Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best?
He says war is an EXTENTION of politics.
Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones.
Yes. But nowadays the operations are governed by the polls and the proximity of elections more than high principles.
They might not be good ones but they are there.
True.
-
Tero, you are the only one assigning bias as a qualifier to "consistency."
Actually I am conteding that historical consistency can be drawn from facts which are presented with biases.
Consistency is a logical fuction. History is more often than not biased. Historical consistency, by definition, does not mean thesis-antithesis-synthesis as it can be reached with any of two of the factors being absent. No is it by default unbiased or impartial.
Even with historical references, consistency isn't bias.
Of course not. But if you swear by consistency and claim at the same time there are NO room for biases especially when the consistency you are trying to find is in the realm of ultimate biases then the logical path from hard, cold facts to consistent models derived from them is broken.
I have no problems with consistencies. But when you label it historical consistency and claim that there is no room for biases then I just simply disagree.
That's absurd. Consistency in historical references is to treat ALL relevant factors of an historical event at the appropriate level for which they contributed to that event.
The problems here are: can you be confident you have ALL the relevant factors at your disposal, who decides what is relevant and who decides what factor works at the appropriate level and how significantly, if at all, they even contributed to the event ?
Also, by whose standards do you define the event in terms of space and timeframe ? Do you apply only period standards (and in that case from which side) or do you allow factors to be modified according to retroactive criteria ?
And from the most objective viewpoint possible, with minimal linkage to national bias.
That is a noble goal.
Now, take by example the recent CM forum discussion on Enfield rifles and aimed-fire training. Some posters argued that aimed fire, as a doctrine, defined the effectiveness of UK/Commonwealth armies. To me, that's historical inconsistency to arrive at "army effectiveness" by aimed fire alone. It ignores the contributions of artillery, armor, combined arms, logistics, attritional capabilities, etc. which all probably had relatively greater impact on UK army effectiveness.
IMO the Garand is overmodelled when compared to the Lee-Enfield. Both the US and the BritCom infantry used pretty much the same doctrine when it came to the employment of the principal infantry firearm. It did not define the effectivness of the armies but it did define the effectiveness of the Allied infantry small units (squads and platoons).
At higher levels these assests contibuted to the performance of the infantry. But that contribution was also counter productive in non-typical tactical situations. What has to be taken into account is the fact that in the micro level the contributions of artillery, armor, combined arms, logistics, attritional capabilities, etc can not be calculated in when the effectiveness of the infantry small units are determined. These assets had no direct impact on the combat effectivness and performance of the squads and platoons. The fact that the infantry units TRAINED to act as parts of the machine with all the assets at their disposal can not be ignored either. We have to look at what historically happened when the assets were denied or their performance/effectiveness reduced. IMO in this case the premise of historical consistency is not met when it comes to the relative performance of the US and the BritCom infantry small units when it comes to the principal small arms.
That wasn't necessary for the example. The point of the example is that it is very easy for game designs, even wargames, to take shortcuts with some game elements that wargamers might consider critical in treatment. A more common example is "command & control" if that helps you recognize an example as just that.
Point taken. The infantry close assault was too close to home.
Never played SP, but played the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader series. As infantry, the Finns were treated like relative battlefield gods in that game system.
I nevel played SL/ASL.
You're confusing "consistent" with "generic."
What is the difference, in CM terms ?
That's why some aspects are getting more detailed treatment, like armor platoon C&C, artillery fire control flexibility, etc. In this case, some added detail or revision is needed to preserve consistency.
It still amazes me how easily they took the SMG ammo tweak in.
Tero, you may have a problem with the term, but the fact of the matter remains in that consistency IS a criteria to wargame design.
Again, the only problem I have is with the historical part. Historical consistency was thrown out when it was decided the stabilizer was in (with no malfuction penalty to boot) while the optics were out. Or it was excerted with a purpose.
If it's inconsistent, then it'll never approach relative historical realism, no matter how many minute little details are added in here & there.
Relative historical realism ? Relative to what ? Within the game or to RL occurances ?
You seem to manage to pict the terms that raise the hair in my neck.
I do agree a ton of accurate bits of detailed data do not salvage you if your basic model is flawed.
Strive for consistency first, and then worry about what details to apply while maintaining a consistent model.
Works for Microsoft ?
The other way around is putting the cart before the horse, and is a poor design process.
Have you ever wondered why the man is behind the wheelbarrow while the horse is in front of the cart ? Is the conventional horse cart configuration the only one possible ?
Try this as an analogy. If I want to fasten some hardware down onto a surface, do I first worry about bolt thread pitch and threads/inch? No, because first-off, bolts might not even be the right fastener type. First establish the appropriate fastener, its length & diameter. Then worry about thread pitch if you are using some bolt or screw.
I think the first consideration should be the surface you try to fasten it on.
You state it as if proven. Very well, then, run various tests and tabulate your results, then run it by BTS. But the statement above doesn't cut the mustard by itself.
Actually it has been proven that while the physical model is plausible each occurance is totally new for the game engine (and thus basically correct in principle) while for the player each occurance in separate games is accumulative. A reverse example: first shot hit propabilities of the hand held AT assets in CM is lousy to say the least and attributed to the (bad)luck factor among other things. Word from BTS has it that this kind of consistent unluckiness is under review.
That last statement verifies again your belief that BTS sought a "pro-US bias" through subtleties in the game model.
If there is a bias it is a pro-Allied bias. That would be historically consistent, given the outcome of the war.
Duly noted, then. Now prove it in a compelling way.
As I said my misgivings are mostly feelers:
Cross section targeting, first shot hit propability and spotting are intervowen. For example I have had a lone Stuart emerge from woods into a clearing and a MG fired on it from woods (in fact KT's hull MG. The fire discipline is an other issue not related to specific forces) and the Stuart targeted it. Instead of engageing the MG the Stuart backed off. How could it know it was a KT when only the hull MG was being fired UNLESS the cross section targeting revealed more than it should to the TacAI ? Spotting the KT in the woods is a plausible excuse except I have also had Stuarts in similar situations engage MG teams which just opened up without widrawing. For the fast turreted Allied tanks this is no problem as they can target and most propably dispatch the opponent before it can widraw.
stabilizers: "partially on" benefit with no malfuction penalties
optics out: no concrete evidence, but then again I have seen no concrete evidence of stabilizers being used, quite the contarary
AT guns picking any damn target they please: a problem for all except the German gets to play more with them. And in all fairness this "feature" does help the Allied more than it does help the Germans since the Allied player is less likely to be inundated by oncoming armour.
pillboxes/bunkers being classes as vehicles: sound targets giving their nature and location. Also: only available to the Germans.
It's again left to you to prove the last statement that the game model translation was intended by design to favor the US side. Or at least argue it in a compelling way.
