Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: From Beazley Are you familiar with how US tank crews were trained in the early years of WW2? They were told that their Shermans were the best tanks on the battlefield, etc. Imagine their surprise when they realized the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're missing the point of Kim's post. This was not a case of what they were told but rather being shown how to do something. You are comparing apples and oranges. As to their use "right up at the front lines" what the hell do you think they existed for? Do you use a fascine in the rear areas where you can safely build a bailey bridge to go over a stream/ditch? Of course not. It was designed to be a quick method of bridging a gap temporarily so that assault forces could cross. There are numerous examples of their use in NW Europe and Italy by British tank forces.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: A couple points - Bren tripods were pretty rare and useful only on the defence - since CMBO takes place in a timeframe where Commonwealth troops were usually on the advance, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for it. Perhaps for completeness they might have been included, but like many thigns in CMBO they would probably be used far out of proportion to their actual use. Like flamethrower tanks, or tanks in general, really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true. I find the way in which most scenarios are primarily "armour heavy" a bit of a worry, myself. I'd like to see Bren tripods included, more because they were issued and they were used, as against such oddities as the Puppchen which all my sources indicate were as rare as rocking horse ****. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for the suggestion that training films give an accurate and realistic depiction of what was done under combat conditions - don't make us laugh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the point which was being made was that the film dipicted how troops trained with this equipment. It was how they used it, which is rather at odds in my experience with how most wargames rules dipict their use. I find it quite interesting the way its described that basically the vehicle did this at speed. It wasn't a cautious, "Oh, lets drive up to the obstacle, pause, two, three, blow restraint, two, three, wait for fascine to fall, two, three, drive across, two, three" but going by what he said, "lets keep moving and present a small a target as possible." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Armies routinely sell their troops on "fantasy." My favourite examples include Haig's desire in WW I to launch the first day of the July Drive in daylight so that the Germans would be terrified by the sight of sun glinting off the British bayonets. The idea that Dieppe would be a cakewalk is another good one, or the American belief that the 76mm gun would be great against the Panther. US tankers were actually taught that the 76 would be the end all, be all for them. How rudely disappointed they must have been!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed, but again, this is not a case of what they were told but what they were demonstrated, via a film - remember in those days, there was no Industrial Light and Magic Company - the camera did not lie. Moreover, why bother to lie? Most military training films are not propaganda - they are designed to inform. I've shown as an army projectionist quite a fair number of them and they are meant to show the soldier something that cannot be more easily explained by other means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife: My CM manual says "vehicles cannot enter" fords (under the Impassible Terrain heading found in the "Issuing Orders" section). Although, it does seem like a jeep or scout car should be able to cross in "some" instances (what's that you say? this has been covered a million times... oh well.) [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd have thought the idea was that all vehicles (within reason) should be able to utilise a ford - that was why the existed to offer an alternative to bridges. I can think of several battles where fords were significant because they did allow the attackers to cross rivers where no bridge was available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: They don't seem to be as they show the StuH42 as a S.P. assault gun. Says the infantry howiters consisted of the 15cm heavy infantry howitzer mounted in the hull of a modified turretless Pz. Kpfw. II chassis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only some 25 of that particular type of vehicle were produced (if memory serves me correctly) and all of those served in North Africa and were lost there. There were comparable vehicles called "Bison" which were mounted on Panzer 38(t) chassis, both the early, rear-engined original version and the latter, mid-engined version. In addition, there was a Panzer III version, which mounted the gun in a fully-armoured casement, again, produced in only small numbers and all were lost on the Eastern Front at either Kursk or Stalingrad. Then there was the Braumbaer which was the definitive version, mounted on the Panzer IV, in a fully enclosed, fully armoured casement. Again, only relatively small numbers were produced and most saw service in the East and in Italy. There were also a small number of conversions of various foreign produced chassis, most notably French but they were too few to really be counted for much.

How does one determine if a ford is crossable by vehicle? I often see/use fords in scenarios but there appears to be no way to make them useable by vehicles. Is there a trick that I'm missing here?

