SelfLoadingRifle

In the forthcoming Commonwealth module, British officers of Major and above should come with black Labrador retrievers, leash optional.

I hope this amuses. I have cast Sakai in the role played by Peter Cook. The Recce Commander takes the part of Perkins as played by Jonathan Miller. SLR

Sticking head gingerly above parapet... I think former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan summed it up perfectly when he said that the only thing that you could predict about the Arabs was that they were completely unpredictable!! SLR

Sakai I bet your (virtual) recce vehicle crews really love you:eek::eek: Allow me to make a couple of constructive suggestions. 1) Pair up your recce vehicles and keep one foot on the ground at all time, meaning one unit will always be stationary in a position to observe any enemy activity and give covering fire to the other while it advances. That way if the advancing unit runs into trouble, at least its partner will have a sporting chance of identifying what is shooting at it and where it is located. 2) Try dismounting your crews. For example, don't just drive over every ridgeline. That is a sure-fire way of getting your crews and vehicles converted to molten slag. Stop your vehicle short of the ridgeline, order the crew to bail out and then have them conduct their recce on foot using available cover such as woods/undergrowth or buildings. That way they stand a far better chance of both surviving and locating the enemy. When the recce is complete you can re-embark the crew back into the vehicle. If I was in one of your (virtual) recce crews, I would have (virtually) fragged you by now:D:D Time spent in recce is time seldom wasted (but you have to survive in order to report what you have seen.) SLR

I don't have too much problem with the hide command. I am assuming that it simulates soldiers with their heads well down doing their best to preserve life and limb. My real problem is with the algorithm Battlefront uses whereby infantry units are spotted whilst in cover. It can be incredibly frustrating when a unit you have placed in good cover such as a building, woods or hedgerow with a shortened arc of fire is spotted first and opened fire on by units advancing in the open at range. I know from real-life that when an infantry soldier is in good cover, preferably in shadow he is incredibly difficult to spot. He can see what is going on around him whilst remaining unobserved until he reveals his position by opening fire. This is even more the case when he is properly cammed up. SLR

1) I recall reading comments on the effect of artillery on barbed wire in WW1. The complaint was that the explosions merely lifted the wire up and dumped it back down again in an even worse tangle than before. Comments please! 2) Demo charges seem to double as bangalore torpedos in the game, which is certainly one way past wire, driving a tank through it another. 3) With regard to mines, I am not so sure. How long does it take to clear a minefield? At Kursk I believe that the Germans were lifting mines at a rate of a mine a minute per sapper prior to the initial assault. However, if it takes -say - an hour to clear a minefield, then that probably puts mine clearance outside the scope of the game. SLR

Hmm... 1) Artillery/mortars seem to have been the principal killers, as per real life. 2) These two opposing forces of pixeltruppen seem to have been particularly well motivated. Historically, I would have expected the morale of both sides to have started wobbling at 25 to 30% casualty levels. However the Americans were still in the fight at 75% and the Germans until they were almost completely wiped out. What was the experience level of the forces involved, and what were their leadership ratings? 3) The first side to reinforce would have certainly carried the day. Remember that in real-life the Germans were very good indeed at counter-attacking... Perhaps a German counterattack vs American attempts to consolidate would be a good subject for the sequel. I enjoyed this. SLR:)

As a point of interest, the doctrine for dealing with wounded in the real world doesn't seem consistent. Winston Churchill records that if a man went down in Afghanistan (1880s I think) two other men were removed from the fight when they went to assist. Reading between the lines, the same would seem to apply in that theatre today - shades of: "When you're wounded and out on Afghanistan's plains and the women come out to cut up what remains". As an old Cold War grunt I was always taught in training that the wounded had to look after themselves until after the immediate tactical situation had been resolved, but then again, we had 'man down' drills which I always thought confused the issue! Different era, different enemy. CMN of course concerns the generation before mine; different again. I am a Brit. The German and American doctrines on such matters might not be the same as ours. Comments please. SLR

Good point. I do know from experience that a shell-scrape is a different kettle of fish from a properly prepared and cammed up fire-trench, but then again, I am from a different era. More reading and research is required. "Wait-Out." SLR

