Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Marlow

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,075

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Marlow

    Will some of the FUN be put back ??

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by dalem:

    As otehrs have mentioned, give me an "advance through contact" command that will enable me to direct a platoon or squad to "point B". How or when they get there is unimportant to me.

    This one I will agree with. I'd like it if a squad would remember its original objective. Let it panic and such, but when it is back in good order, I'd like it to start off again unless I cancel the order.

    Dale, one suggestion I have is to keep to smaller battles with only a company or so of Infantry.

    0

    Will some of the FUN be put back ??

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Is CMBB really more of a micromanager's game than CMBO? Somethings were simplified in CMBB. The fiddly hide and ambush stuff replaced with a much more user friendly covered arc command. The follow command allows easier hunting of tanks without replotting just because the tank moved a bit. It seems that most of the fuss is about the new movement commands and the effects of MG fire, both of which are marked improvements that do not so much increase the micromanagement as the realism. This isn't the case of adding unnecessary detail, but rather making the unit act properly to fire. A little story: When I first started playing CMBO I did all the right things like moving up my MGs to cover routes of advance and using mortar spotters and HE to suppress likely enemy possitions before I would move troops forward. But over time I learned that this was often unnecessary in the game as I could just run my troops across the danger area without undue casualties. Then came CMBB, and to my delight, I was force back to proper tactics. Having to use support arms and movement properly isn't undue micromanagement, but realistic modeling.

    0

    MP44

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    Good point - I would question though whether these systems would have survived a move to high-intensity fighting from early summer 45, as would have occurred with a conflict with the SU.

    A couple of factors would likely have improved the situation over the earlier times. Assuming a Soviet offensive (as we are talking about the "Russians taking out the British and Americans for Dessert"), the US wouldn't have faced a situation where divisions were constantly outrunning their supply and support train(including manpower supply) as they had in the fall 1944 advances, so that it would be easier for 1) Div. training centers to be maintained and 2) for wounded troops to be sent back to their original unit. Sometime around March of 45, returning troops to their original unit was made official policy.

    Next a question for any that care to answer it. What was the Soviet replacement system? My best recollection (probably wrong) is that the Soviets often let their units go without replacements, preferring to constitute entire new formations.

    0

    MP44

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    Point of clairification. The Repple-Depple system was under drastic revision towards the end of the war. The situation was already much improved in spring of 45 as the US learned hard leasons from 1944's fighting. Divisional training camps and other measures to reduce the problems of piecemeal replacements with raw recruits were being implemented. (See Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy"). The U.S. Army of May 1945 was a far more effective organization than that of June 1944 both in equipment and tactics.
    0

    MP44

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

    Depends on how well each side is trained. Given identical training they would actually be quite even. A dedicated rifle has a longer effective range while a true SMG is handier in CQB. The AR is not a wonder weapon.

    While I agree with your basic argument that the MP 44 in greater numbers wouldn't have had much effect on WWII, I'd disagree with the above. Not a wonder weapon for sure, but more effective in a greater number of situations than either a small magazine, large bore rifle or a SMG. Also, the long range accuracy of a large bore rifle compared to a typical AR is not significant in 99 percent of combat situations.
    0

    MP44

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Barleyman:

    As far as I understand these things, the war was won by

    a) Russian divisional and higher level artillery

    B) Russian strategic operations (bagration, uranus etc)

    c) Russians reclaiming the skies in -43

    d) Russian tank platoons which could've taken out US and UK armies for dessert after defeating germans

    Here we go again. At the risk of further sidetracking this thread and of beating a very dead horse, a few questions for you:

    a) Why only Russian artillery?

    c) How did the Russians reclaim the sky? (Who really desstroyed German airpower?)

    d is too silly to deal with.

    0

    I tried to challenge Peng, but all I got was an indecent proposal...

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    A scene from a dark cave far beneath the Cess-Pool. Effluent drips with metronome regularity, and torches gutter in the dank air. Even the fire seems weary as it struggles to push back the darkness. A few shadowy forms huddle around a stone table; the worn down defenders of the MBT resigned to the seemingly doomed struggle against creeping mediocrity. Empty bottles litter the floor.

    Jo Xia - Well that’s it then. This is how it is to end? With morons posting pictures or penguins and whatnot, and other morons challenging Peng? Oh the shame. I’m sorry lads, it appears that I’ve failed in my duties as keeper of the traditions of the MBT. [weeps softly].

