Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
I can see this is becoming pointless. I'm just repeating myself over and over and you're ignoring the evidence I post to back my statements.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
I'd also suggest that being non-military trained makes you rather unqualified to pass judgement on whether or not military training methods are wrong or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I knew you were going to say that eventually. Never mind the fact that a long time military man has echoed almost everything I have said. Never mind that I have backed up my points with evidence other than my own personal opinion. Never mind the fact that being in the military apparently did not prevent you from being completely ignorant of basic US and German infantry tactics in WW2.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soldiers are taught to hit what they aim at, not just blaze away in the general direction of the enemy. If their section command indicates a target, they are expected to hit it, not metres to either side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read Dupey and related quotes I provided on this subject. Oh, wait, they weren't British so that's a strawman. Nevermind.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as someone else has pointed out, rather tellingly, they lost. They were unable to prevent themselves from being outmanauvred or plain outfought and they lost. The proof is in the pudding and that one's recipe was
shown to be somewhat wanting in substance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a fatuous arguement. Under this logic, everthing about the losing side in a conflict is necessarily inferior to the winning side, else they would not have lost.
There have been whole books written on why Germany lost WW2, and you will not find one that lists poor small unit infantry tactics as one of them.
I suppose you think the Allies had better tanks than the Germans. They had to have. They won. The proof is in the pudding.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was under the impression that people wanted to utilise the correct tactical doctrine for the period, rather than trying to act like the Mobile Infantry of Starship Trooper fame in 1944-45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have posted quite a lot of first hand information about what tactical doctorine was used for the period. Starship Troopers? Eh... right.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:
For those who don't know about the reduced firepower of the squad organic MG42: The MG42 as part of a squad is reduced in firepower compared to the MG42 LMG that can be purchased separately. This is to account for the fact that one of the riflemen in the squad would be helping with the belt ammo. And since all men in a squad are modeled as firing a weapon, a reduction was made to the MG42 firepower to make up for the ammo loader's duties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A little off topic, but this is generally not true. Due to what I think is likely a bug, the LMG42 in all German squads except VG Heavy SMG is allowed to fire with only 1 soldier manning it and with no loss of FP. The FP reduction to simulate 1 rifleman assisting the gunner does not exist. It was supposed to, but it isn't in there. I think this is also true for British squads with the Bren as well.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Vanir, I have not said that this "did not work". I have made the point that this was not how the British army worked. Stop erecting a strawman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Strawman? The Americans appear to have been trained in a manner similar to the British and found it to be lacking in actual combat. That seems rather pertinent to the discussion to me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss how the armies of the period acted, and in particular reference to the way in which the game appears to over-emphasise the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles compared to bolt-action ones, I felt my experience might be useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, lets leave Tero Country behind and get back to the original point.
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
CM actually rates them pretty close to equal until you get to very short range. So, where is the problem? I don't see it.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Congrats to CM and BTS.
As far as the rest of the list goes, most of my faves are there as well (X-Com...ooohhhhahhhhhhhhh...the memories). I think the old sub sim Red Storm Rising should be there, but I'm weird like that.
The one absolutely unforgivable omission is of the Thief games.
-
Congrats to CM and BTS.
As far as the rest of the list goes, most of my faves are there as well (X-Com...ooohhhhahhhhhhhhh...the memories). I think the old sub sim Red Storm Rising should be there, but I'm weird like that.
The one absolutely unforgivable omission is of the Thief games.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Hey ! Those are MY anti-American national bias quotes you are quoting. Find your own hobby horse, this one is already spoken for.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup. And once again thanks for digging them up. I couldn't get to the originals as the links no longer work (the Carlisle-Mil site, or whatever it was called, seems to have disappeared). I'm sure they've been moved somewhere but Google couldn't find it.
Of course, I'm using them for a somewhat different purpose than you originally attempted to do...
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Colonel Harry B. Shermalt, Commanding Officer -th Infantry, ITALY:
"In most cases it would be better if they fired even if there is no visible target. A group of riflemen may be stopped by a German machine gun which they can’t locate, but if they will open fire in the general direction of the machine gun the Germans will usually pull out. I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on fire orders and fire control by unit leaders. Men must be taught to open fire at once in the general direction of any target that is holding them up"
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
Pretty simple to refute actually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your statement doesn't even begin to refute it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it worked so bloody well then how come the uber German infantry lost the war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The German armed forces had a lot of problems (antiquated supply and transportation; duplication of effort with SS, Heer and FJ; convoluted procurement; ect., ect.), but small unit infantry tactics was not one of them.
