Determinant

Stalky, thank you for that. Such a sweet suggestion but I confess it was not a leisure activity that I had ever thought about. But I see you hail from Brisbane. Perhaps this is a cultural thing developed from the manly, sweaty bilges, of a convict ship? There's a bridge near Dorchester in England that still bears a sign saying that any person caught throwing stones at the bridge is liable to transportation. This raises the question as to whether dating donkeys is worse than stoning bridges. Difficult concepts. Anyway I'll leave the last word on the matter to you since I'm sure that as you are an Australian this will be very important for your psychic well being. Toodle Pip!

Is a vodka bottle an AT or AP weapon? If it was issued, would it get fired or drunk? I know that if I were a russian tanker issued with vodka rounds, my tank would have the highest ammunition consumption in the Red Army </font>

Some really interesting stuff in this thread. I fear however that I'll never know if this design feature will be modelled in CMBB as none of my tanks have ever managed to survive long enough to fire more than nine rounds of main armament...

Yes, MikeT's reference is from Victor Suvorov's (a pseudonym for the obvious 'don't want all my family to be shot now that I'm a defector' reasons) book 'Inside the Soviet Army'. Suvorov explains it that when you've called up your hastily trained reservists and the like you don't want them confusing types of ammunition nature in the resupply chain. I seem to recall (but then I'm getting like Guy Pierce in Memento) him saying something along the lines that the 73 mm gun mounted on the BMP1 was in fact 76 mm but was called 73 mm to prevent confusion with the 76 mm gun already mounted on the PT-76. Fascinating if true. I always thought the British Army were at risk by having a 120 mm tank gun, and the 120 mm Wombat recoiless rifle.

But, if what you say is true, then how would they refer to the donkeylike animal, big ears, reputation for stubborness etc? I think that you are trying to make a joke, yes? I am not an expert in these matters but there would seem to be a clear difference between an anus and a hairy quadraped with a liking for carrots. While we are chewing over weighty legal issues: will Slapdragon be accorded prisoner of war status from the start, or will his status be decided after a lengthy interrogation?

You have to love the freak stuff - I have since seeing the British tortoise at Bovington. The great link to the Russian tank museum with its Maus almost makes me want to visit! You wonder what the project planning must have been for these monsters. I see it like a Dilbert Cartoon: Dilbert the engineer is there with the blackboard saying: 'Look it's simple - there is a triangle - mobility, protection and firepower are the corners. We need to be in the middle! But The Boss is saying... 'I hear what you say, but I just love Battleships - imagine if one of those could travel cross country?...' But in the game? Nope.

Ah, I see. :eek: Hmmmm, let me reconsider the -- perhaps premature conclusion as to normalcy, and I'll get back to you. (... was that monkey REALLY your boss at work, and so... hmmmmm)</font>

I am not sure that is commendable. The plural of Regimental Sergeant Major is, of course, Regimental Sergeants Major, but the plural of RSM is still RSMs. That is, of course, if you count an abbreviation as a word in itself.[/QB]

Good point, and very true. Clauswitz refered to fire as the destructive act and the charge as the decisive act... that hasn't changed from his time to ours</font>

This is an interesting thread with many good, and well written, points being made. Nobody would argue that the bayonet charge a la 'the thin red line' has not been 'an act of war' since the introduction of the rifled musket. Robert E Lee must have thought different when he sent Pickett's division to clear Cemetary Ridge but the result speaks for itself. But that is not to say that the bayonet is redundant. The quoted role of the infantry in the British Army was traditionally 'to close with and kill the enemy, in all weathers, by day or night, over any ground' or some such. 'Kill' has now been downgraded to 'defeat' which speaks much for the intellectual dishonesty of our times. On a philosophical level therefore the bayonet is an expression of the infantry role: 'Close with and kill the enemy'. On an practical level (and speaking as an ex-infantryman) I would always want to have a bayonet on my rifle if I was going to be within a stone's throw of an enemy. Rifles do run out of ammo, and they do break down (particularly the SA80 Mk1!) At least the rifles of WWII made useful clubs - not something you could claim of the modern assault rifle. Anyway - thanks for an interesting and thought provoking thread...

