Jump to content

Dennis Grant

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  1. I'm going to put in a request too. I have been using CMAK as a way to practice current drills and tactics, and have been planning on introducing it as a training tool at my unit. There is an opportunity here, with the welcome move to a modern timeframe, To practice and teach with the actual equipment used against an OPFOR equipped as they could be in reality. Wow! Furthermore, the Canadian Army is moving to an ORBAT that looks to be very similar to a Yank Stryker brigade - infantry in LAVIII, armoured recce in Coyote (LAV 25 with a sexy mast-mount surveilance system) Armour in either
  2. According to the regimenal history, the SAR started getting their Fireflies in Sept 1944. And yes, the individual sabre squadrons were normally attached to the individual infantry regiments of the 10th Infantry Brigade. But it seems that the CO of the SAR was big on recce, agressively using his regimental recce troop and the AA troop to act as brigade recce. It appears that the SAR was a fairly flexible organization, and that flexibility was prized over a literal adherence to a paper ORBAT. One would hope that a game that aims at historical accuracy would allow for similar flexibil
  3. Lemme second that. Despite the existance of paper standards for ORBATS, actual units could differ quite a bit from the standard loadout. I have documentation here for the South Alberta Regiment (ostensibly a Armoured Recce Regiment) whose ORBAT is: RHQ: 4 X Sherman V 1 X White Halftrack 1 X Humber scout car HQ Squadron: 2 X White Halftrack 11 X Stuart VI (Recce Troop) 7 X Crusader III AA (AA troop) 9 X Humber scout car (Intercom troop) A, B, C Squadrons: 4 troops 3 X Sherman V, 1 X Firefly 3 X Sherman V (SHQ
  4. I've cooked up a scenario using CM:AK to use as a training aid for an armoured recce troop. The map contains examples of each type of terrain encountered in a "held up" drill, and is intended to teach the execution of those drills. There is, however, no unit that matches a modern recce troop, so I'm using 8 "independant" Stewart Recce vehicles. I can change the names of the vehicles to their callsigns easily enough, but the rank of the commander seems baked in, and fixed at Corporal. Is there any way to change the rank of the vehicle commander, and ideally, set the reporting structure
  5. I've cooked up a scenario using CM:AK to use as a training aid for an armoured recce troop. The map contains examples of each type of terrain encountered in a "held up" drill, and is intended to teach the execution of those drills. There is, however, no unit that matches a modern recce troop, so I'm using 8 "independant" Stewart Recce vehicles. I can change the names of the vehicles to their callsigns easily enough, but the rank of the commander seems baked in, and fixed at Corporal. Is there any way to change the rank of the vehicle commander, and ideally, set the reporting structure
  6. I've cooked up a scenario using CM:AK to use as a training aid for an armoured recce troop. The map contains examples of each type of terrain encountered in a "held up" drill, and is intended to teach the execution of those drills. There is, however, no unit that matches a modern recce troop, so I'm using 8 "independant" Stewart Recce vehicles. I can change the names of the vehicles to their callsigns easily enough, but the rank of the commander seems baked in, and fixed at Corporal. Is there any way to change the rank of the vehicle commander, and ideally, set the reporting structure
  7. Regarding the Ak/M16 debate: I carried an FN-C1 (FN-FAL) for a little while, then the original C7 (M16), then the version with the optical sight, plus the C9 SAW (Minimi) both with iron sights and with the optical. I've also fired an AK-47 ( a captured Gulf War weapon) on the range. The FN was heavy and long, with a good bayonet. Of all the weapons to have in hand when out of ammo, this was the one to have. As a rifle, it was very accurate out to stupidly long ranges, and I never saw one jam. It was also really easy to clean. But you couldn't carry much ammo for the weight, it kicked
  8. I'm actually with Ken c3k there. Don't make things so complicated. If you want to add new stuff: 1) Formations. Double-click HQ unit, selects him and all subordinate units. Right-click to get flyout menu, select "Formation". Opens little window with a list of formations, probably "Extended Line, Arrowhead, Box, Ech Left, Ech Right" Units are now in "Formation Mode" and act as a single entity with regard to movement orders, fire orders etc. When in "Formation Mode", new right-click option "Break Formation" that ungroups units and returns them back to classic CM control. Why bother? Hou
  9. Or a Staghound. Or a Humber. Or a Daimler. Or many times, just a Jeep. Recce is flexible, and its primary offensive weapon is the artillery. You normally don't use intergral weaponry except for self-preservation, or if the opportunity is just SO good as to not pass up. On the contrary, I think a Bradley can be expected to die every bit as gloriously if it bumps into a T80 as a Staghound would if it bumped into a PanzerIII. The one exception is that Bradley carries TOW - but when I was using it the missiles didn't enter into the picture. We didn't use them. We certainly normally di
  10. While I agree that there are _portions_ of this experience that don't apply very well, there are a few lessons to be learned from that little story. 1) Soldiers will seek maximum advantage from whatever situation they are placed in. They are out to win, and will act according to the possibility to exploit opportunity, balanced against risk. 2) Subordinates can and will take actions based upon their own initiative, occasionally without the explicit knowledge of higher commands, but usually in accordance with the outline of a higher command's plan. "Actions" taken by units do not necessari
  11. I'm on board with this idea in theory (although in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is The trick to making this effective is going to be taking into account all the communication paths that exist on the battlefield. There's a lot more to it than just radios and runners. Furthermore, sometimes you can communicate battlefield information without needing to actually intend to communicate it. Consider an infantry advance with tanks in support in reasonably open country. The tanks are ~200m or so back of the infantry. Crew commanders and driv
  12. And I would hope that in so doing, they installed the desire to accomplish the mission above all else. The point is to WIN. You don't soldier to lose. DG
  13. Oh I agree that I shamlessly manipulated my knowledge of the enemy (I knew size, TO&E, and enemy goals - and from that, a likely plan)I manipulated the limitations of the simulator (the secure flank on the edge of the map, the nature of "woods") and I manipulated the scenario victory conditions. But the point, gentlemen, was to WIN. To accomplish the mission I was given to the best of my ability given the tools and conditions provided. Subordinates do that. BTW, I don't agree that jumping out of a dead vehicle and taking control of new one was "cheating". There's plenty of historica
  14. I hate to break this to you, but if you DON'T want to win at all costs, then I sure don't want you anywhere near any army I'm a part of. I'm not in it to lose. I'll give you an example. My unit was in Knox on the big armoured simulator rig. If you've never seen/heard about this, it's a huge game deal with individual vehicle simulators all wired into the big 3D battlefield. You see through the sights and vision blocks what you would see in the real vehicle. I've been told that the latest upgrade is displays that left crew commanders go open hatches, but when I was there it was all hatches
×
×
  • Create New...