Brian
-
Posts
680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Brian
-
-
Hmm. This, or something like it, may almost be a sensible suggestion. Have to think about it some more...Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.
These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.
They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.
Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.
While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.
Michael</font>
-
Ammunition resupply is indeed IMO something that is sadly lacking in CM. However it should also include AFV's as well as infantry. There are numerous accounts of tanks having to withdraw in the midst of battle because they have run short of ammunition (or have to redistribute whats in their bins) and infantry being resupplied when they run short.
I'd like to see each player allocated a certain number of ammunition "loads" at the start of a game, depending upon how many points are involved in the battle or they are assigned by the designer.
These "loads" would consist of x small arms points and y tank loads. They would be held off map and the player would be able to call them forward as and if required.
They would appear at a point on the player's map edge where they designate and be dumped there. Movement forward from that point would be the player's responsibility (ie he has to provide transport). It takes five turns to load a smallarms load but only 2 to unload. For an infantry unit to replenish their own ammunition they must move within 10 metres of the ammunition load and be stationary for 2 turns.
Tanks would have to withdraw to the dump to reload which takes 15 turns.
While this would not have much effect on either small battles or short ones, it would be most useful in the longer/larger ones.
However, we will obviously have to wait for the rewrite before this could even be seriously considered IMO.
-
I charge my usual price - you prepared to pay?Originally posted by Stixx:0125!!!
Ya gotta be kiddin!
Brian, you can tape it and send it to me
One bottle of reasonable red, price not to exceed $AU10.00.
Thanks Ned for the headsup BTW. I'll also be putting it on my "Theirs is the Glory" tape. I'll pass it onto JonS as well, with the other tapes. He can't help living on Sydney's breakwater, out of reach of the ABC's signal.
-
-
Obsolete and obsolescent mean almost the same thing, both deriving from the latin obsoletus, meaning worn out.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, I think you're using the wrong word about the SMLE. Try "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete".
Obsolecent seem to imply the action of becoming out of date.</font>
-
Sounds like the good old F1 SMG (which could also accommodate a bayonet) Now there's a definition of bravery / stupidity - going into battle with a weapon with an effective range (aimed shots) of 100m and even when fitted with a bayonet you were still just about within arms reach of your opponent!!</font>Originally posted by gibsonm:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Basically, the trick when loading a Bren magazine is to always remember to load 28 rounds, not the indicated capacity of 30 rounds (in reality, you can manage to fit up to 32 rounds in them). The spring on the magazine became strained with 30 and was simply unable to feed with 32. 28 was the maximum it could handle. Failure to do this results in stoppages due to misfeeds or failure to feed. This is part of the basic introduction to the Bren gun, which I remember well from my days.
-
Basically, the trick when loading a Bren magazine is to always remember to load 28 rounds, not the indicated capacity of 30 rounds (in reality, you can manage to fit up to 32 rounds in them). The spring on the magazine became strained with 30 and was simply unable to feed with 32. 28 was the maximum it could handle. Failure to do this results in stoppages due to misfeeds or failure to feed. This is part of the basic introduction to the Bren gun, which I remember well from my days.Originally posted by flamingknives:So on a basic (i.e. game) level, British infantry is pretty much the weakest infantry unit.
The strength of the British army is armour and artillery.
I think that this is quite understandable, as the No. 4 SMLE was, by that time, quite obsolete. The main reason that the British army continued in it's use was that they had vast stocks of 0.303" ammunition. Being a rimmed cartridge, it was ill suited for use in a semi-automatic rifle (though the Bren gun ate it up quite nicely, by all accounts. Anyone know the difference? Beyond semi/auto)
In addition, when loading the magazine, one placed one rim behind the other of each successive round, rather than interleaving them. This is why the magazine is curved - on the L4a4 version, which uses a rimless round the original magazine was straight, as in the case of the original ZB-26, from which the Bren was developed. However it was found that a slightly curved on eliminated the occasional feed problems with 7.62x51mm rimless rounds, which is why you'll now see L4a4's with the slightly curved magazine (the straight box magazine is a very rare beast).
Which is basically how I conduct it. Find, fix, suppress, charge. Sitting on one's arse, blazing away results in excessive usages in ammunition and perhaps the most precious commodity of all, time.CM:BO already models HtH combat, so a run move at the enemy, followed by a bit of HtH would seem to madel a bayonet charge quite well.[/QB]
Despite what some might think, no one is proposing the the return to the exclusive use of the bayonet, over all else. Rather a recognition that as I said, at some point the commander must recognise he has to clear that position and the only sure way of doing that is to go in and do it by hand. If he doesn't, the enemy will sit there and hold up his advance, preventing him from gaining his objectives.
