Mortor crew question

[Jeer]

Maybe I am wrong but it seems that when my mortor guys are out of mortor rounds they have no other weapons. Did not the crews have m1 carbines or pistols? From what I read they did. Am I wrong? Just wondering...

[ntg84]

I dont know what a mortor is Just kidding.

Any way most mortar crews had rifles stowed away somewhere. The small arms production was very high, enough so that each cook and clerk could have one, so I'm sure that the mortar teams had atleast M1 Garands. Why its not in the game I don't know.

[This message has been edited by ntg84 (edited 07-18-2000).]

[CRourke]

They probably did carry some sort of sidearm, but my guess is BTS left this out for a couple reasons:

1) its a bit more coding that only really adds pistols in the hands of the unskilled

2) it would encourage players to user morter crews in a most unrealistic manner, ie as a front line combat unit. In real life of course, those pistols are just meant for self defense, but a gamey player might not see it that way

Chris

[Guest Mirage2k]

My guess is that if a mortar crew ran out of ammo, they wouldn't want to rush to the forward area and blast away with their pistols any more than you or I would, and would break fairly easily. Using mortars like that would be very gamey.

-Andrew

[Guest Scott Clinton]

All right, first off this issue has been covered at least 20 times in the last month, and that is NOT an exaggeration. Do a search on "crews" or "unarmed crews" and you will get more information than you could possibly want.

But, in a nutshell...

Crews do not receive their full weapons to prevent 'gamey' behavior by players (i.e. the only get pistols).

Heavy weapon crews have no weapons other than the heavy weapon they fire for the same reason. The last that was heard (AFAIK) was that BTS was going to try to add pistols (only) to heavy weapon crews also to give them a close defense. Why it did not make it into the final game, I don't know. Perhaps it is still on the list, perhaps there is another problem.

For all the old-timers: Be nice guys, the sole reason for this forum is to disseminate information. If you don't want to do that, don't post. But there is no reason to be a jerk.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Kingfish]

Here (IMO) is the solution to the gamey use of crews: give support crews (Mortar, MGs, Zooks, etc...) small arms for self defense. Then give them a "low" ammo rating for those weapons, this you can't use them in any offensive action.

I've read numerous posts about zook teams getting killed by bailed out crews. This would at least give the team a fighting chance and still prevent them from joining the grunts in real fighting.

Your thoughts?

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Jeff Heidman]

I think LATW teams should certainly have rifles. Unlike a mortar, a LATW is designed to be used in a direct fire, short ranged role. If a LATWteam ran out of ammo for the main weapon, they would almsot certainly be expected to continue fighting.

Jeff Heidman

[Doug Beman]

I disagree, Jeff. Gun crews are trained to man their guns, and this training makes them both very useful and valuable as gun crews. They are not meant to be front-line infantrymen. They may have training in the use of a rifle for self-defense, but this training does not make them very useful or valuable as front-line infantrymen, nor does it decrease their usefulness or value as gun crews.

Just as with tank crews, it's a very bad idea to use up gun crews as infantry, esp. in operations where they should be able to come back with a new gun.

DjB

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

I disagree, Jeff. Gun crews are trained to man their guns, and this training makes them both very useful and valuable as gun crews. They are not meant to be front-line infantrymen. They may have training in the use of a rifle for self-defense, but this training does not make them very useful or valuable as front-line infantrymen, nor does it decrease their usefulness or value as gun crews.

Just as with tank crews, it's a very bad idea to use up gun crews as infantry, esp. in operations where they should be able to come back with a new gun.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, Doug, I was not talking about Gun crews. I was talking about LATW crews. You know, bazooka, panzerschreck, PIAT. These guys were typically members of the platoons they were attached to, and, AFAIK, not even specially trained, except for field training (meaning they did not attend a different school from other infantrymen).

Jeff Heidman

[ntg84]

Comeon, how much does it take to fire a rifle or pistol in the air to scare someone away. What special skill is needed just for self-defense fire

[JTMauney]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They may have training in the use of a rifle for self-defense, but this training does not make them very useful or valuable as front-line infantrymen...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh*

I really wish people would ask someone that's acutally DONE IT before spewing forth opinions.

