McIvan

That is interesting, because it contradicts my observations of the battle. When I say I switched to direct fire because I had a "full id", I mean I switched because I was confident that I would keep the HMG spotted for the duration of the turn.....and so it proved; at no stage did it turn into a flag icon. I'm well aware of the propensity of units to lose the target from a distance and did keep one squad on area fire just in case. Yet very soon after I switched from area fire to (mostly) direct, the HMG began shooting back. It would probably help to outline the circumstances more.....I moved a squad to each of the two houses in the lower centre and right of the map, while the HQ and two squads went left, getting shot up by the HMG in the open between the SW woods and the woods about 150 metres west of the HMG. One squad made it to those woods, the HQ and other squad were pinned/panicked. I put area firers on the woods with the HMG from 2 and then 3 squads while the HQ & squad made it to cover. So the vast majority of the area fire was 150-200 metres away or more, and of low lethality. It took time to build up a pin, maybe three turns. Thereafter I advanced a squad to within SMG range in the scattered trees close to the SW of the HMG and then finally grenade range to finish it. Very expensive of ammo as you point out, but in the circumstances it was fine. I'm quite sure that the area firers fired more often than the direct firers. If you are certain that the ROF is the same, then the difference perhaps is due to the squads 200 metres away losing their red line momentarily even though the target has not turned into a flag icon as such. I do not recall whether that was the case....I certainly didn't watch a minute replay from the perspective of each squad. The end result is the same - for squads some distance away the ROF ends up higher for area fire for practical purposes because it doesn't rely on sighting the target and does not lose its track. At least in this specific circumstance it was. Whether the same applies in other games only time will tell.

Idly decided to give some of these a go the other week. Came upon an instructive little gem in the one where there is a German HMG in the middle, against a green Russian platoon. Anyways, the HMG unmasks and panics/pins a squad and the HQ respectively while causing three casualties. The other three squads area fire and gradually pin the HMG while the other two crawl to cover. Now, what I noticed but did not know before is the following. Upon getting a squad close enough round the left flank to fully ID the HMG, I switched to direct fire, reasoning it would be far higher in firepower and get a better result. Not so....the HMG promptly began to shoot back, much to my surprise. I had to switch back to area fire to get a squad into close assault range and clean out the nest, although the HMG did start firing again once the assaulting squad got close. Too late for it by then. Two lessons from this: 1. Pinning/panicking from not-terribly-lethal-fire depends more on frequency than relative lethality. 2. Troops have a higher rate of fire, except at close range, when area firing. They shoot a lot less when direct firing and the decrease in frequency can allow your enemy to recover. Area fire is better than direct fire for suppression because of the higher ROF. The other lesson of course is not to put your squads too close together, especially green or conscript troops, unless you like watching them all panic in sympathy. I think that intuitively I already knew area fire is carried out at a higher ROF, but I certainly hadn't fully appreciated that frequency of fire, for the purposes of pinning or panicking, can be more important than lethality. The scenario laid it out nicely. Thanks Jason for a well thought out and instructive series of scenarios. [ August 17, 2006, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

I have a challenge to a 5,000 QB assault presently in my inbox. What I'm planning to do is work out my force mix first, then start a separate test QB with the same parameters, choose only the fortifications, and immediately surrender. The results screen will give me the fortification casualty points. Can then use that at the end of our QB to work out the "real" victory points.

I analyze and keep analyzing in view of the victory percentages. Having said that, in attack I don't just sit the troops on their backsides once I'm at a minor victory (unless I'm going temporarily on the defensive because I think the opponent is going to counterattack somewhere). I keep attacking. I suspect from that point on I take it more cautiously, however.

I think you're just unlucky, that's all. It happens. Personally I have plenty of experience with my Allied forces missing or hitting only to see "no effect" or the round shatter...particularly with the 2pdr against big roomy MkIVs. I don't think hull down is of much benefit in CM, whether CMBB or CMAK, depending on the strength of the turret armour vs the strength of the hull armour. By that I mean I don't think the chance of being hit is reduced by much, so armour is probably the only criteria you should use. By 1942 Allied forces in Africa were mostly veteran in Libya/Egypt, but green/regular in Tunisia. Which has nothing much to do with the game....they are what the scenario or quick battle assigns to them, and how well trained they are is all up to the person assigning them orders...ie yourself!

I recommend The Bliz (www.theblitz.org) for plenty of opponents and tournaments...have never failed to get as many games as I wanted. A very laid back community with no pre-conditions for joining.

