Jump to content

Jasper

Members
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Jasper's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. There's a number of (I think) interesting articles written during WWII on the sites listed below. One of them is called "The War Pigeon".
  2. There's a couple of articles on the sites listed below that talk about *real* snipers. Not the 'sharpshooters' in CM, but you should be able to tell the differenc (if you care to). :cool:
  3. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skorpion: Well if we're going to go down that route - how about orders such as "go over that ridge, fire one shot at any enemy you see, and then reverse back down out of sight"? Number of times I've lost tanks because you can't get them back out of danger quick enough is disgusting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never have a movement order end on a hill top. I 'hunt' to the top then 'reverse' down, and only end the movement order safely out of sight. Have you tried that?
  4. Well I've got one. Geocities. Forget which specific page. Suprisingly they weren't too impressed. Even down to the cupholders. Go figure. [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Jasper ]
  5. AT Dogs. Anyone want to claim that the early Soviet military could come up a radio controlled way to detonate the dog? So the explosives were based on time. So where ever the dog is in 10 minutes will be blown up. "Hey Ivan - what's that your cooking?" "Boiled horse flesh." "Smells great. Hey look! What's that dog wearing? Come here fella. You look hungry." "Ivan? Do you hear ticking?" People that like the idea of AT dogs should try the British article "The Army Pigeon" on the Geocities site below. Even more goofy than AT dogs. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.
  6. One reason that an individual might hesitate to shoot on his own initiative - someone is more likely to shoot back. I've read a couple of times where the best thing that a hidden (sniper or AT gun) can do to stay hidden is not miss. That way the only one that might know where they are is dead. Another: Conserving your resources. Example: You've got say five clips of ammunition. You know Marshall is going to come along and ask you if you fired or not during the engagement. But he won't tell you (a) what exactly an engagement is, ( when the engagement is over or © whether or not you'll get more ammo before it's over. Rather than ask how many individuals would fire on their own initiative - I'd like to know how many would fire if given some direction. Example "shoot into the treeline between the ditch and the barn". I'd suspect a much higher percentage of the latter than the former. It's beyond reality to expect suppressive fire to be the product of a bunch of individuals each deciding when to fire and what to fire at. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 04-04-2001).]
  7. I seem to recall that Patton was a proponent of 'marching fire'. That as soldiers advanced they would fire their weapon from the hip. Made the unwashed riff-raff feel better about themselves etc etc.** Do I recall right? I observe that the reason for the changes in training wouldn't necessarily be that 20% of the soldiers fired their weapons. I wonder if the changes were to lessen fire discipline? But I digress. There would be a problem if the SAME 20% of soldiers would be doing all the firing. But if that 20% is rolled around more or less evenly amongst the troops, then what's the problem? I was watching a show about the Navy seals, and there was a small unit of five men beating a hasty retreat. The last guy in the line would spray the foliage with fire, then turn and find a position in back of the line. Meanwhile the new last guy would spray the foliage with fire. . . In that case only 20% of the soldiers would fire their weapon at any one time. ** I use the term 'unwashed riff-raff' to make the point that, during times of conscription, the military doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing it's soldiers, but has to use citizen-soldiers pretty much as they come. I think of myself as a proud member of the 'unwashed riff-raff'.
  8. One thing that I've pondered - is the effect of natural selection on the makeup of a unit. For example: The person that disregards his own safety - for whatever cause either noble or ignoble - would seem to me more likely to end up a casualty. Perhaps this explains the higher rates of casualties among offices than enlisted men. So given that the most dangerous people are removed from a unit - to be replaced with an "average" replacement - how does that change the makeup of the unit? Or to rephrase the question - is there anything to be found examining casualty rates with the classifications mentioned above? Or to rephrase the question - again! Is there a porpotion of the groups that 'works'? Example: If everyone is a killer, then does that unit 'work'? I can see some problems if everyone wants everyone else to go get them ammo. So will a unit who's make up 'doesn't work' get formed by natural selection into one that does? PS - Great summary Jason! ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-30-2001).]
  9. Nothing's going to be better than the T-35 (if they include it) [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-29-2001).]
  10. For those that perhaps don't know about it - The Russian Battlefield has an article DESTROY FASCIST TANKS WITH THE ANTITANK RIFLE! http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons9.html I'm looking to see if the Soviets even used a shaped charge infantry weapon - ala 'zook or 'schreck.
  11. Ya know, someday Jason it going to argue that water is wet, and then you'll have to argue that it's not. Red Steel lists the T-26 as a light tank. http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/t26.htm The Russian Battlefield also lists it as a light tank. http://history.vif2.ru/map.html If want to expend a little effort and come up with your own information, to counter Jason's, you might use this page: http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat6.html ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.
  12. I think the point is to make armor organic to all units. So that the commanders in the field are less vunerable, and so need less support.
  13. (sigh) Ok people try this one: What's to prevent the discouraged soldiers from firing *back* at the NKVD units? And how many actually believe that Polish cavalry lowered lances and charged tanks? "Yea but it'd be so cool if they did!" [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-21-2001).]
  14. Please consider that in doing so he also gives away his own position to the enemy. I suspect the Army didn't need to budget for his retirement. The way to be both (a) a sniper and ( old at the same time, would be to have a number of different carfullly chosen hidden firing postions and ways to get to them without being seen. After firing like one shot you'd move to the next position. That's a sniper. That's why they're different kinds of soldiers. The guy hanging out in the church steeple with a scoped rifle is a sharpshooter. Both the 'snipers' in SPR were sharpshooters. In the 1942 Russian article "Snipers In Stalindgrad", available at the Geocities site listed below, it makes mention that regular infantry wern't allowed near the firing postions (because they'd give them away). ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-21-2001).]
×
×
  • Create New...