I never said they favour the US side. They favour the ALLIED side. And intentional or not there were design decisions made that were not "balanced": the Germans had rifle grenades but only the Allied/US player gets them, supposedly because there are Panzer Fausts for the Germans. If "fair" game play is the goal then you should not be "fair" to one side only.
Compile on as you wish. But do allow the possibility that BTS may still ultimately reject your findings.
I have a bucket full of ashes and a spare set of clothes I can rip to shreads reserved for such unlikely eventuality.
The American Civil War, for starters.
Irrelevant, given the advances made in tactics and doctrine after it and before WWII. Why not go as far back as the Roman legions during their civil wars ?
Allow completely theoretical examples as possible comparison points.
If you want comparison points then you should have given parallel examples to go with the first example. From my POV your example was fundamentaly flawed because it assumed table top like conditions with Airfix scale figures.
If you don't, then your process of analysis is too inflexible.
Even the theoretical examples have to be realistic enough to be plausible.
Some things for a theoretical example, like who's attacking and who's defending, are useful as qualifiers. But for other things like terrain or prior losses, try to be flexible enough to consider "all other things being equal."
Your example depicted a rookie force with a short basic training followed by a stint in the front lines vs a professional unit with years of drilling in tactics and doctrine under what I assume are as realistic conditions as possible, but no front line experience.
The nature of the rookie formation casualties are important in case they lost officers or NCO's and they got fresh replacements with minimal training and no combat experience. No casualties is way better than 10% casualties with 50% of the officers and NCO's being taken out.
Terrain is all important if they had trained in flat, green open pastures of home and they wind up in arid, hot and hilly terrain for example.
Somehow, I get the impression that CMBB will be "lost" to you too. We shall see, though.
I will not skin the bear just yet. Believe me, if CMBB delivers I will be properly extatic.
Again, you state it as fact, while not privy to the extent of the CM code & code structure. Calling something "easy to implement" might be a little presumptuous. Perhaps it might indeed be easy to apply. But after all of the discussion here, it hasn't been established in a compelling way how such a revision will really add to the CM model.
You yourself said BTS has not popped in to deliver any input. Until they do all this is just hot air.
It will add detail, but will it be consistent in application?
If the model is historically consistent there should not be any problems with consistency in application. If a LMG/MMG unit is generic and historically consistently modelled then all you need to do is remodel the platoon organisation to form organic LMG unit(s) into the platoon, arm it with an appropriate weapon and support weapons, name it different, alter some assorted parameters and vóila you have an organic platoon BOF unit in your hands.
And is it so important as to merit BTS's time & effort relative to other design problems & issues?
For one the pre-war Finnish platoon was historically made out of 2 rifle squads with 1 (later 2 or more) SMG's and 2 rapid fire rifle (LMG) squads with 1 RFR/LMG and support rifles for the ammo bearers:
Infantry squad was 1+ 9 men (leader, SMG gunner, 7 riflemen, 1 riflegrenade man.
Squad weapons: 9 rifles, 1 SMG, 1 rifle grenade launcher
I think the riflegrenade was in paper only. I have never seen any references it being used in combat.
LMG squad was 1+ 6 men (leader, LMG gunner, gunners assistant, 4 ammo beares of which one can double up as the sharp shooter), Squad weapons: 5 rifles, 1 LMG, 2 pistols (for the gunner and his assistant)
A 1941 -1944 (CMBB) period platoon could have up to a dozen or even more SMG's and numerous LMG's. I'm still looking for an official OOB but for all I know the platoon structure remained the same throughout the war, only the number of automatics increased through battle field acquisitions.
To be historically accurate and historically consistent the OOB should be realistic enough and to be historically consistent, since some people think the tactics are in the realm of the player, Finnish tactics should work with the Finnish platoon better than they now work in CM with ahistorical forces.
[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Username:
tero, not that I am saying that I would like you to go somewhere else
Then what are saying ?
but it really sounds that maybe a CC type game could suit you best. Have you put forth your ideas to them?
-
Of course there are biased references on WWII and other military-related subjects. Heck, I've found some regarding the WWII strategic bombing campaign with some pretty obvious author's bias. Then it's up to a good historical wargame designer to cross-reference and seek out the more reliable, objective historical sources. Some such sources do actually exist out there.
Yes. But I think the term "historical consistency" should not be used in this context. How do you reconcile historical facts pertaining technical aspects of hardware and historical facts that carry moral connotations ? What is the scale in which these separate spheres influence the facts being examined. The term "historically consistent" carries inherent writer/reader dependant biases even if they are not perceived to be biases. They may be such factors that the writer/reader take for granted because their frame of reference conditions them to bypass them without questioning them.
Tero, I was posing an example.
Yes. However the example was incomplete when you failed to mention why that one aspect was treated arbitrarily. The why is as important as the what. That infantry close assulting the armour is one of the most "mistreated" aspects in wargames in general.
If you've played the TalonSoft Campaign Series, then you'd might find some such examples of what I was talking about.
BoB and the Over the Reich (?) are the only games by them I have played.
Not per my definition. Historical wargames that have consistent game models are likely to be historically consistent too. CM is one such example (even allowing room for future improvement). Give me an example of an inconsistent wargame model that is still historically consistent.
In your 27 years of war gaming how many time have you seen the Finnish forces depicted and of these how many would you say are accurate depictions ? Historical consistency was not met in SP for example where the AI would pick 30 FT tanks for the Finns when playing a QB style battle with AI purchased forces.
This is why I dislike the term. If a game system works on principles of historical consistency then it should also work for the lesser known participants who historically used tactics and doctrine dissimilar to the tactics and doctrine the game system was built to depict. Historically consistent model made to depict the battles in France may not work 1:1 when transferred to the Eastern Front and applied to armies which differe from eachother AND the western armies.
Sorry, not quite valid examples. If the game scale (single-vehicle) is detailed enough such that 37mm guns CAN get an occasional kill against a German uber-tank, that by itself isn't inconsistent.
I agree the ability to kill is not inconsistent. However the frequency with which it occurs in the game is. But I think that is more a statistical anomaly/inconsistency than a historical inconsistency. But it is still an anomaly/inconsistency.
What would be a valid example of inconsistency is if a 37mm-gunned tank, firing on the move at a Panther 2500 meters away (also moving), regularly scores kills under such conditions.
Well, the term being debated is historical consistency. When we take a sample of stories and historical documents about Allied AFV's armed with the 37mm gun can you honestly say you find regular, consistent remarks about how they killed the German heavies (any tank really as all they encountered were Tigers) ? Technically they had a 1 in a 100/1000 (depending if it was a PzKw-IV or a Tiger) chance of actually killing one but how often did they duke it out with them and how many did they actually kill, according to historical records ? Just because the German 37mm AA gun has a reputation of being a potent tank killer does not warrant the uncanny, consistent ability to kill the heavies by Allied AFV's armed with 37mm gun.