They were also (generally speaking) outnumbered and outproduced.
BTW, I never said German soldiers were "uber". You did. I only said their small unit tactics were more advanced.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>O.K., O.K., a little bit of over simplification here but no more so than your statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read Depuy if you think I oversimplify.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Australians have stood by and watched the Americans attempt to use that rationale in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. In each and every case, the PBI has had to go in and clear the enemy out. It does not work and this is one of the major lessons we teach our diggers - firepower without discipline is simply a waste of ammunition and a pretty fireworks display.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are aware that the US achieved a better than 10 to 1 kill/loss ratio in each of those conficts (except the Pacific which was more like 6 or 7 to 1 IIRC).
Yeah, I doesn't work.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Major General William Depuy on US and German infantry training and tactics in WW2:
Did the training programs include live fire?
GEN DEPUY: They included infiltration courses, live fire exercises, and overhead fire, all against fixed targets. The enemy doesn’t shoot back, and so, you don’t learn a whole lot, and of course, they were normally not done above maybe, platoon level, or company level at the most. Then, once in awhile we would fire the “mad minute” to impress us with our own firepower. However,
the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier. He was trained to shoot at and hit a target, but in combat, in the attack, he rarely ever saw a target. So, he was indisposed to shoot. The Germans, on the other hand, used machine pistols which were area weapons. That is, they sprayed the area ahead of them and achieved fire superiority which we now call suppression...
...I might add that I think we still had some of that ammunition when the war was over because, as you know, the infantry in World War II didn’t shoot much small arms ammuniton, except the machine guns...
...Could you overwatch from your hedgerow?
GEN DEPUY: We didn’t do that very well. You see, one of our training deficiencies was that almost all suppression was done by indirect fire weapons. Very little suppression was done by small arms. Occasionally, we would use our heavy machine guns. People thought first about mortars and artillery, then heavy machine guns, and finally, light machine guns. Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression. They just thought of using riflemen for maneuvering and sharpshooting. The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets. This problem was not confined to the 90th Division. You have read SLAM Marshall and know that even in the IOlst only 25 percent of the troopers fired.* And, we only had eight heavy machine guns in a battalion. So, it didn’t work very well. We didn’t do direct fire suppression very well in my outfit until the latter part of the war...
Refering here to the Germans...
They simply suppressed and moved, suppressed and moved. They gained fire superiority, and then gobbled up chunks of those companies up there, which, by that time, probably were not returning fire...
...Did they usually include artillery?
GEN DEPUY: Some artillery, but nothing like we had. Some mortars, some assault guns, and a lot of small arms fire by the Germans. A lot of machine pistol fire, a lot of maneuver, and some hand grenades or potato mashers...
...Well, I thought the German machine pistol,which was an area suppression weapon, had great advantages, whereas we were trained for point targets with rifles. So, the Germans, it would seem to me, were ahead of us there...
...Was there anything about their tactics, good or bad, that impressed you?
GEN DEPUY: Yes, the infantry tactics of the Germans involved a lot of direct fire suppression that our tactics didn’t. They didn’t have as much indirect fire suppression, as much artillery, as we
did, but they had mortars, and direct fire suppression, coupled with a lot of movement...
Emphasis added by me, of course.
Funny how those German tactics sound so much like modern US/NATO tactics (sans artillery). Funny how the rarity of aimed shots at visible targets and the dominance of area effect firepower sounds a lot like what the Capt., myself and others have been talking about for six pages now. And this guy was actually there.
But Brian says that stuff didn't work in WW2. It was all about the ability of the individual rifleman to hit his target. And I'm just a civy. What do I know?
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Basically. Remember, you have to stop and push that charger in, that will decrease your rate of fire compared to a weapon on which the magazine is changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought you said you had no idea the ROF for the M1? Now you're sticking to your 8-16 number after I've posted numbers showing the ROF to be twice that?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question to you, Vanir, have you ever served in the military and been taught to shoot in a military situation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. I've spent a lot of time shooting guns, but I never served. It's also irrelevant. Being trained to "shoot in a military situation" and actually doing it when bullets are coming back at you are two different worlds. The Americans discovered this in Normandy when they realized the way they had been trained to shoot "in a military situation" was totally wrong. They had to unlearn.
