Centurian52
-
Posts
1,190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Centurian52
-
-
I'll use them as makeshift medics, have them stay back to provide comms for the mortars, move up to be another FO, or (when I'm being very sloppy, and even then only in the most dire of emergencies) use them as an extra assault team.
-
12 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
I'm surprised how long it took for Lindy's Bren vs MG42 video to be mentioned (I was sure that the OP would be about it when I first saw the title).
In CM it's clearly the MG42 though, the Bren is nowhere near. I don't think number 2s (hehe) assisting the loading process would make much difference. The Bren gunner still has to take aim again, and spread his fire, and that feature would also reduce the reload time for the MG42 by a significant margin.
I think I saw LindyBeige's video years ago. If he was the only one to ever bring this up, I don't think I ever would have made this thread. It was really James Holland who gave me the kick to start taking another look at this. I vehemently disagreed with LindyBeige when I first saw his video, but I had warmed up to his arguments a bit by the time I started reading James Holland.
I'm betting that even if both assisted loading and overheating made it into the game, the MG42 would still come out ahead. Combat Mission may not be representing them perfectly, and assisted loading and overheating may close the gap a bit, but I doubt the game is off by all that much.
Don't discount how much of a difference assisted loading would make though. Yes, it would speed up the reloading of the MG42 a fair amount. Having a bit of help can really speed up the loading of a belt-fed weapon. But for a top-loaded magazine-fed weapon the difference is night and day. The gunner doesn't even need to lose his aim. I'd highly recommend watching April 9th (Danish war movie, search for either April 9th or 9 April). Mostly because it's a really good war movie that I recommend to everyone at every opportunity, but also because that first battle scene gives a really great demonstration of how quickly the assistant can reload a Madsen (which is also a top-loaded magazine-fed LMG, like the Bren).
-
I think there are a number of problems here.
1. The graphical representation of the terrain is far from perfect, so there is not a 1 to 1 relation between the battlefield you are seeing and the battlefield your pixeltruppen are seeing (though if you want to have a slightly better idea of what your pixeltruppen are seeing, it helps to turn off all of the icons).
2. People tend to lack direct experience with trying to spot similar objects under similar conditions to our pixeltruppen. They generally don't live out in the countryside. Those that do live out in the countryside tend not to spend their time looking for people hundreds of meters away wearing dull clothing, or looking for vehicles hundreds of meters away with dull paint schemes. Even fewer people have any experience with scanning the countryside for dull colored people or vehicles hundreds of meters away through periscopes or vision slits. Hapless actually has a great video demonstrating this last point. At about the one minute mark he gives an excellent demonstration of how difficult it is to see out of a BMP-2 using Steel Beasts (playing any vehicle based game which limits you (or which gives you the option of limiting yourself) to viewing the world through the vehicle's internal optics, such as Steel Beasts or Enlisted, will instantly make you much more forgiving towards the spotting ability of your tank crewmen).
3. People routinely underestimate how much more difficult tasks, which are very simple out of combat, become under combat conditions. Not only spotting, but also marksmanship and basic decision-making all suffer severely under combat conditions. It's easier to provide numbers for marksmanship than it is for spotting, but hopefully this is enough to illustrate how strong of an effect combat can have on normally simple tasks. The book War Games: The Psychology of Combat, by Leo Murray, claimed that soldiers are about 1/6th as effective with their fire in real combat compared to realistic exercises* (I've lost my copy so I can't provide the exact quote and page number). Keeping in mind that accuracy in realistic exercises is already much less than accuracy on a shooting range, where soldiers are firing at fixed targets at known distances from stable positions. In the Napoleonic era (because I have access to better data than for more modern eras), an accuracy test of assorted smoothbore muskets resulted in one hit for every 4-5 rounds fired (21%-28% hits) at a target roughly the size of an infantry company placed 320 yards away from the shooter, while in real combat somewhere between 200 and 500 rounds tended to be fired for every 1 casualty inflicted (459 rounds for every French casualty at Vittoria according to R. Henegan, 224 rounds for every British casualty at Hougoumont according to Mark Adkin). That's a difference of 40-100:1 between a shooting range and combat. Again, I'm using marksmanship because it's easier to provide data for it than it is for spotting (and because I'm always happy for any excuse to pull out any data that I happen to be keeping in my back pocket), but it's still very relevant because many of the factors that make hitting targets more difficult in a realistic exercise compared to a shooting range, and in real combat compared to a realistic exercise, will also make spotting more difficult.
