BloodyBucket

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>this typing is for cavemen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I use this Gamevoice gizmo for voice chat in other games. Sadly, I can't get it to work while playing CM. Back to my cave, I guess.

I am afraid that retrieving PIPPU will not involve any prying...

Wasn't the Springfield used to launch grenades? Later, a setup for the Garand was fielded, but early on I think the '03 was kept for the grenade launching role.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger killed by Greyhound <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like something nasty involving a zoo and a bus.

Perhaps Furiously Babra can include his original member number in his sig line as a kind of memorial.

Sorry about the ID problems. Perhaps you should go with a U.N. theme, like Buthros Buthros Babra. Or a cartoon theme, like Babra-Babra-doo! the war cry of Fred Flintstone from that old Hannah-Babrabara show. Or a Beach Boys theme... [ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

Babra, your disagreement with my statement on ammo use is probably correct. I should have used the past tense. I think it is true applied to WWII era soldiers in general, and to modern soldiers using WWII era training.

I know using S.L.A. Marshall is like asking for an icepick in the nape of the neck, but here goes... In "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation" he claims that most riflemen used only a fraction of the ammo they were issued per day, and that since more ammo was almost always near at hand, they should get rid of some of it! I can't get at my cartridge belt right now (kid is asleep in the next room) but if memory serves (Warning! my memory stinks) a cartridge belt holds ten, eight round Garand clips. Add a bandolier and I think we are talking about 168 rounds or so. I think that for most GI's this was plenty, since if running out of ammo was a common problem we would hear about it more often, or they would have carried more. Now, in CM no infantry unit runs out of ammo, they just get "low". This whole issue might be factored in as the troops getting conservative when they do not have a "surplus" of ammo (the manual points in this direction). In the accounts of battle I have read, there does not seem to be a lot of statements like, "We had them in our sights, but we didn't fire because we were low on ammo". The common complaint seems to be more along the lines of "I couldn't see anybody to shoot at". I don't think the ammo level screams for a fix, but a reasonable person could make a case for upping it a little.

Posted by The Wood: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be interesting to follow someone using this approach. How would the logistics play into a CM-scale battle? How would availabiltiy of unit types be handled? I believe this is where the true superiority of the allies show up. While at an individual battle level, the best of the Germans is better than the best of allies, translating down from the operational-level would probably show how rare large-scale panther/tiger on Sherman encounters were. And before someone blows a gasket, I mean rare in the scheme of the number of small unit actions that took place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good points. Perhaps the best approach would be to have an umpire make the call as to supply level. Most games represent units on a level that is much too large for CM, regiment or division level. A representative company size battle in CM could be used to give the result for combat between these large units. In a bulge game like "The Bitter Woods" you might give the allies points to spend on air support on clear days, and prohibit the Germans from purchasing ubertanks after a set number had been destroyed. The simpler the boardgame in this case, the better I would think. You would really have to make up a lot of rules on the fly, but the reward in terms of seeing how your side was doing in the overall scheme of a larger battle might be worth it. You might even take the leap to another era. Use a game like "Diplomacy" that uses area movement, fight battles in CM and apply the results to the positions on the board. It would be a huge abstraction, and completely ahistorical ("500 point Canadian vs. Heer Quick Battle to see who gets Ukraine") but it would give your CM battles a larger context to exist in.

Good points Jason, I was just speaking to the individual's viewpoint. I know the German haul of Russian material was huge. In the way of small arms, didn't most of it get issued to rear area troops? Even with all that captured gear and manufacturing capacity, it had to be a logistical nightmare trying to supply different units with different ammo.

I think the issue of finding ammo for personal weapons is not so big a deal as one might think. Most soldiers don't go through that much ammo in one engagement, and if you do run out and the issue is not decided then there is probably somebody near who does not need a weapon anymore. Crew served weapons are a different matter. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

Posted by ASL Veteran" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One reason you may not want to use captured equipment is that the enemy equipment usually has a sound that is distinct from your own weaponry. Friendly troops may mistake the user as an enemy and blast away in his direction <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My father told about that problem. In France, he and some buddies came upon an abandoned MG42 and quite a bit of ammo for it, thought it would be poetic justice to use it on the former owners and were fired on by 60mm mortars soon after opening up. I agree that the Germans probably didn't see a need for putting the M2 into widespread use. It is a big item to lug around if you are on foot, and they didn't have an abundance of vehicles to play with.

I would be willing to agree to the 100 Germans equals 120 allied soldiers formula. I think the allies were satisfied with winning the war that way. The side with the advantage in fire support saw no pressing need to best the enemy on a man for man level. A nice luxury, if you can afford it.

If you take the money I spent on CMBO and divide it by the hours I've spent playing, thinking about or reading about the game, it is almost free anyway. I can't think of a better entertainment bargain out there.

