Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Vanir Ausf B

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,584

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack:

    The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Smack, in the larger scheme of things, the performance difference between the Lee Enfield and the M1 was only one of many factors that effect combat performance. After all, the Lee Enfield is generally considered to be better than the K98k, but that didn't stop the Germans from taking France in 1940.

    If we want to focus at the squad level, I would say the lesser suppessive power of the Lee Infield vs. the M1 was made up for by the Bren MG, which was a much better SAW than the BAR.

    In fact, you can see this in CM. Take away 2 M1 rifleman from a US 44 rifle squad (so they both have 10 men) and compare firepower to a British rifle squad at 100m. The US has a FP of 91, the Brits 89. Almost the same because the Bren makes up the difference.

    [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    A crew for free and another (real small) thing

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer:

    Okay, but suppose you have an elite 14"

    naval spotter. He shoots off his wad

    and then gets killed on the way to exit

    the board. How important is he to the

    rest of that battle? Nothing. How important

    is he to the whole campaign? I dunno...

    but how many points does he cost to

    lose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Eh... how important is Wittmans crew for the rest of the battle after they bail? Nothing. It's the killing of the tank that matters.

    BTW, arty spotters are somewhat unique in that they are all worth 30 victory points no matter what you paid for them.

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Read It

    The "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 rifle" (or Garand) was the standard-issue rifle for American infantry. Named after its inventor, John C. Garand, it was the first semiautomatic rifle widely used in combat. Although it was adopted by the army in 1936, the Garand was in short supply until 1943, but by the end of the war more than 4 million had been produced. The Garand was easy to disassemble and clean, and its combination of caliber, muzzle velocity, and semiautomatic operation provided superior firepower over bolt-action rifles. Its only weakness was that partially fired clips were so difficult to reload that GIs tended to simply fire off the remaining rounds and insert a new clip.

    ...

    Officially designated "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903," it was better known as the Springfield, the Springfield '03, or simply the '03. This bolt-action rifle was adopted by the U.S. army in 1903 and remained the standard issue rifle of America's armed forces until 1936. In 1906, the .30-caliber cartridge was modified and designated the "M1906 Cartridge"; it became widely known as the .30-06. This cartridge was the standard U.S. rifle and machine gun cartridge for the next 50 years. In 1936, the Springfield '03 was replaced by the M1 Garand, but many Springfields saw service in World War II. In the Normandy Campaign, the Springfield was used primarily as a sniper weapon; the vast majority of infantrymen preferred semiautomatic and automatic weapons to the bolt-action rifle. Any advantage the Springfield may have had in accuracy was more than offset by the rate of fire the Garand, M1 Carbine, and Browning automatic rifle offered.

    More Stuff

    The Lee Enfield No. 4 was the result of over 30 years of refinement in bolt-action rifle performance. This rifle’s genesis was the Lee Model 1895 rifle, developed by James Lee (a Scotsman who became an American citizen). The Model 1895 fired a high-velocity 6-millimeter (0.236-inch) round; however, its straight-pull bolt proved to be difficult to operate in combat conditions.In 1907, the short-magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) Mark II was introduced; the SMLE Mark III followed a few years later. These rifles used a rotating (rather than straight) bolt action and were the standard British infantry rifles during World War I. This smoothly operating bolt enabled a trained soldier to fire up to 15 aimed shots per minute.Further simplification of the SMLE design resulted in the Lee Enfield No. 4. Developed in 1928, it was not produced in quantity until 1941 when it became the standard British infantry rifle.

    A Little More

    The Lee Enfield is a legendary rifle which served with British and Commonwealth military forces from the end of the 19th century, through the course of World War II. It is an accurate, reliable bolt-action rifle, and can still be found in the hands of a number of shooters and collectors. It is still issued to Canadian Rangers, due to its consistent performance in arctic conditions. Average rate of fire is 8-15 rpm.

    I'll post more damning evidence as soon as the board's search engine is in the mood to work.

    [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    .303 SMLE was expected to be able to fire as many rounds as a less-well-trained soldier with a L1a1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But what if both soldiers are equally well trained? Why do you insist on comparing well trained soldiers using bolt actions with less-well-trained soldiers on the semi-auto?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, thats the nature of the American view of combat. There is a profound difference in philosphy between the British and American ideas on the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Had nothing to do with philosophy.

    I'll say it again: US soldiers were taught to not fire at a target they could not see. It was through combat expirience that they learned that this was poor tactics. Soldiers who did this ended up not shooting at anything as the enemy was rarely visible.