4. Last, and probably least, maybe the spotting system in Combat Mission isn't quite perfect.
*I should mention that the book never specified how much of the estimated sixfold reduction in fire effectiveness was a reduction in the accuracy of the fire, and how much of it was a reduction in the volume of fire (because soldiers were more suppressed by the cracking of real bullets).
-
@zastincahvsoz8689 Describe the tactical utility of space butter
-
Bloke on the Range figured his shot groups with the Kar 98k and SMLE were around 2 inches, and he was firing at 50 yards. That comes out to a hair under 4 MOA. Not as good as the 2 MOA that I remember the first guy claiming (I wish I could find that first video, but it's been years), but still perfectly adequate accuracy for military rifles (I remember being told that my M16A2 was accurate to within about 4 MOA). Whether these are 2 MOA rifles, 4 MOA rifles, or somewhere in between, it seems that neither of the shooters that I've seen comparing them so far were able to find a meaningful difference in their accuracy.
-
I'm still hopeful that they'll get around to it. I think a careful reading of what Steve means whenever he says that sales wouldn't justify doing early-war content suggests that sales wouldn't justify doing early-war content right now. They can't do it in one big leap because there is too much new equipment that has to be modeled. But he has also implied many times that it is something they might be interested in doing someday. He openly said in the 2024 part 1 thread that they think France 1940 would be a great game to make, there's just too much new equipment for them to do it right now. He has said before that the only realistic way to do early-war would be to move back incrementally (and he hinted that 1943/44 eastern front might be on the table). The barrier seems to be the sheer amount of new formations and equipment that needs to be done, which would require a greater investment in time and money than they would be likely to get back in sales. But it is a barrier that can be chipped away at by moving the clock back in increments rather than in one great leap backwards.
What it all points to for me is that early-war, including North Africa, is probably still on the table. But it's a long way off, and no promises can be made at this point. They focused on doing the late-war first since that was clearly more profitable than early-war. Now that the late-war is finished it seems only logical that they're probably about ready to start inching the clock back. And pushing the clock back just one increment more from where we left off in the Mediterranean theater gets us into the fighting in Tunisia in 1943, which was the last campaign fought in North Africa. But I'm guessing at this point that a Tunisia 1943 game is still quite a few years away, seeing as other projects that shall not be named are probably going to be taking priority for a while.
So no, I don't think there will be any North Africa content in the short term (next few years at least). But I don't recall Steve ever saying never.
-
I actually don't mind low-visibility missions. They are certainly different. Night tactics have to be different from day tactics in the pre-night vision era, and the same goes for fighting in thick fog in the pre-thermals era. Learning how to fight effectively at night, when you're used to fighting effectively in the day, is certainly a challenge. Night and thick fog make defense more difficult. Areas that would be covered by fire from one or more positions during clear daytime conditions suddenly become gaps in the line during low visibility conditions. Low visibility also makes attack more difficult. Supporting heavy-weapons that would be able to provide cover for your advancing troops during clear conditions become isolated and unable to help. The system for how to fight in clear daytime conditions breaks down, and you have to learn an almost entirely new tactical system. It's a challenge, and I don't think I've quite got it figured out yet, but I know I'm up to the challenge.
-
I started with CMSF in 2009, but then went on to discover the CM1 games years later. Which I think qualifies me to pass judgement on CM1 without the "first high school girlfriend" effect mentioned by @MikeyD. I think CM1 is an excellent game engine. It is definitely still the second best game engine in the world for realistic tactical ground warfare. But, CM2 is clearly better overall (especially in its current state). CM1 already had tank/anti-tank combat pretty much nailed down, and I think it may have even done a slightly better job of representing air support/anti-air (still no visual model, but my AA guns seem to be tracking moving air targets across the sky rather than shooting at an apparently fixed point). But CM2 is definitely a huge leap in infantry combat, spotting, and artillery.
