easy-v

To weigh in on the US infantry load issue: What I am about to say comes from 2 experiences of mine: having once belonged to a WWII re-enactment group that portrayed the US 84th Infantry Division, and having been an infantryman in a Long Range Surveillance detachment: The field gear of a 1940's US infantryman was not designed to carry 100+ lbs of equipment. The M1928 Haversack (the backpack that the leg infantry is shown wearing in CMBO) was designed to carry rations; a blanket; a shelter-half/tent stakes; an e-tool; and perhaps a or rubberized poncho or a bayonet. They were hardly appropriate to fit anything else in them. This attached to the rifleman's belt (or cartridge belt) which had (depending on when it was manufactured) anywhere from 10-12 "pockets" that would accomodate a single 8 round en-bloc clip for a garand. They were also expected to carry 2 bandoliers of 30.06, which could accomodate another 12 8-round clips (total-on the bandoliers, bringing the grand total carried to 22-24 8-round clips or 176-192 rounds). 2 canteens were only, as a rule, carried in the pacific. The dangers of dehydration were not recognized at the time, and troops were trained to "conserve" water (for example, I have a FM 21-100, Basic Soldiers Manual from 1943 that advises that on a forced march, one should put a pebble in their mouth to prevent the desire to drink from a canteen). The only other pouch/bag that would be availible to the average leg grunt would either be the M1936 Musette bag, which was typically issued to Officers, Paratroopers and motorized troops; and the engineer's bag (i am not sure of the nomenclature) that was handy to transport 60mm mortar and bazooka rounds. Nothing close to a rucksack was availible to the average US infantryman of WWII (the exception being the 10th Mountain division, which were issued steel-framed rucks) IMHO, it would be inapropriate to draw a parallel between today's US grunt and that of the '40's. I used to work with a guy that was on a M1917A1 (watercooled) team on Guadalcanal and the Phillipines. Too bad I can't ask him about this, as we could get a good insight into the SOP of the tiime. American paratroopers were able to carry more ammo/stuff becuase they had access to their parachute riggers, who would make specialty pouches and bags to carry extra equipment. While we are picking nits, let's not forget to factor in the additional weight of the wool uniforms!! The paucity in carrying capacity of US field gear was due to the fact that it was pretty much turn-of-the-century design, predating WWI, adapted to WWII theory of modern warfare. The theory being that the 1940's era grunt wouldn't have to carry much stuff, as he would be supported by trucks and halftracks. The 55lb-70lb limit for gear may be a good rule for wargaming, but in real life it does not hold up. Ever read Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab? He cites taking a 90lb + ruck on his fateful mission. And in my experience and opinion, despite the fact that he was SAS, a 90lb+ ruck would not be unusual for the modern infantrman. In 1940's, though, highly unusual, if not outright impossible. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: easy-v ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife: Not truly an LMG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Show off!

I was recently playing a TCP operation, when we started to get disconnected regularly before the movie of one particular turn. So we started to play it PBM. A new game in the operation started, and I forgot to set up one of my Shermans. So one turn 1 I ordered it to move. At the end of the movie, it had gone about 50 m. Now here is the strange part. During my plot phase, another identical tank to the 1st one appeared where the 1st tank had originally been. Same commander, same tank. But now there were 2 of them. On the turn 2 movie, both were able to move. Anybody see this before?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danyzn: Ehhh, since there were only two and not three sides in the battle, how is this possible? One of you would have to play the same side twice, and then it wouldn't really be a "fair" contest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GAME 1 Player 1=AXIS Player2=Allied GAME 2 Player 1=Allied Player2=Axis GAME 3 Player 1=AXIS Player2=Allied Ususally, we coin toss for who is who for the first game. As far as fair goes, just make sure you take out your oponnent in 2 games

I used to re-enact with the same group these guys (once?) belonged to. Here is a (bad) picture of the Hetzer. I think I have another (better) one around, and will try to find it. As far as the Stuart goes, they can be found parked out front of just about every VFW hall, cemetery, or park, around Chicago, so I didn't take any pix of it AFAIR. While I am at it, this is a picture of a Panther that the Canadians, vicious people that they are, shot to holy hell. I took this picture back in '92 when my unit went to Petawawa to do a wing exchange with the Queen's Own Rifles. My stick was dumped out a minute early from the DZ (or D-zed, as the canucks say--he he) and subsequently, ended up landing inside an AT firing range, which had been hot less then an hour beforehand. I almost landed on top of this sucker. I did my PLF and the first thing I saw when I looked up was that unmistakable glacis plate AFAIK, this same Panther is still languishing in Petawaw. What the hell? Another one: My friend and his grandfather are part owners of this B25H, the only flyable B25H in existence. 10 forward firing (14 total).50 Cal MG's and a 75mm howitzer plus the bomb payload. I even got a ride in it once Once I get around to it, I will post some of my other re-enactment photos on my site. [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: easy-v ] [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: easy-v ]

