Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I think I've checked all the major sites, so I don't know where they might be.
As far as quality goes, my Archer and Achilles aren't too hot either (low res, whitened stock textures), but there isn't much else.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonah:
Can anyone point me to some winter Brit tank mods? I checked the mod list and it seems winter versions of Churchhill, Cromwell etc. seem to be non-existent.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have winter mods for the Challenger, Comet, Achilles, Archer and Firely. I don't recall where they all came from.
AFAIK, no one has ever done a winter mod for the Cromwell or Churchill.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
light machine gun Ordnance. 2)in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Under this definition, a BAR + bipod is a LMG.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So in English you can call it basically whichever you prefer and you are always right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep.
[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The FP ratings for vehicle MGs is one of the Unsolved Mysteries of CM. Nobody realy knows what they are, and unless BTS tells us, nobody ever will. Someone did do a test, and based upon their effect on infantry, estimated that the German MGs are about halfway between the MG42 LMG and HMG in FP and range. The Allied .30 cals seem to be about equal to the 1919 MMG and the .50 cals are .50 cals.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Yes. But since this debate is basically Lee-Enfield vs M1 all the refences to MP-44 (or SMG's) must be seen for what they are, for refence only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tero, although your logic is difficult for me to follow, it appears that you are attempting to argue that the CM FP rating for the M1 and the Lee Enfield be made the same by proving that US soldiers were less likely to fire their M1s, compared to British soldiers firing their SMLEs, therefore negating the weapons inherent ROF advantage. The problem is that the method you are using to argue this point is flawed.
Specifically, you are arguing half the equation. You're trying to compare Brits and Americans by only talking about the Americans. Won't work.
You repeatedly point out that US soldiers were trained to fire at precise targets, which made them reluctant to fire when no target was visible. What you ignore is that the Brits appear to have been trained basically the same way. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the typical British soldier in the ETO '44-'45 was any more or less likely to shoot at the enemy than his American counterpart. Unless you can find some convincing evidence to the contrary, I think your argument is doomed to fail.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton:
Have you ever had a game where the total adds up to 90 or so? I have, lots of times. Wonder what gives there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This happens whenever there are VLs that are still neutral at the end of the game. Think of "neutral" as a third player who gets those points.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just want to hear some opions about this: is a victory calculation, mostly based on the pure balance of casualities a good way?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Casualties are not pure chance any more than capturing a VL is pure chance. Luck always playes a part in every game as it does in every real life battle, but the side that uses the best tactics will usually win. I have no problem with the victory calculations. If you think you have a better system, tell us what it is.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:
Axis casualities + Allied casualities + Victory location = 100% of points<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have been told (a while back) by the guy who figured this all out that this is the way it works. The number of points worth of units you start out with is not part of the calculation. So, in theory, the example Scipio gives could happen, but in practice it never does, so who cares.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The M1 only has a significant FP advantage vs the Lee-Enfield at faily short ranges (less than 100m) where ROF is most important. At all other ranges there is little or no difference.
Let me repost my little FP table from earlier in the thread, since no one seems to have looked at it the first time (why do I bother?):
...
Lee-Enfield ROF: 15 aimed shots per minute.
M1 Garand ROF: 25-30 aimed shots per minute.
CM firepower rating.
Firepower at: 40m 100m 250m
M1 Garand:___13___7____3
Lee-Enfield:__10___6____3
...
Once again, where is the problem?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Rather I started out by making the point that according to the information I have, not ever infantryman in the US Army was armed with the M1 Garand, yet the game assumes they were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, were some 1903s used as sniper rifles throughout the war, but they were not carried by the typical US infantryman in the ETO 1944-45 (period of the war covered by CM and therefore the only one relevant to the game). I have seen no information here to refute this.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It also seems to assume that invariably the US Army's firepower was greater than the Commonwealth armies' because the ROF for US weapons was higher than that of Commonwealth ones, and seems to ignore that other factors than just mere ROF determine firepower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
US infantry firepower advantage over British units in the game is mainly due to the larger size of the squads (12 men vs. 10). If you take away 2 riflemen from the US squads and then compare apples to apples, you see that overall firepower is fairly even. The US squad has more at close range (40m), the British has more at long range (200m and up). At 100m they are about the same. I fail to see the problem here.
If the Lee-Enfield were to be given the same FP rating as the M1 Garand, the British squad would actually have more firepower than the US squad on a man for man basis at all ranges (due to the Bren MG). Maybe this is what some people actually want and are unwilling to come out and say it, but I have seen no evidence here to support this.
This is the second time I have posted this information. Hopefully it will be read this time.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
IIRC there were two models, one selective fire, one full auto only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe all or nearly all BARs in use 44-45 were full auto. I know all BARs made from 1940 were.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Judging by the fact that more full-auto capable weapons were taken up it must be concluded this technical advantage was not utilized IRL
Hence the M1 Garand should be toned down in CM in relation to the bolt action rifles... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cripes.
Last time: The 2 BARs had nothing to do with M1 ROF vs. bolt action. I have no idea where you get this. They took the 2nd BAR so as to have a 2nd full-auto weapon with serious power. Simple as that.
Now I'm going for real. I can't keep Terry Farrel waiting any longer
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
The "problem" is the fact that the TacAI is the same for ALL units regarless of the differences in the official tactics and doctrine. Most of the actions in CM are determined by the TacAI, not the player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One last blurb.
The problem of programming it into the TacAI is that it is then set in stone for all Scenarios/QBs, regardless of date or troop experience. So playing a QB in April '45 with crack troops, you would see your Ami units use the same dumb tactics they did in the bocage when they were fresh off the boat. Not good. Not realistic.
