Slapdragon

I didn't know that any Pershings were shipped to Japan as part of the Pacific camapign, nor a significant number of E8s. Were they already en route when hostilities ended or were they part of the post-war occupation? Or did they indeed see combat in the later stages? -dale</font>

The UK and other nations had tanks, and the US had a lot of them, but by 1951 tank versus tank was mostly done. You can divide tank warfare in Korea into several phases. In the initial involvement before the UN was putting troops on the ground, the US forces retreating to Pusan and the Koreans had M24s and M19 AA only from a set of provisional companies. Near the end of the retreat M4A3 "Easy Eights" and M26 landed as part of several armored training units. The tanks of these units where mostly salvaged from the Pacific campaign, refurbished in Japan, and never shipped home to USA. This was the beginning of the end of the Korean tanks units since their T34s proved to be inferior to the M4 and M26, even though the smart money was on the T34, and this tank gained a fearsome reputation against the M24. The veteran tank units of the Korean army were quickly used up, and although more tanks went south, they slowly began to face the M46 and better tank units fielding M4 and M26 from stateside. During the march up country the NKPA lost its shirt. By the time of the Chinese intervention, Allied airpower was making it impossible for tanks to get in country. By the time the bulk of the UN showed up, the tanks battles were over (for the most part).

Iron Chef, why don't you just say sorry BTS, I wont post silly things. No one is worried when you post something that is not the clearest or well documented thing, only when you jump on the person who points out were you are wrong. I do not think anyone wants you banned, they just expect you to be banned because of your posting style. Believe me, there are worse and less sincere people on this board who survive merely by keeping on the far side of the line. Lewis lasted quite some time. Your last post to me was an example of an excellent posting style. Just write BTS and say sorry, and then adopt the figure of a young scholar.

Iron Chef, I assume from the above post that you wont be here for long, but let me answer some questions. Yes, the Korean Brigades were combat veterans of the Chinese revolution and had defeated armored units of the nationalist forces before being released by the Chinese to return to Korea. The initial US forces were conscripts from Korea, later they fought National Guard units and more experienced state side units, so it would have to be a sliding scale, with the initial actions seeing experienced Koreans versus green Americans, and as the Koreans were wiped out and replaced by new caught tanker, they gradually faced better states side units. In fact, in nearly every meeting the Sherman came out on top. Battles where mostly combined arms fights along the lines of Fighting in Europe. No meeting engagements to my knowledge. Most of the battles in which the Koreans cleaned up were against the M24 in the opening weeks of the war. The M24 just could not hold its own against the T34. In the first part of the battle the M4s of the initial provisional companies usually fought on the defensive and extremely outnumbered. By the end of the Pusan breakout and Inchon, Allied tanks greatly outnumbered Koreans. No, US CAS was nearly nonexistant during the initial phases of the war. US airpower mostly was trying to stem the flow of Korean rienforcements instead of flying antiarmor. CAS would become hugely effective, but by then deep raids were taking out Korean armor before it could come to the front, so CAS against tanks was not really an issue, especially compared to its successes against the Chinese in 52. To my knowledge Korean war battles where not set up to test one force type against another, but as part of a bigger plan. This of course is the same as WW2. Tanks never fought alone to my knowledge on any side, although I could be wrong about this. Well, the T-34 was the tank to have against the M24, it performed excellent. The M4 was considered a stop gap tank until the M46 could enter combat, a superior vehicle to the M26. But when the tank battles were happening, it was the M4 and the M26 that fought. The M26 for many reason did not show itself well. Not because of combat but because the old and abused M26 that first came ashore were not good machines. The M4 proved much more able to handle primitive conditions and extreme weather in Korea.

The North Koreans had several brigade groups of armor that fought in 1950, which fought a series of very successful actions down country, wiping out several provisional armored units equipped with M24 tanks, and then getting wiped out in several armored battles during the Pusan breakout. Afterwards both the Chinese and the North Koreans tried to get armored units into the country and into action, but were defeated by air power. There are lots of strange fights on record. An M19 40mm AA weapon destroyed a T34. A set of M24s where buried up to their turrets and used to man road blocks. All where blown to bits.

And that is the latest from the planet porno. Stay tuned next week while Emperor Wang in the form of Iron Sackhead spread another 27 posts of drivel on how the Japanese lost WW1 at the battle of Kursk. You should look to Korea where HVSS Shermans tangled with T34-85 and won. You should talk to slapdragon about it, He'd love to get his hand on a researcher of your..... well yes.[/QB]</font>

