Rifle1860

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Maybe I could get something going for the "Not-Newbies But Really Suck" Tournament...<hr></blockquote> I hope you were not just teasing when you put this out ST. I certainly fit the description and would love to play. Please keep me in mind. Over

16 kms. (When you have just a little knowledge, you use it as often as possible ) [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

The 5th largest City in North America ... that's right. Toronto, Ontario! [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

Please send me a copy as well. Just so you know, it may take me a while to get back to you with comments (I actually have to work this week!) tony_welsh@tnld-inc.com Thanks

Me too please! tony_welsh@tnld-inc.com Thanks in advance. Over

Hey Chad Thanks for the effort. Great game and v-2.0 is a great improvement. MUST....STOP...PLAYING ... AND WORK!

Hey, sounds great. I'd love a copy

Hey, sounds great. I'd love a copy

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Like Oddball said : the only way to kill a Tiger is to shoot it in the ass.<hr></blockquote> You know, I have recently been struck by the pure genius of Oddballs approach to tank fighting. The paint round was the right answer for Sherman/Tiger combat. If you hit the Tiger with a paint round, you could cover the vision blocks and blind it. If you blind it, you can do what ever you want with it. If the crew gets out to whipe the paint off ... bingo. Wow [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]</p>

My $2.00 on this issue (Cdn currency, you know). I love the ideas except for the last. I think it is entirely realistic that platoons do not need to always have the command influence of their company commander. As long as you are only suggesting an additional command delay on the platoons, I think that is fine. If you are thinking of a more rigid enforcement system then I think that the game will not reflect the inherent flexibility of the Battle Procedure and Grouping Systems of the time. Lets take the example of a platoon that is tasked away from their parent companys within the context of an operation. This would happen if the platoon was to secure the start line for an operation, provide local protection for something or be detached to the command of a diferent company for a specific phase of an operation. The platoon commander would have specific orders and would not need the added support of being colocated with his OC. Another thing to think about is that the game does not currently model the 2nd in Command of any unit size. Lets look at a situation where a Battalion was going into an attack with one company in a fire base and two or three in the assult force. Usually, the CO would travel with and directly command the assult group. The fire base company would be commanded by the company commander but would also have either the RSM or the Battalion 2ic with him to coord indirect fire etc. Currently this situation (which is the common one) is not modeled in the game. One way to replicate this additional command influence is to run the game exactly as it is now where platoons do not need to be near company HQs. This system "infers" that the detached platoon is properly commanded and controlled from above. Over

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cathedral: You're plagued by questions regarding open roofed TDs? Relax, really. It isn't a question that should plague you. <hr></blockquote> OK, so I don't have much of a life and am easily "plagued". In recent days, I have played 2 or 3 QBs with a friend of mine. I select Armd ME as the type. Each time, the US gets a bunch of M18s and the Ger get a bunch of Hetzers. So, the Hetzers move and blow up real good (they are great if left static) and the M18s get some arty on them - same effect. This triggered the question. Obviously, US and German had diffrent doctrine that drove the veh design. This is assuming the perfect state where it is not the vehicle availability that drove the doctrine. The more I think about it, it seems that US TD design was driven by the characteristics of Speed (veh and turret speed), Firepower and Manouvre. Germany seems to have embraced Protection (low profile, thick front, closed top) and Firepower. In fact, it appears to me that the US saw TD's as offensive weapons and the Germans more in a static or defensive role. Just a rambling thought. Over

I am plagued by the question and I would love to get the real answer. Most of the German Tank Destroyers have no turret. I understand that this was done because - they were cheaper to produce and used less metal; - they are easier to maintain (no turret ring etc.) - They were faster to produce - They have a lower profile (harder to see and hit) - they took advantage of thicker frontal armour The list goes on. But why did the US take the M10/M18 approach? In several games recently, I have lost M18s to mortar fire. This must have been a real issue. My initial thoughts are: - There may have been an "overpressure" problem with an enclosed turret with the larger guns; - The crews may have been able to see and hear more from an open turret; - The US had a different doctrinal approach to Tank Destroyers (most likely case) The US certainly did not have some of the indistrial and material limitations the Germans did. Any thoughts?

Dear Nabla Sorry, I have been hiding for a bit. Still want some input on this?

Gyrene Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that any IR sight or devise needed an active illumination source. Sounds like the SEP is quite the tank. Maybe you guys will let your friends from the Great White North come down and slobber over it for a while. Out [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: The next generation M1 is the M1A2 SEP with numerous improvements - a more fuel efficent and powerful turbine (also less maintenance intensive), a FLIR instead of thermals, armor upgrades, and numerous electronics upgrades. I believe the engine is to be retrofitted on M1A1/A2 designs other than the SEP over a period of time. CPT Niel Smith, US Armor Officer [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Cavguy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of shear interest, anyone got any ideas about the use of FLIR vs. thermal sights. Part 2 - Isn't FLIR an active-source devise? Over

