Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Content Count

    490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SimpleSimon last won the day on February 5 2020

SimpleSimon had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SimpleSimon

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

986 profile views
  1. Imagine actually having your Puma shot out from under you by a Jeep. 🤣 Realistically I've heard the .50cal Jeep wasn't terribly viable. The M2 shook the vehicle violently when it fired from its mount and I imagine if the crew would usually dismount it whenever able. We definitely need something like a recon campaign-which in the theory the game engine should support well. Imagine a campaign mostly focused on own-objective sort of stuff like unit survival rather than enemy destruction and yeah it could work great.
  2. Certainly it'd be more reasonable to use them like fighting vehicles if the threat environment consisted almost entirely of infantry in soft positions. I'm not saying it never happened, US Army doctrine even pushed it to a degree. Just that the designs were not generally built for it. Like by comparison the Universal Carrier was a widely produced APC, was hyper successful, and couldn't even carry a full squad of infantry. It was a carrier for the heaps of heavy equipment and specialist troops the British envisioned they'd actually have an enormous number of cases for. Really if we're precise a
  3. APCs are for splinter protection from all the ubiquitous and unceasing artillery fire that saturated battlefields of the 20th century. Like it legit rained HE frag everywhere. Most of them were "bulletproof" only in the barest sense and in practice it was generally understood that infantry should dismount for a fight at the first opportunity. They are not really fighting vehicles. They could be used in a fight, but their weapons were mainly intended for self defense.
  4. I'm pretty sure the BAR found its way in, but according to the description the Browning .30cals and M2s on the halftracks could be dismounted from the vehicles and tripods were provided. I would not be surprised if this was almost always done when the whole Platoon dismounted.
  5. One of the most understated issues was that the Red Army-like every Army of the interwar period-was in the middle of a huge re-armament program. Aside from the obvious dangers posed by Fascism, observations from the Spanish Civil War, especially the debacle in Finland all made it clear that the Red Army was in a lamentable state in the 1930s. Stalin just gambled that Hitler was more rational than he was, believing at one point during the opening of the invasion that Hitler didn't even know it was happening-that a group of rogue German Generals were behind it! Sounds familiar doesn't it?
  6. It's a shame we don't have horses in the game. Quite a few armies were still using them-Cavalry Divisions especially-in reconnaissance. Germany had at least one Cavalry Division at the start of the war and it was still around during Operation Barbarossa I think. Not sure how its Aufklarung might've looked or if it even had one.
  7. I've considered designing a few scenarios when the module is released that basically incorporate a combination of exit zones and touch objectives to better convey what recon is up to than stuff like the explicit "probe" rules. Exit zones in particular seem very important to me as recon would rarely be camping anywhere for very long. The pressure is to push on forward and outwards and continuously verify the Division's path ahead. As we can see from your demonstration, armored recon need not much concern itself with scattered infantry remnants-probably most the Division won't either. Infantry D
  8. A pleasure. Do you happen to know what the Infantry Divisions would typically have in the way of a recon? How it was configured etc? Were they expected to behave differently from their armored counterparts? I guess the doctrine split could be expressed as "Russian School" and "African School" and was influenced a bit by the way in which German Officers observed the Russians using tanks in their recon squadrons. What better way to shut down the enemy's recon than to just kill it right? That's the Red Army for you. "All or Nothing". It's not that the Russians didn't do recon, it's just tha
  9. Another word, the full title for German reconnaissance formations was Aufklarungsabteilung which was something of a translation complication in western circles for years because the term abteilung is used frequently in German documentation and has no direct English translation-but generally means office of or administration. So the whole term could properly be thought of as "Office of Reconnaissance" but native German speakers are more than welcome to correct me on this. In theory the Panzer Divisions would always have an armored recon attachment with attached infantry and anti-tank guns
  10. A lot of that is basically available in the HUNT command. Again, we're playing a game that is heavily focused around facilitating set-piece battles and sieges. The CM games can do maneuver well enough, but the designers don't seem to have a very good of picture of the sort of "day to day" routines military forces follow that don't match up to the "pitched battle for hill 235" picture they usually hold. German Armored Recon had a saying that went like "see much and be seen little". The motto was an overall abstraction of their training that emphasized avoidance all but the most helpless o
  11. CM scenarios are usually a bit overpopulated to execute proper recce missions as designed unfortunately. It can be done, but the scenario designers don't usually seem to have a good picture of how recon works and what it's doing. So the player always gets asked to do insanely dangerous stuff like close probes and infiltration. Recon typically tried to avoid fighting as much possible except against targets they could obviously trounce, think a 232 vs a pair of guys in a fox hole. If you try to use armored cars like tanks you will be very disappointed. If you try to use them like a Kubelwa
  12. Been a problem for years unfortunately. The game needs a "path forecaster" tool of some kind to more precisely show what you're going to get from what you lay down. At the very least a wall/door highlighter of some kind would be extremely useful for avoiding some entirely avoidable pathing snafus.
  13. HEAT rounds weren't provided for the 25 pounder until 1944, and not many were made because by then the 17 pounder was available. An AP round was provided instead-in theory for self defense-but in North Africa guns and sometimes whole batteries had to be set aside as anti-tank guns for a while until the 6 pounder became more widely available. In general it wasn't preferred to use the guns that way-it removed them from the overall fire control network they were a part of-but necessity often required the guns be employed in forward positions. Then of course there was doctrinal stuff like th
  14. A whole class of guns existed during and before the war you know that had big guns but lacked the benefit of things like protection and self propulsion. They were known as "infantry guns" and they were designed entirely for direct fire on positions they had line of sight toward. That sounds pretty silly at first-but at the ranges of intended use, such as a kilometer or more-most infantry weapons had great difficulty hitting you and you could just bombard them. Infantry guns were slowly being supplanted by mortars as the war went on, but stuck around for a bit when the tank began to appear on t
  15. Speaks for itself. The LMG conversion failed because ARs don't make good MGs, but as we can visibly see today politicians and the public don't see a difference. What are the chances a budget committee did in 1959?
×
×
  • Create New...