Here is a note about time-to-flash and triangulation systems that originated from some interviews I did last year. The interviewee was a trucker for an artillery battalion transport pool. He claimed that it was quite common for battaliosn to set up sound and flash triangulation groups, but that it was found that they were better off firing with few calculations and more gut instinct. Any two people would mark a sound or flash, and note its time (and direction for flash.) Infantry units would also gather this data. They would feed the information in constant dribbles to fire control centers where a fire control officers would triangulate reports and circle the estimated location on a master map. Shortly, a bunch of circles would indicate an rough area in which an artillery battery was firing, so the fire control would simply look at the map for the place where horse drawn transport could possibly set up a useful firing battery position. That was the CB target. This artillery driver said that the entire unit could do sound and flash reports. He also claimed that CB was inexact, and that a CB fire could not be made to close to populated areas without an observation plane observing fall of shot. The most interesting claim was that the battery preferred to fire CB quickly ratrher than wait forever for data accumulations. Sometimes if the shoot was safe a very few reports could lead to a potential firing site because Germans where very precise in how they set up (and where they would choose to sight) artillery, and were not all that mobile. The goal of CB was to kill the horses and stop the battery. Truck mobile artillery was not very vulnerable to even spotted artillery if it could get dug in, but horses suffered in CB barrages since it was just to tough to hide the things on the modern battlefield. This is one artillery veteran on the edge of the issue, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I wouldn't touch anything designed by you involving Finns with a ten-foot stick. Suggesting Tommis (tss) and BTS research isn't good enough for you only proves again that you are not after accuracy, you just want to live out your private fantasies. Which is fine, but why not let the rest of the world play with accurate and correctly researched data? "Waaah! The Finns lost a battle! All finns were well-fed, well-trained and well-equipped and better! Fix, or do somefink!" I'd rather stick with BTS and their researchers version of the simulation thank you very much. Johan</font>

Here are some things though to consider. There is no primary source evidence like military order or the like that say specifically the Russians were planning on screwing the Poles.

Here are some things though to consider. There is no primary source evidence like military order or the like that say specifically the Russians were planning on screwing the Poles.

You can, in CM:BB, assign a unit a condition or status that related to its health as opposed to its morale. This would be the variable you are looking for, as it would address the issue of how beat up and exposed to weather a unit is.

Here is the reason why many Poles today think that the Russians screwedx the uprising. Stalin condemned the uprising publicaly in an August radio address. He said, "I have familiarized myself with more closely with the Warsaw affair. I am convinced that the Warsaw action represents a reckless and terrible adventure, which is costing the population large sacrifices. ... In the situation that has arisen, the Soviet Command has come to the conclusion that it must dissociate itself from the Warsaw adventure as it cannot take any direct or indirect responsibility for the Warsaw action." This text was also transmitted to the Allies. The Soviet Army refused the Free Polish and American flyers flying from Italy landing permission making them have to fly round trip to supply the Polish forces. This refusal would only be ended in Septemnber after it was too late to save the Warsaw insurgents. Gen. Tadeusz "Bór" Komorowski requested that Polish Airborne forces be dropped by the Allies. Preperations for this were made in London, but Soviet forces refused to allow this operation for "logistic" reasons although the troop carrier command felt sure they could supply a division on the ground until it could make the connection with the Soviets. These are the primary reasons why blame is placed on the Russians, because each act had nothing to do with the stopping of the Russians outside of Warsaw, which could well have been the forced halt of an expended offensive. Borkiewicz, A. (1964). "Powstanie Warszawskie 1944". Warsaw Instytut Wydawniczy. I cannot find an English copy of this book, our library copy was read to me by a Ukrainian friend.

Here is the reason why many Poles today think that the Russians screwedx the uprising. Stalin condemned the uprising publicaly in an August radio address. He said, "I have familiarized myself with more closely with the Warsaw affair. I am convinced that the Warsaw action represents a reckless and terrible adventure, which is costing the population large sacrifices. ... In the situation that has arisen, the Soviet Command has come to the conclusion that it must dissociate itself from the Warsaw adventure as it cannot take any direct or indirect responsibility for the Warsaw action." This text was also transmitted to the Allies. The Soviet Army refused the Free Polish and American flyers flying from Italy landing permission making them have to fly round trip to supply the Polish forces. This refusal would only be ended in Septemnber after it was too late to save the Warsaw insurgents. Gen. Tadeusz "Bór" Komorowski requested that Polish Airborne forces be dropped by the Allies. Preperations for this were made in London, but Soviet forces refused to allow this operation for "logistic" reasons although the troop carrier command felt sure they could supply a division on the ground until it could make the connection with the Soviets. These are the primary reasons why blame is placed on the Russians, because each act had nothing to do with the stopping of the Russians outside of Warsaw, which could well have been the forced halt of an expended offensive. Borkiewicz, A. (1964). "Powstanie Warszawskie 1944". Warsaw Instytut Wydawniczy. I cannot find an English copy of this book, our library copy was read to me by a Ukrainian friend.

If you are attacking then only 1/5 of the maps is open to placement, and your 81mm assets would be on the "map" behind you. Luckily, the situation you are worried about would be extremely rare: firing at the far end of a 3km long map with 81mm mortars. In fact, we can assume that they are even setup on the board, but cannot move becuase that is where their wire drops are and commo setup is. The reason we have to assume this is the engine cannot now, nor can it in the near future, handle the complexities of spotter based artillery that controls on board assets. However, a good scenerio designer can easily work around this rare condition. Since it is a rare situation in the game there is no need at this point to get all worked up about it. BTW -- this was discussed a year and a half ago very extensively, and makes interesting reading if you can find it.