BTS recently took up the issue of "easy kills while firing on the move" in CM. BTS also tabulated its results here. My review of the tabulation didn't reveal (IMO) any gross inconsistencies, although later improvements are worth considering.
Can you point me to the tread ?
And then the typical accusation thus is often made that somehow BTS has some inherent "pro-US" bias.
While I think there are some aspects that are iffy (stabilizers for example) and some of the (mass)modelings that seem to have been done according to the US military doctrine in a way that does not reflect the ways the other armies went about things I have not seen any clearly pro-US biases. Then again combinations of such aspects as cross section targeting, stabilizers, first shot hit propabilities, AT guns picking any damn target they please, pillboxes/bunkers being classes as vehicles etc seem to lean towards the Allies in certain tactical situations. Nothing clear, nothing obvious but sometimes I do get a feeling the home team got a helping hand from the referees.
I will tell you straight-out, tero. In my 27 years of wargaming, one WWII nationality has always been head-&-shoulders above all others in terms of favorably biased treatment---the Germans. ESPECIALLY in boardgames which had greater levels of abstraction. And yet, with CM, there suddenly rises up so much of this unsubstantiated claim of BTS's "pro-US" bias instead.
I think such claims are the counterproduct of the histories telling you how the Germans were better and their arms were better. Now that CM took a more statistical look at things the tables turned. While these statistical facts are startling they are maybe too "purely" presented in CM (the case in point being the 37mm tank gun).
But is it inconsistently applied in CM?
In CM ? No. But that is because the participants are basically chips off the same block.
That has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt so to get BTS to consider an added troop quality definer. Insofar, I don't think you've made your case strongly enough.
That is because I am still compiling the data.
Case in point: a unit, highly drilled in peacetime tactics for about 1-2 years, runs into an enemy unit that is equal strength, with equivalent weapons, having only 1-2 months training in the very same tactics, but also experienced in combat for about 2-4 months.
One minor flaw in your example: how many opposing armies are you aware of that were training in the very same tactics ? I know none.
I do not if that one can slide.
Which unit would you lay odds on?
I have a hard time swallowing the very same tactics bit. I need more data: what about the terrain, is it comparable or totally different for these forces have trained in ? Is the terrain they fight comparable to terrain either of the trained or is it unfamiliar to both of them ? Which unit is the attacker, the rookies or the pros ? What are their respective missions ? What kind of casualties have the rookies sustained so far ?
So---getting back to the issue of creating squad BOF weapons as separate teams
That was one heck of a detour.
this is recognized to be requested as an added detail. Would it be inconsistent in application? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it first has to be argued in a compelling way for BTS to consider making some added effort to include it. Then it has to be tested to see how well it works in the CM model before the revision "goes public."
CM is "lost" but CM2 is still salvageable.
If the concept happens to fail either criteria, are you then prepared to move on?
What else is there to do ?
But I just can not see how it could fail. BOF is a RL concept well tested and tried, even more importantly more or less universally used in one form or another. If the CM model is done properly the concept should be easy to implement.
-
As much as it makes me want to hurl, Jason's estimate about how much the MG team would carry is about right according to Alex Buchner.
Before you do hurl check out your quote:
"gun leader" a case of ammunition
Gunner 1 took the machine gun,
Gunner 2 the folded mantelet,
Gunners 3 and 4 carried two ammunition cases each, making a first supply of 1500 rounds.
I count only 5 men in the HMG team. IIRC there are 6 men in the HMG team in CM. Which is the historically correct number, 5 by your source or 6 by CM modelling ?
Plus a two horse field wagon with driver
Hmmmmmmmmm........
The heavy machine gun group consisted of a leader and two crews, each with one "gun leader", gunners 1 through 4.
I make a German HMG section consisted of 2 guns + 12 men (section leader, horse cart driver, 2 gun leaders and 8 gunners). Divide that by two you get 6 men per gun.
Approximation based on an abstraction ? Should the MG42 HMG sold only in pairs (as would be the appropriate OOB) or separate ?
IIRC Steve went over this and explained it detail not long ago.
So although the 'first' ammunition that would be carried by the team would be 1500 rounds they could always send a guy back to visit the horsey and grab a few more rounds.
Such occurances were not uncommon for the Finnish Maxim HMG squads. Check out the Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna (also available as a movie, two versions of which IMO the one made in the -50's is better). It tells the story of a HMG company. Not really relevant in case of the German SOP but it does give a picture of how things were done and how HMG's handeled in various situations.
-
Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Tero, your argument is the same one you made before: that tactics should give pluses and minuses to units
NonononononoNO
They would make them act differently under TacAI. They would not be getting gratuitious plusses or unwarranted minuses just because.
-- your own self named hiearchy placing Finns on the top, Germans somewhere below, and everyone else heaped near the bottom.
NonononononoNO
Each army had its strong points and weaknesses. How they play out is up to the circumstances and how well the prewar tactics and doctrine apply to it and how quickly they can be adabted in case they do not work.
Tactics are the realm of the player.
No they are not. The issuing of orders is the realm of the player. He can not affect the TacAI mechanics so it can be said the tactics are the realm of the player.
-
Originally posted by Username:
I suspect that tero is just rooting about for another forum for his "tales of the great SMG in the woods" theories.
The tales were told and the theories concocted about 25 years before I was born and apart from the Finnish army at least the men responsible for the Red Army tactical and doctrinal development bought them to the extent that they had IIRC 5 million SMG's built and distributed to the Red Army troops during WWII. And they proceeded into taking part in the victory parade in Berlin some years later.
perhaps CM7 (Revenge of the Finns) will have a sleep state for Russian troops.
Whereas the Finns can go up to 105 days with little or minimal (virtually no at times) sleep without it affecting the performance of the Finnish army units.
This will allow the Finnish skiers of lore to swoop down and lay waste with SMGs on the fly. Each skier, as per historical facts, will move as an independant entity and with perfect synchronized skiing abilities with his patrollers.
You are forgetting the über reindeer.
the russian troops will be hampered in using withdrawl because they will be tripping over their own weapons (which they dropped when they woke up).
How can they trip over them if they are already dead ? Besides, the Finnish troops would have already examined and picked the best automatic arms for their own use.
I see this thread as a battle of fuzzy logic vs stale ideas. There is no common ground to people living in uber-worlds.
Well, at least in my überworld the keybord can reproduce the umlauts with ease.
The game is at a certain scale and limited by technology. There are abstractions. The game system is trying to model MOST WWII battles. I dont think the scale is such that jungle battles (or deep woods) would be worthwhile or enjoyable.
