Tero

Originally posted by flamingknives: Define thin armour. Armour of the M113 is 1.125" at the thinnest, so I would seriously doubt that 7.62x39mm would penetrate this, even if it was fired from underneath (thinnest point is the floor). When equipped with uparmour kits, the Warrior can resist RPG 7 rockets from the side. Hull armour is proof against 14.5mm AP, so the Warrior is not vulnerable to AK47s AFAIK there is a special AP shot for the 7.62x39 caliber in existence.

Deja vu

Originally posted by JonS: Besides, just wait till you hear some of the Finns banging on about the Mk.IIIa Anti-Tank Toothpicks and stuff. Now THAT is humour, and blind prejudice. You called, sir ? Since you evoked the Finnish connection I'll bite. Pertaining the initiative and lattitude of junior leaders and rank and file in general I have a rather graphic example of what was the differences between the Finnish army and the US army. The example is temporally set in the winter of 1939-40 and in the winter of 1944-45. The initial situation was a mirror image when it comes to the level of supplies. The Finnish army was short on every kind of item you care to mention, the US army had absolutely anything they needed at their disposal. For all their initiative and opulence the US army junior grade officers and rank and file sustained an embarrassing percentage of casualties to trenchfoot and related causes during the winter of 1944-45. The favourite explanation is the supply system was harnessed to bring up ammo and fuel. Yet even the German army, being at the end of its tether, was apparently able to avoid similarly appaling numbers of casualties of this type. Thanks to their experiences during the winter of 1941-42. By contrast, the Finnish sustained a negligible amount of casualties to trenchfoot and related causes and the supply system was harnessed to bring up warm food since there was not much in the order of ammo and fuel to move around. IMO this is the kind of example where the individual initiative and lattitude given to junior grade leaders is fairly compared. The US army of WWII is said to be the ultimate machine when it comes to adaptability and flexibility. Yet, the only time when they tackled the elements in adverse conditions this supposed high level of individual initiative and lattitude broke down. Both the Finnish and the US armies were in the same predicament. For example they could have no fires during day light near the front line to dry up clothes and to prepare a hot meal. Granted, being taught what to do to prevent trenchfoot is not the same knowing what will happen if you do not take care of your personal gear. Since Finnish flesh is as susceptible to trenchfoot as the US flesh there must be some other explanations. One is the Finnish high command could not afford as many non-combat related casualties as the US army could. Hence the spritit of avoiding needless casualties of any kind was instilled throughout the ranks. If a Finnish soldier became a casualty to trenchfoot it was widely thought it was his own fault. I would hesitate to say it was paramount to shooting yourself in the foot but from what I have read the situation had to be extermely bad if he was not directly blamed for the injury.

Originally posted by SgtDuke6216: I am still baffled by the democratic remark.... The junior grade officers and NCO's were not PERMITTED as much lattitude or required show initiative in the American and the British army whereas in the German army the junior grade officer and NCO was permitted the latitude he needed in order to fulfill the task at hand and they were EXPECTED to show initiative. For example in the British army the officers were discouraged from becoming intimate with the subordiantes. If he rose from the ranks he was never ever given a command in his old unit.

Originally posted by Andreas: Certainly some of what I have read about late-war indicates that automatic infantry weapons were not that common. So they collected all of them for the photo-op when ever there was a camera around ? Seriously: is your remark based on the Eastern or the Western Front experiences ? I would think it could be that in the Western Front the need for semi/full automatic weapons was not that pronounced. Given the make up of the Western Allies platoons, their (especially American) tendency to relegate the automatics to non-essential personel and their reliance on support fire power more than man power on attack would not have necessitated the Western front German formations to be as reliant on personal fire power as they would have been on squad/platoon level fire power. Generally speaking.

Originally posted by btm: I do feel that there is a strong anti-American bias in many supposedly scholarly works. It is not anti-American to not to revere the Americans just because they are Americans.