That is just superb. Can I have one too?

I think JonS must be correct...the description of marking out the M10 turret rings a bell with my somewhat shaky memory. I was thinking of a shoot the Kiwis did with Shermans against Orsogna at 6,500 yards but, upon looking, I can't see a reference to any additional jury-rigged equipment being necessary.

I know that the NZ tankers in Italy performed indirect fire missions, but IIRC their tanks were not outfitted for indirect fire from the get go. They had to be jury rigged by the division, and it seemed to work reasonably well. So, while it may be true that some Shermans came with indirect fire equipment (I do not know one way or the other), I can state with certainty that not all of them were. Can dig the appropriate link out the NZ official histories if anyone is interested.

Enemies running over their own mines (eg by routing back over them) will reveal their position to all. Bit rough when your units never had LOS to them, but there it is. As stated, daisy-chain mines also tend to be visible, particularly to infantry.

7mm of armour is just not enough to stop rifle size rounds, as delivered by practically any machinegun. I have read an anecdote where a US sergeant would take a bunch of new recruits and fire his pistol through the side of a halftrack to demonstrate that sitting in a halftrack tinking they were safe would only get them killed. An MG42 will soon kill a US HT; it's just a matter of time.

I assume you're not serious but just in case you are, I can confirm having watched the first replay of a QB last night, that, yes, human controlled troops are subject to command delay. Regards Ivan McIntosh

Was that against the AI or a human?

I'm always interested in a good WWII first person shooter. Thanks for taking the time to show the link, much appreciated. Regards Ivan McIntosh

I was busy nodding my head in agreement with this when I realised that plenty of other US soldiers, British and commonwealth troops, plenty of whom had been in combat considerably longer than a year, managed not to promptly slaughter the guards of the camps they liberated, as you seem to be aware. So to expect anything else is not folly, but actually the norm, which tends to knock over your earlier and quite persuasive argument.

I should open this post by admitting that I am entirely unsure whether I would not have done almost exactly the same thing. I suspect I might well have shot one or more guards, filled with self-righteous rage, because I do self-righteous rants extremely well. Probably the best I could hope is that I would have asked the prisoners to point out to me which ones deserved to die. If I had managed that I doubt very much whether I would ever have had a second thought. This does not mean my behaviour would not, in cold reason, be worthy of condemnation. My big problem with arguments in favour of the shootings is confusion and conflation of two sets of different facts.........demonisation by labelling as if the mere fact of attaching a label constitutes the proof of an action. The argument seems to be that the death camps existed, a fact not disputed here, therefore anyone found on them other than the prisoners themselves is guilty of participation in mass murder....which is in fact a completely different set of facts. There is a disconnect between those two; an assumption that the US soldiers who arrived had no basis for making other than huge emotion. As has been pointed out, there are any number of reasons why individuals executed might have had for all intents and purposes nothing to do with the death camp other than being a member of the SS, the military arm of the party that spawned it. But then again, so were the Wermacht and every other branch of the armed services. So were the Germans that worked in the arms factories, kept the war economy going, voted (while such things were still allowed) for Hitler, acted as party functionaries. Labelling someone "SS scum" is no more helpful in determining whether punishment is merited than labeling them children of the great Flying Spaghettit Monster. It is a meaningless word without something to back it up that proves they were "SS Scum". The place in which they were found is powerful evidence but it is not hard to think of mitigating factors, as others have pointed out. Saying they are SS scum as if this in itself merits the death penalty is the absence of reason, a total reversion to might makes right. You might as well be allowed to walk up to a man on the street, call him a child molester (let's assume this merits the death penalty), and pull the trigger. Were you right? Of course you were....he was a child molester, because you said so. How did you know? Well, the "child molester" was found in the same house as an abused child. That's a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence......but......was he a neighbour that had just discovered the child and rung the police or did he live there? Who cares....he was in the house, end of story, right? You didn't ask the child? Didn't need to, did I, had all the eveidence I needed. If you simply happen to feel that being enrolled, whether volunteer or conscripted, in any branch of the SS is a crime justifying extra-judicial execution on sight, that is unanswerable other than to say I disagree, and disagree vehemently, with your point of view. To me it depends WHAT THAT INDIVIDUAL DID. It is far too easy to focus on a group and assign to all of them the actions of a few, whether for political or military motive or simply because the accuser is too lazy to differentiate, or is simply indifferent to the potential for injustice to individuals in the pursuit of perceived justice for a group. History is replete with examples of sects, groups, societies and entire cultures being persecuted for the actions of some of their members, some of whom have been mentioned in this thread. The whole notion of collective punishment without regard to individual circumstances is abhorrent, as witness by all the collective reprisals through history. Let's go to the (absurd) extreme and take the assassination of Heydrich, a clearly criminal act in the eyes of the German authorities. The killers were in a specific village; probably live them, certainly were harboured there, by someone, probably still are there. Should we let the guilty escape because of the risk of punishing innocent villagers, or should we punish the innocent along with the guilty to ensure that the guilty receive "justice"? And are the villagers really innocent? Some of them must have known of the "terrorists" but kept their silence and allowed their murderous conspiracy to continue instead of coming forward. They should all pay. Should they? The villagers were there, weren't they? No one would talk and it is impractical to torture/interrogate an entire village. "Justice" must be done. Let's shift along to an unamed guerilla insurgency..think Malaysia, Vietnam/French Indochina, that sort of thing. You visit village....an ammo cache is discovered under one hut along with materials for a booby trap of a type that brutally killed your friend two days ago. No one will admit to owning the hut. Is it really practical to put the village on trial......send out a team of interrogators & police investigators? Not likely. Naturally then, we should slaughter some/all and/or destroy the village for complicity in and payback for a brutal murder. How could the other villagers not have known it was there? You haven't bothered to talk to them all, but really how practical is that......you don't have the time. Just look at their faces; they're laughing at us.....we're not letting these bastards get away with it. Shoot em all and let God sort it out.....I believe that's the T-Shirt. You can talk about practicality all you like. Just don't talk about "justice" in the same breath. It is justice cast aside in the search for revenge on the closest target. I understand there were any number of surviving prisoners at Dachau that could have identified guards for the Americans as opposed to, for example, the somewhat unfortunate detachment that got lumbered with the camp after the actual guards ran off. There was no reason of which I am aware for the soldiers to think that somehow the guards were going to escape justice if they weren't shot straight away......the witnesses were right in front of them. For that reason I reject arguments that the extra-judicial murder of prisoners had to occur or some of the guilty might have gone free. I would agree with arguments that the killings meant that those guards that had left the camp were now less likely to be punished than before. It is entirely possible that the killings increased injustice rather than provided it by inadvertently helping to shelter the guilty.

