John D Salt
-
Posts
1,417 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John D Salt
-
-
You're right, I'm wrong, I'll go back and change it.Originally posted by simovitch:I thought they used "I" coy instead of "J" coy? :confused:
I can't remember who it is who misses out "I", but it isn't the US Army.
All the best,
John.
-
I swear I've seen a platoon commander called Tereshkova, which is clearly a girl's name.Originally posted by Santosdiablo:Can you select Soviet women soldiers in cmbb?
All the best,
John.
-
Nope. Assuming the regular allocation of letters to companies, "G" would be in the 2nd Bn of a normal leg infantry regiment, exactly as Jon said:Originally posted by John Kettler:JonS,
Your statement appears to be self-contradicting. Based on the information you gave, "G" Company should "always" be in the 3rd Battalion, not the Second as stated.
1 Bn A, B, C rifle coys, D heavy weapons
2 Bn E, F, G rifle coys, H heavy weapons
3 Bn I, K, L rifle coys, M heavy weapons
{Corrected -- there is no "J"}
"G" would be in the 3rd Bn in an organization with no heavy weapons coys, such as parachute infatry, again as John said.
Contrast this with German practice, where the infantry gun and anti-tank companies were numbered 13 and 14 even in two-battalion regiments where companies 9 to 12 were missing.
All the best,
John.
[ April 03, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]
-
Nope. Assuming the regular allocation of letters to companies, "G" would be in the 2nd Bn of a normal leg infantry regiment, exactly as Jon said:Originally posted by John Kettler:JonS,
Your statement appears to be self-contradicting. Based on the information you gave, "G" Company should "always" be in the 3rd Battalion, not the Second as stated.
1 Bn A, B, C rifle coys, D heavy weapons
2 Bn E, F, G rifle coys, H heavy weapons
3 Bn I, K, L rifle coys, M heavy weapons
{Corrected -- there is no "J"}
"G" would be in the 3rd Bn in an organization with no heavy weapons coys, such as parachute infatry, again as John said.
Contrast this with German practice, where the infantry gun and anti-tank companies were numbered 13 and 14 even in two-battalion regiments where companies 9 to 12 were missing.
All the best,
John.
[ April 03, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]
-
Both the Sherman and T-34 had sights for indirect fire; I'd be amazed if most other HE-capable tanks didn't too, regardless of Germanity. FM 17-12 "Armored Force Field Manual: Tank Gunnery" of April 22nd 1943 devotes 28 of its 102 pages to the topic of indirect laying. And of course there are those well-known photos of Shermans in Italy acting as substitute field artillery.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:Tanks are unlikely to be able to do anything of the sort because they are not set up for indirect fire in the first place - they do not have dial sights, do not have surveyed positions, and do not have accurate maps, do not have segmented charges for their guns to allow a variety of ranges to be engaged.
All the best,
John.
-
And three letters of the Cyrillic alphabet were shot, although one was partially rehabilitated.Originally posted by Denwad:lines and arshins were abolished during the communist revolution i believe
Looking for something else entirely, I just came across this:
http://www.portsdown.demon.co.uk/ord.htm
...which includes a list of "Such ordnance as are usual in England" from 1639. Convert the given calibres and shot diameters into millimetres, and you'll see a lot of familiar calibres. None of the new-fangled Frenchified 75mm, 105mm and 155mm, though.
I may start saying "Robinet", "Falconet" and "Minion" instead of 37mm, 57mm or 76mm.
All the best,
John.
-
Both sights are offset to the left.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:
No, the sight's just not straight on top of the gun but a bit to the left.
</font>
-
It also gives you a considerable amount of flexibility, considering the number of different ammo natures that could be made available (smoke, illum).Originally posted by LtCol West:Having the M-32 replace the M-203 at the fireteam level will add a significant amount of firepower to a US Marine rifle squad.
In particular, for less-lethal operations, CS gas and baton rounds would be feasible, as with the old ARWEN 5-round rotary launcher in 38mm, which looks broadly similar.
All the best,
John.
-
No "interpretation" is involved.Originally posted by John Kettler:[snips]
While I understand what you're saying, if your and John D Salt's interpretation is correct,
If US Army companies were lettered sequentially within the battalion, as you appear to be claiming, when would there ever be a sub-unit designated "Easy Company"? "Love Company"?
All the best,
John.