If you want to have no-shooting Amis vs. blazing Germans, just play Green Amis vs. Reg or Vet Germans and you'll get the desired end result. But this way, you're not forced into it all the time like your ideas would.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Secondly, seeing a target to shoot at rarely does not mean you shoot at the target you see rarely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
:eek:
Ok, you've finally managed to lose me competely. I'm gunna go see if Star Trek is on.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
judging by the need to take up extra BAR's to increase the ROF of a platoon regardless of the fact that the M1 Garand was more than capable technically to handle the job. Instead "proper" high ROF weapons, (but not the SMG
) were taken up to work the suppression angle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your logic is off here. The M1 is semi-auto. The BAR is full-auto. That's why they took an extra for more FP. To suggest that this somehow indicates the M1 had no higher a ROF than a bolt action is nonsensical.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
He rarely even SAW a target but how RARELY did he SHOOT at it if he saw a it (or a bush that acted like a target) ? Let alone hit it. :cool:
I just absolutely love semantics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh... if you're shooting at a target you can't see, and likely only have a general idea of his location, that's not an aimed shot, that's area fire.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Not really. The big stuff going off just masks the inferior small unit tactics. And that is counterproductive as the brass back at the capital do not understand your needs to make changes in the armour production so you get heavier (and more expensive) tanks to the front. And they sure as hell will not understand how the hell were you able to squander ALL the artillery rounds sent your way to pound that little patch shrubbery on that small farm.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is some truth to this, but tactics could and did evolve seperate from official doctorine. The grunts on the ground who saw their buddies being mowed down while doing "Walking Fire" did not wait for the brass to figure it out. They learned overwatch and suppression, even though it wasn't "official". Just like carrying 2 BARs was not official TO&E. This is why forcing all US squads in CM to follow official US tactical doctorine (as you want) would not be any more historically correct than it is now (leaving it up to the player). But that's a different thread (I hope).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Then how can it be said that the rifle was an insignificant cause of casualties if 30% of the total number can not be verified accurately enough ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A disproportionate number of unaccounted for were likely killed by artillery, as opposed to bullets. Think about it and I'm sure you'll see why.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aimed fire was not RARE at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depuy: "He was trained to shoot at and hit a target, but in combat, in the attack, he rarely ever saw a target."
Care to rephrase?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:
null<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed.
When you are typing your post, look down below the 2 rows of buttons and you will see a little link saying "What is UBB Code?". That should get you going
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Not really...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think he was talking short term. You're talking long term.
-
Willpower...fading...can't...resist...urge...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
30 % of the casualties are unaccounted for. Can you provide the breakdown of that part ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If they could be broken down, they wouldn't be unaccounted for.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Today they are. But not according to the British and the American WWII doctrines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As someone who has read Depuy should know, doctrine and practice are not always the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not really. Aimed fire was not extremely rare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore everyone wanted to do it, even the Germans, but apart from the Red Army and the Japanese very few armies employed consistent tactics and doctrine that presented suitable targets for it at comfortable ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see a contadiction in these 2 statements.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:
Not good enough, Vanir - perhaps you should answer my question first - how many _didn't_ it kill?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, you misunderstand the purpose of the "application of firepower". The goal is not to completely wipe out every last enemy soldier, but to disrupt and atrit. The PBI will alway have to go in at some point, and always with the expection of meeting resistance and taking some loses. So how is it that the lack of mass firepower actually makes the battlefield more safe for the grunts? At the very worst, the enemy is uneffected, in which case losses would be the same as if there was none.
In short, there is nothing to lose by mass FP except ammo, and potentially a lot to gain (fewer enemys shooting back).
EDIT: Misread part of the question, sorry about that
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Airpower has only failed in those conficts insomuch as it did not win the war all by itself (well, actually, it did in Kosovo...). That's a very narrow diffinition for success. It could also be said that armor failed in WW2 because infantry, artillery and airpower was also required for victory, and it would be just as silly.
Boy, now we're way off topic. Anyone think the Ravens will repeat this year?
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Dang, and I was going to call you a yellow unmilitary bastard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've been called worse... and likely will be again
-
And by the way, you brought up the subject of US tactics in those conflicts, not me. So it is your strawman, not mine.
EDIT: Er... I meant that to Brian, not Slappy
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Vanir, keep erecting that strawman. Tell me, how many Americans _died_ because the tactic didn't work and didn't eliminate the Japanese or other enemies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!
If the tactic didn't work, how did they achieve the high kill ratios in the first place?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Backwards MG ammo - a simple question of weight ratios
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Ok, I dug up a bit of info on how BTS modeled the MG42 HMG ammo load in this old thread.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM we figure the MG42 ammo total based on the assumption that the ammo bearers are carrying 55 pounds (25 kilos) of MG42 ammo each in addition to their extra gear.
Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM's HMG42 Teams have roughly 4000 rounds assigned to them by default. I found a pretty definate number for this somehwere almost 2 years ago (ugh... have we been working on this THAT long!!), it was backed up by at least one other source. Charles and I did the math and it checks out.
BTW, German ammo boxes were specially designed so that two could be carried in one hand. That means a single soldier could carry (with some difficulty, like we simulate) 1,000 rounds all by himself. If three men in a HMG42 Team carried such a load you get 3,000 rounds right there.
Realistically such Teams would have a variety of ammo loads depending on supply and inteneded role, and this can be adjusted +/- in the Scenario Editor. In fixed defensive positions they would have probably more than this unless they had recently been engaged in heavy fire and had not yet been resupplied.
Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]