BloodyBucket

If this award means Sucks at Operations & Battles, then I humbly submit myself for nomination.

Richard, I don't have the source material in front of me, but in answer to your questions... Marshall has been taken to task for his research, because there is no evidence to support it. There are no notes, nobody he worked with remembers him asking about "fire ratios", and the fact that he exagerated his WWI service record has cast serious doubt on his "ratio of fire" findings. As far as I know, no one has a blanket answer to exactly how many US soldiers fired in any engagement. The quality and training of US units varied widely, the answer would be different at various times and places, and there are plenty of examples of units going past enemy units without a shot fired, and other examples of fights that consumed huge amounts of small arms ammo. My father told me of times he and his comrades would pass up shots at Germans that they considered "pointless", and of other times when they would "pour it on" an enemy that they had an advantage of. Sorry, but I know of no clear answer. Perhaps a more groggy board member can provide a better answer.

Hey, I think one of my posts was deleted! I have to go find my tinfoil hat to protect me from the waves the vast Infopop conspiracy are beaming into my head. Where did I put that darn thing? :mad:

Thanks, Wacky. My fifteen year old nephew, who has been very ill, has been clinging to life waiting for this mod. I sent him your link, he will be very happy to have it before the horrible disease eating away at him finally claims him.

'Xactly. My father would be amazed that there are people here who can recognize all the german tanks at a glance, down to sub-variations. He was a rifleman in the 28th ID, and to this day, all german tanks were tigers, all german artillery was 88mm, and every shot fired during the war was more or less aimed at him. Not all participants are Grogs.

D3DRM.DLL is installed as a part of the DirectX installation. I believe there is a directx repair tool in system accesories.

The Grossman book is very interesting. I haven't read the other you mention. If I recall, Grossman postulates that the reactive and repetitious nature of some computer "shooter" games means that we are raising a generation of kids preconditioned to kill. My performance at these games is a depressing indication of my abilities as a warrior, I'm afraid.

That training that you mention is at least in part a reaction to Marshall's book. Perhaps modern media, society and weapons make a GI more likely to fire than his WII grandfather, but the training has changed a lot, and like him or not, Marshall's book had an influence on that.

I find it hard to believe that Hackworth would describe himself as an "avowed pacifist".

I would guess so. I got my copy at the Fort Lewis library (Grandstaff). They have an impressive collection of military books of all kinds.

There have been quite a few Marshall threads. There are several indications that he was very sloppy in his gathering of evidence for his statistics, perhaps even fabricating them to back his thesis that small unit cohesion deserved greater attention in training. I feel that this does not automatically invalidate his basic idea, and post WWII training has been better for the attention that "Men Against Fire" got at the time. Peter Mansoor devotes some attention to this in "The GI Offensive In Europe", his 1999 book about American infantry divisions. It is worth a read. Mansoor is not shy about pointing out the problems in American units, but he rejects the "Germans were smashed by superior numbers" theme. With the recent release of "Blackhawk Down", a movie that depicts a 1993 engagement where the U.S.-Somali kill ratio was on the order of 19-500 or so, without massive artillery support (although with helicopter air support) it is interesting to ponder if the emphasis on small unit cohesion brought on by "Men Against Fire" is a bad thing, even if Marshall was given to telling fish stories, and passing them off as authentic.

Seems to be a new name in that spot every day. I know I try to "spread the word" about CM, but it makes one wonder, how long would there be an interest in CMBO if there was never a CMBB or a CMII? Some games get a cult following that lasts way beyond the commercial life of the game. If, heaven forbid, CMBO was "all she wrote", would you still break it out in five or ten years? Are there any games you play that are way past their prime? (The wife and I had a blast playing M.U.L.E recently)