BTW, I think you're using the wrong word about the SMLE. Try "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete".
-
Fair enough. I look forward to reading it. My final point is best illustrated by plate No.205 in Chamberlain and Ellis, which I'm sorry I didn't notice before, Rune. It rather sums up my view of the whole matter, very well. Check it out and you'll understand why there could well be some confusion of what vehicle was what.Originally posted by rune:Brian,
I take everything with a grain of salt...Grog Dorosh
and I have been emailing back and forth and he and I found some sites we emailed to, to see if they can clarify any better. These are the people who drove kangeroos, so am trying to find out if they ever converted Stuarts. We will forward any answer me may eventually get...
Rune
-
Jason, have you ever served in the military?
Tell me, did you read mine and in particular, John's comment, "It's an SOP after you've won the firefight, when the *enemy* is pinned"?
Does it matter if the enemy breaks after you've charged him, if your weapon has a bayonet or not attached to the front or you've used grenades or SMG's (which BTW, in many armies can be fitted with bayonets)? Of course not.
As John pointed out, you can sit there and blaze away at him to your heart's content if you so desire but more often than not, he won't move until you've expended an inordinate amount of ammunition and more importantly, time to do it. Time which you might not have.
Remember the experiences of 1 Airborne at Arnhem. They endured the "hexenkessel" - the witch's cauldren of being surrounded on four sides for nearly a week, with thousands of rounds of mortar and artillery fire being thrown at them, along with small arms and tank fire and they still held out. They didn't withdraw until they decided it was hopeless and no real relief was possible. The German fire didn't break their morale.
At some point, the infantry commander must make the decision to go in, to actually clear the enemy from their positions. Having his men fix bayonets, not only has an effect on the enemy's morale but his own mens'. Anything which helps your own mens' morale is a bonus, anything which effects the enemy's is another added bonus. That the bayonet actually has some degree of utility, giving your diggers something else to attack the enemy with, apart from their personal weapon, should not be disparaged.
Michael, you're right BTW, that the actual number of casualties presenting themselves with bayonet wounds was tiny by WWII. I suspect thats for two reasons - the usual outcome of a bayonet fight is your opponent's death and also, more often than not, the enemy either fled or surrendered before they were actually come to grips with.
Now, interestingly, I quite often find myself in the game, closing with the enemy, and clearing them from their positions, after suppressing them with my own fire. Considering the time restraints imposed upon the player in most scenarios, its often the quickest and interestingly, the least lethal method to get on, towards the ultimate objective.
-
Thanks. I've only ever read the abbreviation TOAW.Originally posted by Sergei:The Operational Art of War by Norm Koger. Referred to as TOAW, OAW, OPART, TAOW, even WOTY ("Wargame of the year" edition), COW ("Century of Warfare" edition)... you name it.
Somehow it took me about a month to figure out what the "BO" means in the acronym CMBO so often used in this forum.
I've been actually looking at it for a campaign I'm planning but abandoned it, because of some problems I'm having at the moment with my copy of TOAW. I think it had potential, if you kept the scale relatively small.
-
I'd be careful about taking Chamberlain and Ellis's book as gospel, Rune. It has several errors in it, such as claiming, on p.36, under the entry for the Covenantor Bridgelayer that, "A few of these vehicles were used by the Australians in Burma." - Which must have been a pretty good trick, as no Australian units of any kind, served in Burma. We did recieve, apparently 3 of these vehicles and while its claimed they were used in Bouganville (although knowing their cooling problems, using them in the tropics must have been bloody nigh on impossible), there are some doubts whether or not they ever left Oz.Originally posted by rune:Grog Dorosh,
For shame.
Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of World War Two, page 91, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.http://www.siemers.com/html/usa/m3_m5_lighttanks.html under British, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.
A google search finds all sorts of places that sell model kits of the Stuart Kangaroo.
Osprey's M3 & M5 book also mentions the Stuart Kangaroo.
Rune
Another error in the book, is on p.204, apparently though, that one appears to have crept into later editions than mine, where some other contributors have reported that it claims that the 77mm QF Mk.II gun fired the same round as the 17 Pdr. This would be impossible, as the two weapons had completely different chamber dimensions.