Originally posted by Big Jim: The M1 and BAR were developed with different ideas in mind however- the Americans were working toward the assault rifle idea (slowly, and perhaps unknowingly(?)), where as the Germans were into kick-ass machine guns. IIRC, the BAR was a WWI weapon and the M1 was shiny and new, and the Germans had developed the first ever GPMG, the MG34, then the MG42. The MG42 fired something like 1200rpm! :eek: The idea behind pumping out so many bullets being to hit an enemy who was dashing from cover to cover in the short amount of time he was exposed. The Germans realized in the Eastern Front they needed to get the entire platoon into semi/full auto gear if they were to stay in pace with their adversaries. I suppose the counterargument to the 'superamis' is that the troops of other nations eg. Germans had to carry ammunition for the squad LMG, so were weighed down equally by that in the same way Americans had their own M1 ammo. Agreed. But the Ami semi-auto ROF advantage in aimed fire situations was not there when compared to the bolt action rifle. And in suppression fire they had to overcome the MG-42 before they could progress. I so lament the design decision to alter, at the behest of some IMO misguided criteria, the platoon ROF/ammo load out modelling because supposedly the German use of SMG's made the German platoon too powerful when compared to the Allied platoons.

Originally posted by Big Jim: The American supply situation wasn't really a shortage of gear though, just in that case of very bad planning- Agreed. I still find it inexcuseable to sustain needless casualties due to wet clothing as late as the winter of 1944-45 when all the other players had taken heed of the lessons learned elsewhere. Perhaps they may tire quicker with more ammo, but this would affect the balance of the tiredness system which works pretty well in my opinion- So we end up with Ami super-infantry with ample/generous load of ammo which they can haul at the same rate as the Germans haul their scarse load ? I just see the point that they have a hell of a lot of ammo for the pretty high ROF of their weapons. Not as high as the Germans ROF though... Aimed fire with semi-auto weapons can not be very accurate if you use your ROF to the max. The M1 and BAR can't beat the MG-42 in ROF now can they.

Originally posted by Big Jim: So the question remains- is the ammo loadout for US troops in CMAK too good, especially considering low German ammo points? This begs for a counter guestion: are the Americans too agile in the game compared to the Germans, considering the ammo load out disparity ? AFAIK all infantry in the game is rated for experience, not LBE weight distribution. On the excellence of the US supply system: the US army was the only army to loose considerable amount of men to trenchfoot and other related causes as late as the winter of 1944-45. The Germans had learned their lesson in the winter of 1941 and their supply system was able to handle both ammo and clothing resupply in conditions where the US supply system failed (relatively speaking). I would hesitate to say the US army was a fair weather army but that idea does rear its head.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: while Finns had only some 20 StuGs, about 10 captured Soviet tanks (most were T-34s, a couple of KV-1s & ISU-152s) plus some 20 German StuGs. You are not counting the T-26's. Finns lost some 10 tanks, 8 Stugs and 30-something other models , including BT-42's and T-26's. I'll have to check the total. and 8000-10000 men. AFAIK the official number is 12 000 KIA.

Originally posted by Axe2121: (Plus my meat face into the Stuart picture.) That seems to a Matilda, actually. (The tank I mean. ) And the double barrel seems to be a Churchill Mk1 with a 3" gun in the bow and 2prd in the turret.

"Sorry, can't engage that target with the MG. It is outside the cover arc."

Originally posted by MikeyD: I've seen exactly ONE photo of a Russian ZIS-3 gun in German service. One of those common American photos of a collection of captured German anti-tank guns in a field . I saw it awhile ago, I'm trying to recall where the photo was taken. 70% chance it was taken in France, 30% chance it was in Italy. I'd bet money that the ZIS-3 gun wasn't rebored (admittedly, not based on anything). I've never quite understood how the Germans could rebore a 76.2mm barrel to accept 75mm ammo. The numbers seem to go in the wrong direction! I can imagine rechambering to accept a German bottle-shaped case mated to a 76.2mm shell, though the Russian guns in German service still certainly use the Russian breech. The ZIS-3 76,5 was not rebored to 75mm since the 75mm is nominally smaller than the 76,2mm. They did rebore the 76,2mm and 85mm AA guns to 88mm.

Originally posted by Panzerman: That and the fact that Me-110's were uses more and more as night fighters after mid 1942. There were not that many of them used after they were found to be unable to deal with the threat of allied fighters. OK, I'll buy that. While on the subject of rarity: howcome in a 1000pt ME the British get several Matildas or other hard to kill variants plus lighter stuff while the Germans get two PzKw-III's with short 50mm plus some assorted lighter vehicles. The guestion is: are the rarities based on in-theater forces or more general criteria ? AFAIK DAK sailed with a generous assortment of vehicles (relatively speaking) and what was rarer in other theaters was much more common in DAK. By the same token the British Matildas were not as common as your garden variety Cruisers and Crusaders.

No. </font>

Seems a bit excessive.