A quick point; check out the many photos of Allied foxholes in Normandy. In all examples I have seen, there has been no attempt at all to use cam and concealment. The result of course, is that they stick out like the proverbial beer mat on a billiard table. The reason (of course) is that given their total air superiority, Allied troops really didn't feel the need! I think that - for the Allies at anyrate - Battlefront have got this about right. On the other hand, the Germans were meticulous about camming up their positions, and this does not seem to have been allowed for in the simulation. In terms of coding, would this be fixable? SLR

This is fine in theory, but I don't know if it would be practical in CM. In reality everything would depend on the ground. Agricultural fields are usually very diggable, in wooded areas tree roots can make life difficult, rock of course is impossible unless you construct a stone sangar (not a 5 minute procedure) and of course for low lying areas there is always the water table, which means that if sandbags are used your scrape/trench usually ends up above ground level. SLR

Are there any tankies out there who could comment? SLR

I have been playing Combat Mission in its various forms ever since CMBO came out, so I think it is safe to say that I am a long-term fan. While I rate CMN as currently the best WW2 company/battalion level simulation available to the public there a few niggles remail that I would like Battlefront to sort out. My wish list is as follows. 1) Tanks to only be able to fire while stationary. 2) The 'hunt' facility for tanks to be restored. 3) Barbed wire should be crossable by infantry, but VERY SLOWLY. Currently it has a similar effect to an un-climbable wall or bocage, less of course the offering of cover. Historically, wire was (and still is) not much more than an inconvenience unless covered by fire. Driving a tank over and flattening it was one solution. Another might be the adding of bangalore torpedoes to the game. Perhaps demo charges could double for them though. 4) Engineers (and possibly infantry) should be able to clear minefields. Battlefront will surely need to think hard about this one, certainly before the first CM2 Eastern Front game is released. The mine was one of the most significant weapons deployed at the battle of Kursk, and for any scenarios on that particular battle to be included all mine related simulation will certainly need to be spot-on. 5) The protection offered by buildings to infantry needs to be reviewed. Ancient structures with thick walls should offer significantly better protection than more modern construction. Currently only churches seem to offer reasonable protection. Everything else seems to be a bullet-trap. 6) Destroyed armour should offer protection to any vehicle or footslogger (exploding munitions excepted) using it as cover. The process of getting knocked out shouldn't transform a tank into bacofoil in simulation any more than it does in real-life. 7) Snipers (or more accurately sharpshooters as they are depicted in CMN AND CMSF) need looking at. Currently sharpshooters are simulated, snipers ARE NOT. 8) I'm not so sure of my ground on this one, but my gut feeling is that indirect fire and off-map artillery needs reviewing. In my day (the 1980's) battalion assets such as mortars were available to the Platoon Commander, and I believe the same would have applied in WW2. My feeling is that anything bigger in CMN ie assigned at brigade or divisional level should only be available to one FOO dedicated to the battery in question (or ship in the case of naval support.) I have an artillery related question of my own to ask here. If a FOO is WIA'd (incapacitated) or KIA'd, provided his radio is still intact, should a member of his team be able to continue with the fire-mission, albeit at a reduced level of efficiency? If there are any ex or serving gunners on this forum who could give an informed answer, I would be very grateful for a reply;) CMN is a great product, and I have every confidence that Battlefront will continue to improve it. SLR

An excellent service rifle... BUT 1) The eight round capacity was too small and... 2) When the eighth round is fired, the clip is ejected with a very audible TINGGGG noise announcing to all and sundry that your weapon is empty. Both of these problems were addressed with the M14, which in this writer's opinion is the best service rifle that the U.S. has EVER produced, and is still in the top rankings today. SLR

1) Debatable: The Sherman was a match for the Pz IV, but NOT the Pz V or Tigers. It was a good anti-infantry tool, and the Rhino variant enabled it to go cross-country in bocage, which gave a significant advantage over the Germans who had to stick to the roads. 2) German veterans might beg to differ with you on this one. Manoeuvre by day was often fraught with danger. Check out the many pictures of heavily cammed up German vehicles. Allied airpower was the primary reason for this. 3) The following does not apply to certain exceptional U.S. units but to bog standard formations only. Basically Ambrose was wrong, Hastings was right. The U.S. used the infantry as a dumping ground for the less able, and the whole 'General Infantry' concept was flawed. The British regimental and the German divisional systems were streets ahead, enabling soldiers of these nations to develop more of a sense of belonging and pride in their units than the G.I.s. U.S. infantry did improve though. 4) U.S. MGs were not sub-par. The problem was that the German MG 34 and 42 were world beaters. 5) Totally disagree. The Garand was a truly great service rifle for its day. 6) There were a few logistic hiccoughs, but in the main, the Allied logistic operation worked very well. 6) U.S. Artillery was indeed superb. I will listen respectfully to all arguments. Apologies (again) for any ruffled feathers. SLR

In a bunker? A pitching wedge perhaps, depending of course on how the ball is lying. SLR.