I was thinking about scenario/QB perameters and started to wonder about what kind of bizarre, hermaphrodite QB's and scenarios have been played. Typically, I like to play CM in series of best out of 3, with all 3 games having the same parameters, switching sides at the conclusion of each game. This way you can back up your bragging rights by a "sweep" and reinforce your argument that it wasn't a fluke that you cleaned your opponents clock. In terms of QB's, I've been thinking about playing completely unbalanced QB's, with one side sure to lose, just to see who can make the best out of a desperate situation. On my last set of match QB's, I proposed a 10,000 point axis force (assault) vs a 5,000 point Allied (defend) (hehehe- I like those huge regimental-type actions-don't get me wrong, the 200-3000 point range are fun beer-and- pretzel scale games, but having the flexibility to kit out your force the way you want it is a lot of fun. I think it allows you to develop some integrated tactics with the units that are in CM ). My opponent balked and compromised for a 7500 Axis vs 5000 Allied. So the object of the match, IMO, is not to see which side can win, rather to see who doesn't get the snot knocked out of them as badly. Or even to pull out a win (then you REALLY have some major bragging rights). Sort of an "underdog" match. On another tangent, what is the largest (pointwise) CM game you've heard of? Comments?

OK, so I have found more: http://www2.neweb.ne.jp/wc/STEINER/ This has weapons, as well as uniforms. First pic I clicked on showed me a haft-hohlladung with various views. Very nice And from the original page that ben started this topic about, don't forget to check the links http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/links.html

Anybody read japanese? Check this one out: http://www4.plala.or.jp/Panzer/index2.html Click the links that are numbered, in the gray/blue box. He has some soviet armor (I think a IS-2 or 3), as well as a type-97, a c-47, a pershing, DORA or some other RR gun, a nice Sdkfz 250 (i think, i never could tell them apart from the 251)a PZkw If, 3 or 4 panthers,, a tiger, a brumbar (with the loading crane in use, no less), and a FW 190. here is a link to one of the Panthers http://www4.plala.or.jp/Panzer/htmls/PZ5D/PantherD_3.jpg [ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: easy-v ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: even battleworn museum relics and surplus store window displays 50 years later still retain a very prominent brown colour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point! However, I *think* am referring to the British made battledress, as I am under the impression that there are at least 2 distinctive versions of battledress: those locally produced in Great Britain before and during the war, and those produced in Canada, Australia etc. The latter, in most examples I have seen, tend to be of a darker brown shade then the ones I have seen that were produced in Great Britain. At least, that is my understanding. I posess a 1937 Pattern (i'll have to recheck it) Battle Dress Blouse dated 1942 that was produced in England. It is very much different, in terms of color, from examples I have seen which were not produced in Britain-for example, a Canadian produced battle dress blouse. Of course, the Brits were forced to wear colonially produced uniforms during the war, as they could not locally produce enough to cloth their own troops (again, that is my impression, and what I remember hearing/reading etc) Of course, my forte is not Brit uniforms, it's US, and, this is nothing but Grog attention-to-detail stuff anyway, but God I love it! easy-v

I really like the colors you used on the regular infantry. To me, they look pretty close to what the what a faded set of wool battle dress would look like. Now, if someone would be able to get the US infantry done correctly, that would be a good thing. Having formerly been a re-enactor of US infantry, i would have to say that the American infantry in CM needs: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Russet brown boots, instead of CM's black boots<LI>Mustard-brown trousers, for the 1944 infantry, as the stock ones are too dark. <LI>The puke green shade of the 1945 infantry is awful. It is too light, although, after intense fading and weathering may have looked that way<LI>Double buckle boots! Anyone care to do a boot mod? So that's my 2cents on the topic. easy-v

I have several points to add to this discussion: 1. Rangers were not *as a whole* airborne qualified in WWII. There are exceptions, and specifically that is when the 1st Special Service Force was disbanded, the American members of the force were fed into the Ranger battalions as replacements. So, no, the Rangeers then were not paratroopers. 2. There was no formal, centralised "ranger school" back then. There were no "bumblebee rangers" or "tabbers" then. IIRC, the training was conducted within the battalions, and if you didn't wash out, you were a ranger as long as you were assigned to a ranger bn 3. It was not uncommon for each US Division to have its own "rangers". These were provisional units and were trained within the division itself. Thesse units complemented the Divisional I&R platoon (could be a company though) 4. Rangers WERE used as regular ground troops. This was in direct contradiction with their express purpose. The fact was, the use of unconventional units was not accepted by all commanders and they were frequently misemployed. For example, the 2nd Ranger Batallion was nearly destroyed becuase from September-December of 1944, they were used as a conventional line battalion. (I have a booklet written by one of the company commanders about the 2nd's service in france, if anyone is interested). The sad fact is, that the Ranger battalions in France,, were more often than not, assigned to do the work of line battalions (except they were expected to cover the area a normal leg infantry regiment would) Hope this helps easy-v

Couldn't have said it better myself! easy-v [This message has been edited by easy-v (edited 04-04-2001).]

