Jump to content

cassh

Members
  • Posts

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About cassh

  • Birthday 07/29/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://N/A

Converted

  • Location
    London
  • Interests
    Mil. Hist.
  • Occupation
    N/A

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

cassh's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Wisbech_lad said: Czechoslovakia 1938 (Czechoslovak Army) Palestine (British kicked out) Suez (British Army - a political, rather than military defeat) Aden (British kicked out) Rhodesia (Anglo-Colonial/Smith Rhodesian Army) We used L4 as an LMG in one of the section's bricks, with the Gimpy in the other to give the section better distribution of fire-power between the fire teams. Bren was ideal for COIN where background and accuracy were very important.
  2. John Kettler said John I think you may have missed the point about GPMGs deployed at the platoon and company level. Their main role is not to engage opportunity targets but to provide suppression of the enemy, so allowing your own manoeuvre units to move. The important factors of a GPMG are sustainability of fire, spread of beaten zone and economy of fire. Most GPMG in the SF role have a ROF of about 600-900 RPM. Good GPMG crews will try and ensure their barrels are balance as near to the lowest gas regulator setting as possible, meaning they 1) don't overheat too quickly, 2) conserve ammo better, and 3) have higher settings to go up to when fowling starts to impair performance. Someone above mentioned barrel changes on a M240/GPMG taking 10-20 seconds and needing an asbestos mat? 1) it shouldn't take more than ten seconds 2) the barrel has a handle 3) when using it in the light role your forward left hand grip is the bipod legs folded back. In terms of belt vs. mag feed there is one example where only belt fed will do - final protective fire - if the OC calls in SF101 you'd better hope you've got GPMGs firing along your lines as overwise it's likely to be overrun time.
  3. Dale - The Atomic V for Victory and World at War were corkers - just wished that something like their UI and game play had been applied to a computerised version of GDW/GDR's Europa series - i'd never have left the house again!
  4. Michael Dorosh said I think the Canadian reaction to effective enemy fire IA does not apply to the entire commonwealth as ours is slightly different - with a quick dash to change location so the enemy will be less likely to have a fix on you and a sights check to make sure you have the right range. In Britain it is:- dash down crawl sights observe fire Cohesion Is it worth considering cohesion? Poor cohesion after conducting an assault for example can disrupt well trained, motivated and experienced soldiers and piss poor ones alike. Well trained troops recover more quickly, but without cohesion being modelled you end up with super soldiers who can perform tasks that are impossible in the real world. For example, you may well have an excellent platoon commander, and fit, experienced soldiers with great morale, but get them to fight through and clear a trench system for 50 meters and see how much confusion, disruption and lack of control there is upon completion of the task. They’re still fit, still well led, and still got high morale - but try coordinating them to attack a second strong point immediately and you’ll find in reality the lack of cohesion makes this quite difficult - even for seasoned troops. Cohesion is distinct from other qualities as it is a temporary effect brought on by the rigours of battle and combines many of the factors already modelled plus more obscure factors that you cannot really lump together other than under cohesion - e.g. a member of a fireteam loses his comrades temporarily in a building. Is that morale, training, fitness, or command? Probably a bit of all plus the X-factor Clausewitz calls ‘friction’ that means you need another model in place - cohesion. Lack of cohesion is caused by the collective effects of tactical activity - partially tiredness, partially command, control, communications and intelligence (c3i), partially morale and partially administrative-organisational, partially experience related, and partially due to fitness. To this mix you must add luck/chance/the fog of war/friction. If you model this omnipresent factor that affects combat outcomes you start to see activities in the game that model real life such as the regroup/reorg following any assault to restore cohesion. Without doing this a unit should suffer from inertia and a weakened command rating, being less aware, less responsive and less capable. In the CMSF MOUT environment modelling cohesion becomes important. Once a platoon starts clearing houses, unless they regroup/reorganise periodically it can go to rat sh!t pretty quickly.
  5. Another interesting BBC programme regarding chinese defence policy and growth... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/shadowofthedragon/
  6. Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.
  7. Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.
  8. Jons wrote:- and Steve wrote Sorry guys you both wrong as JasonC rightly states. In the British Army all SFMG teams carry empty sand bags as SOP to either hold the legs in place when firing off pre-registered spikes (markers on the ground recording the tripod position for night shoots and indirect fire generally) or to elevate the legs to achieve LOS on a desired arc or target. Ammo boxes filled with earth are another favourite for elevating the gun.
  9. stoat said Then youthinks wrong. They're members of 29 Regiment Royal Artillery (Royal Marine gunners) and this was a training exercise in the Shat Al Arab.
  10. Why not make it only available when paused - that way you can go to town on cpu capacity? A mild side effect - elite players cannot pause so they will just have to be 'elite'!
  11. LAW80 has approx 600mm of penetration against RHA according to the manual, which probably puts it on a par or just behind the MBT LAW (UK AT4 CS HP variant) in terms of punch. In terms of back-blast, you need decent clearance and certainly would not consider firing from inside a confined space such as a building or bunker; otherwise, no dramas. Live fired (full-warhead) against a Ferret hulk at 200m - awesome - absolutely battered it. All relatively pointless though as the MBT LAW is now the standard issue MLAW for UK forces.
  12. USMC uber-paintball ammo - stopped Marines 'John Wayneing' during training - you move and maneouvre tactically like you might in combat when you know some MF of a training-paintball round might tag you. Genius, but only good in close-quarter MOUT training.
  13. Steve said - Yes, I'm quite aware of that - however BTR battalions and BMP battalions and their respective roles are significant at an operational level - not necessarily at tactical level. A BTR regiment and a BMP regiment must both fight dismounted when facing organised and effective resistance. The difference is that once enemy cohesion has been shattered the BMP regiment is then more suited to exploit (rather than as you say attack - a small but key distinction) as it possesses mechanised supporting arms and IFVs. If one is fighting a mobile battle, a weak enemy can be overrun using IFVs and AFVs. But against effective defences, BMPs are constrained by many of the limitations faced by APC borne troops and may need to fight a dismounted battle. BMP is better suited to operational manoeuvre where one exploits a breakthrough, hence the BMP regiment and Tank regiment form the OMG in a Soviet Motor Rifle Division. In open tank country, I completely agree. However, in close terrain it makes little difference. If Syrians have learnt anything for either Gulf War they will not offer battle in this way, but will seek the concealment and cover of close country such as urban terrain. In this type of engagement you fight dismounted anyway so BMP or BTR make marginal difference. A Javelin is going to make Swiss Cheese of either of these vehicles. Bingo! So we agree they are there. Bingo bingo - so we agree the GPMGs are with the BTR regiments who make up the bulk of the motorised forces rather than with the BMP "mechanised" units. Which contradicts what you've just said. Steve, call me old fashioned here, but when you say on the one hand that there are "lots of GPMGs with motorized/static infantry forces" and then say "unless they aren't there to be used at all" one can only conclude that there is some confusion here? If I haven't made my self clear I apologise. So I'll make this unambiguous. Each Rifle company of a BTR battalion should have a PKM GPMG team. Good - that's what we all want. Wait one.
×
×
  • Create New...