-
No "interpretation" is involved.Originally posted by John Kettler:[snips]
While I understand what you're saying, if your and John D Salt's interpretation is correct,
If US Army companies were lettered sequentially within the battalion, as you appear to be claiming, when would there ever be a sub-unit designated "Easy Company"? "Love Company"?
All the best,
John.
-
For the US Army, I believe that:Originally posted by John_d:[snips]
But presumeably there aren't at least 505 other regiments in the 101st, or another 100 divisions of airborne troops. This would be a HUGE number of troops and given that this kind of warfare was in its infancy back in the 40s, I seriously doubt that there would be this number of paratroopers in the American army. But maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone shed some light on the issue for me please?
Squads are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within companies
Companies are lettered within regiments
Battalions are numbered within regiments
Regiments are numbered within the entire US Army
Divisions are numbered within the entire US Army
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry and armored divisions (so airborne divisions are numbered along with the infantry).
Contrast this with British practice, where:
Sections are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within battalions
Companies are lettered within battalions
Battalions are numbered within regiments
Brigades are numbered within the entire British Army
Divisions are numbered within the entire British Army
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne and colonial divisions, but the numbering is not necessarily sequential.
For the Germans, I believe it's:
Sections are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within companies
Companies are numbered within regiments
Battalions are Roman-numbered within regiments
Regiments are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht
Divisions are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe divisions.
Corrections welcome. If anyone can tell me what Russian practice was, I'd like to know.
All the best,
John.
-
For the US Army, I believe that:Originally posted by John_d:[snips]
But presumeably there aren't at least 505 other regiments in the 101st, or another 100 divisions of airborne troops. This would be a HUGE number of troops and given that this kind of warfare was in its infancy back in the 40s, I seriously doubt that there would be this number of paratroopers in the American army. But maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone shed some light on the issue for me please?
Squads are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within companies
Companies are lettered within regiments
Battalions are numbered within regiments
Regiments are numbered within the entire US Army
Divisions are numbered within the entire US Army
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry and armored divisions (so airborne divisions are numbered along with the infantry).
Contrast this with British practice, where:
Sections are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within battalions
Companies are lettered within battalions
Battalions are numbered within regiments
Brigades are numbered within the entire British Army
Divisions are numbered within the entire British Army
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne and colonial divisions, but the numbering is not necessarily sequential.
For the Germans, I believe it's:
Sections are numbered within platoons
Platoons are numbered within companies
Companies are numbered within regiments
Battalions are Roman-numbered within regiments
Regiments are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht
Divisions are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht
Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe divisions.
Corrections welcome. If anyone can tell me what Russian practice was, I'd like to know.
All the best,
John.
-
This line up seems to fit the avialbale evidence from various books. The apparent oddity is mixing 3rd and 4th Btys landing at 0300, but then both Para Bdes landed at the same time, so it makes sense that each would bring some A-Tk guns with them.Originally posted by JonS:No, that actually makes sense ... sort of. As far as I can tell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />* 12 x 6-pr of 4th Bty landed by Horsa about 0300 06JUN44
* 4 x 17-pr of 3rd Bty landed by Hamilcar about 0300 06JUN44 (4 sortied, 3 landed)
* 4 x 17-pr of 4th Bty landed by Hamilcar about 2000 06JUN44 (this is speculation)
* 12 x 6-pr of 3rd Bty landed over SWORD 07JUN44
Can anyone see any issues with that landing schedule?
</font>
-
Errh, no (scratches head, tries not to look confused).Originally posted by JonS:[snips]
So, 4th Bty (complete) landed by Glider before dawn on the 6th June, while 3rd Bty (complete) arrived over the beaches on the 7th June. Correct?
Wait - both batterys?Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Page 199: Says that 6-pdrs of both batteries, plus 3 17-pdrs, deployed south of Ranville and le Bas de Ranville, and "by first light were ready for any German tanks which might appear".
</font>
-
"Go to it!" seems to think that 211st AL bty landed on D-Day with 6 AL Bde, and the other two batteries were to arrive "the following day". Whether they did or not is not stated completely unambiguously.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
John,
could you please confirm from 'Go to it' that the two follow-on btys of 53rd AL Lt Regt landed over the beaches on D+7, as reported in Pemberton?
As Napier Crookenden was Bde Major of 6th AL Bde, I'll take a look in his "Dropzone Normandy" when I can find where I put it down.