This has been suggested before, and the reasons against it would be It would open the game to cheating in PBEM files and It would be a lot of work for no financial gain. For CMMC type games however there is a better casualty screen coming.

I think you meant so damned cherry.

BTS said no national modifiers that were actually other variables that were not national in nature but could be modelled in game terms. The remaining would require extensive documentation (rather than urban legend) to bring in. An individual peice of equipment for example could be modeled with lower reliability if equipment reliability becomes a variable in games. But you are unlikely to get a -1 applied to all Germans because they ate Bratwurst in the field and a +1 to all Russians because they were dressed in uncarded wool underwear.

So you found a picture of me on the web. Are you going to doctor it?</font>

Since most bullets suppress rather than kill, energy of the weapon would not be a big issue. Post war studies showed that the ultra high rate of fire of the MG34 was wasted, and indeed the MG1 moderated the wartime designs rate of fire. This is because the primary function in modern combat of a machinegun is to suppress return fire, and supression occurs best when bursts of fire are directed at an area in which soldiers are, forcing them to quit firing and duck. Suppressive effect weapons have higher ROF, but not extreme rates of fire, which just wastes ammuntition. Basically any center of mass hit by any bullet on any person not wearing modern body armor will take them out of combat for the duration of an action and cause them to be WIA. Germans loved using captured PPSH41 and the Russian autoloading rifles not because of any issues of firepower, the literature does not support troops figuring out their fire power ratings with individual weapons. They loved the weapons because they were more reliable than the early German autoloading rifles and the MP40 in harsh conditions, and because of that natural tendency of every army to think the other guy has a better gun (look at Vietnam where the NVA prized the US M16 and US troops loved the AK47, even though the average dogface was never allowed to retain it). Weapon stopping power comes into play usually in very limited situations of face to face confrontation is close combat, where a person who is still capable of jerking a trigger is still dangerous. Also, muzzle energy, while a factor in stopping power, is not the only factor, nor is it linear. The .357, with lower muzzle energy than the .44 magnum, has a much higher hit to kill ratio in FBI studies based on street shooting incidents, while the .45 and the 9mm are much closer together in ball type loadings than legend would have it. (In tactical loadings usings high technology hollow points the bullets diverge more).

The problem with the assault rifle / SMG discussion is that first, there are indeed cases when a SMG is more useful than an assault rifle despite the fact that an assault rifle is generally superior, and second, the red herring of stopping power. In combat, stopping power is often discussed, but research shows that most soldiers, with a few medal winning exceptions, quit actively participating in fighting when hit by any bullet or shrapnel in the chest. This means that, except for penetrations, the differenve between an assault rifle round and a pistol round in the CM scale is not that great. rate of fire, controllability, ammo weight, and other factors all are more important that stopping power, since almost any bullet hit will end a soldier's active participation in fighting. Next, there is a distinct advantage of WW3 SMG over assault rifles that is maintained today, and that is recoil from firing makes the average SMG easier to fire than the average assault rifle in full automatic mode. This is why police forces around the world use SMG for close in fighting today, they are much eaier to control, and they can get much better suppression at close range. At longer ranges (75 meters +) the assault rifle is much better for its suppressive power, but at close range SMG are more deadly and cause greater suppresion. The assault rifle, as shown by the MP-44, was better than a SMG overall because it could engage enemy out to all useful ranges, had full-automatic fire for emergencies, and a large capacity magazine. But by being good at all three, it game up being great at any one. This is wahy the SMG keeps a niche even today, although even more advanced assault rifles based on small ammunition and low recoil gas greatly diminished some of the SMG advantages.

Well...furry gophers certainly are nice and cuddly aren't they? Wait a minute! Idjit Yeknod, don't you even think of it...Berli's already taken! Persephone</font>

Calmly waiting for Seanachai to speak, knowing in my heart his reply will be weak. His continued silence forces me to think, about how much his playing really does stink, Still an hour of Seanachai's blather, is bound to be better than a minute of Chrisl's lather. That idjit should be locked into a chatroom with Iron Chief, Brian Ross, and Susan Smith (look her up). Calmly waiting for Seanachai to speak, knowing his high brow rhymes wont break his loosing streak. ------------------ Where is the next taunt? Either beat down that sod Chrisl's and get Peng back his name, or come up with some interesting commentary to entertain me!

I find a very similar argument goes for tanks. They seem to die or get bogged down all the time. Seems like there is a special trick to use them. Also AT guns. Those things cannot sprint at all, and they die like sheep on a sheep ranch. Very difficult to use properly. Come to think of it, half tracks are vulnerable and require a nack to get the most out of. The die quickly, it seems like even an HMG can geek them.

Seanachai, I'm very disappointed in you. How could you dump the cute little furry donkey like that...and the worse part of it is...you're dumping him for...Slapdragon! Hmmmm...I don't really know what Slapdragon looks like...maybe he has more fur than Idjit Yeknod. Slapdragon, Please send me a photo of yourself. I'm curious as to why Seanachai finds you more attractive than the donkey. Persephone</font>

Slappy: 1 Sodachai: 0</font>