I'm not suggesting that Chamberlain and Ellis should be completely discarded, rather that they should be treated with a grain of salt and anything they claim should be checked against other publications. In the case of the M3 Stuart, I'd suggest a copy of Hunnicutt's book might have the answer but I don't possese one, so can't check. I suspect that Chamberlain and Ellis could well have misinterpreted something about the Stuart Kangaroo - either very few were actually converted or that someone misidentified a Recce, as a Kangaroo.
-
Out of a matter of interest, what is "OPART"?Originally posted by Nac4:Has anybody attempted to combine a proven Operational System like OPART with CMBO resolving at the tactical level? I've been playing around with it lately, having OPART handle supply, interdiction, movement, for operational scale engagements which feed information (Unit Assesments) for resolution in CMBO. Just wondering if anyone's done anything similiar or had any experiences with the theory.
-
The Stuart Recce did, though, and that I find a much greater loss to the game. British Recce forces in the game are extremely limited in the choices of vehicles available to them, compared to what was available in 1944-45.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:[QB]Hmmm; Stuart Kangaroo is classified as a 7 despite the fact it never existed....
I agree, whole heartedly. If "rarity values" were to be assigned, it should be IMO on a unit basis not on an individual vehice basis. Want a King Tiger? Minimum you can have is a platoon (of whatever strength), and there were only "x" total platoons, at any one time. Want a Sherman? Purchase a troop, the choices as to subtype would still be governed by the period/place (ie some units operated predominately one type over another).I don't think those numbers are of much use; a more useful method would be to simply say "I want a company" or "I want a tank platoon" etc. From there, you know that 1 of 4 Shermans will be a Firefly, with a chance of a 2nd in late 1944-45.
Mmmm, depends I think more upon mission. Often pioneers would themselves form part of the follow through forces, relying upon the leading company to identify obstacles for them to destroy but essentially you're correct.Supporting units would be better laid out on a table of battalion assets - ie pioneer squads are not uncommon in an infantry battalion - depending on where they were assigned when the bn went into action. If your company is one of the leading companies, the pioneer asset would not be too terribly rare; if your company was ordered to follow through, the pioneer platoon would likely not be attached to you.
-
Why? Did they expect to see partisan ships, sailing out to cross the "T"?Originally posted by Skipper:Some chap on VIF-2 says, the most amazing thing about this book (he has a copy) is that it contains data about naval ships of all countries participating in the war.
-
As someone I know, once said, "nothing fixes the mind on the task ahead as the fixing of a bayonet on the end of one's rifle".
Bayonet charges, did occur, Andreas. There are the classic, "up and at'em!" type, as described by Simon and John but more often than not, they would have been the final assault on an enemy position, when a unit makes that final walking advance into the hopefully empty position, rather than charging for several hundred yards across open ground screaming like a crazed Dervish.
In the British Army, it was SOP to fix bayonets before an assault. Still is, as I understand it. There are literally hundreds of photos showing British and Commonwealth troops advancing with fixed bayonets in existence (yeah, yeah, I know the usual arguments against using photographic evidence) during WWII.
More often than not, as in John's recounting of the battles in the Falklands, it was the moral effect, rather than the physical one, which resulted in the enemy "melting away" in the face of that final assault. People just don't like the idea of some bugger sticking a bloody great knife in them, even in the middle of a battle, it would appear.
While the myth is that the Germans were unwilling to face bayonets, in reality, they did in engage in some quite bloody hand-to-hand fighting, particularly on the Eastern Front.
Drawing on the experiences of the diggers I've known, one who served in Korea pointed out that the only time he took part in a bayonet charge was just after the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter. 3 RAR conducted it for the movie cameras. Apparently they charged up a steep hill, against a suspected DRKA position only to find that (a) the enemy, if they had been there at all, had taken one look at this mob of lunatics and departed for safer climes, post haste and (
the newsreel cameraman had not kept up with them and had the temerity to ask, "Please, could they do it just one more time?" Being by this point rather knackered, one can imagine what the general response from the soldiery was to that proposal... Yet, the last preparation for a bayonet charge (which to this day is still very contraversial within the Oz Army) was in Vietnam, over 15 years later, at Long Tan. Thankfully, the situation improved and the order was never issued. I can still remember learning bayonet fighting in 1977 when I joined the Oz Army.
-
But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.
Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.
And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case.
Michael</font>
-
But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?</font>Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.
Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.
-
A problem with your ammunition theory, Jason.
Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.
Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.