Not to mention the countless times were you get immobilized by a flank shot and wish to have the turret cover a likely/known avenue of approach (for example, the direction from where it was shot at), only to be denied the rotate command. Easy-v

I just bought a new box, and with that, comes a new round of mod slutting! To my chagrin and horror, ALL MY AXIS FIELD GUNS ARE STOCK Somebody, please help out a brother! I just need a little fix, that's all! I tried Manx's ûber Mod list, and the links's to Tiger's mods don't bring me any love! thx easy-v

another thing: IMHO, there is nothing more "tactically interesting" then facing down 2 VIe's, a IVH, and a JPZ V with an immobilized Churchill VII and a Cromwell (I've done it before, and easily pulled a draw-against a pretty good player too). That is the beauty of the game. It forces you to deal with unpalatable situations, and forces you to address the problem. I must admit that I have not played multitudes of Übertankers, and have not had the benefit of being jaded by the experience. But I am of the mindset that superior tactics can defeat superior firepower (ala France, 1940). To me, that's the name of the game. another 2 cents (almost up to a nickel!) easy-v

I agree with Abbott (not that anyone cares). Well spoken, well said (though a little long-winded-work on that!) I also agree with Yobobo. If you want to play CM in a clinical setting, so to speak, then set the rules before you start. Maybe, when Yo sets up his chat (which looks awesome, btw) he should set up a short 75 room, a long 76 room, and a "I-couldn't-give- a-rat's-ass-what-you-buy-I-am-here-to-kick-ass-and-chew-bubblegum-and-I-am-all-out-of-bubblegum-room" (next to the "Don't hurt me please" room). As new sets of canned rules come out, you just add a room for those guys. my 2 cents easy-v

Ok, I retract my previous statement regarding Beevor and the NKVD. For some reason, I remember being staggered and shocked at the brutality of the soviets in their treatment of their soldiers while reading his book, and this was an impression that I kept after finishing the book. To clarify though, Beevor states in the preface that the "Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad". He does not elaborate further, nor does he cite his source, but in the course of the book, he does dedicate pages to the NKVD and their methods. IMHO, to characterize the NKVD as *merely* border guards is on par (if not worse) to calling the entire SS "combat troops". (not that anyone here has-that I've seen). Well, I am going to restrain myself now, before I head off to lockdown-taboo subjects and get this informative thread shut down. easy-v

Ok, here comes another can of gasoline: If I recall correctly, Anthony Beevor, in his book Stalingrad : The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943, states that it is estimated that the NKVD inflicted almost as many casualties on the Red Army during the battle of Stalingrad as the Germans did. I will quote chapter and verse once I get home. easy-v

I haven't seen much discussion of CM ladders or online clubs in this forum. Once in a while you'll see a reference to one. What is the "best" CM Ladder or CM'ers Club in your opinion? What features does it offer, and why do you like it? Easy-v

Squad Laser? Didn't Avalon Hill publish that? Easy-V

That was WAY wrong! They didn't even have CM loaded! I am impressed by the number of Mac users that are CM'ers though. AFAIK, there never has been a grog game for Mac (not that I have heard), so you wouldn't think that your typical Mac-head would even bother with a wargame. Remember: Dell is a four-letter word AND Friends don't let friends buy Mac's easy-v [This message has been edited by easy-v (edited 03-10-2001).]

There is a joke in there somwhere easy-v

HUH? Come back down to earth, man. easy-v

I've got some web space I can lend out. Offer stands for any mod'ers out there e-mail me at vboyev@aol.com TIA easy-v [This message has been edited by easy-v (edited 03-08-2001).]

My two-cents: It's common to find references to (post Malmede, and espicially post-concentration camp liberation) US troops shooting anybody that surrendered wearing silver-and-black collar tabs or SS runes in 1945. Maybe this explains the SS vet's stories: "battlefield justice" took out a lot of the guilty perpitrators (as well as, I'm sure, a lot that weren't involved in atrocities). I came across some POW interrogations conducted by the US 1st ID during the battle for Aachen of an SS squad that had surrendered intact, minus the squad leader. The interrogator, in light of the fierce resistance of the defenders of Aachen, was baffled that an entire SS squad would surrender. He asked one of the soldats why they surrendered and the soldat replied that their squad leader/NCO placed them in their defensive positions, gave them a short speech about defending the Fatherland, ordered them to fight to the death, and then the NCO promptly unassed the AO, leaving his squad to meet it's fate. So much for the myth of SS-uber men. I find it hard to accept that a squad composed of men/boys (whatever) like this would "blindly follow orders". Of course, how representative this squad was of the Waffen-SS as a whole is another question. Maximus: Oradour-sur-Glane was a French village that a company from the 1st SS razed, shot and burned alive all the civilian inhabitants. It was not a concentration camp. easy-v [This message has been edited by easy-v (edited 03-05-2001).] [This message has been edited by easy-v (edited 03-05-2001).]