Yet real battles in this scale were fought in the jungle and deep woods. You do not know what kind of fun you are missing out on.
If it pleases you we could take a mano-a-mano set in moderately hilly, heavily wooded rural terrain. I can take the British so there will be no room for foul play.
I mention these because thats where squads would not be the best discrete element for troops. A better level would be fire teams, individual leaders, etc.
Not exactly. What you need is a combination of proper squad combat drill suited to the terrain, proper over all tactics and a plan to work with. In CM splitting into half teams in low LOS terrain is suicide unless you know what you are doing.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Spook:
Well, in due respect, this is a BIG misunderstanding to what I mean about consistency.
I suspected that.
And "biased set of facts" does not enter into it by my own definition.
That remark referred to RL rather than CM universe. You have not read any history books that put forth a biased set of facts ? ALL (including Finnish) histories present the facts as seen from their respective POV. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased way of presenting a historical "fact".
Because I don't believe in applying national biases.
National biases are bad. Scientifically established, force specific patterns of behaviour are not.
Let me put it by example of how vehicles and infantry COULD be treated in a tactical CM-scale game.......and thus attacked by some arbitrary factor assigned to the infantry unit.
Why is the value arbitrary ? Why does the value have to be arbitrary ? Why can it not adhere to historically viable set of values ?
This is what I mean. Not "gameplay consistency" but rather game model consistency.
But that is different from historical consistency. And that makes the world of difference.
If one "historical" element of the game is given hyper-detail, while another fundamental element is given arbitrary treatment at best, then the game model is inconsistent. And historical consistency (& accuracy) is almost certain to also suffer.
Some say historical consistency is not met when it comes to frontal kills of Panthers and Tigers by 37mm guns. Or the higher than "normal" kill rates by Allied armour on the move. It can be argued these occurancies adhere to historical accuracy. Or not. In that light would you say this is a case of hyper detailing vs arbitary treatment of another factor ?
Many has been the wargame that was ultimately undermined by inconsistent elements, and even the hyper-detailed ASL series suffers a bit of this too.
Board games are easy in a way as you can alter the rules with pen and paper.
Abstractions are unavoidable in wargames, even in CM. But if the abstractions are properly balanced against the game scale, then the game model can maintain consistency and thus a relatively good "historical accuracy."
Yes. From the POV the design team has taken. My only major beef with abstractions in CM the universal soldier approach taken with infantry units. Men are created equal but the military training they receive is not equal nor uniform and consistent. This includes the doctrinal aspect of deployment of varios weapons that fall into the same category technically speaking.
"Accuracy through detail" is something you can take many levels beyond historical consistency, depending on how detailed you want the game model to get. But if you don't first have consistency, you're almost certain to never achieve historical accuracy, no matter how much detail is jammed into the model overall. Keep the game model focused, and keep it consistent. The pursuit of greater "accuracy" through increased detail must take care not to violate those rules in the process.
I quite agree. But which comes first, the details or the model ? In CM it seems that in the past every minute change in a detail created a cascading effect that requires a rebalancing of the entire system to get it working properly and consistently again. That would indicate that some of the most vital factors are hardcoded and to tamper with one aspect threw a monkey whrench into the system. Hence to go against the prime directives is virtually impossible without upsetting the balance of the universe.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
But we can tell what that ratio is, by looking at the Allied HMG (30 cal) vs. the US MMG. The ratio of fp is 1.2 times for the heavier version, with its stabler tripod etc. There is no reason to expect a larger differential than that between the HMG-42 and the MMG. And I already allowed for such a factor.
What you did not allow for was the fact the HMG and the MMG are two different guns in two different platforms. The M1917 is water cooled while the M1919 is air cooled. Thus any conclusions drawn comparing them is as irrelevant and drawing conclusions between the Vickers and the Bren.
Perhaps if you compared the M1919A4 (MMG) and M1919A6 (LMG) you would get some sort of comparable data you could then compare with the data you get when making a similar comparison between the MG42 LMG and HMG configurations.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
err, according to the data he posted, the whole 1917 with tripod weighed 24kg. The lafette for the HMG42 alon weighed in at 20.5kg, and then you have to add the weight of the MG, 10.6kg. Total of 31.1kg, vs. 24kg. At least that's how I understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I better edit the post to correct the typo. The data in the original post is for M1919, not M1917. Sorry about the mix up.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers)
You are correct of course.
Jason's original argument was The MMG is lighter. Its ammo is lighter.
That is why I excluded from the original set as the US already had a contender in the game and the issue at hand is the MG42 specs, not the M1917. The only MMG that fits in is the M1919. I took the Vickers in for reference and to deflect any "ultimate nazi biggot" claims my esteemed opponents sometimes spout when they seem to run out of facts.
The Full List (or at least a bit more eshaustive anyway
)of the contendersHMG's
Vickers HMG
Gun, with water (approx): 18.14kg (40 lb)
Tripod mount: 23.13kg (51 lb)
Total 91 lbs
M1917A1
Tripod, 53.2lb Gun, 32.6 Ib
Total 85,8lbs
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (heavy)
Weight of Gun: 10.6 kg (23.4 lb)
Weight of Lafette 42: 20.5 kg (45.2 lb)
Total 68,6 lbs
MMG
M1919A4
Tripod, 14.3lb
Gun, 30.5 lbs
Total 44,8 lbs
LMG's
THE BREN LMG
Weight empty: 10.15kg (22.38lb)
Tripod Weight, 30 lbs.
Total: 52,38 lbs
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (light)
Weight with Bipod: 11.6 kg (25.6 lb)
M1919A6
Weight 32.5lbs with bipod
The MMG is lighter (by mere ~24 lbs) but the ammo is most definitely not lighter.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Did you mean the M1919 MMG?
Uuuuups. A typo type error.
Where do you get that from?
Pure physics.
The tripod is the lightest of the bunch. The MV pretty much equal in all models and the ROF of the MG42 is compensated by the fact that it can not fire as long bursts as the rest. The tripod of the MG42 is heavier. The Vickers is the most stable of the lot hands down.
If all fire a 20 round burst I would venture a guess the M1919 would be the one which would be affected by the recoil the most. The MG42 burst would be the shortest but as its tripod is heavier and of different construction it should be able to handle the recoil bettern than the M1919 tripod.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Username:
The principles are made by the principals. They are an expression of the design team.
That much is obvious. Did they devolp the principles themselves or did they rely on a ready set, say drawn by the US military ?
The design team must assess the various weapons from different military cultures (regardless what they are called) and model them IN THE SAME WAY.
In the purely technical level, yes. However despite all their technical similarities different armies used these technically similar weapons in dissimilar manners, according to their respective tactics and doctrine.
Tanks are modelled the same, yet it has been an established fact that early in the war the Germans used theirs in a very differet manner compared to the rest of the western armies.
