Code13

Hmm, I see where you are coming from, what you meant to say was the beggining of the fall of France...

I must be lucky then I seem to be good at getting hits like that against light german armour... However I have seen two FT teams hose down a Panther for a full minute without scratching it, only for the Panther to waste them with its grenade dispensers. Same thing happened to a full platoon on engineers throwing demo charges at one

Thats funny! A similarthing happened to me playing CMBO - I was playing a British recon force advancing through a small hamlet, I cant remember any details of the battle apart from it had been hard fought between some top grade troops on both sides, right at the end though I was assaulting the germans last redoubt, a well dug in 88 that had ripped my light armour to pieces before they could get to cover, and a good amount of infantry. Fortunately I had managed to save a full platoon of infantry for just this job and I begun my assault. At that exact moment MY air support turned up, misdropped its bombs and landed them both in a perfect straddling shot across that platoon! Boy I was spitting feathers at that Typhoon pilot!

OR Remove all other sound BUT the screaming and play it like its some sort of low budget "horrors of war" student film...

Henry Ford once said "history is bunk". He was a tit. To not know your history is to not know your present. If you dont know your present you cant determine your future. (hey are we back to big brother?) But the simple fact is if you dont understand how the world got to be where it is now, there is no way you can shape it for the future to avoid the same events again, a lack of historical knowledge means there is no way we can ever claim to live in a fully functioning democracy because we lack the ability to determine our own future. It is not high brow stuff, it isnt a nitty gritty knowledge of details but simply an understanding of who we are and where we came from. Europe was shaped in incalculable ways by the the two World Wars, and as a consequence so was the rest of the world. To know why we went to war in 1914 is to know why we went to war in 1939, which then tells us why we went to war in Korea, why the US went to war in Vietnam, why the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, why the two Gulf Wars happened and why the next war will happen, and that next war, and its avoidance is why we must know our history. and to be frank I an appalled at any student of history thinking any different.

If LOS are equal then neither side has height advantage....the LOS have to be different if any height advantage exists, it is fundamentally impossible to be otherwise, what I think the author is talking about is no fog, weather or optical equipment being taken into account, i.e. the mk1 eyeball. As for shooting up or down, its personal experience really that makes me think it is harder to shoot uphill. Hiting the upper torso is more likely purely and simply because when above someone that is the largest target, you are right in saying you hit what you can see, but most of what you see is now the head, shoulders and upper arms. But you are right, the question was if it is modeled in CM. I have never done any tests but I have always laboured and manouvered my infantry on the assumption that it is better to be up than down...

Flamethrowers have always brought me varied reslts, I think the AI is far too quick to spot them and turn ever single gun that can see them onto the team, which in itself can be useful... But I have got the best effects when combining them with a good armoured troop transporter like a bren carrier or kangeroo. Good for bunkers in attack and tanks in ambush, when they can hit that is!

Height advantage is sought by infanty in all theatres of war, always, for many reasons. But I will just deal with more modern reasoning. 1. Attacking uphil is much harder than attacking downhill, much, much harder. 2. Shooting upwards is also more difficult than shooting down at something. 3. If you are higher than your opponant your shots are more likely to strike the upper body, arms, head and neck than normal - if they are stood up. 4. In foxholes you negate the cover for the trench and effectivly have them bracited in their hole. There are other advantages but they are less definate and more ephemeral, but if height isnt important, then why have soldiers being trying to get the higher ground since the flood?

I would like to see infantry use that smoke (or from armour) to mark targets for aircraft, might avoid those pesky "blue on blue" incidents.

QUOTE]The other reason is of course that all of today's militaries have full-auto assault rifles that mean you can have your cake, and eat it too. [/QB]

Bomb the fook out of the cover at the top end of the map and any cover along the road you can see, none of it will need more than one or two shells to get any infantry in it dead, running or broken.

HT's carrying infanty can be great to use if assualting infantry positions...just like all assaults though it helps if the defenders are suppressed, they are brilliant for rushing across open ground though to secure terrain and dode larger calibure AT. As said though 20mm AAA is a garanteed dead HT and no chance of spotting the gun. Best use for HT's though is fire support. Use them to supress the target while the infantry makes the assault, that means you dont need the extra squads to provide suppressing fire meaning target can be taken with fewer troops.