Here's the short version...

My history:

USMC, MOS-0341 (Infantry Mortarman), 1987-1993; secondary MOS-0321 (Reconnaissance Marine).

USArmy, MOS-11B1P (Infantry Paratrooper), LRSU, 1995-1998.

Infantry training school for heavy weapons crews proceeds exactly the same as for 0311's (Basic Rifleman), until about the third week, at which point the weapons folks split off to train in their indivdual weapons systems until the graduation op. The 11's spend the remainder of this time further practicing patrol techniques.

Once in the Fleet, heavy weapons crews will spend about 60% of their garrison time training with their specific weapon systems, and the remainder practicing infantry skills; everything from patrolling to digging-in to squad assault. The entire battalion qualifies on the same rifle range, under the same standards, and passes the same evaluation test each year, (MCCRES). Heavy weapon crews have the ADDITIONAL testing on their specialty weapons. (Note that the key word here is *additional*). It is also worth noting here that when going to a "B"-billet such as naval facilities guard there is no distinction between infantry specialties-- you're just a grunt.

The NCO's in a heavy weapons unit, (of which I was one), have to pass the same NCO school as all other MOS's (even non-combat), and all 03xx NCO's have to, at some point, pass Combat Squad Leader's School in order to be eligible for promotion. This means you have to prove your ability to lead an infantry squad effectively, and show complete competence in ALL infantry skills-- not just your weapon system specialty.

In the field, many heavy weapons units, *especially* mortars and anti-tank crews, are often cannibilized and converted into infantry squads. In fact, if you look at the organization of an infantry regiment in the Marine Corps or in the Army, you'll notice a pattern in company signification: A,B,C,E,F,G,I,K,L... The "J" is skipped because its phoenetic is "Juliet"; can't have a bunch of big, tough infantry guys responding to "Juliet Company", now can we? The others, however--D,H,M are skipped for another reason altogether; those are the reporting letters for the heavy weapons companies (normally WPNS Co.), when they are converted to a line company. And believe me-- it DOES happen. I've got first-hand experience with that bit.

If you take as an example a modern foot-mobile USMC 81's platoon, you'll find it is actually the most heavily armed platoon in the entire battalion. Here's a comparison for you: USMC infantry platoon, no attachments-- 9xM249; 9xM16/M203; 23xM16A2; 2xM9. USMC 81mm Mortar Platoon, no attachments-- 8x81mm tubes; 9xM249; 8xM16/M203; 21xM16A2; 14xM9; 2xM60E3. (One caveat- 4xM9 and 3xM16A2 are detached with FO's with the line companies and the FSC representative in Bn HQ).

Out of all my field time with 81's, I'd say about 1/3 of it was spent doing "standard grunt stuff." A 60mm section, organic to each line company, is even more likely to be used as an infantry squad. In fact, in 1992 I took over as section leader for a 60mm unit that was not up to snuff on their indirect fire. They'd spent most of their field time patrolling; not one man knew how to plot fire on a plotting board. It only took me a few days to get them up to speed on it, and then they were good at BOTH missions.

When the battalion is in the attack or defending and the heavy weapons crews run out of ammo, which they will--usually sooner rather than later--they pick up their rifles, form up into fire teams and squads, and take their place on the line. Yes, they may be a little more specialized in their training, and it may have taken a little longer to train them, but if the battalion loses, THEY DIE, TOO! There's little point in setting them down behind the lines and keeping them "safe", now is there?

Jeer is absolutely correct; most weapons crews were armed with a mixture of carbines, rifles and pistols. When those 18 rounds of 60mm were gone, that crew became a short squad. This, along with the complete lack of Supplementary and Tertiary postions in static defense, is my biggest nit to pick with BTS. They wanked it all up.

A final note, here; when they go through and pick specialty MOS slots in infantry school, it's done by GT score (military IQ, for all intents and purposes). I know this for a fact as I served as an infantry training school instructor for six months. It starts high with mortars, goes to heavy guns, then anti-tank, and finally basic rifleman.