That, then completely throws your ammunition theory out the window, from a viewpoint of realism.
-
Zaloga/Grandsen put out "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two", a 1984 book. ISBN 0853686068. Haven't seen it, though.Originally posted by Wolfe:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Kettler:
It's a must read. Steve Zaloga probably has something more recent out, considering one of his books (coauthored by James Grandsen) picks up the topic in 1946. I expect that a wartime volume is out or pending.
- Chris</font>
-
I think the real problem is the artificially short ranges which most scenarios inflict on the players prevent the British battalion's long range firepower, its mortars and MMG's in particular, as being unable to function properly. Vickers in particular should be placed well out on a flank, preferrably in an elevated position, in order to provide supporting fire.Originally posted by JasonC:British infantry is underpowered in CM compared to history because rifles are undermodeled compared to automatic weapons, and because CM players who notice this take lots of cheap and powerful automatics in the German infantry types they select.
One way to overcome that is to create larger maps, say 2,000m x 2,000m to allow proper maneauvrability and weapons to function at their most effective ranges. Even larger, would be better IMO.
However, as MG's don't have beaten zones, nor are they capable of indirect fire in CMBO, the matter becomes somewhat moot.
The other problem for British Infantry is there is no minimum range for the 2in mortar in CMBO. This should effect its usefulness in many of the firefights that CMBO portrays, because of that artificially close horizon.
Jason, I also found your comments on the use of the MMG carrier typical of a great deal of what you post. MMG carriers did not fire their MG's from the carrier, generally. It was dismounted.
One of the problems is that players assume the Universal Carrier is an AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) it is not and was never intended to be. It is an Armoured Vehicle which was intended as a battlefield taxi. Troops were always intended to fight dismounted.
To better reflect that, it would be better to purchase the Vickers and the carrier seperately to reflect that. However, BTS then penalises the British player that does that.
-
To be fair, one has to wonder how many people on this board have even seen, let alone fired an SMG? They are the most ornry of creatures, I can assure you. Unless you place yourself in either the most uncomfortable of range poses or display exceptional control over the trigger firing short bursts, the weapon is indeed, extremely inaccurate. As the usual effective range for an SMG is given as being 25 metres from the hip or 100 metres from the shoulder, I'm actually not surprised that Jary survived the experience.Originally posted by Simon Fox:To be fair my impression is that Jary is principally talking about the firepower superiority of the MG42 rather than SMGs. Also the apparent profusion of German medium mortars. After all he relates a tale of an FJ emptying his SMG at him from about 20m away and being unscathed
Funnily enough, the best soldier I ever saw in the Oz Army with an SMG was a little Vietnamese fellow in our Army Reserve, who I coached on the range one day. When I asked him where he'd learn to shoot so well, he said, "In the war." "Which war?" I asked. "Vietnam," was his reply. "ARVN?" I asked. "No," with a big grin he replied, "VC!" It was more than likely true, as well. I never told my fellow instructors, many of who had served in South Vietnam, though.
This is indeed what happened. Weapons picked up from dead comrades/enemy, different weapons issued for different missions, none of these sorts of factors are modelled in CMBO. Units withdrawn from the line and outfitted for a particular attack would also tend to exchange their weapons, if possible, to those appropriate to that particular mission.I think it would be fair to say that when operating in close terrain, urban areas or at night the Brits would equip themselves with a greater proportion of SMGs than seen in the standard CMBO Brit infantry
One area, which has not really been touched upon and which has been mentioned a long time ago, is fire discipline. The Germans were not very good at it, the British excellent. Directing the fire of an entire section, platoon or even company onto single targets at medium to long ranges. In CMBO, it is nearly impossible, because the TacAI will always take control of your fire instructions and change them to attack the threat which it thinks is more immediate than the one which you've directed your fire onto. This is simply silly. British troops were schooled to have their fire directed. They did not fire wily-nily at all and sundry, unless given leave by their section/platoon/company commander.
If aimed fire was introduced for the British, you'd see a significant improvement in their performance in fire fights, as they eliminated each adversarial section, in turn, while their fire was directed at the entire British unit as a whole.
-
Not quite. While Andreas has covered it partly, the real saying should be "use technical means, not men" Doesn't have to be guns, can be tanks, can be Kangaroos, can be Funnies. Make it possible for your men to close with the enemy and to get onto the objective.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Commonwealth troops won their battles through use of artillery, which is a little undermodelled in the game - at least in terms of flexibility. JonS and Simon Fox and possibly Andreas and maybe even Brian or JasonC will be along shortly to explain....
