jshandorf

This is an intersting snipet I took from a CNN article on the Kursk accident. "Meanwhile, the United States has assembled a team of experts in under-sea operations to act as "consultants" to gain access to the stricken submarine." I bet they do! "U.S. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen made the offer in a letter to Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, who "expressed appreciation for the offer of assistance and he asked that we work through NATO channels," Cohen said Friday in a briefing at the Pentagon." I otherwords, there is no way in hell you are getting near our sub unless you go through NATO. I bet this "consultant" team has a guy or two that constantly wears sunglasses with a long tan or black trench coat. Heh heh. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Bill has touched on an important point. If you do any reading of psychology in battle, you will see that the psychology of what makes men break and run is really pretty interesting. Turns out that one of the primary things keeping men from breaking is simply peer pressure. It seems trite and silly, but it is true. Most men do not want to be seen as weak in front of their peers. No-one wants to be the guy to break and run while their buddies stay and fight. That first guy breaking then becomes the catalyst. Now, it is no longer a personal failure to run, because someone (and soon everyone) else is doing it too. I, for one, and firmly convinced that most of what makes a Marine a Marine and a GI just a GI is not training, toughness, physical strength, etc., etc., but mostly just the espirit that goes along with being in an elite unit. They do not break easily because they have convinced themselves that they do not break easily. Obviously this is a bit of an oversimplification, because training, toughness, etc., does enter into it, but to a large degree they enter into it more as a tool to convince the soldier that they are different, not because it actually MAKES them different. A great example of this is the German SS in Poland, and the Hitlerjugend division in France. Training and actual skills wise, they were reportedly considerably worse than their Wehrmacht counterparts. But they KNEW they were superior, and took relatively severe casulaties because they had tons of elan, and very little brains. But I would not have wanted to have to fight them. Of course, later they (the Poland trrops that is) became exceptionally well trained and experienced. That, combined with their espirit de corps, made them the finest military formations in the world, until attrition and dilution turned them into shadows of their former selves. Jeff Heidman P.S. - Sorry for the long ramble. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree with ya there about the one man being that catalyst for the rest to flee. But just on a side note, I would assume in battle there are many soldiers that want to run and not fight and these of coarse are the first few to run given the chance. After that the rest I would assume run because sticking around when men on both sides of you are fleeing isn't brave.. It's just stupid. A quote now comes to mind... "An experienced soldier is a scared soldier." Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: Hi Jeff point of correction,. PD fuses on those 155 they went off in 12 inches of snow. A Ti round/VT would probably have gotten the observers. Oh yeah during a reforger a Mercedes rammed a M60 head on going 80 kmph caused it to loose a track................, how much for a kamikaze volkswagen? 6 points?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your point about the PD fuses I am confused about. I am taking about obvious airbursting arty rounds. Not when the round strikes the Tank or impacts near it. But the kamikaze mercedes.. Now there ya go! Does CM support collision damage? Never thought to try that! Hmmm.. I wonder how many Kubelwagons it would take to wipe out a Sherman.... Hmmmm... Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Just to expand on what Rude said quite well... In any wargame, at some point you have to decide what your lowest level of granularity is when it comes to how small of a unit size you wish to represent. In CM, that is the squad/team. In CC, that is the individual for effects, but the squad for orders. In other words, if this was an operational wargame representing Division sized units, you would not complain that your smallest unit acts as one, even though it might represent several hundred men. It is just the level of granularity chosen. The lower the level of granularity, the smaller the overall action you can manage. The thing with something like the system CC uses (where the unit resolution detail goes lower than the command detail) is that it looks neat, but it has no effect on the game play. If the smallest unit I can command is a squad, it is not important to me what the individual members status is, since I cannot order them specifically anyway. All I care about is the overall status of the smallest unit under my command. Which soldier got waxed or wounded is unimportant to me, except as how it relates to the ability of the squad to accomplish what I want it to do. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand completely, but what I am curious about is how is the squad's overall morale effected? For instance it could be that 1 or maybe 2 members of a squad are panicking but since they are not having an overall impact you don't notice it. It is only until 50%+ of the active memebers are panicking that the squad morale overall changes. I geuss what I am trying to say is that i am curious as to how the squad is treated "under the hood" so to speak. While we can only interact with the squad as a whole the game may go deeper. Jeff

Interesting point about if the Americans found themselves with a sunk sub, such as maybe a LosAngeles class, and whether or not they would ask for help. I think here in America most of our Military types put as much value on individual life as much as their Russian counterparts. I don't blame them or critize them at all. I feel they are just doing thier jobs, which is national defense, and if they feel allowing such access to a highly classified submarine could possibly jeprodize national defense they are gonna make the call. Regardless of the life lost. On the other hand... Our politicians I feel respect (fear?) public opinion more than thier Russian counter parts. So, if our country rose up and called out to our leaders demanding assistance outside the US I think they would respond much quicker. THe Russians... well.. you've seen what has happened. No offense but the state of Russian politics at times borders on organized crime I feel. I hope Putin cleans things up. Jeff

Here is something I was just thinking about. I was reading some other topic where someone was comparing CC with CM and I got to thinking, mind you I think CM is a hundred times better than CC, but it would be nice to treat squads a little more individually. What I mean is that I think it is bit unrealistic that a squad acts as a whole. For example... Panicking and routing. A whole squad usually doesn't panic and route. Usually just a few memmbers do. While I am aware of the "contagious" effect of seeing your buddies run. I don't think that 1 man panicking in a squad should have a major effect. I am curious on how CM handles this. Does it keep track of the number of men panicking overall in the squad and say when it reaches 50%+ the entire squad may enter the "panic" status? What of the other squads around it? Do they add a morale modifier if they are not panicking? I assume Comand Control plays a significant role but what other factors are involved? One thing I liked about Close Combat was that you could have individual men route and panic and become detached form the squad. I am aware this is immpossible in CM right now but does CM keep track of the "status" of a squad by the idividual men that make it up? Or does it do it as a whole? Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Airbursts can immobilise tanks. Just take a quick look at WW2 tank treads and think what an airburst going off 5 metres away could do to snap those little treads. Broken treads will immobilise any tank. And yes, I'm the person Jeff is playing against. 3 salvoes of 105 VT have accounted for 1 schreck team, 1 Wirbelwind and have immobilised one other tank as well as causing the accompanying infantry quite a few casualties . You've got to love the efficient application of force there don't you? About 500 points worth of attacker wiped out for the expenditure of roughly 15 points of my own arty ammo .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ladies and gents... My esteemed opponent Fionn Kelly. 500 points my butt. Not even nearly that close. I will give you the number AFTER the battle. 15 points? Yeeeeah right... They have a fire sale on 105mm and 155mm FOs when you were buying units? You bask away all you want. I am gonna roll up on you and slap you up like a red-headed step-child. If airburst arty barely damaged a M113 at about 15 meters I doubt it would do much against a main line battle tank. Jeff