I went to university in Wellington and spent around seven years in total there...would happily have stayed except that employment took me elsewhere. Very fond of the place. Declined a bit since then? Cheeky scamp. I like the town and country feel, although tis gradually losing that as it becomes more absorbed into the greater Auckland sprawl. I suppose such musings are slightly off topic and I believe my lunch hour has finished, so I'll get back to work....

I'm in Papakura, Jon, about 35km south of Auckland city where I spend my workdays. I maintain that I live in Counties and have nothing to do with these Aucklander folk Yourself? Regards Ivan McIntosh

Oh, and I would add that you are still asserting that medical personell were killed without a shred of evidence even mentioning such a thing. Is it really me that has a "serious inability to read what was actually written"?

An adcvanced aid post - not so far removed from a field hospital, and your comment about it being "inflamatory and offensive nonsense" is itself bull. what's the difference between a field hospital and an advanced aid post? Both are places where wounded are collected. I had what I consider a minor failure of memory that produced a minor mistake. your reaction is excssive and my point remainns - wounded and medical personnel were killed without being in a position to defend themselves - why is it OK at an aid post but not at a field hospital? Good god what a lot of absolute crap - I made no such comments - my comments were that I thought I had infomation on New Zealanders overrunnign a field hospital (sic) and I could get more information if it was required. That you read such absolute nonsense into it is your problem and shows a serious inability to read what was actually written! Good day to you </font>

Um...apart from my comment on hte Kiwi's being doped up, yuor account is merely more detailed than mine...</font>