    MrSpanker – There, there Jo, its not all your fault. I’ve not done to well as Inquisitor either. It’s a sad thing, these pool-dipping idiots have done to a once proud institution, but there is more than enough blame to go around. [looks around] Where are the squires, I need another beer?

    Boo Boo – The’ve all left. Doesn’t really matter since the booze is gone as well.

    Lard – NOOOOoooooooo. [collapses on the floor]

    Boo Boo - So are the inflatable sheep.

    Mace - NOOOOoooooooo. [collapses on the floor]

    · * * *

    Thus marks the nadir of the Cesspool. A once shining star amongst the plethora of tournaments, ladders, rules, and gamey opponents, rushing jeeps and running machine guns. Once the Olympian heights to which the average Boardie could only dream, it has, much like Nobel Peace Prize, been reduced to a shell of what it once stood for.

    But stick to it lads. You are caretakers of the Cess. You few await the return to glory. A time when idiots such as this Monty and DUNGBOY would verbally have had their spleens crushed, their bellies split open, and their intestines used as a Sicilian necktie. A time when Meeks would have popped Morons such as Lt. Wort like a pimple on Berli’s bum rather than make him a Squire (or whatever the hell he is). A time when jd would have unleashed his attack Croda on any who dared soil the Cess as has been done of late. That time will come.

    In the meantime, something almost as good. I’ll be sending out some equally long awaited turns to a lucky few who had games with me.

    [ May 09, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

    0

    MP44

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Brigadier:

    Again concur. All this autofire rubbish

    I partially agree. Full auto fire is not all that useful for aimed fire, but there are situations where it is called for e.g. breaking contact, room clearing, limited vis., certain ambush situations. Additionally, I have found short bursts to be very useful in relatively short range situations (less than 100 meters or so). Admittedly this was in training (with MILES), but I found over time that snap shots (call it semi-aimed for discussion purposes) taken as a burst were more likely to hit the target than those taken on semi-auto.

    I do agree that training, and not the particular weapon is the bigger factor.

    [ May 08, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

    0

    What was the ratio of tank losses on the western front ?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marlow:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tero:

    The passage credits the kills to the BATTALIONS, not SP TD's in particular. The SP vs towed gun losses were 1:6 in favour of the SP's.

    " Whereas self-propelled tank destroyers scored the most kills, towed battalions suffered the heavier losses ..." </font>
    0

    What was the ratio of tank losses on the western front ?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marlow:

    So, 300 German tanks to the loss of 10 SP TDs. Even factoring in normal kill inflation, and subtracting out the few kills that the towed TDs (AT guns) made, this is impressive.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you comparing total German losses caused by all TDs (SP and towed) throughout the campaign against US SP TD losses in the first week? Or am I missing something very obvious? </font>
    0

    What was the ratio of tank losses on the western front ?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by CombinedArms:

    I read somewhere on this board in CMBO days the claim that Hellcats had something like a 8-1 kill ratio, but that might be against all vehicles (HTs, trucks, etc.), not just tanks. It's hard to imagine an 8-1 kill ratio for Hellcats vs. real tanks, given their vulnerabilites. The data or figures quoted in general seem so rife with these kinds of ambiguities that it's hard to know what they mean.

    American TDs seemed to have a fairly good record against German tanks. The following quote is from "Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II," Dr. Christopher R. Gabel found at http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

    "Tank destroyers emerged from the Ardennes campaign with a mixed reputation, On the positive side of the ledger, statisticians credited the tank destroyer battalions with the destruction of 306 enemy tanks.71 Many of these kills came during the decisive engagements of the campaign. On the negative side, the towed tank destroyer had proved to be a failure. Whereas self-propelled tank destroyers scored the most kills, towed battalions suffered the heavier losses: in the first critical week of the campaign, First Army lost seventy-seven tank destroyers, sixty-five of which were towed."

    So, 300 German tanks to the loss of 10 SP TDs. Even factoring in normal kill inflation, and subtracting out the few kills that the towed TDs (AT guns) made, this is impressive.

    0

    DC Drinks - Looks like we're off

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Chupacabra:

    Can I get a final count of who's coming?

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

    April 22, 6 PM, RFD

    The RFD's address:

    810 Seventh St. NW

    Washington, DC 20001

    Phone: 202-289-2030

    As always, my email is in my profile, and drop my line if you need my phone number. If you can't make it until later than 6, stop by, I'll be there for the long haul.

    </font>
    0
×
×
  • Create New...