And the way they were trained sounds a lot like the way you were trained.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps our tactical doctrine, which is dedicated more to "pure" infantry tactics, in close terrain such as Jungle or scrub (which is what predominates in our region) is closer to what they used in WWII compared to what NATO or US Armies use, which rather makes me think what I'm saying is far more applicable to a game devoted to WWII than trying to suggest that a tactical doctrine from 2001 is relevent to 1944-45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. Sorry. Wrong.
The Germans did use the "NATO/US" style tactics you dismiss. This is about the sixth time this has been said here and you seem to be ignoring this rather telling bit of information.
What area of the world did the action covered in Combat Mission take place?
Western Europe.
Until very recently, what area of the world did US and NATO forces expect to be fighting and trained as such?
Western Europe.
The US largely adopted the German philosophy of infantry tactics because they had it used against them in WW2 and so they knew it worked.
Refute that.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
I would think the problem is not with coding as much as with personal biases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As usual, you've hit the nail on the head.
Not only does this bias manifest in the absence of horses, but also mine dogs, dead cows, and other assorted barnyard critters. Now, exactly what it is they are biased for/against (PETA? Greenpeace? Teamsters Union?) I don't know, but your explanation is the only logical one I have seen.
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:
I had a Kubelwagen, on the road, bog down crossing over the rails where they intersect with the road in All or Nothing. Try to explain that one :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alright, I'll give it a shot: Blew a tire. CM does not model the driver of the first truck getting out to warn the following trucks about the protruding RR spike.
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
"Bogging" does not neccesarily mean "stuck in the mud". It also includes throwing a track.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:
Closest shell was 82m from the nearest squad didn't even blink!! I have personally been on the recieving end of this calibre and you duck at anything less than 500m. I have had casualties at 225ms. At 85m that sect (in the open 75% exposed) should be taking casualties and scrambling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This may be a case of drawing too many conclusions from a single event. Would a shell striking 85m from a 75% exposed squad always cause casualties? Does it never cause casualties in the game? There's a lot of randomness built into CM.
I know there have been RL arty guys post about the arty in CM in the past, and most of them seemed to think the lethality was fairly close to the mark, or at least wasn't wildly off kilter. They had issues with other areas.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how were the lethal radii of the Arty calibres determined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did a search. It was a horrible expirience and the flashbacks may haunt me for years, but I'm still here. Not too much detail is available, but here's what I found:
"The blast radius is done using some fancy math and knowledge of shell types. I don't know the specifics, and don't want to know
Charles did all that stuff.BTW, there is also a blast effect that can kill by shock alone. The bigger the gun, and the closer to the source, the greater the chance of getting offed. There are many accounts of soldiers coming up to someone who, by all examination, looks to be sleeping. But upon further inspection is dead without obvious fatal wound. This is also factored into the blast radius.
Steve"
"It's actually a value that combines fragmentation with blast radius. For example, the US 75mm gets a better rating than the 76mm. The shells are pretty much the same size (i.e. same potential for fragmentation) but the 75mm has more TNT and hence a larger blast radius. So I measure the killing power a few meters off-center, and that's the blast power rating that gets displayed. This makes it clear that a weaker radius requires greater accuracy to get kills and so, on average, will score fewer kills per shot.
Charles"
I don't know about the area fire thing.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am sorry and this is killing me, but the deeper I get into this game the shallower it is looking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every time I start to feel like this I think back to when I played Steel Panthers, Close Combat and those other games that used to pass for "realistic", then I feel better
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Tero, this thread is about the British being shafted (or not), not the Germans. So go hijack another thread for your "the Allies sucked" spiel.
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:
I can't help but chuckle at this thread. This reminds me of the old arguments made by the top militaries of the world in the late 19th century.
"Machine gun? What's the use of that? All it does is waste a hell of a lot of ammunition! Besides, a group of well-trained rifle infantry can easily do what it does! After all, they can acually aim and pick their targets!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe. Yeah. Frankly, Brian's point of view sounds like something out of a 1911 training manual. It's quite surprising to see this in 2001.