The gun crews may not be the absolute BEST squad on the line, but for game reference purposes you can bet that if the average line company squad is "VETERAN", then the average heavy weapons crew can become a "REGULAR" squad with no trouble at all. It would not be "gamey" at all to use them as infantry-- they ARE infantry, and are trained and equipped as such in real life.

BTS did a fantastic job with this game, and I love playing it. However, they definately missed the boat on a few issues. I wish they'd make a more concerted effort to use veterans as their testers. (And no, NOT me--I've got a full time job, thanx) Still, it's a very nice effort, and if I have to set my 60mm guys down in the woods when they run out of ammo, I'll just deal with it. Remember, in the end it IS just a game.

[Guest dirkd1976]

Wow, nice post JT. Its nice to hear from someone who has "been there". Very informative piece. Thanks for the info, now lets hope someone at BTS sees it!!

------------------

Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the info, now lets hope someone at BTS sees it!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JT, if you have a criticism as important as that, and with the references/experience to back it up, I'd suggest emailing BTS and telling 'em what you think the problem is. It's unlikely to have an affect on CM as is, but could very well influence CM2.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley people!

[Guest rune]

JT,

Excellent post with only 2 flaws. Flaw #1, you assume your modern day american tactics are used by the Germans in WWII. Are they? I don't know...someone with more experience will chime in here.

Flaw #2, you assume that the beta testers are not veterans. I can assure you the majority are, and under various countries with the highest rank being Major if I recall correctly. I do not have combat experience...my time was spent in the back seat of the F-14.

This does NOT make your points invalid. Personally glad to see a well rounded thought out opinion. Steve and Charles do read the board, and do listen.

Semper Fi

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTMauney:

*sigh*

I really wish people would ask someone that's acutally DONE IT before spewing forth opinions.

Here's the short version...

My history:

USMC, MOS-0341 (Infantry Mortarman), 1987-1993; secondary MOS-0321 (Reconnaissance Marine).

USArmy, MOS-11B1P (Infantry Paratrooper), LRSU, 1995-1998.

Infantry training school for heavy weapons crews proceeds exactly the same as for 0311's (Basic Rifleman), until about the third week, at which point the weapons folks split off to train in their indivdual weapons systems until the graduation op. The 11's spend the remainder of this time further practicing patrol techniques.

Once in the Fleet, heavy weapons crews will spend about 60% of their garrison time training with their specific weapon systems, and the remainder practicing infantry skills; everything from patrolling to digging-in to squad assault. The entire battalion qualifies on the same rifle range, under the same standards, and passes the same evaluation test each year, (MCCRES). Heavy weapon crews have the ADDITIONAL testing on their specialty weapons. (Note that the key word here is *additional*). It is also worth noting here that when going to a "B"-billet such as naval facilities guard there is no distinction between infantry specialties-- you're just a grunt.

The NCO's in a heavy weapons unit, (of which I was one), have to pass the same NCO school as all other MOS's (even non-combat), and all 03xx NCO's have to, at some point, pass Combat Squad Leader's School in order to be eligible for promotion. This means you have to prove your ability to lead an infantry squad effectively, and show complete competence in ALL infantry skills-- not just your weapon system specialty.

In the field, many heavy weapons units, *especially* mortars and anti-tank crews, are often cannibilized and converted into infantry squads. In fact, if you look at the organization of an infantry regiment in the Marine Corps or in the Army, you'll notice a pattern in company signification: A,B,C,E,F,G,I,K,L... The "J" is skipped because its phoenetic is "Juliet"; can't have a bunch of big, tough infantry guys responding to "Juliet Company", now can we? The others, however--D,H,M are skipped for another reason altogether; those are the reporting letters for the heavy weapons companies (normally WPNS Co.), when they are converted to a line company. And believe me-- it DOES happen. I've got first-hand experience with that bit.

