Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Actually, US troops were specifically trained not to shoot at anything they couldn't see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, I spent 10 years firing a semi-automatic rifle, the Rifle, Self-loading, L1a1. 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. 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? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think CM has the M1 and Enfield effectiveness modeled quite well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I have real problems in that there appear to be no section LMG's, in any army. One of the best features of the Commonwealth armies was that they had an LMG whereas the Americans did not. The US Army made do with either a converted MMG (the .30 cal) or an automatic rifle. The Germans had something even better, a GPMG. Another problem with the way in which MMG's and GPMG's are handled is that they are dipicted as having only one man crews. Both in fact usually had at least 3-5 man crews (and needed them, too!). The Commonwealth's MMG, the Vickers is also much too inaccurate (admittedly, it doesn't get a chance to shine at its proper medium to long ranges). It, along with the Bren were in fact perhaps _too_ accurate, always throwing their rounds slightly high and to the right (because of the twist in the barrel). It was also incredibly reliable. Firing for over several days at a stretch during the attack on Antwerp, stopping only for barrel changes and ammunition belts. Oh, and my final point. The only advantage of the M1 over the Enfield was that you could give a man off the street an M1 and know he could fire 8 rounds a minute, whereas to get to the much higher rate of 20 rounds a minute for a .303 SMLE, you had to put in quite intensive training. But then, not all of the US Army was armed with M1's, so the point is moot IMO. Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: BTW I've been reading this stuff for 40-odd years and never tire of it. Guess that makes ME odd... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I've been reading and studying the topic nearly as long. I've even got a post-graduate degree in military history as a consequence of my interest (and whats more as a civilian from a military academy).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The statement that "many US units assigned counterbattery work use 25 lbers" strikes me as an error. No US artillery unit in the ETO was equipped with 25-lbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why then is there a picture in I believe Chamberlain and Ellis's excellent little monograph, "Field Artillery" in the WWII Fact Files series (admittedly now a 30 year old work), which shows US forces during the winter of 1944-45, equipped with 25 Pdrs with the caption that many units were thus equipped? This is also mentioned, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, by again, Hogg, perhaps the best authority I've come across on WWII artillery. I have no idea how many units were thus equipped but again, I point out that the 25 Pdr did have a superior range to the 105mm M1.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: KV-1 56 tons, heavy tank Sherman 35 tons, medium tank KV-1 diesel, hard to set alight Sherman - petrol, aka Tommykocher, aka Ronson KV-1 decent gun, capable of fighting back against threats Sherman - 75mm Peashooter You may insert Cromwell, Churchill, or Stuart for Sherman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Churchills were actually not very prone to fire, once hit or penetrated. Indeed, they had the lowest loss rate amongst their crews of any Allied tank in NW Europe, according to David Fletcher's excellent book on the vehicle. A combination of extremely thick armour, very reliable and well sealed engine and fuel tanks and a large number of different means of egress meant it was a very survivable vehicle. Combined with its ability to climb mountains like a goat and its an excellent tank for supporting infantry with, which is of course exactly what it was.

I've been following this discussion with some interest. I'm surprised no one has mentioned either Shelford Bidwell's excellent book, "Firepower" which is actually an extensive study of the development of British artillery and fire support doctrines from WWI through to the end of WWII. I'm also surprised that in the game there is no possiblity of AGRA being employed. This neat division of FO's into one battery or another, by weapon is not terribly representative of how the British FO system worked by 1944-45. While FO's were drawn from specific units, they were, when required, able to call upon all available artillery units, even up to the entire Army Group's. So neatly dividing them up is a little silly. Another problem is that there are no FO tanks. Both the British and the Germans utilised tank-mounted FO's, usually in either specialised vehicles (such as the Panther Beo) or older model tanks, which had been replaced as first line vehicles. This allowed them to keep up with fast moving armoured columns and provided them with some measure of protection. I also found the way in which FO's were assigned a certain number of "rounds" rather limiting. Artillery units, particularly Allied ones essentially had unlimited ammunition, as far as tactical considerations go. There appears to be no way to resupply any unit in CMBO, which when coupled with the uncontrollable manner in which units tend to expend ammunition. Those considerations aside, I agree the ROF for 25 pdr batteries is too low. One of the notable features of the 25 pdr was that it had a much higher ROF and a longer range than most of the 105mm guns adopted by the Germans and Americans. Indeed, many American artillery units tasked with counter-battery fire were armed with 25 pdr guns for that reason. Therefore, IMO, the ROF of the 25 Pdr has to be increased, whilst the actual effectiveness of the round, compared to a 105mm one should be decreased. Oh, and the average ROF for a 25 Pdr battery, for planning purposes in the Australian Army, in the early 1970's when we finally replaced them with 105mm's was set at 8-10 rounds a minute. I still have a copy of the Pam somewhere on my bookshelf. Finally, why is there a 4.5in gun for the British? By 1944 all 4.5's had been basicaly replaced by 5.5in's as it had been found that the 4.5in round was too light for its calibre, compared to the much more effective 5.5in. Ian V. Hogg makes that pretty clear in his "British and American Artillery of WWII."