Why am I not surprised that Slappy is not here? FTp for sure!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: [QB]Korea and the Pacific would require more than just simple plug ins to be an accurate depiction of combat in that theatre. Fighting the Japanese (or Red Chinese in Korea) was vastly different from fighting the Germans in Europe - not just because of the difference in simple weaponry, which is easily simulated - but in the different tactical approaches (ever heard of a German human-wave attack? It was not uncommon for the Chinese. Ever heard of a German battalion fighting literally to the last man? Never happened. But the Japanese did it routinely.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are merely (if I can use such a dimunitive word) matters of doctrine and morale - they are not anything to do with weapons. Indeed, as I noted in another thread, if a mid-war version of CM was to appear, basically everything that was required for the Pacific would be there, as far as equipment was concerned. Ditto with a late war version which covered both east and west fronts for Korea. Beyond that, its merely (there's that word again) a matter of changing the parameters of the units which are to represent Japanese/PLA/NK units. As an example, I'd make the Japanese fanatics, until about 1945, when the should be downgraded to veteran, as far as morale goes. For the NK/PLA, I'd make them fanatic in the attack and perhaps veteran in defence. As far as adopting tactics like a Banzai or Human Wave attack, that would need some tweaking of the TacAI or the human player (although it should be noted that neither were necessarily the only way in which either force conducted their tactics). Personally, I'd welcome an early-war or SW Pacific game. I grew tired of King Tigers and M-26's a long time ago, over 20 years ago. I find the earlier periods much more interesting, simply because they didn't have super-tanks and it was still very much a case of a "close run thing", particular in the Western Desert.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Panzerbefehlswagen: Command tank. Panzerbeobachtungswagen: FO tank. The command Panthers, Tigers and KTs didn't have dummy guns but I think the IIIs and IVs did. The FO version of the Panther had a working gun as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it had fake gun as well. Basically it was a normal Panther turret with the gun aperture plated over and a fake, wooden gun (quite short and thick) attached and an MG in a ball mount placed beside it, on the mantlet. Not many were made and no one is sure if they saw action. The only picture available is a poor quality one, which is usually repeated in most books.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Is it just me, or is CMMOS resembling a way for a select group of modders to ensure that only their mods get widely distributed/used? Will the software at some point be expanded to provide some modicum of user-friendliness for those who do not wish to download only these "CMMOS-friendly" mods? For example - if someone modded two different texture sets for the US jeep, would it ever be possible to simply assign those new mod bmps certain file-names, and have a CMMOS-type program recognize them rather than having to decipher "rulesets" etc. in order to get the manager to work?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean that isn't how it works? I've been busy assigning/designing my own rule sets for existing mods that either I or others have already done. Nothing hard about designing a ruleset nor about assigning my own file names/suffixes. While it will be nice, in the future if mods come out which adhere to a "standard", there isn't anything stopping people from doing what they want with CMMOS, as far as I can tell.

I was under the impression that the 75mm infantry gun had been replaced by 1944 in all German formations by mortars. Which begs the question, why is it still being talked about as a common piece of equipment in the game?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Grazing fire normally means flat fire against a piece of land. Here, the author seems to be refering to the effect of MG fire coming down teh back side of the hill slope. In effect, it is running parallel down the reverse slope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whereas with the Vickers, plunging fire was utilised - the round was fired in a ballistic trajectory so that it fell nearly vertically. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The lower the velocity, the better this effect can be under certain circumstances. So having a low velocity can reach certain reverse slopes closer to your own position. I wonder how much effect wind would have on bullets at that great a range? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, of course it does, which is to get best value out of this sort of tactic, an FO was usually provided to spot the fire. Unobserved fire is usually pretty inaccurate, no matter what the weapon being used is. Does anyone know if smokeless powder was used by the commonwealth? The US evidently didnt use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Brian Talking with you is an exercise in futility. Dont despair. I think that there can be some good come of this. You and matty can compare notes and be pen pals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Such sarcasm won't win you any friends, Lewis. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You should ease up on the ginger-beers perhaps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *SIGH*, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as someone as narrow minded as yourself couldn't recognise rythming-slang, Lewis. Ginger-beers - Engineers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I never said your experience is anything. But it is not a combat experience (by your own admission) and its nice that you have peacetime preferences but its not the end all to any discussion. Your knowledge is limited to your experience. So is mine. I can tell you that and so can anyone else. I prefer a combat vets thank you very much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lewis, I served with soldiers who had served in more conflicts than you could shake a stick at. One, a good friend, was a WO1 who wore a Pacific Star, a Korean War medal, a General Service Medal, with clasp (for Malaya, twice) and a Vietnam War medal with clasp (for two tours of SVN). He, along with various other NCO's and SNCO's who I served with, had been in the army since Adam was in three-cornered pants. I knew one Corporal, who was a Ginger-Beer who used to be dined in at the officer's mess by the Command's Brigadier, whose life he had saved in Korea. I was trained by soldiers who had done usually at least one if not two or even three tours of South Vietnam, as well as Malaya and in some cases Borneo as well. My experience might have been limited to peacetime but I and my colleagues were very much trained for war. A tradition which still continues and which has served the ADF well in places as diverse as Africa and East Timor. I have in the main limited myself to what I can directly contribute, Lewis. I haven't said anything which hasn't been backed by others. You, however, have gone off on wild tangents, trying to reclassify weapons wily-nily to fit your own very strange ideas on how war was and is conducted. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No one said anything about validity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you've been generally dismissive of anybody whom you disagree with, Lewis. You're not as patronising as Slappy but you're both in the same league. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You are impossible to talk to. But still bearable compared to your new buddy matty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Matthew seems to have his head screwed on right from what I've read thus far. I think I'd be quite happy to be counted as his "buddy". How about you Matthew?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: So, I doubt that the Vickers had any advantage in this department. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except range - Mk.VIIIz ammunition allowed this to occur out to ranges of 7,000 metres, Lewis. Most normal, full calibre rifle rounds only have a range of about 3-5,000 metres. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ive read of german MG companys and battalions also using similar tactics. Its really outside the scale of teh game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How so? All that is required, as I've suggested is that the weapons be treated as pseudo-artillery. You have, as they did, a spotter forward, he calls in fire. That fire is give a beaten zone. QED. I also have a slight problem, I've never heard the term "grazing fire" before, except in American publications. Is this the same as plunging fire?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hear! Hear! He was in a "static" engineer unit? What sort of unit is a "static" engineer one? It only builds/tears down things in the one spot? I'm not going to pay out the Ginger-Beers, some of whom I have for mates and whose ability to work and fight I greatly admire. I'm just interested how you feel your experience qualifies you to try and tell me that my experience and knowledge is not valid. I served in Infantry and Ordnance, Lewis. All in what we call "field force" (ie the part of the army which actually deploys in the field in wartime, as against "training command" or "base command" which do not). Furthermore, our training has it that all soldiers, no matter what their role are infantrymen and we practice all-arms defence, which means they have to fulfil that role and be a specialist second.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I would venture that taste would change against an opponent that was armed with belted full auto weapons. Its nice to be accurate on the firing range and feel secure but its another thing having supersonic bullets crack about your head. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I stated, thats personal taste. I found the M60 very unreliable, particularly compared to the Bren, Lewis. The Bren has very little which can go wrong with it. The M60 too much. Indeed, knowing what I know about how bad the M60 is, I'd cheerfully strange the politicians who decided the Oz army should adopt that weapon, way back in 1962, in preference to the weapon which eventually replaced it - the FN-MAG58. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most peace time military training is BS. Firing at pop up targets that dont move is especially a waste. PT and running in sneakers and shorts is stupid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And your experience of the military is? I've asked you this question before and never recieved an answer. I wonder why? Its obviously you've never been on an assault or battle range nor even a sneaker or DART range - all used in peacetime. Nor do you quite realise that while running around in full webbing and carrying a rifle is more realistic, in order to get to that point, one tends to start off easy - wearing shorts and "sneakers". Tell me, have you ever suffered through rifle exercise - which are specifically designed to strengthen the arms/upper torso? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In a squad sized ambush, I would want a belted MG and as many semi/3-shot weapons as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An ambush is an atypical situation, Lewis. I can point you to a raft of references which show that the Australian army managed to become quite the masters of the ambush in the SW Pacific and Korea, without those sorts of weapons. Personally, I always had a bit of a liking for 12ga shotguns but I'm from the old school, I must admit, who were still learning the lessons from SVN. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, I dont want to change your mind. I just want you to see that your opinion is based on your experience and its not what the game is depicting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've indicated that I have problems with what the game is dipicting, based upon my experience and knowledge, Lewis.