If you take as an example a modern foot-mobile USMC 81's platoon, you'll find it is actually the most heavily armed platoon in the entire battalion. Here's a comparison for you: USMC infantry platoon, no attachments-- 9xM249; 9xM16/M203; 23xM16A2; 2xM9. USMC 81mm Mortar Platoon, no attachments-- 8x81mm tubes; 9xM249; 8xM16/M203; 21xM16A2; 14xM9; 2xM60E3. (One caveat- 4xM9 and 3xM16A2 are detached with FO's with the line companies and the FSC representative in Bn HQ).

Out of all my field time with 81's, I'd say about 1/3 of it was spent doing "standard grunt stuff." A 60mm section, organic to each line company, is even more likely to be used as an infantry squad. In fact, in 1992 I took over as section leader for a 60mm unit that was not up to snuff on their indirect fire. They'd spent most of their field time patrolling; not one man knew how to plot fire on a plotting board. It only took me a few days to get them up to speed on it, and then they were good at BOTH missions.

When the battalion is in the attack or defending and the heavy weapons crews run out of ammo, which they will--usually sooner rather than later--they pick up their rifles, form up into fire teams and squads, and take their place on the line. Yes, they may be a little more specialized in their training, and it may have taken a little longer to train them, but if the battalion loses, THEY DIE, TOO! There's little point in setting them down behind the lines and keeping them "safe", now is there?

Jeer is absolutely correct; most weapons crews were armed with a mixture of carbines, rifles and pistols. When those 18 rounds of 60mm were gone, that crew became a short squad. This, along with the complete lack of Supplementary and Tertiary postions in static defense, is my biggest nit to pick with BTS. They wanked it all up.

A final note, here; when they go through and pick specialty MOS slots in infantry school, it's done by GT score (military IQ, for all intents and purposes). I know this for a fact as I served as an infantry training school instructor for six months. It starts high with mortars, goes to heavy guns, then anti-tank, and finally basic rifleman.

The gun crews may not be the absolute BEST squad on the line, but for game reference purposes you can bet that if the average line company squad is "VETERAN", then the average heavy weapons crew can become a "REGULAR" squad with no trouble at all. It would not be "gamey" at all to use them as infantry-- they ARE infantry, and are trained and equipped as such in real life.

BTS did a fantastic job with this game, and I love playing it. However, they definately missed the boat on a few issues. I wish they'd make a more concerted effort to use veterans as their testers. (And no, NOT me--I've got a full time job, thanx) Still, it's a very nice effort, and if I have to set my 60mm guys down in the woods when they run out of ammo, I'll just deal with it. Remember, in the end it IS just a game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Joe Shaw]

JT, since you've spent time in both the Corps and the Army, perhaps you could clarify a bit for me. Is the Army practice in this regard (i.e. crew from crew served weapons acting as a short infantry squad once their ammo is gone) the same as it is in the Marines? I ask because of the well known Marine "theme" that all Marines are riflemen first and are trained that way and practice that way.

Joe

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Just to clarify the term 'gamey' as used in the context of crews picking up rifles in a game of CM (at least this is how I am using the term).

I don't think anyone is saying that using mortar crews as rifleman is and of itself "gamey".

No, IMO what is gamey is the EXTENT to which it would be done if the crews were allotted rifles, carbines, etc. Anyone that has ever played "Steel Panthers" and weathered a last minute charge of nothing but two dozen crews knows exactly what I a talking about. It is a function of the CM battle being a 'stand alone' incident and the fact those little men on the screen bleeding pixels and not real blood. The overall effect of adding rifles makes the game less realistic IMO.

This has nothing to do with how the unit was equipped or trained and everything to do with how the unit would be used in a game as opposed to how it would be used in a real situation.