    Suppression is king of the battlefield.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The "don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes" mentality was obsolete by the turn of the century. It took some longer than others to realize this. Perhaps some still have not.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Springfield was never fully replaced in the US Army by the Garand. Therefore, attempting to claim that the US Army only utilised or that all units should be modelled as being armed with the Garand is inherently false.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Someone calls you on this and you say you didn't mean the ETO, but you don't say were you did mean.

    Its common knowledge that some Springfields were used throughout the war, but mostly as sniper rifles. I have not read anything of frontline units anywhere not using the M1 if available (mid to late war). Saying you've seen some pictures of some GIs carrying Springfields does not prove your case.

    [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    A crew for free and another (real small) thing

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer:

    So an Elite tank that gets KO'd but the

    crew survives, shouldn't cost any more

    than a conscript tank in the same situation.

    I don't know if his observations are correct

    but they sound reasonable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nah, that'd be screwed up. If you KO an elite tank you should get the victory points for an elite tank, regardless of whether the crew survives.

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:

    When WWII rolled around the Brits and Germans carried their WWI weapons into battle while the Americans developed a next-generation battle-rifle. This rifle, the Garand (designed by a Canadian no less) is considered by many to be the greatest battle rifle ever developed (including Patton). It's accuracy, range, power, and rate of fire surpass the Enfield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Agreed.

    In the years before the war the US Army conducted a number of tests comparing the M1 with the Springfield and found the M1 to be superior in almost every way. And it wasn't because they were training their soldiers to blaze away at anything that moved (just the opposite, in fact).

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

    That may be what they were trained to do but I would suggest they were not trained very well because in reality they tended and still tend to, blaze away at everything in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Um... I said that in the next sentence.

    Note that the only thing poor about their training was that they were taught to only fire at what they could see.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You definitely do have to "reaquire" your target after each shot. I don't know where you got that from, but the recoil of most full-power cartridge weapons is more than sufficient to force the firer to reaquire their sight picture if they are hoping to actually hit their target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I didn't mean to suggest that the gun didn't move. So, let me rephrase that: A semi-auto gun can reacquire the target quicker than a bolt action.

    Believe me, I have fired a large number of semi auto and bolt action rifles, both at stationary targets and at moving ones (i.e. mule deer and elk smile.gif )

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although, as you pointed out, perhaps that wasn't what the US soldiers sought to do, preferring to hope that throwing enough rounds down range might mean they hit something, eventually?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Generally, yes. That's the nature of combat.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which is when he is aimed at. The Commonwealth training is to fire at a specific target and, unless ordered to, make each round count. Section fire is possible but is recognised as usually being an enormous waste of ammunition for the most part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That may well have been the way they were trained (same as US soldiers), but actual combat taught them differently.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There is a reason why no developed nation in the world still uses bolt action rifles as its main infantry weapon. And it has nothing to do with Hollywood.

    [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

    The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually, US troops were specifically trained not to shoot at anything they couldn't see. However, in actual combat it was found that the volume of fire philosophy was superior, as enemy soldiers were rarely visible during combat.

    When firing a bolt action rifle you have to reacquire the target ofter every shot, while with a semi-auto you can keep it in your sights until you reload. So in a typical combat, I would argue that the M1 had generally more accurate fire.

    Of course, its something of a moot point, as soldiers in combat usually are firing at an area where the enemy is known to be, rather than at a specific enemy soldier. When an enemy was visible is was usually for a brief moment.

    I think CM has the M1 and Enfield effectiveness modeled quite well.

    [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

    0

    British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack:

    Well this rant is over. Once Again I dont think that ANY rifle was superiour..THats was the point of this argument. That nobody can say the Lee Enfield was better than the Garand, or the Garand was Better than the Enfield. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think 9 grogs out of 10 would disagree with this.

    The M1 Garand is widely considered to be the best non-automatic rifle of WW2. Being semi-auto was a huge advantage over the Enfield and the K98k. Even with 2 fewer rounds per clip, the M1 could lay down a larger volume of sustained fire, and at equal or better accuracy.

    0

    CM:BB Any change in LOS tool?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

    Hence absolutely no recce type formations appear in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I could have sworn I've seen German fusilier companies available. Plenty of other recce units also (jeeps, Greyhounds, 234s, ect.).

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kettler:

    Seems to me the game either needs to be recast to allow effective prebattle recon by the players or some mechanism has to be devised to give them the benefits therof without having to physically do the work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Given deeper QB maps, greater starting distance between forces, and enough turns, this could be done. Some people do this to some extent already.

    But frankly, I don't see what any of this has to do with the LOS tool.

    As far as that goes, I see no problem with a 360 degree function, especially during setup. As for being able to use the LOS tool without it being anchored to a unit, this has been shot down by BTS more than once as too unrealistic. I think you're all wasting your time on that one.