I was recently send this by some software people who are trying to sell me a real Command and Control System. Is this what CM3 should be aiming for?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: [QB]I think "Hide" might incorporate the "shellscrape" concept... let's say it does. I'm not sure any of the others would be practical to construct in 30-60 minutes under fire in varying terrain. The OHP versions are best represented by the wooden bunkers, but I think moving up and establishing them in an hour is a bit much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn't attempting to suggest you could. Rather I was making the point there is a lot more to a defensive position which a defender has had days/week/months/years to prepare, than a "foxhole" which is all CM allows. By "digging in", I was referring more to the _start_ of defences - such as a shellscrape, which takes between 10-15 minutes to prepare, in my experience - but as you've pointed out, that depends upon soil type/weather conditions. I have fond memories of training films about 1st El Alamein where the commentator said the troops "dug in" and they were out there with pneumatic jackhammers on bare rock. All I was doing was pointing out that such orders were given and obeyed in real life - how far one gets down, in the space of the game, depends upon the time limits conferred by the game - it should not mean that such an order should be unavailable IMO.

"Up the guts with bags o'smoke!" - no, thats not me but its the usual flippant answer to that sort of question one used to hear on TEWTs (Tactical Exercise Without Troops). I play it as it comes. I tend to be methodical - I tend when British, to remember the Number One lesson of the NW Frontier - clear the heights and then advance down the centre. I utilise the climbing ability of the Churchill to support my infantry whereever they are. When on the defensive, I tend to utilise lots of AT guns and keep a mobile reserve. When German, I tend to plan my defences thoroughly, checking out fields of fire, alternative locations and withdrawal routes (yes, I do withdraw troops, I don't let them fight to the last man). When on the offensive, I try and maintain the momentuum of the attack, always looking and searching for the flanks of any defensive positions I encounter and moving past them and eliminating them as quickly as possible. I don't play Americans.

Why is it not considered possible for infantry to be able to move to an objective and dig in in the course of a game? I'd have thought, even the ability to dig a shellscrape (which is a "foxhole" in USspeak), which can take only about 10 minutes (or less if under fire as many veterans' memoires recount), should have been simulated in the game. There also appears to be no differences in the sorts of trenches that a unit can get - they are all simply described as "foxholes" when in reality there were various stages in defensive works (and here I draw upon modern terminology) going from the shellscrape (18in), stage 2 (2'6"), stage 3 (5') and finally stage 3 with overhead cover or OHP. I also find it surprising that there is no provision for the deliberate demolition of such things as bridges, buildings and so on. Many battles hinge on the capture or denial of a particular piece of scenery. Why is there no method to blow up a bridge and so deny it to the enemy? I'd also like to demolish buildings and plant charges but it seems they were not considered as being a valid use of engineers support in the game. Will this change with the new versions/editions coming out in the future, I wonder?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: [QB]Major Tom is right, an awful lot of us have been suckered into a US vs GB flamefest :mad: :mad: :mad: The special relationship could be in danger!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One can only live in hope... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> More seriously, how many of you stateside have read Max Hastings's book "Overlord"? I would be interested to know. This is a totally objective account of D Day and the fighting in Normandy. However, it contains some harsh, but undeniable truths about the capabilities (or lack thereof) of both British and U.S. forces, particularly in comparison with the Germans, "the most professionally skilful army of modern times." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have real problems with such superlatives which focus far too much upon the tactical and ignore the strategic levels of command. The Allies demonstrated IMO that they were very much the masters of the latter and the Germans the former. However, it is the latter which wins wars, not the former. I also have my doubts about the tactical abilities of the Germans - that was very variable and depended all too often upon factors which declined as the war continued. While the British all too often like to display an air of amateaurism about their affairs, in reality by WWII they were the tactical masters of the Germans, whereas the Americans were fast approaching that level as well IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Painful reading, but truth has to be faced, especially when there is evidence to back it up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hasting's problem is that he's a journo, not an historian and that shows in his writing style and analysis - he tends to focus on the sensational rather than look at the underlying factors behind events.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: IIRC, the only significant advance in gun-barrel metallurgy is a harder lining (I've forgotten the name of the alloy) for the inside of the barrel that prevents the barrel from wearing as quickly as WWII barrels did. I don't think that it had any effect on the barrel's resistance to heat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its called "stellite" and was first used in airborne .50 cals on USAAF bombers (notably B-17 & B-24). I have no idea if it was applied to other weapons in WWII but was/is commonly used in small arms today.