Whilst this is a simulation game, it is also a game. The reason arty isnt seemingly well moddled n this situation it is simply that for QB's and the like we all have balanced points. To realistically simulate arty barrages then the attacking side should have more points with which to buy these assets. It was INCREADIBLY rare that two perfectly balanced forces would attack each other, and the key to good defence is perhaps assessing where to put your assets to protect them from arty?

Sorry exSpecForSgt, but you need to go back and do some reading. Grapeshot was used on rigging, and was found to be very effective for it, as was chainshot. Chainshot was not liked so much becuase it had far too high a tendency to foul the barrels. Case shot also varied in form between, as has been stated bags containg musket balls and thin wooden tubes containg shards of metal. larger shots. Cannister

This is the same in the British Army as well, especially in specialist regiments such as the Royal Engineers and the REME, the RAF and RN also have specialist ranks for specialist personel

Anyone who thinks or even remotely tries to argue that the allies didnt deliberately target civilians needs some serious education about what happened in the war. On the other hand one thing the Alies didnt do was for einsatzgroupen (sp) to round up and kill civilian populations, the allies did not raise whole villages to the ground and kill everyone who lived their out of reprisal for partisan activities and, most importantly the allies did not deliberately try to commit genocide on an industrial scale. But they did deliberately and knowingly kill the civilian populations of Germany, France and Italy for various reasons.

Playing CMBO I always found that in the absence of bigger guns the best thing to stop HT's with was HMG's. Pretty much gaurantee that a .50 cal or MG42 will take out any HT or at least force them to abandon within a minute or two, close range it will just kill them. some of these experiments would be interesting if the HT's had passengers, see what the effect on them is, you might see then a huge increase in carnage...

Best use I ever got was in the "eagles Nest" scenario from CMBO, where the US Airborn are attacking the Bavarian hideaway. There are a couple of bunkers halfway up a steep hill, flanking a road. Thanks to the road a halftrack with a FT team in it can rush up the hill at full speed and bail out after they have gone past the two bunkers fire arc, FT team then happily torches the two bumkers and the halftrack MG's any bailed out crew. Other than that keep then hidden in buildings until they can ambush armour. They are of very limited use in an assault I have found. Just too slow and too prime a target.

There is a very interesting programme on the History chanel from time to time called Luftwaffe 46 which deals whith this "what if" scenario, looking at the state of the german airforce if the war had dragged on another year and they had been able to produce me262's in significant numbers. I would like to see the inclusion of some of these wierd, late war and experimental things. If you want a simulation then dont pick them in the scenarios, all it needs is a "realism" filter on the unit selection, hang on, dont they have one already.....

I think the reliability of a gun would mean more to troops in the field than anything else. Followed closely by how heavy it was and how much ammo I could carry for it. This is a silly thread really, why not ask for weapons by period, as they all clearly improved as the years passed. Me, Id take a sten, stopping power is naff all use if the gun wont fire and you cant actually hit anything with it. Plus you could have the goober suppressed version

It may also depend on the intensity of the barrage. I once forced a squad of german infanty to abandone a light building they were holed up in with nothing but 2" motars. The building was never looking like falling down but the amount of accurate (they had LOS) fire that was going in must have just rattled them too much.

Deleivering superior fir is all well and good if you can do it, sometimes you dont. And sometimes you dont have the time. Sometimes, no matter haow much fire you pour onto a strongpoint the enemy isnt going to shift. If you dont have and big guns to raise a building then get the SMG squads in there.

I have also found it useful for getting troops out of halftracks and into the nearby cover, especially if you give the order while the halftrack is heading towards the cover.

That is exactly what Assault is for, short rang rushes onto enemy strong points under supporting fire.

A great thread and fantastic to read some comments here. One bit of trivia is that aledgedly the BAR (cut don barrel and stock) was the favoured weapon of Bonnie and Clyde for its stopping power and accuracy, even when cut down. That speaks a lot about its mobility really.