I have noticed the occasional feature in CM1 that would actually be really nice to have in CM2. The 'move to contact' order would be useful. The 'hunt' order tires out my pixeltruppen if I use it too much, so what I really want is to tell my men to 'move, but stop moving if you get shot at'. I think CM2 was right to ditch CM1's orders delay system though. My view is that the point of an orders delay system is to represent the time it takes for an order to travel from its point of origin (a commander) to its destination (a subordinate). A game can only calculate the correct delay if the orders have a single point of origin, meaning the player has to be a single officer on the battlefield. But since that isn't how CM games work (the player is every officer and NCO on the battlefield, not just one of them) an orders delay system really isn't a good fit for Combat Mission.
Overall I can very highly recommend CMAK and CMBB (never bothered picking up CMBO since I assume it's been pretty much completely superseded by CMBN and CMFB at this point) to anyone itching for some early-war combat who can't wait for CM2 or a potential new engine to get around to covering the early-war.
-
On 2/26/2024 at 6:04 PM, Halmbarte said:
The original Bradley could swim after erecting a swimming screen.
H
I stand corrected. Fortunately my comment has a double negative in it that I must have missed when I was checking for typos, so what I said was accidentally correct.
-
16 minutes ago, Brille said:
~1200 rpm with no option to alter it.
There are no switches or buttons on the weapon to change the firing rate. You change the firing rate by swapping out the bolts (heavier bolt if you want a slower rate of fire, lighter bolt if you want a faster rate of fire). This will have been done in advance by the army adopting the MG3, so I don't believe there is any way for the end-user to pick their own preferred rate of fire.
-
13 hours ago, Brille said:
@Centurian52 I watched a YouTube video from Lindybeige once who compared the "Spandaus" with the Bren and give it a little praise.
He also came up with most of your arguments.
I guess it is not the matter of "which one is better". Both weapons were made with different mind sets and therefore have different properties.
It is like the old debate of which bolt action of ww 2 is better.
I often read that the Kar 98k has an advantage in accuracy above all the other ones even the Enfield. But more accuracy by what is not so often stated if at all and If it really had much of an impact on the battlefield.
And in the end just because one weapons is good or better in one or multiple aspects doesnt make the other ones bad or worthless.
I have fired the MG3 2 or 3 times back in my conscription days and could not hit the broadside of a barn with it.
But we only got something around 30 rounds for each of the instances which would be somewhat of 2 to 3 bursts when you are not yet trained in firecontrol. So besides of me being a lousy shot we got not much opportunity with it.
However we did get to use it in a nightfire exercise in its tripod configuration and managed to totally waste a barrel...and the MG3 was an already downthrotteled MG42.
So you really need to take care of the overheating problem.
I remember watching Lindybeige's video a while back. That's what first made me aware that there was even a debate at all. I think he did a decent job with that video overall, though he did repeat the Bren accuracy myth and the MG42 inaccuracy myth. I disagree with his overall conclusion. I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren, though I've come to realize that they're much closer than I used to think. When I started making my way through James Holland's books, and he also proclaimed the Bren to be better (though he also repeated both of the accuracy myths), I realized that there is apparently a lot more debate on the issue than I knew. While neither LindyBeige nor James Holland were able to convince me that the Bren is actually better, they did manage to convince me that there is an interesting discussion to be had, hence this thread.
As for the Kar 98k vs SMLE, I suspect the Kar 98k may be suffering from a similar accuracy myth to the Bren. I've seen a couple of videos of shooters comparing the accuracy they could achieve with the Kar 98k and SMLE (Bloke on the Range most recently, and the other video was long enough ago that I don't remember who it was). And despite both of them complaining that they didn't like the Kar 98k's sights as much as the SMLE's sights, they both achieved very similar shot groupings with both weapons. I remember in the first video (the one that I don't remember who made it) the shooter achieved about 2 MOA with both rifles. Which is more than adequate accuracy for a military rifle. The SMLE is definitely a bit better in a handful of minor ways (bolt is right next to the firing hand so it's a smaller and quicker motion to operate it, the bolt is pulled back a shorter distance so you don't have to move your head and lose your sight picture, magazine takes ten rounds rather than just five), but I don't think they add up to a tangible battlefield advantage.