</font>
-
Clearly not; you obviously have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad.Originally posted by Krautman:John D Salt, I don't perceive your argumentation to be much better.
I know you said that. And I pointed out that it was an incredibly silly thing to say. There is no difficulty at all in deciding whether or not a town with defences is defended or not. Your argument is broken. Get a new one, rather than repeating the same crackpot drivel.Originally posted by Krautman:I said it is DIFFICULT to decide, not that towns with Flak were definitely undefended.
I think you must allow me to know better than you what reason I read your posts for. Why the hell would I be interested in attacking you? I am simply pointing out that your arguments are utter rubbish. The reason I do this is that your arguments are utter rubbish.Originally posted by Krautman:You read my posts only to find something you might use to attack me.
Of course you don't see any inconsistency. You obviously have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad.Originally posted by Krautman:The question is not Dresden or Weimar, I don't see an inconsistency there.
If you would care to recall my original challeneg to you, it was to demonstrate that all (qua all) area bombardment is now illegal, If you think you've done that, it can only be because you have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad. You might also take a look at the UK commentaries on the 1977 additional protocol, which make it clearer how the UK would interpret the rules in action.Originally posted by Krautman:But had you read my posts you had noticed that I am not the only one clueless in history and laws of war, you yourself didn't know area bombardments were illegal. (Check the link above).
I merely point out that you advance an argument first put forward by David Iriving. In the restricted compass of this little newsgroup, I don't expect you to put forward all the arguments first put forward by David Irving.Originally posted by Krautman:As for my being Irvingesque, note that my original point was that area bombardments, disagreeing with Andreas, were a war crime. I never said they were even remotely on the same level as the Holocaust, as Irving did.
Yeah, I wonder what he's like in real life?Originally posted by Krautman:If you wish to discuss, then you should look at Andreas.
No, what I didn't understand was how you could fail to understand this from the defintions of the words "defended" and "defences".Originally posted by Krautman:He shares your opinion, but instead of just calling me a nazi muddlehead uses actual arguments: As soon as you enter an air war, Flak guns mean a threat to your forces, therefore the respective city is defended and can be attacked. That is a good point and the exact reason why I consider it difficult to decide whether a town far away from the front is defended in the sense of Haag or not. Which you did not understand.
No ****, Sherlock. Tell me, are there any other extremely well-known and commonplace facts you're going to assume I don't know?Originally posted by Krautman:BTW: In 1940, the Germans threw incendiary bombs on London.
Two points. First, you aren't arguing until you present a well-formed argument. Second, I'm not calling you a Nazi, I'm calling you a muddlehead. I'm calling the arguments you appear to be attempting to make Nazi, because I have heard them from Nazi apologists so many times it's really not funny any more.Originally posted by Krautman:But why am I argueing with someone who takes pleasure in calling others Nazis?
Now you go on my ignore list until you get yourself a clue.
All the best,
John.
-
Because Kitchener copied the technique from the system of quadrillage used on Cuba during the Spanish-American war.Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:In the previous thread, I just noticed the following statement made, I believe, by John D Salt.
"A classic example is Herr Doktor Goebbels' assertion that it was the British who first invented the concentration camp in the Boer War; not true, but so widely repeated by now that it may as well be."
If this is false, then why?
Before WW2, concentration camp still meant what you would expect from its component words, a camp in which people are concentrated. A chap I know, now dead, who served in the RAF during WW2 ran a concentration camp. After WW2, with the opening of the Nazi camps, the term came to have rather a different connotation.Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:And what definition of a concentration camp are we using? To me, a concentration camp is a place to concentrate civilian enemies, not POWs, and the British apparently invented the term, in addition to using barbed wire for the purpose.
It doesn't matter which interpretation you use, the idea that concentration camps were a British invention is untrue, but it is often clear from the context in which the claim is made that the speaker is attempting to conflate the pre-WW2 understanding of the term with the post-WW2 one, thus fulfilling the late and unlamented Dr. Goebbels' intention in telling the lie in the first place.
As for the British inventing the term, that may well be correct, but it's like saying that the Americans invented the term "object orientation" in computer programming; the term may have been American, but the original invention was Norwegian.
All the best,
John.
-
Cute. Again for you:Originally posted by Krautman:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:
Hard to see what the difficulty is. You appear to be arguing that a place can be considered undefended because the only defences it has are, ummmm, defensive in nature.