Kalishnikov may have gotten the concept of the AK-47 from the MP-44, but the operating system is different enough to make it unfair to say he copied it. Original cartridges for the MP-44 are almost unknown today, as they were not made with the usual brass case, and most have corroded to a useless state. A reloader with the right tools could resize brass to make it "fit" but that would be a work intensive, expensive proposition. The U.S. army once did a study to determine the "perfect" cartridge for the service rifle and LMG, in the late 70's or early 80's. They put all the data into a computer, and after factoring in terminal and external ballistics, recoil, weight of ammo, etc. the design that got spit out was remarkably like a commercial .243 Winchester or military 6.5 Swedish Mauser round. They never adopted it, as it was deemed to spendy to rechamber the current inventory. The "puny" 9x19mm lives on, almost a century after it was introduced. The 7.62x51mm NATO round is really a modified .30-06, that more or less dates back to 1903. Even the "modern" 5.56 NATO of M-16 fame is a child of the 1950's. It seems the nature of flesh and bone does not require much of an upgrade in ballistics technology to defeat it.

I know of at least one unit that uses CM as a tactical training aid. Just another tool in the toolbox.

In front of it? My dad never mentioned nebelwerfers as being an especially terrifying thing, but he did develope an intense dislike of mortars. He said that the Germans would sometimes pop a round on the road, wait a bit, and then really lay it on the ditches along the roadside. He seemed to think that was a little unfair, and took to dropping flat where he was at the time. Once, as he got up, he burned his hand on the ground where a round had landed. Truly a "fugitive from the law of averages."

What you are after is a good T/O&E. That is "Table of organization and equiptment" in nonmilitary english. Here seems like a good place to start. Official T/O&E was subject to change, but this might give you some ideas. Good luck.

Yes. Most annoying, but the penalty you pay for having an open rear in the fighting compartment. I bet it made for nasty ricochets in there.

Good point. I DL far more scenarios than I play, and the ones that get played tend to be small. Why DL them if I know I am not going to play them? Sometimes to admire the map, sometimes just for the subject (Any 28th division game), sometimes just in case I ever get any free time....

I told my opponent to write a review, also. Played "Wrong End" and had a great game. Nice map, gives the player a great choice between the need for speed on the roads and the ability to go cross country. Well done. Good mix of forces, both in types of units and experience of units. I hereby pledge to write more reviews. [ February 04, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

Very sad. Those sound mods added more dimension to the game than other that I have downloaded. I can only wish Scipio well, and say thanks.

I haven't tried that particular scenario, but you've inspired me to give one a go and write a review. By the way, there is a fair chance that had I reviewed it, the ungaurded flank would have gone unnoticed, I'm fully capable of missing something obvious.

Well, since the subject of Marines has been brought up in the context of FNG's... If we use the Marine Corps model, it is the duty of the more seasoned forum members to pass on the traditions and attitude of the forum to those who are new to it. This is much more of a challenge to the old hands, as the responsibility rests with them, not the new members. CM is great game, and the community of talented and dedicated people on the forum add a dimension to the game that is simply not available elswhere. The Marine Corps is unique because of Marines, not because of any special gear or technique. In many ways CM is like that, as there are games that have more eye candy or whistles and bells, yet the basic gameplay package and the community around it elevate it to something more. The old hands must reach out to the new ones, and pass that "something more" along. Certainly from a sales standpoint, the more the merrier. If that presents a challenge to the forum, I am sure the veteran members are up to the task. Bring 'em on.

Yep. Perhaps that is where a true multiplayer game would shine, with a pre-battle briefing, and each element commander having a locked field of view and limited communications with other elements. In the current system, the player is given C&C and intel that any WWII officer would have given a (insert body part here) for. Still, it is interesting to think of additional things the Co. and Bn. commanders might do in the current game. Increase fire support availability or effectiveness? Make reinforcements arrive faster? Change flag locations in mid battle? Serve as a huge VP penalty if whacked? Make the player fill out pages of reports after each battle? Put the town you just liberated off limits to enlisted men?

The double bonus command radius is an interesting concept. Why is it assumed that leaders always give bonuses? I think it would be historical as well as interesting to have leaders that have a negative effect. The current CM model is that any 90 Day Wonder is an asset, and that the biggest problem facing the commander (player) is to choose from a stable of strong horses. One of the big problems facing a real commander is trying to minimize the damage that incompetent underlings create.

Haven't tried it yet, mainly because I'm happy with my current mods.