For the most part WW2 bolt-action rifles all have pretty much identical battlefield performance (there's basically nothing at all to choose from between a Kar 98k, a MAS-36, a Mosin Nagant, and an M1903 Springfield). I did watch April 9th recently, about the German invasion of Denmark in 1940 (the first battle scene in that movie gives an excellent demonstration of just how rapidly a no.2 gunner can reload an LMG with a top-loaded magazine, though in this case it's a Madsen rather than a Bren). And the Krag-Jorgensen rifle that the Danish troops are equipped with is most definitely very tangibly worse than other WW2 bolt-action rifles. It's perfectly accurate and reliable, but it can't be reloaded by 5-round stripper clips like every other rifle. Instead you have to reload it one round at a time through a door in the side of the rifle. Absolutely a state-of-the-art rifle when it entered service in 1889, but there are downsides to being one of the first smokeless powder rifles ever designed (no one thought to design it to accommodate clips because no one had invented clips yet).
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. Back to machine guns. Yes I believe the Bundeswehr MG3 is downthrottled to 1200 rpm (though the MG3 comes with options, and other armies that use it have downthrottled it to as low as 800 rpm). I believe the MG42 also had a bit of a range, depending on how heavy of a bolt you used, of between 900 and 1500 rpm. I think the default was near the top of that range, otherwise 1200 rpm wouldn't have been considered much of a downthrottling. James Holland certainly likes to talk a lot about just how much of an issue overheating was for the MG42. That's one reason why I really hope that small-arms overheating is modeled in CM3, so I can see for myself just how much of an issue it really would have been.
-
I think the Bradley could always withstand 14.5mm MG fire. It has always had tougher armor than the M113, which is part of why I don't think it has never been amphibious. I'd guess that it was probably 30mm autocannon fire that the Bradley was initially vulnerable to, and that it has since been upgraded to resist.
-
I wasn't expecting this thread to suddenly get a burst of attention. To reiterate, it's not a question of which is better in CM. We all know the MG42 is better in-game. So really it's a question of how important the features that aren't modeled in CM are. Both assisted loading and overheating/barrel changes are elements that would move the needle in the Bren's favor if they were modeled. But by how much?
On 2/20/2024 at 12:12 PM, FlemFire said:I think it's closer comparison is maybe the BAR, of which the Bren is better
That's interesting. I remember that I used to think of the Bren as being more similar to the BAR than the MG42, back when the only contexts I had seen it in were Call of Duty and CMBN. But having learned more about the real weapons (including what isn't modeled in CM) I really think it has far more in common with the MG42 than it does with the BAR. Both the Bren and MG42 are crew served weapons. The BAR is not. Both the Bren and the MG42 have quick-change barrels. The BAR does not. Both the Bren and MG42 are the backbone of their respective squads in a way that the BAR just isn't. The US squad isn't built around the BAR the way the British section is built around the Bren or the German gruppe is built around the MG42.
These are both supposed to be crew-served weapons. They can both be operated by a single gunner, but you can't really get the most out of either of them that way. But CM2 doesn't really seem to know how to treat squad LMGs like crew-served weapons, so we see them both as they would be operated by a single gunner, without an assistant. I think this affects the Bren more, and mostly when it comes to loading. Those 30 round magazines would probably feel like much less of a limitation if the time it took to changes magazines was cut by half or more.
In CM the Bren is only a bit better than the BAR. In-game the BAR will dump its 20 round magazine and the Bren will dump its 30 round magazine, they will both take about the same amount of time to reload, and then they'll keep going at that rate for as long as there is ammunition. But imagine for a moment, not a CM scenario, but a real Bren and BAR firing side by side. The Bren is operated by a 2 or 3 man team (just like an MG42), while the BAR is operated by a single gunner. After they have each dumped their first magazine the Bren team will be reloaded and halfway to dumping their second magazine well before the BAR gunner has finished reloading. Eventually the Bren overheats. The hot barrel is removed and replaced with the spare barrel in a matter of seconds (just like an MG42). Eventually the BAR overheats. The BAR gunner is SOL.
On 2/20/2024 at 12:12 PM, FlemFire said:The weapons serve different functions so they're kinda hard to compare.
That's why I limited the comparison to the MG42 in its LMG configuration (bipod, 50-round drum). In its LMG configuration it is serving precisely the same function as the Bren. In that configuration it is the squad automatic weapon, forming the backbone of every German rifle squad just as the Bren forms the backbone of every British rifle section.
On 2/22/2024 at 11:44 PM, Brille said:Being a general purpose machine gun I give the MG42 an edge over the Bren.
