The_Capt

RA

NE

GE

*Crackle of Radio*, Smell of Desiel, "Charlie, Charlie One this is India Niner.. Oscars in Figures Three", A bird takes flight into the morning sun, The Horrible Beauty of Her Savage Face, Freedom. I do love this game.

Gentlemen, A vehicle "run-up" postion is just that, a notch into the ground in which a vehicle can run up into, and conversely out of. It requires engineer heavy equipment work (ie bulldozer) to accomplish and often can do multiple positions for each tank. Very handy in the withdrawl or defence. I think the boys are fixing this for CM2 as right now the engineers seem to dig a hole and drop the unsuspecting tank into it. Run up positions should be "buyable" much in the same way as roadblocks but I think the engine may prevent that.

Quote "Oh, bull****, pure and simple. If this is the new Canadian approach to warfare, heaven help the Canadian soldier. Australians have stood by and watched the Americans attempt to use that rationale in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. In each and every case, the PBI has had to go in and clear the enemy out. It does not work and this is one of the major lessons we teach our diggers - firepower without discipline is simply a waste of ammunition and a pretty fireworks display." Brian, you are living in the past and so is the Australia judging by your comments. You may be able to produce a fantastic infantryman but that isn't going to matter? As to the threat the rifleman will guard against? Well there are many on the modern battlefield and some will continue to be infantry, of course most of them are guarding their weapons systems too. I have been a professional Army officer for 13 yrs and what I am saying is nothing more than an extension of current NATO doctrine. "Firepower" has come of age in High Intensity conflict. You and yours may continue to pine away for the days when the bayonette, rifle and blood were the principal weapon on the battlefield but I am sorry those days are gone. Hell if airpower continues to excel at the rate it is we could all be out of a "warfighting" job and be restricted to peacemaking and security roles. There will be exceptions to the rule in environments where the basic grunt is required but for how long? The "means" have become more important than the "ends" in the infantry battle. I am have read about cavalry being of a similar mind towards and during WWI, many swearing up and down that steel and lance would carry the day for Operational breakout...sorry Charlie but those days are gone. Now it is obvious we are not going to agree and because there is no war on, it really doesn't matter. I think we should settle this with a CM game...

PzL, OK I'll buy that but then why don't you pull outthe silly calibres (ie 203mm) and stick with 155 and below. I mean if you take a British Bn and give it a historical OOB that is well and good but a single 3 in mortar FO that isn't going to do what is suppose to, what is the point of sticking to a historical OOB in the first place? I am sorry and this is killing me, but the deeper I get into this game the shallower it is looking. I mean it is an absolute riot to play and you will never hear me complain about it's "fun factor" and for that I am enternally thankful but when major weapons systems (ie MGs, Engineer obstacles and Arty) are abstracted to such a degree, it is looking more like "wargaming lite". What kills me is that there is sooo much detail and accuracy in other areas. I mean armour is modeled in extreme detail, I am posting on another thread arguing the value of the M1 vs the Enfield but what is the point if arty doesn't work like it should. Maybe I should just step back and accept that "It is just a game" but it looked soooo close.

No shrapnel radius!!!?? Well correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the whole point of wrapping the things in steel. Hell pack em in cardboard if all you want is a BOOM. A 155mm shell has a danger radius of 1100m and a lethal radius of somewhere between 100 and 200m in the open. As to "stuff happening", OK I can buy that but they should at least "Take Cover" and lie down. [ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Bumpity!!

Brian, My point isn't "infantrymen" but basic riflemen. Yes, infantry do seize and hold the ground but the weapons they use are becoming more and more firepower orientated and less emphasis on the soldier. The infantry man is being pushed into a "weapons system" security role...against whom? Well other weapons systems. When sighting a coy, you start with the AT weapons because the main threat is APCs and Armour. Then you sight arty and MGs to counter dismounted infantry, THEN you sight the few remaining riflemen to protect the first three assets. You do not by sighting the basic rifleman and then work up. The same goes for the offence. I am interested in weapons systems "Get that MG up here." "Where is my firebase and that arty?" The actual dogfight trench clearing is the last of my problems. In fact if I can get the rifleman into the trench, we've pretty much one because all of the enemies weapons systems (AT, MGS and arty) have been defeated to get the troops there. Hell Manouevre Doctrine teaches that you don't even bother with the trench clearing, just leave what is left of them (ie guard them) and charge on. So you see, I think you are oversimplifying the battlefield. The infantry have a role but it is a pale comparison to what it used to be...now follow the curve to the end and see what you get. Infantry becoming security guards for weapon systems. Do not start with optical sights!! I have no idea why we (Canadians) and our UK allies are switching to them. Hell we used to use the FNC1 which had an effective fire out to 600m and a serious punch when it got there. Then we switched to the M16A2 because we finally got on the "firepower bandwagon". Then we brilliantly saddled the damn thing with a scope. Now take it from me (I have been there) trying to find a sniper and take an aimed shot from that scope while being shot at is downright silly (Hmm now which tree on that hills side did I see a flash...oh ya that's right the use covers for the flash). I would have much rather had a weapon which could keep his head down (like 6 GPMGs or a minigun) until mortars or a tank could do the job. The idea that I need a platoon full of sharpshooters is counter-productive. The only answer I can come up with is to enhance our OOTW capability, where the need for selective shooting would be an asset. The bottom line is and will be "firepower". If you can project sufficent amounts at an enemy, accuracy ceases to really matter on the scale of an individual rifle. It kinda blows the gun lobbys "right to bear arms against tyranny" argument all to hell doesn't it? Whoops another discussion. I would hazard that the M1 had a very high rate of fire. The FN which has a 7.62mm round had a 30 round per minute (or one every two seconds) but you could put out twice that. As to BTS biased, well they did a lot right and they did a lot wrong but I think the key point is that "they did something". Wargaming has somewhere to go now and CM has shown it the way.