How is it entirely inconsieveable that the armies used technically similar small arms in dissimilar manners ?
So fleets of different cars from different nations are going to race ON THE SAME RACETRACK.
Good analogy. And yet it is not entirely appropriate.
It assumes that the racetrack is always the same and the cars are stock. No regard is given to the drivers training, only how often the driver has driven around it.
You seem to miss the point. It doesnt matter what its called. The weapons are not words in the dictionary.
It very much matters what it is called. And even more so by whom. Whithout a clear definition it would be impossible, as you yourself said: model them IN THE SAME WAY.. How can you define something without being able to classify it ? The definition is based on subjective set of givens. This tread is spinning around itself because there is a manifest lack of common terminology. This debate (and the separate Bren tread) are about classification of assets.
No matter how much you may dislike playing word games they must be played out to get clear sidelines and landmarks.
The game (again) uses abstractions. Games like CM and CC and others represent discrete weapons and infantry units at certain levels. People will always feel that they are slighted when weapons appeared to be cutoff.
That is the nature of the beast.
To me the cutoff level is belted MG firepower. Right now, CMBO, agrees with that.
That does however disregard quantifiable and programmable differences between the US and British/Commonwealth tactics and doctrine.
The next iteration will showcase many changes to the face of the infantry battle.
I personally deplore the ahistorical emasculation of the SMG in the next iteration because of some hazy and arbitrary arguments that ran contrary to historical facts caught the attention of the design team.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Spook:
So what do we name the offspring? a "sholf" or "wheep"?
The males would be sholf and the females wheep ?
But when trying to translate a historical feature into a wargame, the higher criteria is that historical CONSISTENCY is not undermined when trying to make one feature more "accurate" relative to other linked elements at that game scale.
How do you define historical consistency ? Gameplay consistency I understand but historical consistency sounds a lot like an arbitrary set of factors drawn from a biased set of facts.
Would allowing the creation of squad BOF weapons as separate teams be inconsistent within the CM model? Not necessarily.
I agree. However if the game engine was written and all the parameters lined up along a set of factors that do not take into accound such deployment then the "resistance" falls into perspective. If the game engine was built around (say
) the US tactics and doctrine any and all deviations from it produce results in demands to tweak other factors in related areas. That would become a cascading effect that would demand an entirely new design approach.But in my generalized view, I think it a possibility to weigh against.
Most certainly.
The "might" is the working term here. Given that US rifle squads are 12-man by default, arguments could stem that greater allowance be given on how the split is done, such that the BAR-carrying half-squad be given more or less men by player choice. Or for US '45 rifle squads, the two BAR's get bundled together in one half-squad as a support-fire element?
These aren't specifically equivalent to breaking off squad BOF weapons into seperate
teams. But the cases above are equivalent in scope. And I could readily see some CM players asking for such features someday, if squad BOF weapons are being considered to get added "detail" options.
Yes. However, I can already hear cries of sholf if the split could be done to automatics/the rest. How gamey would the use of squads with 50% SMG's become then ?
Suggest for Eric an add-on module then: "GI Shafted."
I think it would sell better if it was called "GI Jane gets shafted"
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
The MMG is lighter. Its ammo is lighter.
Are you sure about that ? Lets look at the stats:
Diffent LMG/MMG's
THE BREN LMG
Calibre: .303 inch British
Weight empty: 10.15kg (22.38lb)
Tripod Weight, 30 lbs.
Feed system: 30-round detachable box (see equipment page for others)
Rate of fire: 500 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity: 731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (light)
Calibre/Cartridge: 7.92 mm x 57
Feed Type: 50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts
Weight with Bipod: 11.6 kg (25.6 lb)
Muzzle Velocity: 820 m/sec (2,690 ft/sec)
Rate of Fire (cyclic): 1,500 rpm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30cala6.htm
M1919A6
Caliber .30 (".30-06") (7.62 mm)
Capacity 250-round belt
Weight 32.5lbs with bipod
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Rate of fire 400 to 550 rounds per minute
MMG/HMG's
http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/
Vickers HMG
Calibre: .303 inches
Feed: 250 round canvas ammunition belt
Weight:
Gun, without water: 14.97kg (33lb)
Gun, with water (approx): 18.14kg (40 lb)
Tripod mount: 23.13kg (51 lb)
Muzzle Velocity, Mk. VIIz and VIIIz: 2,440 feet per second
Cyclic rate of fire: 450 to 550 rounds per minute
http://www.classicfirearms.org/
Water cooled, it could drank out 10,000 rounds nonstop without a hiccup.
7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 (heavy)
Calibre/Cartridge: 7.92 mm x 57
Feed Type: 50 and 250 round continuous link metal belts
Weight of Gun: 10.6 kg (23.4 lb)
Weight of Lafette 42: 20.5 kg (45.2 lb)
Muzzle Velocity: 820 m/sec (2,690 ft/sec)
Rate of Fire (cyclic): 1,500 rpm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30cal.htm
M1919A4
Caliber .30 (7.62 mm)
Capacity 250-round belt
Weight 18.5 kg (41 lbs) with tripod
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Rate of fire 400 to 550 rounds per minute
The M1917A4 MMG weight WITH the tripod is 41 lbs, the Bren 52 lbs, the MG42 68,6 lbs and the Vickers (in full combat gear) 91 lbs. I would venture to point out that the M1917A4 was the least stable of them, if we look at the physical characteristics of the mounts since the MV's are between 2400-2800 fps so the recoil of the shots is not markedly different. The MG42 ROF is 3 times greater than the ROF of the rest but they could not fire as long bursts as the rest so that evens things out there as well.
All of them are in the same cathegory when it comes to caliber so the ammo itself could not have been significantly heavier per round. The deciding factor is the belts, which seems to have been 250 rounds per belt all around, except for the Bren which came with 30 round magazines.
It gets the fp benefit for firing more bullets, but does not pay the ammo price for firing more bullets.
Hang on. Is this a rehash of the epic SMG tread ?
Have you actually checked the amount of ammo a German unit carried ?
An edited repost from
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=020001&p=5
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=352
a. AMUNITION ALLOWANCES. The initial issue (Erste Austellung) of ammunition is the total
ammunition carried by a formation in columns,
in dumps, and with the troops. The initial issue is systematically replaced as it is
expended, on the basis of reports of ammunition remaining on hand sent from the divisions through corps to army, except as operational conditions modify the system. The allowance per formation is based on the number of weapons called for in the table of organization of the unit. Each weapon, in turn, has a number of rounds which is allotted to it as ammunition quota or unit of issue (Munitions Ausstattung). Two units of issue for all weapons of the division are carried within the division, while another Unit of issue for all weapons in the army is held on army columns or trains as an army reserve. Thus each army has three ammunition quotas or units of issue for all weapons of the army.
