forces and served as the recon battalion's infantry in many cases. It doesn't get much more frontline than that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now folks could say that it would die quickly used in scouty combat so it wouldn't be gamey to include it. Which leads to the question 'well what role would you use it for?'. If it can't scout and can't fight well, and all it's good for is hidding in a barn, well it's as much use as a field kitchen. Both were in the war. But I have yet to see the point in setting up a front lines assault bakery unit. Nor have i seen the point of including motorbikes. Or horses. or bicycles. or bakery teams. or mine dogs. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You really are pretty amazing in your broad sweeping statements about what is and isn't appropriate for CM. I think I've said all I'm going to say on this issue though. People seem to get pretty worked up about these things around here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: This includes scouting, patrolling and so on. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, then why are all those armored cars etc included in CM? Or maybe you are arguing selectively here? Motorcycles are part of recon TO&Es and you don't like them so they are out. Armored Cars are part of the TO&E of recon units, but you like them so they are in. Did I get the essentials of your argument correctly? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you're proposing "we should include the BMW bike so it can scout out positions and shoot its mg while in a CM battle", well i'd call you a gamey son-of-a- and argue there is no point in including it so people can use the BMW in such an ahistorical manner. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's ahistorical about that? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The BMW motorbike and sidecar simply wasn't a part of front-line equipment. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Motorcycles were standard TO&E for early war German recon forces and served as the recon battalion's infantry in many cases. It doesn't get much more frontline than that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now folks could say that it would die quickly used in scouty combat so it wouldn't be gamey to include it. Which leads to the question 'well what role would you use it for?'. If it can't scout and can't fight well, and all it's good for is hidding in a barn, well it's as much use as a field kitchen. Both were in the war. But I have yet to see the point in setting up a front lines assault bakery unit. Nor have i seen the point of including motorbikes. Or horses. or bicycles. or bakery teams. or mine dogs. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You really are pretty amazing in your broad sweeping statements about what is and isn't appropriate for CM. I think I've said all I'm going to say on this issue though. People seem to get pretty worked up about these things around here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Incidentally, it would also be less ruinous to go to "crawl" or stationary in the open, if the cover from that were better than moving, assaulting, running. Even if the effect is not large. How so? A small cover difference may lead the enemy shooter to prefer a different target, at a slightly greater range. Thus going to ground can works as an "after you, Alfonsi" sort of thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course, if grazing fire were simulated, the MG could still engage the closer target using the danger space from the line of fire. I'm still hoping for full grazing fire simulation, although these other things are very important too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: Thanks for the informative read ASL Vet. I am curious when the FPL-Grazing Fire of MGs would be applicable in CM terms. Would it only be possible in defensive, prepared positions, ie stationary from setup? Or could a platoon of MGs prepare these fires in short order after moving to new positions, ie in a meeting engagement? Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, in game terms I think you should be able to set one up without having prepared positions. In real life it would require a man walking the FPL to find dead space, but in the game you could just look at the map to determine the dead space - there is no need to have a man 'walk' the FPL. Interesting question though. Even in real life you could always position the MG to perform grazing fire, it is just that if someone wasn't walking the FPL you wouldn't know where your dead space was. That wouldn't make it any less effective if no dead space was present though. Walking the FPL in CM is performed by the LOS tool though. I guess it would just depend. Personally I wouldn't see any reason why it would require prepared positions to be effective.

Also I might note that the FM says that 1 meter high is about hip height for a standing man (I don't know metrics too well so I can't comment on the accuracy of that) and MGs aren't generally set up with the barrel level at hip height. The barrel would be much closer to the ground than that so if you used ... say barrel at .5 meter height with the trajectory not exceeding 1 meter maybe that would get better results.

Some sample muzzle velocities MG 34 and 42: 755 m/s MG 08/15 (German WW1 MG): 900 m/s US .30 cal M1917: 854 m/s US .50 cal M2HB: 884 m/s Soviet PMO 1910 (Maxim): 863 m/s Gun, Machine, Vickers, 0.303, Mark 1: 744 m/s Japanese 7.7mm Type 92: 732 m/s Italian Mitriaglice Fiat 1914/35: 790 m/s French Hotchkiss: 725 m/s