What grass mod are you smoking?
</font>
-
Yup, I get baffled by the over-complications some people are prepared to indulge themselves in at times.Originally posted by Cuirassier:After reading many threads on tactics and such, I have realized that some players have great knowledge about this game and how to win battles. I have seen maneuver doctrine, attrition doctrine, advance drills, overwatch drill, fire versus shock, shock versus maneuver, etc, which I find largely confusing. Thus, the more I read about tactics, the more I seem to get confused.
Dunno, you'd have to ask a good player to find out; but, since we know that the nature of expertise is that experts are often unable to explain their expertise, you may not get a comprehensible answer even then.Originally posted by Cuirassier:So here is my dumb question. How did the good players on this formum learn so much about tactics and why do they do so well at this game?
Practice, as they say, makes perfect. But I would offer two very simple, general pieces of advice (which are free of charge, and worth what you paid for them):Originally posted by Cuirassier:What should I do to get better? Read tactics articles, read Fionn's old AAR's, just play a bunch of games against the AI and learn from experience?
Any simple responses will be appreciated.
1. Above all else, try to understand how the ground works, and how to use it in your favour. Tactics on the direct fire battlefield ultimately depend on the fact that it's much easier to hurt targets you can see than targets you can't.
2. All successful tactics boil down to one thing; fort contre foible, pit your strength against the enemy's weakness. All you have to do now is learn all the strengths and weaknesses of all the pieces in the game!
All the best,
John.
-
Hard to see what the difficulty is. You appear to be arguing that a place can be considered undefended because the only defences it has are, ummmm, defensive in nature.Originally posted by Krautman:[snips] Yes, but "undefended" in this context of 1907 means "no armed ground forces, which could counterattack our own forces any moment, are located there". Can you associate FlaK batteries in a city in central Germany, which are entirely defensive in nature, with this "armed and potentially offensive ground forces" category? I admit it is difficult to decide though.
What grass mod are you smoking?
All the best,
John.
-
Really? What evidence do you have that supports that?Originally posted by Panther Commander:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
Those interviews never actually took place.
</font>
-
I disagree. Honour that is applicable only when it's easy to do so isn't a terribly worthwhile kind of honour, IMO.Originally posted by Krautman:Tagwyn, you sound like a 16th century Samurai. Honour and combat exclude one another in modern warfare, I think.
The idea that all area bombardment is a war-crime is, I think, a mistake. Please post your source for believing that it is.Originally posted by Krautman:Andreas, the current legal situation, as google told me, considers area bombardment a war crime. Rightly so, if you'd ask the inhabitants of Wesel in 1945.
Indiscriminate or reckless attack of civilian objects is now a war crime, certainly. However, given the presence of actively resisting enemy forces in the city, I doubt that anyone would consider a bombardment such as that on Wesel to be illegal even under the modern convention, which acknowledges "military necessity".
You seem to be quite badly confused about both the facts of history and your line of argument.Originally posted by Krautman:War crime or not, that's a futile discussion. If area bombing is not, why was offensive land war, until then a legitimate means of policy, declared a war crime, punishable by death, at Nürnberg?
Waging wars of aggression was outlawed by the Kellog-Briand pact of 1928, an international agreement to which Germany was a signatory.
Aerial bombardment was not outlawed by any such international agreement.
The reason one was illegal and the other wasn't was the usual reason for such a state of affairs, namely that a law was passed prohibiting one, but no law was passed prohibiting the other.
I'm not sure what gives you the idea that there is some kind of coupling between the two questions.
All the best,
John.
-
What interviews?Originally posted by Panther Commander:I have read an awful lot of comments about SLA Marshal. I'm not sure how I view his interviews.
All the best,
John.
-
"Go to it!" seems to think that 211st AL bty landed on D-Day with 6 AL Bde, and the other two batteries were to arrive "the following day". Whether they did or not is not stated completely unambiguously.Originally posted by JonS:John,
could you please confirm from 'Go to it' that the two follow-on btys of 53rd AL Lt Regt landed over the beaches on D+7, as reported in Pemberton?
As Napier Crookenden was Bde Major of 6th AL Bde, I'll take a look in his "Dropzone Normandy" when I can find where I put it down.
All the best,
John.
101st Airborne
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
I can't remember who it is who misses out "I", but it isn't the US Army.
All the best,
John.