Yeah, overall I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren. But I don't think I can ever be completely sure unless assisted loading and overheating are modeled in CM3
(that's my personal feature request, if anyone important happens to read this). The point always brought up by the Bren's defenders is just how rapidly the magazine can be swapped out by the assistant. And the point always brought up by the MG42's detractors is just how rapidly it overheats. So these are the points that need to be tested in order to fully resolve the question.
-
4 hours ago, Vacillator said:
Ar you sure that's not Fawlty Towers?
-
1 hour ago, Panzer Lehr said:
Thank you Steve for your commitment my favorite game system. For nearly 24 years I have been playing CM everyday practically, I never tire of it and I look forward to every new advancement. Cheers to many more years of fun.
26 minutes ago, Vacillator said:+1 to that
. Except for me it's only since May 2020 so I have a lot that's not yet done.
15 years for me. I first picked up CMSF in 2009, and gaming was never the same again for me. I played every new game and module as they were released. There was a bit of a gap from late 2018 to early 2021 as life intervened (post-Army readjustments, college, realizing college was a waste of time, studying for IT certs, job hunting). But I was finally able to get back into CM in 2021, starting out with CM1 for the early-war content. I didn't actually get properly back to CM2 until 2023. I spent most of 2023 playing CMBS and CMCW, but since October I decided to start all the way back in Sicily 1943 for a full chronological playthrough of all my CM2 content. Even though the gap from 2018-2021 was a minority of the total time I've been playing CM, it was long enough that I still almost feel like a newcomer again. Despite starting out with CMSF I still haven't found time to play CMSF2 yet, but as I inch forward in the timeline I'm sure I'll get around to 2008 again.
-
2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
From where? That number sounds high. Ukraine says 450k
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-ukraine-to-focus-on-domestic-arms-production-in-2024/
I am inclined to believe them over Putin.
I'll have to dig around to see where I got that from. I was sure Ukrainian intelligence had corroborated the 600k figure. But if their statements are actually that it's closer to 450k then that's more likely to be correct.
-
As far as Russian force generation, I heard they probably had a bit over 600 thousand troops in Ukraine as of December 2023.
That comes initially from a statement from Putin asserting they had 617 thousand troops in Ukraine, which is not a reliable source. But it was apparently backed up by a Ukrainian intelligence estimate that there were around 600 thousand Russian troops in Ukraine. Based on ISW reporting it sounds like the main Russian recruitment strategy is to offer large financial incentives, which are very appealing to the poorer sectors of Russian society. That means when the Russians start running low on money they'll need to find a new recruitment strategy. They certainly will not be able to leverage their larger population, which people seem to be inexplicably making a big deal about.
So their recruitment efforts over the course of 2023 seem to have been just about enough to replace losses, plus a bit to slowly increase the overall force size (I think they had something like 500k at the beginning of 2023?).
Ukraine apparently had around a million troops in uniform at the beginning of 2023, and apparently similarly mostly just replaced losses throughout 2023 with current numbers apparently being around 1.1 million.
As far as casualties, I'm not sure if I can trust the absolute numbers provided by third party estimates. But whenever third parties use the same methodology to estimate both Ukrainian and Russian casualties the Russian casualties usually seem to be between 1.5 and 2.2 times higher than Ukrainian casualties. From what I'm hearing the actual fighting on the ground is pretty even, and the likely higher Russian casualties is probably a reflection of the fact that they have generally been on the offensive, and they have generally been more willing to continue pressing costly offensives.
-
2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Kinda feels like that Chinese balloon. As I recall any nuclear device in space is pretty much a suicide weapon. The EMP would travel down the Van Allen belt and risk frying everything. Of course if one were Russia it might just level the playing field…for awhile. Ironically ballon’s are the viable offset. High altitude balloons can make for very good strategic ISR and communication backups.
But gotta be honest, the whole thing sounds a bit Strangelove.
I believe we tested nukes in space. The EMP didn't fry absolutely everything. Just everything over roughly a continent-sized region, which is probably fine if your opponent is on the other side of the world. I believe the biggest problem with nukes in space is that it puts everyone on a hair trigger since the amount of time you have to respond to a nuclear attack is basically zero. Every time it passes overhead (which, in Low Earth Orbit, would be about once every 30 minutes) there is a chance that you could be facing a practically instantaneous first strike. Escalation risks skyrocket to the point that it just isn't a viable concept.
-
35 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
2nd last sentence.
"As noted by Steve, we are well on our way and are planning for a release this year - content and full scope remains TBA."