1). AMMUNITION ISSUES Of the two ammunition units of issue that are found within the division, over one unit is found forward on the men, with the guns, and as company and battalion reserves, while less than one full unit of issue is retained as a division reserve in division columns and dumps. The exact quantity issued to each man is largely determined by the amount held by the battalion and company as their reserves. The following charts exemplify the units of issue found in infantry and artillery units of an army.
Ammunition Issues (Rounds) for a VolksGrenadier Division :
9-mm machine pistol.
Forwar issue 690
Division reserve 512
Propable Army reserve 601
7.92-mm machine pistol.
Forwar issue 540
Division reserve 630
Propable Army reserve 720
7.92-mm rifle
Forwar issue 75
Division reserve 87
Propable Army reserve 99
7.92-mm rifle (for troops other than infantry troops)
Forwar issue 25
Division reserve 20
Propable Army reserve 22
7.92-mm semi-auto rifle.
FI 159
DR 135
PAR 147
7.92.mm LMG
FI 3450
DR 2505
PAR 2977
7.92.LMG (for arty and AT troops)
FI 1350
DR 1020
PAR 1183
7.92-mm HvMG
FI 6300
DR 4750
PAR 5525
c. AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE. The unit of issue of ammunition is not to be confused with the daily expenditure amount of ammunition. The latter does not arrive at any constant figure, but varies with the type of action, the area of fighting, and the other factors mentioned in paragraph 1. By analogy with the reserve amounts reserves, while less than one full unit of issue of other expendable supplies, however, it is possible that three units of fire are judged by the Germans to be sufficient to maintain an army for a period of roughly eight to ten days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The numbers presented are "units of issue". However, a VG division carried twice as many units of issue allocated for the HMG than was allocated to the LMG's and 84 times as much as allocated to the bolt action rifles.
The problem is that such oversights have important tactical consequences.
Are these consquences really out of step with the tactical problems the ALlied troops faced IRL ?
Allied MGs not only fire slower (as they should), they run out sooner - firing 500 rpm cyclic rate MGs - than the Germans do, firing 1200 rpm cyclic rate MGs. Which is simply silly.
What you seem to disregard compeletely is the fact that the Allied MG's could fire longer bursts more frequently than the Germans. The cyclic rates do not translate directly into practical ROF's. The ratios between the MG42 and the Allied MG's when it comes to practical ROF in terms of rounds fire per minute are not that great to make the MG42 modelling in CM that unrealistic.
The British concluded that the only real advantage of the MG42 over the Bren was in its belt feed and NOT in the rate of fire.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Spook:
Need it stop with the squad BOF weapon? If we're truly striving for "force-specific" squad tactics based on nationalities' training, shouldn't we also consider squad formational options or squad dispersion? With variations allowed for squad experience?
Hmmmmmm.......
According to BTS and the majority of folks frequenting this board such differences did not exist. And if they did they are not quantifiable and programmable.
I do admit force specific differences are a hobby horse of mine. I am gathering intel on the subject and treads like this provide proof of quantifiable and programmable aspects. These mechanical vs doctrinal debates are especially useful as they provide arguments in the form of facts about using similar (or similarly classed) weapons in dissimilar manner.
Perhaps it's so that allowing a Bren team to form separately from the squad might allow recreation of actual UK experience.
If that is in line with the historical facts then I can only concur.
But if greater detail is pursued on this one issue, while other linked squad-level issues remain more abstract in treatment, then the potential exists for inconsistent behavior in the CM representation.
Flood gates open, pandemonium ensues, the sheep will sleep with the wolves....
I fully understand BTS's stand on this from the programming POV. You have to draw the line somewhere. BUT if greater historical accuracy is the objective then these kinds of issues need to be dealt with. Without any passionate biases of course.
Bren teams formed by stripping the Bren from a Carrier, or available as "security details" by special purchase, are reasonable to consider. But in forming Bren teams (or even BAR/MG42 teams) out from squads, the CM translation might not be so good unless a number of other squad-specific tactical issues are also expanded in detail.
Agreed. In all fairness the 50/50 split does favour the US squads in a split because of their inherent, built in FP (which is the original beef in this tread). If the split was done according to historically accurate rules the outcome might not be so favourable to the US.
Hmmm, all this sounds to be steering down that "1:1" representation path again.
I will cease and desist (again
) until such time I have found enough quantifiable and programmable facts on the issue that I can go to bat with it and not be thrown out for lack of evidence. Perhaps instead, one could lobby on Eric Young, with his GI Combat development effort, to consider the issues on hand?
Perhaps. Then again being named "GI Combat" it is doubtful it would be the GI who gets shafted when design decisions are made pertaining these issues.
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Check out your available virtual memory. I have had a few crashes that manifest similar symptoms and usually it has turned out the virtual memory has run low.
-
More fuel from the lexicons, dictionaries and manuals and sites:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=11500&tocid=0&query=automatic%20rifle
rifle that utilizes either its recoil or a portion of the gas propelling the projectile to remove the spent cartridge case, load a new cartridge, and cock the weapon to fire again. Automatic rifles (and pistols) are called autoloaders and are actually semiautomatic, since they customarily fire only one shot at each pull of the trigger. Full automatic fire—that is, firing repeatedly as long as the trigger is held down until the magazine is exhausted—is achieved by the assault rifle and the submachine gun (qq.v.). In the assault rifle, fully automatic fire can be substituted for oneshot fire simply by flicking a switch on the weapon. Likewise, a semiautomatic rifle needs only an adjustment (a simple procedure, for a gunsmith) to convert it to full automatic functioning. Most modern infantry rifles are assault rifles and have full automatic-fire capabilities.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=50949&tocid=0&query=machine%20gun
automatic weapon of small calibre that is capable of rapid, sustained fire. The machine gun was developed in the late 19th century and has profoundly altered the character of modern warfare. Modern machine guns are classified into three groups. The light machine gun, also called the squad automatic weapon, is equipped with a bipod and is operated by one soldier; it usually has a box-type magazine and is chambered for the small-calibre, intermediate-power ammunition fired by the assault rifles of its military unit. The medium machine gun, or general-purpose machine gun, is belt-fed, mounted on a bipod or tripod, and fires full-power rifle ammunition. Through World War II the term “heavy machine gun” designated a water-cooled machine gun that was belt-fed, handled by a special squad of several soldiers, and mounted on a tripod. Since 1945 the term has designated an automatic weapon firing ammunition larger than that used in ordinary combat rifles; the most widely used calibre is .50 inch or 12.7 mm, although a Soviet heavy machine gun fires a 14.5-millimetre round.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=16581&tocid=0&query=machine%20gun
British adaptation of a Czech light machine gun. Its name originated as an acronym from Brno, where the Czech gun was made, and Enfield, where the British adaptation was made. Gas-operated and air-cooled, the Bren was first produced in 1937 and became one of the most widely used weapons of its type. It was produced in .303 calibre for British use and was manufactured as a 7.92-millimetre weapon for Chinese Nationalist troops.