Originally posted by Dwight Eisenhower: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let us have no part in the in the profitless quarrels in which other men will inevitably engage as to what country, what service, won the European war. Every man, every woman of every nation here represented has served according to his or her ability, and the efforts of each have contributed to this outcome. This we will remember - an in doing so we shall be sending comfort to the loved ones of comrades who could not live to see this day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Part of his victory message to the troops

Wow, try to be a little sarcastic about ballistics and what happens? Mark IV, you are obviously a gun geek. I guess it takes one to know one. The Great Stopping Power Debate will go on until they invent those phaser thingies from Star Trek, and then, God help me, they will argue over if you should glow red or blue before you vaporize. I think the caliber, bullet type and other trivia are fun to discuss but only a mousefart in the wind compared to the skill and the will of the shooter. Governments issue usable weapons to the soldiers, and after that it is up to the guy with the gun to get it done or not.

Posted by username: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If anyone thinks Steve McQueen could have carried any other weapon in the closing scenes of The Sand Pebbles...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He would have been better served by an M-16A2. More velocity, and it doesn't tear the tin cans or squirrels up so bad. After all, look at what happened to him in the end.

Hmmm... Perhaps a new thread on small arms stopping power is in order. Marshall, Sanow, Cooper, Ayoob and the other experts could be sited, and we can debate stretch cavities, crush cavities, energy transfer and one shot stops. In CM terms, I would think most soldiers lucky enough to receive a "million dollar wound" stopped fighting and started planning what they were going to do when they got home. Or,in CM, to make penetration of humans a problem, special units of doughnut gobling heavyweights could be purchased to deal with bailed out crews armed only with paltry pistols. "I laugh at your luger because of my immense bulk!" I bet you could get 'em with a carbine and a twenty round magazine, though. [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

Rightly posted by username: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 20 round clip? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My bust, you are correct. I have a sack full of 'em and they are 15 rounds. I stand by my statement that minor foliage (branches) will deflect almost any bullet. I doubt that the Garand is vastly superior to the carbine in this respect. I brought up the cop story to illustrate the fact that at short range, a .30 carbine round is not an insignifigant thing. I love the Garand, make no mistake, but I confess to having a soft spot for the little carbine as well. One of the highlights of my time with the Marines was getting to shoot a BAR that the Green Beanies had. I guess I like them all! That is the nice thing about these fine old weapons, you can always kick them around for some good conversation.

Posted by Stormhouse: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This game is so frustrating its hard to beleive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well said. I have been playing for quite some time and I still feel that way on occasion. Congratulations on your victory, taking out that Panther with a bazooka is something to be proud of. Good show! This is what makes it such a great game. You may get to the point where you can beat the computer every time (I have not) but as stated earlier there is the challenge of human opponents to keep it fresh. Hundreds of scenarios to download, hundreds of graphics mods, sound mods and this board to keep Combat Mission fresh. If you want, you can even start designing scenarios and mods yourself to publish, or start a website dedicated to CM. I am too unskilled and passive to it, but just keeping up with what others are doing is a full time job. Have fun with the full game. It is only just starting. Oh, and welcome to the club!

Old 29er : Welcome aboard sir, and thank you for your service. It is an honor to hear from you on our little board. The voice of experience speaks loudest, sir, and I am grateful for your interest and input. May I be so bold as to inquire if you've played the game that inspires this board, Combat Mission? I would be delighted to hear your impressions of it if you have, and if you have not but are interested, let me know. Once again, a real pleasure to hear from you, and thanks.

Mark IV, your points are all well presented and well taken. The carbine was not a useless popgun, but not a battle rifle either. Jim Cirrilo, a NYC cop who shot a lot of men on robbery stake out duty, swore by the M1 carbine, modified to feed soft point ammo. They never had to shoot more than once with that combo. The carbine is just another tool in the toolbox. I don't hammer with a wrench, but I don't dismiss the wrench as useless.

Originally posted by Username: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psychos drunk on saki and wrapped in bandages can shrug off a hit from this pop gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As they would shrug off a hit from a Garand in the same spot. The time one would want a fast handling, twenty shot, easy to reload weapon like a carbine is when faced with a horde of foes like the above. Small arms, with very few exceptions, do not "knock 'em down" without regard to shot placement. The Marines liked the carbine just fine. Lots of rounds quick under short range conditions sounds like a job for the "popgun". The rap against the carbine comes from: 1. People trying to use it like a Garand at long ranges 2. Failure of the round to stop heavily clothed North Koreans in sub-zero conditions, where the carbine froze up and the firing pin frequently snapped. The fact that the carbine found its way into front line service speaks volumes about the weapon. The troops wanted it. It was not meant to replace the Garand, nor could it. If anything it was more in demand in the Pacific where firefights took place at shorter ranges, in hot weather where layers of winter clothing were not a problem for the blunt bullet to overcome. As to small arms fire penetrating jungle or brush, it just ain't done with aimed fire. Very small branches send bullets careening off course. If you want to penetrate a log, than by all means a Garand of BAR is better than a carbine. If you want to aim at a point target you can barely see 50 yards away through the jungle undergrowth, no rifle issued will do that reliably.

Hey lcm1947, don't sweat it. I'm the one who can't tell a major from a major general. I like to poke fun at the folks who get into the different variations of tanks, and here I am all worked up about the difference between the .30 1906, .30M1 and .30M2 cartridges, not to mention AP, API, tracer, frangible and dummy versions of the old 30-06. Everyone is a geek about something, I guess.

Steady, Jack. The meds will kick in soon.