A game of CM is at most 40 minutes. If you give all crews full access to rifles, etc. you would see these same crews picking up their rifles and using them in almost every game. IMO, this would be very gamey, as I don't think it happened in almost every 40-minute skirmish in W.W.II.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Mi_Go]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here. All of you who think it is gamey to use mortar/at and even crews as infantry is "gamey" are smoking crack.

situation, I am a commander looking @ my objective from my cp in a 2 story house. I actually see 5 or 6 men digging into the objective to defend it. All my units are engaged except for the 20 odd men sitting around in the house with me because their mortar/at/mg are out of ammo. Well, I guess we can't take the objective now, cause that would be gamey? I don't think so, I tell them to get their asses up and take the objective. period.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mi_Go:

I've said it before and I'll say it again here. All of you who think it is gamey to use mortar/at and even crews as infantry is "gamey" are smoking crack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using crews to attack a position is gamey, IMHO, simply because they aren't riflemen, or machine-gunners, or whatever. The situation you described would not be a gamey use, because the crews are not attacking a strong defensive position, and one could arguably call it self-defense.

But using crews from a knocked-out vehicle behind enemy lines IS gamey, because if you're the commander, there is no way in hell you could be commanding that one trapped soldier as a part of a coherent attack plan.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley people!

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mi_Go:

I've said it before and I'll say it again here. All of you who think it is gamey to use mortar/at and even crews as infantry is "gamey" are smoking crack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Scott said, you are entirely missing the point. I would do it in CM. But in real life, if you have to expect a counter-attack but no reinforcements for yourself after you took the objective, would you be so keen to waste the crews of your support weapons? I don't think so. Neither does BTS.

As Scott pointed out - you have a nice little round counter at the bottom of the screen telling you in round 37 of 40 that there is now no fear of counterattack and you can go for broke. If a real-life CO had it as well, you would see that kind of behaviour. They don't, and therefore I assume they wouldn't order those kinds of charges. It is different if you are playing on the defense, granted. There if you are in danger of being overrun, you would plug the line with everything, including the Kitchensink Sdkfz.123456 Ausf.27B-6®, but I think it would be difficult to code for having it both ways.

------------------

Andreas

[DanE]

I may be mistaken, but under battle conditions during WWII wouldn't these crews be doing something other than sitting around in a house most of the time?

Wouldn't the mortar team be heading to the rear to resupply? Same for the MG crew? If the action has moved on to a different spot, wouldn't it be possible for the tank crew to be inspecting their damaged machine?

I think a situation probably needed to reach a critical state before a commander would use these crews as front line infantry. Making a last turn dash at a victory location is not a critical situation, IMO.

Why would a commander want to expose the trained/experienced crews of specialized weapons to unnecessary harm unless it was his only choice?

------------------

Dan

[JTMauney]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Flaw #1, you assume your modern day american tactics are used by the Germans in WWII. Are they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very interesting question for several reasons. While I realize that the WWII T/O and SOP of various nationalities and units varies a bit from modern day organizations, it's also true that a large proportion of what we use today, both organizationally and tactically, came directly from WWII experiences and lessons. I make no claim to be totally boned up on everything dealing with WWII organization, but the similarties are close enough that a judgment concerning the general handling of unit types can be made.

Back in '91, immediately after returning from the Gulf, I was privileged to hear a military analyst/historian who writes (or at least used to write), for the Marine Corp Gazette, speak to our entire NCO corps for WPNS 2/5 on just such a subject. (I'm struggling to remember the guy's last name; his first name was Bill, though). Anyhow, he was considered somewhat of an agitator among USMC officers and NCO's, as he had no actual military experience, but had a lot of rather radical ideas. (And an IQ of about 180, near as I could tell).

What he spoke to us about that day was the influence of German infantry squad organization, weapons T/O, and tactics on modern military forces. I was absolutely shocked by how much of what we use today was lifted almost wholesale from German ideas and practices during WWII. Their influence on things like assault rifle development via the MP43/StG-44 is rather obvious, but a lot of what we use as standard tactics, like open terrain patrol formations and the principle of leadership training in the non-rate ranks is taken from them as well.

While I can't recall any concrete data about the specific German SOP concerning heavy weapons crew cannibalization, I'd have to imagine the practice was similar, especially at such a late point in the war as CM takes for its scope. Remember that turning that mortar crew into an infantry squad is influenced as much by battlefield necessity as by organizational practices. If you're in a slugging match, those crews WILL fight.

