Jump to content

Jasper

Members
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Jasper

  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).]
  15. There an article, translated from Russian, titled "Tactical Employment of Antitank Rifles" written in 1942 on the Spaceport site listed below. I seem to recall there being more than one in the collection, but the reader can always peruse the collection on their own. ------------------ 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.
  16. See Below!! [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-20-2001).]
  17. Yea, let's think about this a little. No deep water port near Yugoslavia. Greece politely declines to allow our army to use theirs. So I don't know how you're going to "adding all sorts of armor, and returning them to the field to seize the day." Since they can't there from here. Now what? "Oh sorry - we only fight in easily accessible areas with open terrain. So let's take this marker and mark on the map where our enemies can operate. Lebanon didn't work out too good - so that's out. ... too hilly ... major city ... no deep water port close by ... There. Nice and comfy areas for us - enemies please restrict yourselves to these areas. Thank You."
  18. If I may be so bold, I do believe you meant something like: Nobody wants to hear that intellectual cleverness is useless in war. You've made other statements like "It's better to be right than smart." Personally wouldn't put it quiet as strongly. I remember reading somewhere that intellectual capacity of a leader (officer or NCO I can't remember) is like third on the list of desirable traits. It's too bad that smart people can still show really bad judgement. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-19-2001).]
  19. Hardly an accurate source of Soviet military information. Try some of the translated Russian documents available on the sites listed below. Funny, I didn't think the Soviets had 'huge masses' of T-34's to throw at the enemy early in the war. If they had, then the Germans would've never got far since the Panther didn't start showing up until 1943. So they'd have to use MK IV's - sorta like a Sherman Panther engagement in reverse. The principle 'encouragement' to use 'human wave' attacks would be to have the German player outnumbered like 5:1. While the Soviet player might actually use decent tactics, it'll appear to the German player to be a 'human wave'. And if you ask him afterwards the German players will say things like the German veterans said. " . . . yea I got my ass kicked, but I sure showed him a thing or two." " . . . yea well if we had that kind of advantage in material we could've kick our ass in half the time." " . . . no Stalingrad was not a stupid waste of brave men. That you have to ask clearly shows you don't understand the unquestioned superiority of the German Army in all thing military." " . . . no we did NOT use 'tank wave' attacks at Kursk. Only the Soviets did. Our tanks tactics are to be referred to as 'frontal assault' tactics." ------------------ 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.
  20. If the enemy had your best interests in mind he wouldn't shoot bullets at you. Sounds like you (now) respect minefields, and are probably starting to get some ideas how you might use them yourself. And sounds like you've learned a little about trusting the AI to bail you out of bad decisions.
  21. "Artillery is most effective when its moral impact can be made lasting . . ." Yea, apparently some gamers think artillery is Evil and put artificial limits on it. Personnally I think artillery is rather amoral, but that's just my opinion.
  22. Ok, let's play Pearl Harbor. I'll take the Japanese side.
  23. I would give it a go - and whether I returned a solution would depend on how I felt about my idea. I like the idea of mixing in a CM scenario. You COULD generate a bunch of QuickBattles, until you find a suitable candidate, then use that as the problem. Post the scenario, along with the proposed solutions, so students could download it. Students and lurkers alike could read the solutions and play along - perhaps learning something. This leaves the "textbook" on the shelf, and so it's nice comfortable (and correct?) solution is unavailable. The knowledge of both sides to the last bullet is also not available. It might seem rather bloodless without real names to attach to the participants, but you can't use a historical encounter and have the element of the unknown at the same time. Once a week might be a little much for me to keep up with, but that's no reason not to do it.
  24. More accurately - "You think you're doing well in a game." Nothing I love more than to make my opponent feel really good about himself/herself. During the first portion of an encounter. I try and make the second half a little more challenging. I read something to the effect that a plan with only one course to victory is a poor plan. One time I was playing a Mexican-American war battle, as the defender I had a few cannon, poor infantry and lots of decent cavalry. My opponent had lots of good infantry, poor cavalry and a few cannon. As he approached he saw nothing but a few cannon on the top of a ridge. Silent. His plan was to charge the guns with his cavalry and mop-up with his infantry. He advanced his cavalry, but before they could get inside of my cannon range - the cannon fired and the volunteer cavalry decided to go home. He was totally discouraged by this, and spent the rest of the encounter having his infantry wallow about being plinked to death by cannon. Sounds a little bit like a guy that lost a tank and became a little discouraged?
×
×
  • Create New...