a few questions

[dunc]

just a few questions....

1. Was the greyhound a common or rare vehicle? What about the flammpanzer?

2.Its not considered to be gamey if you set buildings/woods on fire to purposely deny that terrain to the enemy...is it?

3. Just thought of another question: In American Para Squads, what are the carbines? I mean, I know what a carbine is, but what is it a carbine of? An M1? or a different totally different rifle?

thanks in advance.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: dunc ]

[WWB]

1) Greyhounds were common. Flammpanzers were quite rare.

2) That is a matter of some debate. Denying terrain to the enemy is a long-standing tactic in warfare, but then again lighting large fires was rather uncommon.

WWB

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

Well, I read somewhere that 11,000 were built by the end of the war, but that americans didnt like it that much, prefering tracked vehicles for recon work, like the Chaffee. So maybe it would be somewhat common for the brits (who supposedly gave it the name Greyhound), and less common for american formations.

As for the gameyness of setting things on fire, I would personally consider it a little cheezy for a defender to set, say, the woods or building in which an object point resides on fire. But the occasion odd building, or isolated pocket of woods... hay, why not. Wouldnt bother me any. In fact, Id call that pretty sound tactics.

[kmead]

The M1 Carbine was a lighter (just under 7lbs) semi-automatic rifle chambered for a cartridge intended for a handgun (IIRC). It is a gas operated, magazine fed (30 cartidges) weapon. The cartridge is referred to as the .30 (@8mm in diameter) Carbine, the case of the cartridge was straight without a neckdown to the bullet. The M1 carbine was intended for paratroopers, officers, reconn, sargeants, armored vehicle crews, and others who needed a weapon that was light in wieght, small in size and offered medium range ability (300 yards or less). Generally speaking the round would tend to overpenetrate the target and it would take several hits to kill or subdue the target. Later variations of this weapon offered full auto orselective burst fire, also folding stocks were also made for paratroopers. Made in relatively large numbers and used by many nations. ARVN used this weapon nearly exclusively until sufficient numbers of M16 and AR15s became available as its size and recoil better suited their stature. The weapon was designed by a single individual whose name escapes me right now ("Carbine" Williams keeps coming to mind?)

In contrast the M1 Garand semi-automatic was a large weapon (and heavy, 9.8lbs) chambered for the 30/06 round. It is also a gas operated, magazine fed weapon (10rounds IIRC) that is loaded through the breech of the weapon. The cartridge is quite large with a pronounced neckdown to the very pointed nosed, boat tailed bullet. In the right hands and with the right weapon targets at 1000 yards can be hit. This weapon can deliver tremendous damage to a target and is very analogous to the German Mauser Kar98 in hitting power. The Garand (designed by a man named Garand oddly enough) was a very reliable design that was quite expensive to make. Later iterations formed the basis of the M14 (with removeable magazines and full auto or selective fire) used by US forces after the Korean war into the mid 60s ( the Marines used it until the 70s). A modern iteration of the Garand is the Ruger Mini15 which is chambered for the .223 (5.56mm) round used in the M16/AR15. The Garand was a very big step up from the 1903 Springfield boldt action it replaced and gave the US infantry remarkable fire power. It was also the first large volume produced Semi-auto rifle in wide spread use by a major combatant in WW2. (the Stoner doesn't count).

If I have recalled any of this incorrectly, I am sure someone with more current knowledge will happen along and supply the correct info soon. ( I gave my dad all my books about this stuff twenty odd years ago so my recollections may be somewhat off )

[gunnergoz]

Greyhounds and M=20 utility cars were very well liked ny the GI's but less so by the Generals who wrote doctrine. They were very common during the war in US service but postwar were largely issued to MP or constabulary occupation troops. The US Army has a marked preference for full-track recon vehicles.

[offtaskagain]

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

3. Just thought of another question: In American Para Squads, what are the carbines? I mean, I know what a carbine is, but what is it a carbine of? An M1? or a different totally different rifle?

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: dunc ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As mentioned before it was based on the M1. However the cartridge had considerably less knockdown potential. There are some stories from the Korean War of Chinese being so heavily wrapped in winter clothing that the carbine apparently did not penetrate the clothes. I suspect it is more the fact the bullet doesn't hit hard enough to make wounds that will stop a person from being able to move. It basically just made a .30 inch diameter hole in whatever it happened to hit. The M1 with it's 30.06, which is still a potent round today, makes a .30 inch entrance hole and and an exit wound 10-20 times bigger. Ma Deuce is even better. If it hits someone in a limb, usually that limb is severed. If it hits the stomach it can cut a body in half.

[Panzer_Meyer]

In one tcp/ip game I had I wad defending a village, about medium size. The front of the village was open to enemy fire from a distance, but on the sided it was covered by foresets.

My opponent had to advance across 200-400 meters of open terrain, having a brush and scattered trees here and there.

Part of my forces included 2 flamethrower teams and a wasp. So I decided to light the entire front of the village on fire, thats exactly what I did.

All of the buildings at the front of the village I set alight. When the opponent got to assaulting the village my MGs and guns killed many of his troops before he even reached the village. But he still had at leaset 2 BNs. worth of troops. He kept going toward the village.

When he got it his troops were surely tired, but he had no where to hide, the only place he could go was the middle of the town where he can get some cover, but my troops possed almost all the building in the village and I had cross fire from the forest.

His troops got slaughtered and Isuffered minimal casualties during this fight.

I consider setting forests and building on fire, a sound tactic. I mean a soldier or anyone (execept fire fighters maybe) would not enter a building on fire. So this would deny them acces to cover.

The Russians were known for the scorched earth policy in 41, thus denying the germans cover and shelter, so why not here, int he game.

[Andrew H.]

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

The M1 Carbine was a lighter (just under 7lbs) semi-automatic rifle chambered for a cartridge intended for a handgun (IIRC). It is a gas operated, magazine fed (30 cartidges) weapon. The cartridge is referred to as the .30 (@8mm in diameter) Carbine, the case of the cartridge was straight without a neckdown to the bullet. The M1 carbine was intended for paratroopers, officers, reconn, sargeants, armored vehicle crews, and others who needed a weapon that was light in wieght, small in size and offered medium range ability (300 yards or less). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The carbine was chambered not for a pistol round, but for an intermediate round between a pistol and a rifle. My Encyclopedia of WWII weapons lists its weight at 5.2 lbs unloaded.

In a lot of ways, especially after the carbine was made a selective fire weapon, I think it's similar to the German Sturmgewehr - the range is similar, the round is a similar intermediate round, both hold 30 round clips, and both were selective fire weapons. Unfortunately, the US Army didn't really have the doctrine to permit the M1s to be used as assault rifles.

A lot of front line Marine Corps units used M1 carbines, though -- they were very easy to tote around in the jungle, and much of that fighting was at pretty close range.

[Stalin's Organ]

I think it varies - Rommels example is, IMO, a reasonable use of "area denial", and I've doen similar things - setting fire to buildings that enemy are about to enter for example.

However setting woods on fire on your flank "in case" the enemy occupies them smells a bit like gorganzola to me. It's using some aspects of CM that would not be important in real life - eg the difficulty of using flame throwers (in real life you wouldn't have trotten them out unless there was a decent use for them!), and teh limited time frame - in CM the fires don't go out and in real life you wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself liek that!

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

...So I decided to light the entire front of the village on fire, thats exactly what I did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good thing for you CM doesn't model wind, eh?