A little aside, here: I'm also not too happy with tank crews having nothing but 1911's. There was a "tanker variant" of the M1 Garand, you know. (Anybody that knows where I can get one in GOOD condition, please mail me). More than once in CM I've had tanker crews attacked from beyond their range to fire back-- that's simply inaccurate, especially by such a late stage in the war. While the crews may not have ALWAYS had to time to grab that rifle on the way out of the dead tank, they would at least get a few out a certain percentage of the time. This is a minor nit though, and nothing to get really upset over; unlike infantry HW squads, tankers generally were NOT trained in infantry tactics, and had no interest is silly things like exposing themselves to rifle fire-- I'm not gonna make that shaken M3 crew rush a MG bunker. Probably.

Anyhow, it is my opinion that WWII German forces were the crux point of military thinking in the 20th century. I'm sure there are many who would dispute that (and no doubt WILL... it great detail and at great length; that's why I like this board).

The thing about CM is that it tends to go "by the book." Understandable and perfectly reasonable from a design perspective, but you have to remember that a fully T/O&E'd unit, even today in peacetime, is like a unicorn; nice idea, but it doesn't exist outside of very specialized units like Delta. By necessity, much information in a game is abstracted; I just happen to believe that mortar and machine gun crews are a little TOO abstracted. But that, obviously, is just my opinion.

In reference to Joe Shaw's question: USArmy and USMC organization and tactics are very similar, in my experience. Keep in mind, here, that all my Army time was spent in a LRSU (Long Range Surveillance Unit) Company. It's what used to be called a LRRP company, before the Army decided to change beret colors on us (from black to maroon) and re-organize the unit to focus more on the actual recon job. Therefore, all of my experience with Army heavy line units was purely peripheral to my main job.

In general, an Army line unit is more motorized and has heavier organic weapons on the battalion level than a Marine battalion would. There are (basically) two very distinct types of infantry in the Army: Mecahnized and Light. The Marine battalion can be thought of as something halfway between a Light Infantry BN and a Ranger BN, with primary difference being that the entire Ranger BN is jump qualified and has a wider selection and concentration of "close assault" weapons, like submachineguns and such. (And the fact that every NCO and above, and most non-rates, in a Ranger BN have been to Ranger School-- the single toughest school in the entire U.S. military, IMO).

As an example of T/O&E differences, an 81mm is considered a company level mortar in most Army battalions, with the 4.2" mortar being a battalion level support weapon. (Note that this can vary by as small a scale as brigade SOP's). A Marine BN will use the 81mm (foot-moblie, normally), as the Battalion level support weapon, with 60mm mortars being organic to the company level, similar to the USArmy WWII forces you see in CM.

In general, the Marine BN is restricted to a maximum of 25 miles per day foot mobility, while the Army BN will normally have more motorized assests available to them. The only organic vehicles in a USMC BN are HMMWV's and the occasional FastV for heavy guns platoons. The exception to this is that Marine BN's regularly (about every 18 months) rotate through the MEU-SOC (Marine Expeditionary Unit - Special Operations Capable) role for their regiment. For 6 - 12 months this BN "has the duty" for RDF-commanded rapid deployment for that regiment (and maybe the whole division). During that time, the MEU-SOC unit has an enormous number of support attachments, which are (very) roughly as follows: Each line company is made a "vehicle" company- (e.g. - A Co. = Track (AAV-7) Co.; B Co. = Boat Co.; C Co. = Helo Co.); a squadron of Cobras attached; a company of 105 and possibly 155 in dedicated direct support; HMM and HMH helicopter squadron in direct support; a company of M60 tanks (now M1A1's, probably) directly attached; a company of AAV-7's; Zodiac light boats; a Recon platoon directly attached; possibly a SoG platoon; etcetc. In short, it becomes a stormtrooper BN capable of <24-hour deployment and 30 days self-sufficieny anywhere within it's hemisphere of responsibility. Very flexible, very deadly. And very expensive, on the limited USMC budget, of course.