Brian:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As long as there is a need to "seize and hold ground" there will be infantrymen undertaking that role. It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to with recognition that it is only the infantryman which can perform both tasks. Armour can do one but not the other. Artillery can do neither. Ditto for all the other arms and services.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brian, you are confusing infantryman with rifleman. The Capt. never said that the infantry was less important, he said the individual rifleman was less important as heavy weapons now dominate the modern battlefield. No one ever said that infantry are no longer needed to take and hold ground, its how they take it and hold it that has changed.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally I believe that like many Americans the game designers have unfairly penalised the Commonwealth forces simply because of their prejudices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are all these "many Americans" that agree with you?
During this thread you have frequenty slagged American fighting prowes, talking about them as if they were an untrained, undisciplined mob, while the Brits were all steel nerved snipers using "One shot, one kill" as their mantra (read Slapdragon's excellent post on the previous page about that). And now you are accusing the designers of having prejudices?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What was the stated ROF for "aimed shots" for the M1? 8 RPM, 16? I see little difference between the two in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
8-16 aimed shots a minute with a semi-auto? Are you serious?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
Vanir, I disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not understanding what we are disagreeing about. You admit 2 is the norm and that is all I was saying.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the infantry level, MGs and grenades do killing, but at the army level, it's always the artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought the infantry level was what this whole discussion was about.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
An LMG can theoretically be crewed by one man, and two men is the norm. The optimal would be three, one to fire and two to carry ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I knew more than 2 people carry the ammo. I was refering to when the gun is firing (gunner and loader).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The MG and the grenades do the real killing; infantry is there to hold the ground and give them the chance to kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is what I was saying about the German philosophy. They were the first ones to realize this and formally incorporate it into their tactics. The Brits and Amis were still thinking the rifleman was the main killer... until they got into the bocage.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
If the counterview that you and the other poster are presenting is true, then I would have to ask what is the point in having riflemen at all in an infantry section? Why not either give all members an LMG or have the section armed with say, 3 LMG's, crewed by three men each?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, LMGs are crewed by 2 men, not 3. Secondly, the reason for no 3 LMG squads can be summed up in one word: mobility. MGs are heavy. Ammo for MGs is heavier. It's the same reason the US army didn't equip every man with a BAR.
Having said that, the Germans did use squads with 2 LMGs (Panzergrenadier, FJ, VG Heavy SMG). I'm sure they were a bit slower than regular squads, but that is not modeled in CM (unfortunately).
And yes, Guy /Gun is correct about the German philosophy re LMGs and infantry combat. Their view of the roles of the LMG and the individual rifleman were fundamentaly different than the US and British. And it worked well enough that the US eventually adopted it as its own (post war). I know there are grogs on this board who can explain it better than me, but if none of them show up I may do a little write up on it later.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
Why did BTS deem recce "beyond the scope of CM world" and then exclude any and all pre-game data realistically and viably derived from pre-battle battlefield tactical recce ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh?
At the beginning of the game, do you or do you not have a perfect picture of the terrain? Do you or do you not already know the general size of the opposing force? Do you or do you not already know the general area in which they are deployed?
Sounds like there has been quite a lot of information gathered.
Frankly, I think this idea of knowing the exact position of some of your opponents assets at the beginning of the game is a very bad one. It lessens the fog of war. That's the sort of thing the player should have to find out on his own.
Still has nothing to do with the LOS tool.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How could SACEUR and the different level commanders plan ahead if they did not receive (and perhaps more importantly distribute) recce data on the terrain features in the prospective areas of operations. As for tactical recce, I have always thought identifying terrain that permit or deny avenues of advance was of prime importance for both the defender and the attacker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Identifying terrain features would not have included "if you put a tank 20m inside those scattered trees it will still have LOS to the backside of that small rise, but if you put it 5m further back it will lose LOS."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about this for an idea (for all I know it might have been floated around before but I have not seen it before<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it has been floated before, and BTS liked the idea. Unfortunately for technical reasons it cannot be done with the current engine. It's a "maybe" for the next one.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:
a platoon tank leader will still have the MA gun in there wont it? more of the company/battalion level command tanks would have the MA gun absent, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure the platoon leader's tank will have the MA.
I don't think vehicles will be purchasable in formations larger than platoons.
-
Yes they are.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Charles did all that stuff.
British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
Or does Allies only mean Anglo-American?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Being as everything else in this discussion has been Anglo-American, yes.