"Use Guns Instead of Men"
The key is, maneauvre, lots of smoke and utilise the battalion assets for direct fire support - MMG's and 3in Mortars. Call on Brigade assets, such as 4.2in Mortars and Field Artillery. Finally, use the division's and the army's - heavy artillery, armour and so on, up the chain of command suppress the enemy and make his shooting less accurate.
Oh, and one other factor which IMO is poorly modelled in CM to date - cold steel. Remember, the role of infantry is to, "sieze and hold ground". If you can, move up quickly and get right in. As the old Corporal used to say, "They don't like it up 'em!"
-
Originally posted by Big Time Software:
[QB]Gyrene,
Steve, what I meant was a system in which existing pre-set CM units could be chosen from a scenario editor to make up 1930-ish to 1950-ish sides.
Hang on a second. I was under the impression Steve that CMBB would allow the use of "captured" vehicles by either side. In that case, what is to prevent an ex-Russian lend-lease Sherman ending up in German hands and being used against its former owners? Or have I misunderstood whats been mentioned in various messages?I agree that allowing players to change behaviours and individual fire power ratings is a bad idea, but having a common pool of units to pick from would be no different than what is in CM now, the only trick would be to tell the TacAI who's in what side.
Doesn't this equate more to a design methodology that you have decided to adopt, rather than any innate difficulty in itself? If you were, as I've suggested in the past to consider a more open design philosphy, where you have a basic engine and then the various attributes of units, such as firepower, weapons, etc. were provided in the form of datafiles (no, they don't have to be plain text but could still be encrypted in some manner) it would allow the game to much more easily modified. Essentially you'd have a "black box" program design. The player doesn't need to know how the engine processes the data, they simply need to see the results.I'm sure you have noticed all the different eras that have been re-created (or attempted) with the existing CMBO set up, all this would do is to make our lives easier by giving us closer approximations of historical units.
Mmmm, if all the game required was the weapons which made up a particular subunit like a section, and those weapons were assigned a particular value, then it would indeed be quite possible to create different OrBats. Again, this harks back to my earlier point, of course, of using seperate data files.I fully appreciate the criticisms which say, "if player A has module/modification X and player B doesn't, it will make PBEM/TCP/IP games impossible" however, that assumes that players would either have access to the important information, rather than merely the OrBats and the way in particular vehicles are handled/portrayed. I'm not talking about that. If the game design was more modular, then it could make it possible to substitute/change various factors. Afterall, ballistics is the same whether or not the gun being used is an American 37mm AT Gun or a Russian 45mm AT Gun or a German 8.8cm AT Gun.
This would mean that essentially you could concentrate on the engine and getting the mechanics of the game right, along with the visuals, while the other factors could be handled seperately.
While it would be possible in a PBEM/TCP/IP game to ensure that both players are using the same datafiles by making the first exchange between them include such information. If it doesn't match, the system spits out a report showing the inconsistencies between the two. Its then up to them, not BTS to make sure their systems match, which is IMO how it should be.
I am not suggesting that players should have access to these data files either, BTW. Rather that using this methodology would make it easier to change the game than issuing "patches" for the system itself.
-
Yes, even nicer now. With this, I might be tempted to use a mod for the first time. When will it be released and will you do all the other weapons as well?Originally posted by Juju:Glad you like the Vickers. I've already updated it to give the canvas a 3D-ish look, not like it's glued onto the barrel like in the preview pic.[/QB]
the newsreel cameraman had not kept up with them and had the temerity to ask, "Please, could they do it just one more time?" Being by this point rather knackered, one can imagine what the general response from the soldiery was to that proposal...
Ammo resupply
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Sub-units resupply, in turn. Indeed, in many battles, individual vehicles did withdraw to resupply, as and when they needed to. Just read the accounts of Hill 112 if you want an example of it occurring.Usually, only when a unit harbours at night, in their Laarger (quick, who can tell me where that term comes from?
) would an entire unit be resupplied as a whole. Fuel, ammunition, water, food, in that order.
What you have to also remember is that in real life, a tank does not store all its ammunition in the ready-to-use lockers. Many rounds were stored under the floorplates, requiring the vehicle to withdraw to cover, traverse the turret to a preset position and the crew then pull up the floor plates and transfer ammunition from there to the ready-to-use lockers. This is badly modelled in CM at the moment.
[ April 01, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]