Acclaimed as one of the best light machine guns of World War II, the Bren appeared in four models that varied principally in barrel length and total weight. The Mark 4 model had an overall length of 42.9 inches (109 cm), with a 22.25-inch (56.5-centimetre) barrel. It had a cyclic rate of fire of 520 rounds per minute, weighed 19 pounds (9 kg), and had an effective range of about 2,000 feet (600 m). Easy to load, clean, and operate, it had variable-length bipods and a curved magazine. Its barrel could be changed quickly; because machine gun barrels lose accuracy when overheated, they must be changed often in sustained-fire situations. The Bren is no longer in first-line service in the British Army, but it is still used by the armies of many countries.
http://www.classicfirearms.org/
The primary use of the Bren was a one-man machine gun, intended to be fired from a bipod or from the hip while advancing. British military doctrine sanctioned firing bursts of four to five rounds, which will empty the Bren's magazine in about one minute. In sustained fire, a well-practiced operator can put out 150 rounds—five magazines—in a minute. Under most circumstances, it was recommended that the operator fire one shot for each pull of trigger, thus conserving ammunition and keeping the enemy from realizing, until it was too late, that a machine gun was being used against them.
http://www-acala1.ria.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/sahist.htm#Machine
Machine Gun, Cal. .30, M1941, Johnson (1941). The Johnson model 1941 was a light machine gun used to a limited degree by U.S. troops during World War II. It was the only new design machine gun introduced during the war. It had a front blade sight and a rear folding aperture sight. The model 1941 used .30 cal. cartridges in 20-round magazines. It had a rate of fire of 400-450 spm.
The following is a modern one but is relevant when it comes to terminoloy and how it evolves and devolves through time.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/23-14/fm2314.htm
FM 23-14
M249 LIGHT MACHINE GUN IN THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE ROLE
PREFACE
This manual provides technical information, training techniques, and guidance on the M249 light machine gun in the automatic rifle role, which was formerly known as the squad automatic weapon (SAW). Since this manual addresses the M249's use in the automatic rifle role as opposed to the light machine gun role, it is referred to in this manual as the M249 AR. Unit leaders and the designated automatic riflemen will find this information invaluable in their efforts to successfully integrate this automatic weapon into their combat operations.
The tactical positions shown in this manual may not be tactically correct, but they were drawn to enhance the reader's understanding of related subject material.
Unless this publication states otherwise, masculine nouns and pronouns do not refer exclusively to men.
Personal note: YE GODS !!!! How PC can you get ?!?
E-1. OFFENSE
In the offense, the automatic rifle contributes primarily to the maneuver element. That is, it gives the squad leader the fires of "ten soldiers" for the close-quarter fight. Depending on the tactical situation, it may also be used in the base-of-fire element.
E-2. DEFENSE
The dismounted infantry defense centers around the platoon's machine guns. The platoon leader sites the rifle squad to protect the machine guns against the dismounted assault of an enemy formation. The automatic rifle provides the requisite range and volume of fire to cover across the squad front in the defense. The squad leader sites each of his automatic rifles to cover the entire squad sector or cover an overlapping sector with the other automatic rifle. Automatic rifles can augment platoon and company machine gun fire out to the maximum ranges. The engagement range of a squad leader's weapon may extend from the last 300 meters where the enemy began his assault to point-blank range. Automatic rifle targets include enemy automatic weapons and command and control elements.
-
One important factor was the tripod mount itself and its inherently superior features when firing from prepared positions.
At least the Maxim mount had all sorts of elevation and azimuth regulators and handwheels. You could preassign fields of fire and point targets as needed. You could even set ranges with the regulators so if the battlefield was ranged all the HMG crew could do was select terrain features and preset ranges for the fire according to the target. The HMG could act like an artillery piece as it were.
The accuracy of the fire is uncanny IF the mount is not moved.
Once engaged all the gunner had to do was move the regulators in place and he could spray the intended target area without even physically seeing it as the movement of the gun (ie. the field of fire) was regulated by the regulators in the mount. There is no need for spraying and praying with the tripod mount if the target comes along the path it was envisioned to come and there has been time to set the position up properly.
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Originally posted by Username:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the game is built on principles. Not stale catagories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could these principles be as stale as the categories ?
Whose principles is the game built on ? Is the set of principles used allencompassing and universally true ?
Contrary to common beliefs different armies had their own sets of principles. Some of them coincided with the rest of the sets, some of them differed from the rest.
When you bow one way you moon the other way.
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Even Tero came up with a taxonomy of sorts (by dictionary definition). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The dictionaries define the words with some sort of precision. They provide the common ground. If there are different definitions found then the debate about the meaning of the words should be done separately at the appropriate, purely technical level instead of mixing the deployment with the tehnical definition of the term.
Also, since I am not a native speaker I needed to get the definitions down precisely. Since it seemed that even the native speakers had some conseptions about the terms that were not logical I needed to set the terms straight for myself. (I was also actually looking for some info wether or not the type of laoding/feeding had anything to do with the definition and differentiation between the LMG and the automatic rifle.)
My "handicap" is in the Finnish military parlance which clearly separates both semi and full automatic rifles (I think the term should actually be carbine when talking about autoloading rifles like SVS/SVT/M1 Garand/G41/M1 and M2 carbines etc) from automatic weapons (being referred to in this debate as automatic rifles) which are used as SAW's and platoon automatic weapons (PAW ?
). The term rapid fire rifle is most commonly translated as LMG because that term corresponds the employment and deployment aspect of the weapon better than the term automatic rifle does. The term MG is reserved to crew served (this meaning dedicated gun chief, gunner, 2nd gunner and ammo bearers. This is getting convoluted The Finnish infantry platoon had 2 rifle squads and 2 RFR squads so the RFR's were also crew served as they had a gunner and a 2nd gunner while the rest of the RFR platoon members carried extra ammo while they doubled as regular infantrymen. The SMG acted initially as the SAW in the two other squads but that changed), belt fed, mounted Maxims and Vickers MG's. The actual Finnish deployment of RFR/AR/LMG corresponds with the British/Commonwealth practice. And it is a historical fact the Finnish commanders detached automatics to special assignments which included attack, counter attack, support and various defensive actions.BTW: this debate seems to revole around a classical case of force specific tactics and doctrines (AKA national bias) and how they can or can not be incorporated into the CM family.