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Yes - but then let see who else can.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Appears to be no takers. OK, here's a more connected question to the subject of the thread - what was the rifle used by the majority of the soldiers in the move Zulu?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: The joys of looking at things in isolation, eh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. More the joys of looking at something in reference to the original quote and providing an example. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Couldn't it be that other reasons playing a role were the defense at El Alamein, the reduced supplies for Afrika Korps and the increase in supplies for the Commonwealth, the disappearance of the 8th Army command problems with the arrival of Monty etc.pp. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, apart from the last (Monty's arrival could be claimed to have actually engendered more than they solved), I'd agree with you completely. However, the supposedly "brilliant" Rommel had overcome similar problems in the past and managed to beat his opponents - how? Was it because he was necessarily the better commander or was there another factor or factors which enabled him to outwit his opponents? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yep, loss of the radio interception company when the Kiwis overran the HQ of Afrika Korps (think it was then) was a heavy blow, but it certainly was not the reason that Rommel lost his 'supposedly brilliant generalship'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was an Australian unit, actually, not a New Zealander one. However that minor wound to my national pride aside, it was a major reason why he made as many mistakes as he did during the end of 1st Alamein and through 2nd Alamein IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The mistake had been made before that, when he decided to attack into Egypt, and he still had his radio intel then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'd say the mistake was when he decided to press on after the fall of Tobruk, rather than wait while Malta as captured. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Last I checked Rommel still fought a very decent defensive battle around Caen, without any captured radio intelligence - one that was so decent that it became the basis for the NATO concept of Vorneverteidigung, AFAIK. Faced with the British command pre-Alamein, one could also say it was very easy for Rommel to look good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends. Yes, the British commanders left quite a bit to be desired. The British command did not. The main problem was, as for Rommel, political interference which prevented the various C-in-C's from fighting their war, their way, than necessarily because they were bad at fighting it. Both Wavell and Alexander were excellent strategists - Wavel had the added advantage of the use of good tacticians to back him, Alexander did not. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I agree that Rommel appears quite a bit over-rated, but the reasons for Rommel's successes and failures are certainly more complex than captured radio intel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No disagreement. However, SIGINT was a significant contributor to victory on both sides. Its interesting that with 1st Alamein, the first continous use of ULTRA decrypts begins by a field commander and at the same time, the main Axis commander in the theatre loses his ability to make the same intercepts. Hardly a coincidence IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Opportunism, quick decision-making, being up 'there', seeing the state of battle, disregard for risks (some might call it gambling), pushing the men hard, a good grasp of the battle, all these can help, and some of them can also be dangerous. You appear to be saying that a monkey handed radio intel can win a battle. I would disagree with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I am saying that if one looks beyond those more obvious facets, of how Rommel commanded to the reasons why Rommel made the decisions that he did, one discovers that it was SIGINT which provided the information on which he based his decisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: [qb]Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best? He says war is an EXTENTION of politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Roughly correct. Depends upon which version or translation your using. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones. Yes. But nowadays the operations are governed by the polls and the proximity of elections more than high principles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Has war ever been fought for "high principles"? I can't think of one. Many have been claimed but when you get down to tin-tacks it usually gets found to be a smokescreen for the real reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: c) They stole it. Quite common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why would they have to steal it? Unless its in a time when supply is short I couldn't think of a reason as an ex CQMS why I would deny any reasonable request for ammunition. Unless the US Army is very different "standard loads" were very much the minimum that our Standing Orders and SOP's stipulated not the maximum. That was usually a matter between the individual digger, the Section/Platoon commander and their souls.