    0

    WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery - the new book

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

    These reviews arent exactly glowing. Ones lukewarm and the other is a little degrading.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Here are the summaries for each of the 2 reviews:

    World War II Ballistics reads like a mathematical proof, but it is also, albeit somewhat indirectly, a work of industrial history. Within the narrow arc of its subject, the authors condense a staggering amount of material and frequently emerge with little known, but crucial details. This reviewer was fascinated by the description of variance in the thickness of Panther glacis, or Tiger tank welds that shattered when struck with a hammer. Wargame designers will certainly appreciate the incredible wealth of mathematical models, like the "Theoretical hit probability method," which could significantly enhance the quality of armor combat simulation. Despite its organizational flaws, Bird and Livingston's World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is certain to become a standard reference and could well be the starting point for a much more robust study of military technology and the people who created it.

    ...

    World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery will provide both wargamers and historians many insights into the mechanics of armor penetration. It will give the wargame designer a set of tools for the design of armor combat formulas and it will help the historian to understand the problems associated with published penetration tables and armor resistance data. As there are no other commonly available books that deals with the subject, " World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is recommended despite some of its shortcomings.

    Hopefully Charles is aware of the errata, as there is apparently an error in one of the formulas for Soviet APBC.

    0

    British Field Artillery Undermodelled?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

    Duh. It gives anything UK a 1.4 times blast multiplier, as I already said. The question is "why?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it may be because of different materials used in US and UK shell casings.

    I can't find where I read it, but I remember reading that the British did some tests that showed cast iron casings produced far more fragments upon bursting than steel casings (about twice as many IIRC). The downside to cast iron shells was that they had a shorter range than steel shells because of the weaker material.

    So, if the Brits used cast iron casings and the US used steel, that could explain the difference. However, I can't find a source that states whether or not this is true.

    Of course, none of this explains the 25 lber ROF.

    0

    Surrender or Die trying?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

    If i can see that my opponent is totally overwhelmed i would mention to him in my e-mails that now would be a good time to surrender, whether he chooses to surrender or not i leave it up to him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I've thought about doing this many times, but the one time I did try it my overly sensitive opponent mistook it for gloating. :confused:

    Having said that, if it is obvious to me I have no chance to even force a draw I will surrender or at least offer cease fire.

    0

    The Loud Bang

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I remember a story posted here not too long ago.

    Several T-34s were advancing on a German AA unit equipped with nothing heavier than their 20mm AA guns. So they opened up on the tanks with what they had. The 20mms pelted the T-34s for a short time with no apparent effect, then the tanks came to a halt and the crews proceeded to bail out. Of course, nearly all of them were cut down right away. When one of the few survivors was asked by his German captors why he abandoned the safely of his tank for near certain death, he replied that the noise created by the constant stream of 20mm shells impacting on the tank was so fearsome inside the tank that they would have done anything to get away from it.

    0

    The costs of 88mmPAK vs Elephant

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

    Sure, right. If being able to hide is worth so much, why isn't a US M-10 tank destroyer less expensive than a US 76mm anti-tank gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The M-10 has more advantages over the 76mm AT than the Nashorn does over the Pak43, including a larger ammo load. In fact, with the notable exception of the gun the M-10 is a better all around vehicle than the Nashorn while the 76mm AT is markedly inferior to the PaK43.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FFE:

    Ideally, the Nashorn ought to be used like an AT gun, at (long) range so small arms (and even .50cals) are pointless<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, but easier said than done on most CM maps. Should be more feasable in CM2.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But as a counter position, why is the Archer more costly than a 17lb ATG? The Archer has no turret and the hunt command is all but useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Good point. I suspect the Archer's unique handicap may not have been factored into its price.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mattias:

    Only very few of the vehicles modelled had the ability to turn on a dime. This obscures one very significant weakness that some of the turretless vehicles in the game had in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is true and I agree that German turretless vehicles seem to be priced more in accordance with their real world effectiveness rather than their in-game effectiveness. I would like to see this looked at for CM2.

    0

    The costs of 88mmPAK vs Elephant

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nothing fancy, just Steve:

    Try "Fast Moving" (arty shift)that Pak when the spotting round hits. :D Especially in the woods where it will suffer from the dreaded air burst. :rolleyes: Of course it's always fun to move the Pak after it's LOS has been obscured by smoke. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, but... The important thing here is that because of the PAKs ability to remain hidden while in LOS of the enemy until it opens fire (try that with a Nashorn), if the enemy is hitting it with arty that usually means the PAK has already made its first kill.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...