I cannot let that pass, it is not even remotely close to what I understand to have occurred (if anyone can know that sixty years on). This is, however, being typed at work without reference materials to hand. That situation referred to was the breakout of the entire 2nd NZ Division from Minquar Quaim, where they had been stranded by a withdrawal of British forces behind them. The Afrika Korps expected to annihilate 2nd NZ Division the following day. The New Zealanders waited until nightfall and then broke out before they could be destroyed. From a German regimental history excerpt quoted or paraphrased on the Axis History Forum: "The 4./Schtz.Rgt.104 under Olt.Pfeiffer holds the line during the night. Suddenly the far left platoon fires a Pak and suddenly crowds of enemy soldiers assault the german positions with bayonets. From the left enemy M.G. and Pak fire starts and causes heavy casualties. Soon the german defenders and the attackes are mixed up in close combat and no side can bring M.G.s into action. The enemy sets several vehicles on fire including ambulance cars with wounded soldiers which were not brought back during the day. Olt.Pfeiffer is injured by three bullets and grenade fragments. The enemy infantry is followed by trucks maned with soldiers firing and throwing handgrenades. After 15 minutes the attack is over. The enemy disappears into the night via the northern side of the Wadi. The I./104 loses in this engagement 100 KIA and about the same number WIA" The incident referred to therefore occured in darkness and in the course of a confused jumble of hand to hand fighting against both fighting and supporting elements of 21 Panzer Div including its HQ. In the course of that melee it wound seem that Germans were shot and/or bayonetted multiple times in addition to a small (unknown, but 2-3?) number of ambulances with wounded in them that were destroyed in passing, presumably along with every other piece of German transport to hand. From the NZ Official History: "Using bayonets, rifles, tommy guns, Brens fired from the hip and the newly-issued bakelite grenade, the two battalions penetrated into the centre of the close-parked laager. Here, for a few minutes, there was the ‘impassioned drama’ of war. No chances could be taken. Kill or be killed. The bayonet was used with terrifying effect. The German slumped in the corner of a trench or lying on the ground might be shamming. He might fire a shot or throw a grenade when backs were turned. A thrust or a bullet eliminated the risk. In the slit trenches, most of the Germans had their boots off. Some were undressed. While some Germans attempted to surrender and some to make off by foot and in trucks, others fought hard. Machine-gunners who used the light of burning trucks or of deliberately lit petrol fires to help their aim were dealt with by the simple process of assault from all points except on the line of fire. Truck drivers used wheeled and half-tracked vehicles as tanks in efforts to overrun the attackers. Some got away, but most fell victim to bullets and bombs, including the sticky grenade. The flashes of explosions, the blaze of burning vehicles, the smoke, dust and the yells and screams made an inferno through which 19 and 20 Battalions fought their way to the far side of the laager. They had punched the required hole. On the eastern side of the wadi, the companies and battalions reformed while the transport came up in response to the success signal. " I think it was an inevitable result of such a breakout in darkness that the attackers shot and/or bayonetted everything they ran across, whether it had already been shot/bayonetted or not...what, they were going to stop and check? That is perfectly understandable and in no way a war crime. The Germans protested the death of their wounded. The explanation below was given directly to Rommel by Brigadier Clifton (later captured) and appeared (on Clifton's evidence) to be accepted. "Speaking in german, although evidently he understood English, he proceeded to harangue me about the 'gangster' methods of the New Zealanders. It appeared that we had bayoneted the German wounded at Minqarqaim in the night battle behind Matruh and he was very much annoyed by it. He said that if we wanted to fight rough, so could they, and that any further action of this sort on our part would be answered by immediate reprisals. As the nearest New Zealander available for such reprisals, it became a rather personal matter to me. I was, however, able to explain our point of view over the occurances of that famous night attack. Our first wave, going through in the dark, caught the Germans by surprise. Some of them, lying on the ground, had fired and thrown bombs after the first company had passed. As a result, the supports following on simply stuck every man who failed to stand up and surrender. It is quite likely that some of the Germans were bayoneted several times by people in passing." It seems that Rommel accepted the explanation. I have never heard of a story that the kiwis were "doped up". Official German reports refer bitterly to "thousands of drunken New Zealanders"; that may be where the accusation comes from. I would be inclined to believe more than a few medicinal swigs were taken before charging off into the darkness, but the quote seems somewhat over the top. They were more than likely bloody scared and twitchy on the trigger, inclined to shoot first and ask questions not at all, and involved in a confusing and lethal melee. But doped up? Never heard of such a thing. Did a New Zealander or New Zealanders realise, in the darkness, that they had rolled a grenade under an ambulance or had emptied a Bren magazine into a vehicle that when closer they could see was an ambulance? I don't know. I don't know how close they would have had to be to see. I can easily imagine it. It is also possible that some bastard carelessly or deliberately shot one up, but my money says it was an unfortunate accident in the middle of a particularly brutal battle in the middle of the night and no war crime at all. I do not think it fair to tarnish the 2nd NZ Division with this hospital massacre connotation.