OK, I didn't do a search cause that thing is a horrible experience. First question. Spec Fire. I did a test in which a platoon opened up with area fire at an unseen but known (a la Hotseat) Axis section position. The platoon wailed away at 300 nd 200ms for 3 turns..then a .50 cal joined in. Bottom line, couldn't get a Regular infantry section, out of command radius to break cover. They weren't "supressed" or "taking cover" either, just "alert". What gives? Anybody else try this? Next Question. Arty effects. 155mm barrage next to a platoon standing in the open. Squads at 100, 200, and 300m. BArrage was on a TRP. Closest shell was 82m from the nearest squad didn't even blink!! I have personally been on the recieving end of this calibre and you duck at anything less than 500m. I have had casualties at 225ms. At 85m that sect (in the open 75% exposed) should be taking casualties and scrambling. So how were the lethal radii of the Arty calibres determined. I am beginning to think they are very unrealistic but perhaps this is for a reason. Would appreciate any input...except to tell me that "I should do a search" of course.

Well Brian, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am afraid I do not buy that the volume of fire from a bolt action can equal that of a semi-auto on a large scale. I am sure one or two individuals were capable of astounding feats but it is a case of simple mechanics. The argument is "apples to oranges" but the reality is that smemi-auto weapons are used today with emphasis being placed on volume of fire. Your Pams say the same things ours do but they do not reflect reality. The basic rifleman, in the offense and defence is there to provide protection for weapons systems which in large part do the tradition their traditional job. The only exception may be trench clearing but even in that situation the roles are slipping. Now infantry still control the majority of these crew weapons so they do indeed "sieze and hold the ground" but the basic riflemans job is a dying trade without much prospect for the future. I know many "old soldiers" who find that absolutely distastful but it does not change the facts. I think it may be time to move on to another topic as this one really has no end or real gain at the end of it.

OK to respond to a couple, Slapdragon, You point may be true as to a doctrine change but as has been stated by many it was a "de facto" change which happened in combat. The M1 provided for a more accurate and simple (training-wise) volume of fire. Now as to whether that was the reason for making the Garand semi-auto, I do not know. It was on the cusp of new way of thinking. Brian, Your choice of words on your first point is much better than my original. I have issue with the "theoretical rate of fire" of the Enfield. I do not believe that a bolt action weapon can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic one. It is simple mechanics, the distance a trigger finger has to go is much smaller than the four hand motions required to load the chamber of the Enfield, return it to the shoulder and fire. I simply do not believe it or if it does have any basis it was under testing which seems suspect. As to the role of the infantry, well don't look at me, I do not run the Army. The current basic rifleman is become a thing of the past. I will speak to Canadian doctrine because it is what I know, someone with American knowledge can interject that doctrine if they wish. A rifle section of 10 men consists of 1xSect Commander 1XSect 2 i/c 2x Eryx (ATGM crew) 2x C-9 or SAW 1x Grenadier (M203 gernade launcher) That leaves 3 basic riflemen BUT i fyou saddle the section with a GPMG or .50 Cal 2 more troops are taken up. So the role of the basic rifleman has changed from primary bayonette point to security. As to the infantry in general, they now secure and man the weapon systems, which by threat or real firepower "sieze and hold the ground". So how does that relate to the "personal weapon" which started all of this? Well marksmanship means less and less. Supression so that the other weapon systems can do the real killing has become more important. This is just the start, as weapon systems become more and more complex the "man-in-the-loop" becomes more custodial than an actual player. Which is a bad situation if you ask me but the way things seem to be going. I am not sure what your "enemy dictating" statement was about, in reality it is th requirement to push the firepower forward which has driven this. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