What I see here now is (predominantly) American POV that the Bren was an automatic rifle vs the British/Commonwealth POV that it was a LMG. The American POV is based on the US military definition and deployment of the type of weapon. The British/Commonwealth POV is based on (I presume) period British/Commonwealth terminology and actual deployment.
The Bren is also being compared to the German MG34/42 when it come to the deployment. I think both the American POV and the comparison to MG34/42 are incorrect and based on assumptions that the US military definition or the US/German deployment of comparable weapons have anything to do with the Bren in British/Commonwealth service.
IMO the "correct" deciding factor is how the Bren was actually classified and used by the British/Commonwealth armies.
Can anybody provide actual British/Commonwealth TOE that would show if the Bren was indeed deployed both as a SAW and in a support role during WWII ? Or not as the case might be.
-
Under this definition, a BAR + bipod is a LMG.
If you are using the term "in general usage", yes. But if you are speaking about the term as used by the American military:
in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols.
So what is LMG for the British is not necessarily an LMG for the Americans. Depending on who is talking and about which weapon of which nationality.
That would mean that the BAR is an automatic rifle while the Bren is a LMG. Or automatic rifle IF it is being fired by a GI. In the hands of a British soldier it will be a LMG. In the hands of a Finnish soldier it would be called a rapid fire rifle, not an automatic rifle or a LMG.
That would also mean that it should also be cathegorized in the support weapons elligible for use as a separate asset, under the British rules. The US rules imposed on it now are incorrect.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/6/0/8/5/6085200.html
machine gun Ordnance. 1. an automatic weapon firing small-arms ammunition of .60 caliber or less; as opposed to an automatic rifle, it is capable of longer sustained fire than an automatic rifle and is usually fired from a mount rather than hand-held.an automatic weapon firing small-arms ammunition of .60 caliber or less; as opposed to an automatic rifle, it is capable of longer sustained fire than an automatic rifle and is usually fired from a mount rather than hand-held.
http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/6/0/8/5/6085200.html
light machine gun Ordnance. 1. in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols.in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols. 2. in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.
So in English you can call it basically whichever you prefer and you are always right.
In contrast the Finnish term (strictly speaking) separates automatic rifle (SVT/SVS as opposed to bolt action rifles) and what is a (literal translation) rapid fire rifle (RFR later of for short) which referred to what was basically SAW (IRL even the SMG was initially treated as SAW in our army so that does not help much
). The term automatic rifle refers to the method of reloading, the RFR to the employment. The distiction between a RFR and a MG is made (apparently) by the type of feeding and portability. If it was magazine fed and portable in one piece it was RFR, if it was belt fed and you had to disassemble it to move more than 100 meters it was MG. Hence the captured Soviet Detaryevs were RFR's, not LMG's since they had a IIRC 47 round magazine.
-
Originally posted by Triumvir:
Well, personally -- and you being an ex-conscript too, I think you have the same opinion as I do -- I think that professional militaries are overrated and legends in their own minds.
I can not say I disagree.
But then again they do need to justify their upkeep and who wants to invest in a business that has a poor track record and bad reputation ?
Conscript Bundeswehr tankers have been able to compete and beat Canadian, British and US tankers;
And they are on the same side.
let's not even go into the adverse selection/moral hazard effect inherent in professional militaries.
I agree. Lets save that for later use.
Nonetheless, for force projection purposes, professional militaries are far better suited than conscript armies;
Yet one of the basic axioms is: no plan survives contact.
and as you rightly point out, the majority of military interventions have been force projections in response to political needs.
I would even venture to say they have been virtual force projections.
Fewer people -- not to say no people, but fewer people -- mourn the loss of military professional when compared to the loss of conscripts because there is a sense of "well, that's what they're paid for" that isn't as applicable to conscripts.
I think that is one of the dangers. 1 KIA is a human tragedy, 10 000 murdered civilians are statistics.
A peace keeper dies and his (or her these days) face is all over the paper. How terrible, what a waste. If the peace keeper was a woman even more terrible.
Ethnic group A "clences" a few villages of ethnic group B and 10 000 people vanish into the woods. What's on in the other channel ?
The Somalis may have achieved what they were after, but the cost they paid to do so was probably in excess of the gain from their achievement; much like that of the Vietnamese, who undisputedly won the war, but crippled themselves by doing so. Pyrrhic victories aren't.
Who decides a victory is a Pyrrhic victory ?
For Kosovo, I believe that the Danish and Norwegian battalions gave a good accounting of themselves;
That is my understanding too.
as for the "air war", it was as inflated as all other "air wars" are -- the latest BDAs are far less flattering than they were at the time (and correspondingly less publicised.)
I wonder why..... NOT.
Arguably, the propaganda from the publicised BDAs was the key in persuading Serbians to back down, and not the actual damage done.
Arguably, yes.
I think that this is the first actual case where Douhetian practice came close to theory; and I don't think it's likely to be repeated.
Except the change came from the inside. The outside pressure on the Serbian leaders seemed to have no effect but once the internal powers started moving the leaders had to alter their plans.
An answer to Simon Fox
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Tero, your posts are getting almost as long as JasonCs.
Sorry about that.
But at least he doesn't talk about the same thing all the time.
His SMG Gap and the more recent MG42 über ammo are basically the same.
If you can tear yourself away from telling us about how BTS shafted the Germans for the 10,000th time, go check out this post (if you haven't already).
My Rugged defence score
http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/cm/Members/tero.htm
is up to date is 2 game won: 1 as Allies, 1 as Germans. So, of the finished games I have won so far I have won 100%. Of these wins 50% was adcheived as Allied (As British as it happens
), 50% as Germans.
Lets look at the stats a bit more closely
Players ranked higher than 100 (there are 29 players)
Allies(out of 292 games)
Win: 55.1%
Germans(out of 279 games)
Win: 72.0% (!)
Players ranked from 90 to less than 100 (26 players)
Allies (out of 186 games)
lose: 50%
Germans (out of 224 games)
lose: 42.0%
Players ranked below 90 (30 players)
Allies (out of 239 games)
lose: 67.4%
Germans (out of 210 games)
lose: 59.5%
First off the stats are made of a sample of 26-29 players which is not statistically representative as such so any conclusions are as valid as any conclusions I make based on my games.
Second: it seems that the top players are sweeping the floor with the rookies (DUH !
). More importantly there is no correlations between the losses as the difference stands universally at ~8% no matter which side the rookies play.
If the numbers are that lopsided with BTS rooting for the home team, I'd hate to see what they'd be like if they were "fair"...
To me the numbers are not lobsided at all. All they tell me experienced/skilled players win while the inexperienced/unskilled lose. The fact that people seem to win while playing as Germans is irrelevant and does not reflect the game engine. It does however reflect the preferences of the high ranking players. But does that make the allegations about biases inside the game invalid ?