But I digress; the point is that in a very general sense, Army and Marine organization are quite similar. They both tinker with squad sizes, machinegun distribution, etcetc ad nauseum all the time, but remain essentially similar. In the Army, quality of the unit varies widely, however. Marine line BN's tend to be of a very similar and high grade. The Army is generally MUCH better at small-scale special ops, as this sort of thing is viewed as a "luxury" by the Corps, while the USMC is much better at blue-water operations and amphibious stuff.

All of them, I might add are MUCH better than anything the former Warsaw Pact could ever field. I had the opportunity to go to the Czech Republic in 1995 with my LRSU unit, along with a USArmy MechInf Co. and a German Paratrooper platoon, and "evaluate" the Czech forces when they were applying for NATO membership. It was really a big dog-and-pony show, with the SecDef showing up to blow smoke up our ass at the endo of it all, but it gave me the chance to observe typical WP forces in action and fire their weapons.

I don't know what I was so worried about back in the '80s. This could turn even more long-winded if I go into detail, but let me just say that AK- and RPK- pattern massed produced weapons aren't real impressive (especially after you've just fired an MG3 and a G3, the Holy Grail of all assault rifles, IMO), and that I wouldn't be terribly concerned if someone was firing Saggers at my tank... their best gunner missed every time. Often by 400m or more. Most people don't realize the Sagger is a zoom-climb-and-glide(maybe) weapon. The low-pressure 73mm gun on the BMP-1 was quite impressive as a squad support weapon, however; especially when it was busy trying to load your right arm into the breach.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTMauney:

I don't know what I was so worried about back in the '80s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You were right to be worried though, b/c we (the Bundeswehr) were on your side...

------------------

Andreas

[Airborne]

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I was an anti-tank section leader (2 squads) in a AT company (Airborne) with the 82nd. I spent the last 4 weeks of Fort Bennings infantry school learning the TOW missle system -Tube Launched, Optically tracked, Wire-command link guided missle system). In my 4 years with the 82nd, I spent approximately 1/2 of my time doing strictly infantry/grunt work. We --the 11Hs -- as well as the 11Cs (mortars) were infantry first.

take it easy all---enjoy the game--Chris

------------------

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Mi_Go]

2 the 2 that replied to my 1st post. I understand your point. I would agree that sending a crew of 5 to take a defended area would not be realistic. I do have a problem with people continually stating that in real life the units would be removed from the line and moved to the rear (vehicle crews I agree are somewhat gamey in combat use, unless you put them in a defensive foxhole type position in a quiete sector). However, wep crews are INFANTRY, plain and simple. They are trained to use threir crew weps IN ADDITION to the normal training. A commander in the field is not going to send 6 able bodied troops to the rear in the middle of a battle. He will attach them to another unit or he will give them an assignment. maybe he will make them runners, but removing them would not be a viable option. In CM, the size of the battle actually adds to my point of view. Onboard units are CLOSE support, they are expected to fight. these are not guys on 155s behind the lines, and these are not non combat troops (except for the spotters ). anyways i have rambled and probably lost my point. sorry. just my opinion.

ps. the other thing I dislike about this argument is this: why don't you (no one in particular here, anybody) pick a different opponent and agree before hand what is "gamey". Why force a change on people that don't agree with your point of view?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mi_Go:

ps. the other thing I dislike about this argument is this: why don't you (no one in particular here, anybody) pick a different opponent and agree before hand what is "gamey". Why force a change on people that don't agree with your point of view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mi_Go - I think you should not take the reference to gamey behaviour personal. Doing it your way in an attack presents a big risk in real life, b/c you will find yourself with your pants down if OPFOR decides to pay a visit after you decided to throw in your support weapons. There will be commanders doing that, granted, by I would expect that to be a rare occurence. You would probably be one of them, I would not. In CM, with a finite number of turns, you know that OPFOR won't come back, therefore there is no risk. So everybody would do it. And that would open the door to very gamey behaviour. What it boils down to IMO is to reduce the choice for the few to prevent the abuse by the many.

------------------

Andreas