Matthew_Ridgeway

**Punt Again***

I think you recall right…at least the terminology (dunno about the firing from the hip thing…sounds kind of John Wayne’ish). "MARCHING FIRE" was not technically a Pattonism’. More accurately "Marching Fire" was part of official ARMY tactical doctrine. At the squad level, a unit fired until suppression was achieved. Once suppression was achieved the squad would advance. DePuy elaborates on the problems associated with "Marching Fire": The side effect of marching fire was that once the squad halted firing in order to advance, the enemy is no longer in a suppressed condition. The concepts of a firing element combined with the simultaneous movement of a manuevering element and “Overwatch” were concepts of the future. "Overwatch" during WWII was something unofficially adopted by various US Infantry units as the war in Europe progressed. On the job training so to speak. Conversely WWII German Infantry training for the attack stressed fire combined with movement. At the squad level the LMG section covers the Rifle sections advance. Than the roles are reversed in a leap-frog action. [This message has been edited by Matthew_Ridgeway (edited 04-02-2001).]

**Punt**

How about "commie SMG squad"?

Interesting quotes Vanir. And yet there is no mention of Robert Livingston in CM screen credits or CM manual.

Page 2 & 3 of this thread may be of interest. Seems some here are convienced the Canadian Army in Normandy was not worthy of its salt. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016428.html

**punt**

you are clueless.

I'm sorry Steve and BTS for what is about to follow, but this simply boggles the mind...I can't restrain myself. Are you for real UsER? This isn't some theory that Rexfred came up with on the back of an envelope. This is the way shot dispersion is measured. As the rather astute ASL_Squadleader has already put it: "I don't believe that dispersion is Rexford's theory - dispersion is something that is already established and recognized in various field manuals and range tests." How do you measure vertical dispersion you ask? You strap a weapon down to a frickin test frame that's bolted down on a frickin' concrete pad and, you measure the frickin' range to a frickin' upright target. You adjust your frickin' sights to that exact frickin' range, than you shoot a bunch of frickin' holes in the frickin' upright target. The shot pattern around the frickin' aim point is your frickin' dispersion pattern. A bunch of frickin' shots will be clustered around the frickin' aim point. Measure how big the frickin' scatter pattern is, both in the frickin' X direction (Breite) and frickin' Y direction (Höhe). The area that includes 50% of your frickin' shots is the frickin' 50% dispersion frickin zone at range "such and such". Than you do the whole freckin' thing over again, except the frickin' upright frickin' target is now at 100m further away, or whatever your test frickin' range increment happens to be. And there is no mystery about the German 75mm: weights, velocities, or trajectories. The only mystery on this thread is your total lack of understanding as to what is even being discussed here.

Most people who are getting anal about posting references (like yourself) will include an authors name. Perhaps you mean: German Sturmgeschutze in WWII: Photo Chronicle by Wolfgang Fleischer, Richard Eiermann So let me get this straight your references include an internet site (with typos) and a Picture book on the Stug. Very impressive USeR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>User Said: do a search here and you will find alot of this is covered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You keep asking that references be posted to support opposing arguments, yet you have ended several posts with “do a search” for your own (insert hand into ass) references. This makes a lot of sense. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>USE said: I was in the military and it was common to have a 5 meter interval between men. A 10 man squad is actually a big target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Salvation Army perhaps? You guys spread out when picking up old bags of cloths from street corners? You never know when a hostile cat is gonna go for your ankles. “Cover me Lewis…I goin’ in for that bag of old underwear”. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>USE said: I have to be frank here. I cant follow your thoughts rexford (dont feel bad..I have no clue what bastables is posting about either).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As obtuse as your train of thought seems to be, and your continued divergence from the topic of this thread, its very difficult for me to follow what your point is. But don’t feel bad; I suspect no one here has a clue as to what your babeling on about either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>USER SAID: Did you know that shooting exactly at a monkey as it leaps off a cliff guarantees a hit? Fascinating but true!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you know that if you jab a stick at a caged gorilla he’s likely to pick up his own feces and throw it at you. OK, I wanna know who jabbed a stick into USERNAME’s cage. I came across a recent little gem from poor ol' USeRNAME. He’s apparently been slighted in the past by BTS (gee I wonder why) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess Who Said This: I would think that BTS would agree that HEAT, HVAP and APDS (from a rifled 1940's gun) would be less accurate than a solid steel shot. Then again you never know what revisionist thinking will get you. I wrote up this big long post to stick on the end of the 88L56 optics thread but stopped and asked myself "what the f**K for?" Is it worth it when you are dealing with people that get the final word and can decide when an abstraction is needed and when an anal retentive stance is the only option and will argue down to the millimeter about AP rounds but futz up something like spotting (that throws off everything) and wont listen to any game changes like counter abstractions because they didn’t think of them and act like you are showing them some big hunk of wiped-bad doody paper? It aint worth it. I get better things to do. I work with a-holes and dont need to come home to a hobby thats annoying. I get this crap at work, thanks, and this heres miller time boys. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can really feel the emotion in that one USER. Tears must have been welling in your eyes as you wrote it. Get over yourself, or get a clue and go code your own frickin’ computer wargame. You can put all the “big hunks of wiped-bad doody paper” in it you want. [This message has been edited by Matthew_Ridgeway (edited 01-23-2001).]

Well-said BTS. I hope this means this thread will return to a reasonable discussion on accuracy now. [This message has been edited by Matthew_Ridgeway (edited 01-22-2001).]

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/britain.html

Monopoly with my older brother when I was six. It turned into a hand to hand melee after I bought both Boardwalk and Parkplace.

"You disregard many factors in this statement. Not the least is flight time (the high velocity weapon gets there quicker), flight path (the longer parabola is under the effects of crosswinds/gusts at different heights), target reaction (maybe the people on the recieving end might not like being shot at and decide to move). You never mention range." By all means elaborate on this. I’ve read through this thread from start to finish, and I did not come away with the impression that this fellow Rexferd ignores any of your points. Do you have an alternative mathematical approach to explain your arguments? [This message has been edited by Matthew_Ridgeway (edited 01-20-2001).]

Field Kitchen Units. An Army fights on its stomach after all.

Conversely the best riflemen in the world couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn at 200 meters with a Brown Bess.

*punt*