Ah. Well I suppose that's what I get for just skimming it
-
33 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
Since the original plan for BAOR release was 2023, I guess that means somewhen this year (2024).
I don't see any mention of a planned release in 2023 in the original post. We definitely assumed 2023, since it was announced at the beginning of 2023. But I don't think they really "plan" to release in specific years. I think the plan is always to release when it's done, whenever that might be. But they do make guesses about when they expect to be finished. Those guesses usually seem to turn out to be wrong, but the final product always ends up being worth the wait.
To the other half of your comment, I'd guess that you're right that it will probably be finished in 2024. Though probably not early in 2024.
-
25 minutes ago, dan/california said:
I think the jury is still out on NATO fourth generation platforms
NATO fourth gen platforms may perform better than Russian fourth gen platforms. But there is no comparison with fifth gen platforms. Any fourth gen aircraft, including NATO fourth gen aircraft, is hopelessly outclassed by any fifth gen aircraft. The difference is much greater than going from third gen to fourth gen. The difference between T-55s and Abrams might actually be pretty close to the mark.
27 minutes ago, dan/california said:My last quibble with all games/simulations involving aircraft and missiles is that it comes down entirely to guess work on real radar cross sections, ECM, Radar ranges and so on. Even after two years of war in Ukraine a lot of this stuff is a guesstimate at best.
Yeah, that's fair. I believe a lot of guesswork had to go into that simulation. That's probably unavoidable unfortunately. It's probable that neither the Russian nor the US equipment was represented quite right. But the Russians generally overstate the capabilities of their equipment. The US by contrast is generally truthful about the capabilities they reveal, but they don't always reveal all of the capabilities a new platform may have. So if the simulation is inaccurate, it is likely that the Russian equipment is overperforming and the US equipment is underperforming.
-
1 minute ago, Joe982 said:
It wasn't gifted at all. It was paid for. The UK was broke at wars end. The payments contined for years after. Australia too paid for US equipment. As part of the agreement, useful equipment had to be dumped at wars end. Total waste of taxpayers money!
It's possible my information was flawed. I'll look into it. I was aware that the UK was broke by the end of the war. But I hadn't heard anything to the effect that it had anything to do with Lend Lease.
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The summary of his conclusions of air superiority ("The task of effectively suppressing enemy air defenses turned out to be practically impossible") may have some room for translation error, but taken as it was stated this is not something I agree is universal. It might be, and likely is, impossible for Russia to suppress enemy air defenses, but I believe NATO can effectively achieve it. The reason is Russia was never set up for success. Equipment, doctrine, and training were all focused on denying its airspace, not establishing air superiority over someone else's. At least not one competently fielding NATO equipment.
It's also worth remembering that all of the aircraft currently operating in Ukraine are fourth generation aircraft. My own view is that fourth generation aircraft are obsolete. The capability gulf between fourth gen and fifth gen aircraft is enormous.
I'm not sure if I've posted this video before. But I assume all of us here appreciate the value of simulations for providing insights into warfare:
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
After all, Lend Lease wasn't a gift
It sort of was. From what I recall the idea of "leasing" equipment to the UK, and later to the Soviet Union, was basically a way of selling the still isolationist US public on the idea of sending large amounts of military aid overseas, but with the understanding that the US probably wouldn't actually want any of the equipment (that survived) back after the war. Legally the equipment was leased, but in reality it was pretty much just gifted.
Of course it wasn't entirely a gift. The US was hoping to get a friendly and non-hostile Europe out of the arrangement.
Tank v. tank spotting.. (what a ***** mess)
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted · Edited by Centurian52
At the risk of straying too far off topic, I believe those higher estimates have been called into question. They apparently include some very dubious categories of "expended" rounds, such as rounds fired outside of combat. Modern rounds-fired-per-casualty rates are probably higher than Napoleonic rates, since modern troops are more dispersed, in duller uniforms, with better cover, and have adopted fire tactics other than destructive fire aimed at identified targets (recon by fire, suppressive fire). But even so I believe the most plausible estimates are still in the low thousands. The huge uncertainty over modern rounds to casualty rates is why I went with Napoleonic figures.
Actually I believe CM Pro can track the ammunition of various calibers expended over a battle, so it would be interesting to hear from anyone who's played CM Pro how Combat Mission rounds to casualty rates compare with the real world estimates.