Originally posted by Corvidae: The german 88 is a cumbersome and heavy gun, instead of a permanent gun carriage it has 2 sepperate carriages that must be removed durring setup, once its placed, it cant be moved without a long and complicated dissasembly and reasembly, Unlike other guns in the game, the 88 is not a rapid deployment weapon, it is an emplacement weapon, think of it as a railway gun with road capability, when deployed it rests on a pedistal with 4 arms for stability, these arms are staked to the ground with long metal stakes, asking an 88 crew to move their gun several times in one day is a very good way to provoke a mutiny, This is true. But lets not forget there is ample pictorial evidence of the gun being fired while limbered.

Never mind that. Where did he get all those Action Man figures ? I have not seen anything like that for a couple of decades. Unfortunately my Action Men in Wehrmacht gear suffered the misfortune of winding up in the business end of a BB gun. Now that I have 4 sons I feel the need to have Action Men again but nowadays they come with Mickey Mouse gear. :mad:

Originally posted by K_Tiger: Its maybe from interesst, that the follower of the PPSch41, the PPS43 looks more like a MP40...Does this have anything to say? PPS43 Yup. Mass producing stamped steel components is more cost effective.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Accuracy? The SMG is decidedly an area weapon, though the Sten Mk II was derided for its lack of accuracy even at point blank range. The Thompson too had its tendency to climb at high rates of fire, but at high rates of fire how necessary is it to get a five inch grouping? The Mk V Sten, as you point out, was apparently easier to control, given the fore grip and wood stock. Not too many hunters in the Western armies I guess. The Suomi is a mule if you fire it full auto like you fire a regular rifle = press the stock to your shoulder and hold on tight for control. Finnish SMG gunners were told or they learned to fire it like you fire a shotgun = hold it steady but not tight to your shoulder. That way even long bursts can be controlled and the shots are placed more accurately. Like most SMGs it was not intended as a front line weapon but as a secondary weapon for AFV crews, MPs, truck drivers etc. That is the Anglo-American tradition. What about the Finnish and Russian traditions ? Finnish truck drivers and arty pukes where given such quality weapons like Terni PoS bolt action rifles (supposedly accurate enough for rapid fire LR head shots in America ) One might consider an infantry section commander's primary weapon as "secondary" also in that he he generally leading the section and not using his SMG too terribly often but we can make that a seperate argument if that is seriously in dispute. Again, this is the Anglo-American tradition. Russian soldiers loved MP40s and German soldiers loved PPSh SMGs, it is not an indication of reliability or effectiveness, just the natural affinity soldiers have to acquire status symbols, and to regard their own stuff as "****" no matter how good it really is. Actually, that affection was more due to RoF than prestige. Given a choice between a Kar98k and a PPSh, I would likely take the PPSh given battle ranges of 200 metres or so, so again, it is not being overly laudatory of the PPSh vis a vis the MP40, simply a demonstration of the other affinity for soldiers in the modern era - scrounging, or "finding a better 'ole". Such triffle, insignificant arguments like ammor resupply in the combat zone do not affect the equation in the battlefield ?

Originally posted by Cthulhu Dreams: I always just assumed the dust was a fairly tallish plume, so my guys would have no trouble seeing it rise above the ridgeline. Like, if the plume is 100 meters high, the ridgeline isn;t going to totally block LOS to the cloud. True. But the way it s modelled now the plume is at 100m instantly, as it were. And you can always pinpoint the exact location of the vehicle making it.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys: It is easier, however, to copy and paste from a PDF. Yes. But can you take it with you when you go to the loo ?

Originally posted by Martyr: There's a note on page 62 of the CMAK manual that answers your question. The upshot is that there's no dust at night. I'm too lazy to copy the relevant passage, however. And I am too lazy to open the PDF file. Bring back the proper manuals, damn it !

Originally posted by Martyr: Of course we can all imagine circumstances in which it would be absurd (a foggy night on a 6km x 4km map), but those will be very rare. What about night battles ? I assume the feature is present even then. If not then it all is pretty much OK. In general, dust is a factor only in dry conditions, and dry conditions occur mostly with the clear weather that makes Andrew Kulin's explanation more than plausible. In general I am would agree with him and you. But even given that the fact the clouds reach all the way to the ground which make me think it as more of an excuse than a fully fledged explanation. The dusk and dawn are a bit vague when it comes to defining it in the game.

Just noticed in PBEM set in dusk visibility constrains you can see dust clouds kicked up by moving vehicles beyond the prevailing visibility limit. Has this been discussed in detail ? If so, directions would be appreciated. [ April 11, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]