Not my experience either. I placed a bazooka team in light wood in the 'Le Desert' scenario and it took out a Panther attempting to come through that way in very short order. My one and only 57mm AT gun had a field day as well, knocking out a couple of Panthers plus a few half tracks as well. However, please take note, I did make sure it was unlimbered, which is something that is very easy to overlook. Also, Normandy style hedgerows can be very awkward at times. It is easy enough to fire such ordnance as rifles and BARs through them, but anything heavier (in my experience) often presents problems. I haven't done any related tests, but perhaps bazookas might fall into this category? Would anyone out there like to offer a test based answer on this - one way or another? SLR

Agreed... CERTAIN Waffen SS... A small point, the correct spelling for "hole" is WHOLE. SLR

I think that Rommel hit the nail squarely on the head when (post Kasserine Pass) he said of Americans - and I paraphrase - that he had never seen troops who had performed so badly in their first time in action, but who had improved so much by their second time. The following link would seem to confirm this. http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp From reading the likes of Ambrose, Hastings and Beevor, my assessment of the opposing nationalities is as follows: All the nationalities had their crack forces. Whether (for example) U.S./Brit Airborne, or Waffen SS, I would rate these as crack/veteran with a sprinkling of named elite, for example, Captain Dick Winters, Major John Howard or Captain Michael Wittman. For bog standard line units, I would rate the Germans as regular with a sprinkling of veterans, and perhaps a very few green. For German REMF units (were they called 'ear and lung'?) you would get a real mix, I would say mostly green/conscript, but with the occasional regular or veteran thrown in. For the Americans circa D Day, I would rate their bog standard infantry as regular/green. Their armour - or should that be armor? - I would rate as regular/veteran. I would rate the more experienced British infantry (also circa D Day) as mostly regular with the very occasional veteran. Brit armour, which had already suffered rough handling at the hands of the Germans and were rather more cautious as a result, scores regular/green. Artillery on all sides was good, and I would award them veteran rating. As the war progressed, I would say that the Americans became better, the British worse, wereas the Germans - on the whole - remained pretty damn good. Apologies for ruffled feathers. SLR P.S. Feel free to disagree!!!

In my humble opinion some things sound better in German. These include: 1) The carol 'Silent Night' 2) Any song sung by Marlene Dietrich 3) Anything by Mozart. 4) CMN German voice files. This proposed mod would make CMN all a bit too 'Hogan's Heroes' for my tastes. Others might not agree. I will however observe with interest. Good luck and don't let this stop you. SLR

'Schlossem Boschem' (Jerome K. Jerome: Three Men In A Boat) would be an acceptable Germanic sounding phrase for 'fire for effect'. Also a look through any back issue of Commando magazine (still going strong) might also provide a number of interesting alternatives. " Take zat yankee schweinhund, for you zer var is over" SLR

Wasn't there a particularly good example of shrapnell arty airburst used with consistent success against the French in the defence of Hougoumont Farm at the Battle of Waterloo? Technology was much more primitive back then, but in that episode those guys really seemed to make it work. SLR

I have just achieved a very one sided victory in the original version as American playing the computer. Verdict: Great map and force composition, however this scenario seems to highlight the weaknesses of the AI, rather than playing to its strengths. Consequently I feel that with this scenario, H2H is really the only way to go. SLR

Bingo or House calls for 88 Today: "Two fat ladies - eighty eight" 1940s: "Eighty eight - driver reverse" SLR

I think that much depends on the forest in question. Evergreen forest tends to have little to no undergrowth, and as described earlier in this thread, offers next to no cover, air attacks usually excepted. Deciduous forest of course is an altogether different proposition, featuring different types and size of trees growing at random - no orderly forestry plantation here - and often including uneven ground plus heavy undergrowth. Clearing such a forest via infantry assault is usually a cast-iron bitch, as any grunt will confirm. SLR