If strafing with HMGs was so effective then why the perceived need to fit aircraft with cannon to attack armour? Bouncing rounds off the ground? Laughable. Reminds me of Wilson's quote from Allied tankers along the lines of: Panthers: bounce the round off the bottom of the gun mantlet; Tigers: put the round through the driver's periscope. Think of the Stuka variant on the Eastern Front with (if memory serves me right) a 37mm cannon and the Hurricane variant in the Western Desert(40mm gun?). In modern times of course we have the honourable example of the Warthog with the GAU-8. Not a .50 cal gatling by any means. MMG/HMG fire from aircraft is almost always going to be ineffective against armoured targets. All the gun camera footage that I have seen on those 'weapons of WWII' schlok TV programmes always makes me think of 'spray and pray'. There's no finesse there at all. Aircraft are after all just soft skinned vehicles. Being fast and airborne didn't make them bullet proof - in the period even small arms fire could bring them down. Little wonder that they were mainly used to interdict LOCs rather than shooting optimistically at hard targets in the abrasive environment of the front lines.

But shurely Laurel and Hardy in the centre rear? Duh! That's another fine mess you've got me into!

Why not? It is a truth universally acknowledged that pilots have always been lying egotistical sociopaths. This is why they avoid anything like hard work with all their beds and sheets, fine wines, good food, flying pay etc... I have not let my experience as an embittered ex-infantryman colour my perceptions in this regard.

On the Eastern Front? I thought killing prisoners was pretty much company policy - whether by action or by omission. How many of the 100s of 1000s of Soviet prisoners taken in the great battles of '41 ever saw home again? (or more likely a bullet in the back of the neck from Stalin's murderers). Likewise how many of Von Paulus' men made it back from Stalingrad? Precious few I think you will find. I think that the laws of war were largely silent on the Eastern Front from the opening of Barbarossa until the fall of Berlin. Blame it on racism and doctrine.

Achh meneer! I scheme that Africa is in fact a continent in its own right ek se! Roinek geography quibbles aside this seems like a lekker idea. Do we get paid in wine if we support you? 'Matabele' Determinant

Hurrah! Extreme fog of war! (hugs self with excitement)...

I think you have a good point with Green Troops. I am obviously not that much in love with 'reality bites' because funny old thing I tend never to use them. Shame on me! But I do think that the problem of spotting SA fire is a more general problem than not being able to spot snipers. If you will forgive me to quote from the Kirke Report (which, wrong war but full of lessons of general application, was the British Army's report on lessons learnt from WWI) says the following: 'In South Africa (Boer War) we had a vast superiority in artillery - yet at Colenso and in the other battles of 1899 our guns were entirely ineffective against the concealed Boer marksmen. In the late war (WWI) the concealed machine gun dominated the battlefield. It is to be noted, however, that in both wars the defensive power of small arms fire depended on concealment - once the defenders' small arm weapons are located their sting has been drawn, and the balance of advantage reverts to the attack with its possession of the initiative and power of manoeuvre' So once spotted small arms defenders can be defeated by manoeuvre or by fire power. But can they be spotted? Here is Sydney Jary, a young platoon commander with 4th Bn Somerset Light Infantry, on that fateful August Bank Holiday Monday 6 Aug 44 (Michael Wittman met his death on this day I believe)in front on Mt Pincon in Normandy: 'Any movement by 'B' Company to our front brought down instant and concentrated Spandau (MG42 HMG) fire. The same applied to us, a few hundred yards to their rear. Fortunately the enemy did not seem to have any anti-tank guns so our armoured friends were safe, but the fact remained that about 12 spandaus had halted a battalion attack without our locating even one of them.' So we have a battalion attack pinned down all day by concentrated SA fire and not spotting anyone. Realistic perhaps but I don't want to play a game like that. I am not sure if there is an answer to any of this. Is it possible to capture the texture of an infantry battle within the constraints of a game? CMBO feels right to me in its portrayal of armour on the battlefield but the infantry don't seem quite right somehow - too easy to spot and then too tough once spotted and engaged... It will be interesting to see how the grunts fare in CMBB. Think of the long defence of the fortress of Brest Litovsk; Von Mellenthin's account of the Russians in the Balka to the rear of 3 Mot Div. Tough soldiers, well camouflaged and dug in, fighting a determined defensive battle. Combat Mission can model a wedge of big cats crashing into hordes of oncoming T34/76s at Prokhorovka. But can it finesse the small stuff? Can anything? Would it still be a game worth playing with extreme realism settings?