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Some options I did not spot: Reconnoiter and identify: a limited recce mission with the sole purpose of identifying enemy assets in the area. Friendly casualties to be avoided. Recce by force: a swift and short strike into enemy held territory to reconnoiter enemy positions and assets. Inflicting casualties to the enemy is a bonus but not a must. Spoiling attack: a swift hit on detected enemy positions to cause casualties and delays in enemy plans. Grabbing some terrain features for a short period and then pulling out can be also done. Assorted: - Pursuit: keep in contact with the enemy force. - Break contact - Decoy: lure the enemy into a trap<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good observation tero. The types of operations you have identified are those that either a formation would attempt to do or are orders that more specialized forces would undertake. The list contains only the specific mission verbs that are used in infantry or armoured coy/sqn/bn/regts. What that means is that the information (like the fact that it is a pursuit-type operation) would be included in the Situation paragraph of the orders and not as a mission type. The Situation is where the general picture, both enemy and friendly, is painted for the subordinate commanders along with the Commander's intent for the end-state of the operation. So let me try and deal with each one. Recce and identify - This can be either a patrol-type operation for the infantry or a task for a Recce unit of some kind. So, the mission statement for the job would be something like "conduct a point recce at Grid XYZ" "Conduct an area recce around the area of Grid xyz" or"conduct a route recce from Grid xyz to grid abc". Although thewse were common missions, they fall into a more specialized area. Recce by force - another specialized task. An infantry company may be told to do something like this but their mission would probably read something like "capture point x and hold for 1 hour". The rest of the orders would tell them the intent of the operation. Most likely though, this would be a fighting patrol mission so I left it off the list. Spoiling Attack - this would be reflected in orders as a normal attack to the infantry or armoured unit. They would be told to either capture (ground) or to destroy (people and equipment). The fact that it is a spoiling attack would be stated in the Situation as context or later in the orders but the mission statement remains unchanged. Pursuit - Again, for a company or squadron, the mission statement would be one on those on the list. A formation pursues, a unit or sub-unit either clears, captures, destroys, blocks, guards or occupys. A recce unit (specialized unit) may be ordered to advance and maintain contact. Break Contact - The mission statement for this one would be centred around what they are supposed to do next. If they are in contact and they are ordered to "occupy' another position, to "capture" an objective etc, they will know that they have to break contact to do it. So, break contact by itself is not a mission type but more a set of drills and SOPs that the unit has to go through to accomplish the new mission. Decoy - As above (somewhere). The unit would still be given one of the mission types to accomplish. The context of a decoy would come out elsewhere in the orders. This is more typing than I have done in many years. Hope it helps. Over

This sounds very interesting. Good thoughts.

Sure, I'll take a crack at it. Over

I'll take some of that.

Please send one my way as well.

The one type of operation that may realistically give you the flexibility that you are looking for is a Guard. Guards are intended to gain info about the enemy and to cover units from direct enemy action while they do other things (prepare an attack, dig in, relieve another unit in the line, prep a demolition, or move). Guards are deployed either to the flanks or front of other formations. They are usually told to guard a line from one terrain feature to another and are often given an amount of time in which to impose a delay on an enemy. The guarding units were usually far smaller than the units they were guarding and very mobile. This was a common task given to units like the divisional Recce Regiment with attachements. My thinking is that the guard commander would be given the freedom to fulfil the task as he sees fit. He may decide to try and defend along the entire line. He may decide to defend some choke points. He may defend only some choke points and form a mobile reserve to block other penetrations. He may even decide to advance and capture some vital ground or key terrain forward of his line in order to better doninate the routes through his area (the victory flag in no-mans-land). In the end, the other player would have to either decide to destroy the guarding units, take the victory areas (vital ground)and/or move through and off the map. You would have to develop an sliding victory point scale to reflect those en units that exited the board before the time delay that was ordered and for those that left after the delay timing had expired. I am really not sure how the scoring would work for this but it may work to provide a realistic framework for your games. Over

As far as I know, the terms I listed above would relate to bn-level operations as well. Some points I have been thinking about. Up front I will say that I have no direct knowledge of Battle Procedure as it was utilized during WWII so my underlying assumption is that things have not changed that much. I may well be wrong. I can think of a situation when a Bn commander would have the authority to withdraw one or more companies on his own discression. This would be a situation where the Bn had been given an order (somthing like) Defend within boundaries. As opposed to being given a specific line, battle position or terrain feature to hold, he is given a frontage and depth of terrain through which the enemy is not allowed to pass. It is left to the Bn Comd to decide if he wants to "phase" his defence by laying out alternate and secondary positions for his companies to occupy in succession as the defensive battle develops. This type of operation would be best suited for mechanized infantry, recce formations and anti-tank elements. Dismounted infantry are at an extreme disadvantage when they asked to withdraw in contact.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nabla: [What kind of commands did they get? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like the concept will bring out some interesting results. To the point above, I pulled out an old book of mine that contains some of the verbiage used in the Mission paragraph of operations orders. 1980 reference but really not much has changed in this area since WWII. Companys generally were ordered : To Block - place or manoeuvre forces to contain the en; To Capture - take and maintain a terrain feature, person or object; To Contain - stop, hold or surround en forces; To Cover - Protect through offence or defence; To Defend - employ combat power to prevent or destroy an en attack and hold an assigned area; To Delay - Inflict a time delay to an advancing en; To Occupy - move to an area, secure it and prepare for the next task; To Screen - observe, identify and report on en movements; To Guard - basically a combination of Screen and Delay; To Clear - to ensure that a point, route or area is free of the effects of en direct fire weapons; to Destroy - obvious. Usually, a company will only be given one of these tasks to complete in any phase of an operation and the choise is rarely up to their discression. Lots of words, hope it helps Out

A great new view on a very flammable topic Over

Do it Dad.