OK, I think it may be time to take a look "out of the weeds" I think we are arguing "apples to oranges" here. Whether one rifle was better than another it far more complex than Accuracy, Dependability, ROF et al. Trust me, if you were hit by a M1 or an Enfield it probably made little difference to your widow. It is the impact the use of the weapon on a larger picture has which tells the tale. The Enfield was a throw back to another era. One where "marksmanship and drill" will carry the day. It had it's place in WWII but it was carrying the torch and handed it off to the future during this conflict. The Garand was a sign of things to come. Firepower as an actual "element" on the battlefield had come into being. Apllication of masses superior fire to win the day was really coming of age. If you have a platoon which can put out a hail of gunfire over an area, the enemy will be supressed. Indirect fire, Tank fire or even close assault is then possible. Firepower, properly applied is the essential ingredient to "winning the Firefight". The M1 was far better suited for this job. It put more firepower in the hands of the infantry man so that he could in fact do his primary job..provide protection for major weapon systems. Now infantry don't like to here that but it is essentially the truth. The act of closing with and destroying the enemy and "holding the ground" has become secondary to providing security for the major weapons systems, MGs, Tanks, AT systems and mortars. Now we see the M16A2 or C-7 as we call it. 30 rounds, feels like a .22 when it fires but can put out a tremendous level of supressive fire. Now what I can't figure out is why we (Canadians) put scopes on the damn things. Ever try to find a sniper with that scope, while being shot at? Not fun! Iron sights and three round bursts are the way to go. So when comparing the two, do not lose sight of the bigger picture of "how" and "why" they were employed.

Another idea, Just thought of it but in a single round-robin, you could get into a situation where "I will leave more for the other guys" So a double round-robin where the first guy you play is the last guy you play may be an idea. It will add motivation to "Takin Care of Business" cause you have to fight again.

Treeburst, I think this is a helluva idea!! I think it would simplify thing drastically by just calling a Gun, Tank or crewed weapon "gone" once it is knocked out. To balance that and squad or partial squad will be brought back up to 100% for the next battle. If a unit is withdrawn or knocked off the map it is eliminated. This will discourage "edge flank crawls". It is very simple but will generate a few new considerations: Force Conservation and long term planning. Particularly if you ration out "big guns" and tanks. When to commit them will depend on who you are playing. I think after action reports should include detail playstyle of each player. Each player should "spill their guts" about the other. This will mean people will have to think about who they fight next but there is still enough uncertainty to make it interesting. Blood Lust, to really go after that last guy in a squad cause you don't want it coming back. Desperate battles: I have a 6 pounder and a canteen versus a Tank troop and Infantry Coy!!!! The only other suggestion I could make is to make this a "Blood Feud". IE get rid of the VLs and go on blood alone.

Probably not for CMB2B but I think they should be looked at for the new engine design. Tracer richocette: If you've seen it for real it adds a whole new dimension to realism. Tracks: Human and Vehicle. Looks good and helps recce. Anybody else got some "way out there" suggestions?

Hey Treeburst, Don't let anybody push you around. You are taking time and effort to set this thing up so you make the rules and we'll live by em. Anybody who can't can simply play elsewhere. For instance, I think FT against houses when attacking is kosher, when used as spec fire but if you say no go. The I will live by it. [ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Oh I thought we were the bad ones... I'll try whining louder. I AM OFFENDED BY KIWIJOE'S NAME!!!!

That wouldn't be Andrew Roe of Maple Ridge, would it?

OK just what the hell happened?! We were trucking along and Treeburst pulls the plug on all of them. Without so much as an explaination, c'mon!! If someplayers are pissing you off "throw them out" but don't punish the rest of us. As a min I think the "Wild Bill" Tourney should continue. It eliminates the pre-game haggle and the general gameyness of QBs. It puts the player in a realistic sit with realistic troops. And if anybody doesn't think Wild Bill knows more about this than any three people on this forum combined...well speak up now so we can all bathe in your ignorance. The Wild Bill Tourney had the best potential yet and I think throwing it out "with the bath water", no matter who said what to whom, is just plain wrong. OK so Treeburst has put the ball down. So does that mean no one can pick it up?? Winecape are you still offering the prize?? I think we can get some people together and keep this thing alive. I'll volunteer some of my time to make it happen, anybody else??

Hey Treeburst, Why don't you set a deadline for START of last game. IE All games with all players must be started or finished by 01 Sep. If TCP is the flavour than an agreed "play date" should suffice by 01 Sep. That way if there is a problem than we should know earlier. It is unfair if I only have time for PBEMS to be forced into a TCP (which I may not be able to find 3 hrs to commit to, especially on short notice) game because someone is out of touch or simply taking his time.

Hey Treeburst, Not if a person doesn't finish all their games. They may be able to have a higher average and a lower overall score. But of course you answered my question..thank you much.

Whoa there Juardis!! You might sprain something if you keep going like that. Your first instinct was correct..there is no point ot the thread. That is what makes it fun, awash in this sea of grogism. It is a commentary on the human condition thu the eyes of CM. No point at all.

That is one Dead Pershing. Get some angles on the beast. You can use smoke too. To force him to move, he much less accurate when he does.