Here's the thing: Take a random dip into most military histories written post the introduction of smokeless powder for small arms. And off the top of my head: Boer War - Colenso WWI - Dorsets on the Somme WWII - Platoon 18 Post War - Murder of JFK in Dallas Modern - 'Black Hawk Down' as told to Mark Bowden In all accounts through the period there is one constant: people are getting hit and nobody has a freaking idea where the fire is coming from. How often in CMBO have you taken small arms fire that has hit your little pixel guys and not been able to identify the source? Fair enough to spot AFVs firing main armament (or God forbid a recoiless rifle) but all you have for small arms is the muzzle flash and some crack and thump. If you are standing in line of sight of an unsuppressed firer and you can't see his muzzle flash then the first you will know about it is when your mates start falling over. And you won't know why... Don't get me wrong. I love CMBO as is - but I do think it is unrealistically easy to spot SA fire - especially say coming down a keyhole into a flank. Perhaps there should be a 'realistic option' in a future release where you get killed without knowing how or why and everything takes ten times as long. Just to play once so as to appreciate Sherman's 'War is Hell' quote.

Sure. The Gamey Bastard. Next time stitch him up good. Here's the secret: As Allies - buy SMG squads. That will surprise the hell out of his gamey arse when he sees the 'bad' guys in feld grey coming right back at him. Never forget: it's a free market and everyone has a price. I got this idea from a history book that I once half read. I think that it was called Catch a Mocking Bird or something by someone called Joseph Hello or something. Apparently buying enemy units was quite common in WWII because everyone had a share. If you can't beat em, join em.

Anyone fancy nipping out to the pub for a couple of pints? Or would that be gamey?

?!?</font>

Well grew up during the war in Rhodesia then spent ten years or so drifting around the British Army. I have fired the Uzi; the Sterling; the MP5; and some locally produced Rhodesian SMG (the Cobra or some such) that had a trigger pull that nearly defeated me. I have only ever been shot at accidentally - would never really want anyone shooting at me if they wanted to hit me. But I still think that you'd have a pedalling chance against any SMG weilding mess mate. Remember the key to survival: lots and lots of alcohol works even with skilled marksmen. It also occurs to me that you play a similar game in the States. It's called the hunting season. Those who aren't wearing orange hats are playing. Just a thought. Chin, chin.

If the SMG has such advantages against the assault rifle then it would seem strange that almost all the world's armies use assault rifles in preference to SMGs except for very specialised functions. It reminds me of a game of chance played in the wilder British cavalry regiments on drunken mess nights. There are two players: the shooter and the target. Both players (and any spectators) must be very very drunk. The shooter has a disassembled 12 bore shotgun and a handful of birdshot cartridges. The target has a bicycle, a thick waterproof coat (a barbour in UK parlance - one of those heavy weight Filsons jobs in US terms) and is wearing a helmet. At the signal to begin play the target begins to furiously pedal as fast as possible away from the shooter (losing a chain would be very bad at this point). The shooter meanwhile assembles his shotgun and as soon as he is done opens fire at the retreating back of the target. The target invariably escapes unscathed (unless the spurs on the targets mess kit knock his chain off). Masses of fun for all! That's how you build an Army: tradition and heavy drinking. Anyway here's the question: would you be prepared to play the game with an SMG? I have a suspicion that given a small lead - say 75 metres - you could be confident of escaping as the target against an SMG weilding shooter. I would never play the game against an assault rifle. Ever. Let's drink some more port and discuss the odds...

You would seem to have a point. The MP40 is a SMG (shudder) while the MP44 is an assault rifle. Daddy of the AK-47 I believe. I know which one I would rather have in a tight spot. And it's not the one that fires pistol bullets.

I know. I know. But my life, my life... I want my life back... (collapses sobbing on to keyboard)