British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Brian]

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

Brian,

My point isn't "infantrymen" but basic riflemen. Yes, infantry do seize and hold the ground but the weapons they use are becoming more and more firepower orientated and less emphasis on the soldier. The infantry man is being pushed into a "weapons system" security role...against whom? Well other weapons systems. When sighting a coy, you start with the AT weapons because the main threat is APCs and Armour. Then you sight arty and MGs to counter dismounted infantry, THEN you sight the few remaining riflemen to protect the first three assets. You do not by sighting the basic rifleman and then work up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points I'd like to bring out. This may be valid for NATO, today. It is not valid for other armies, today where they do not face a heavy armour threat. The Australian in fact has mothballed its only ATGW's - Milan simply because there are not sufficient numbers of MBT's in out potential enemy's ORBATs nor are they expected to fight in such open terrain that it becomes useful having a weapon with that sort of range.

The result is that our tactical thinking is still much closer to that of WWII, where the basic infantry section is an LMG+Riflemen.

And that leads to my secondpoint, you are attempting to apply tactical thinking which was very much developed over the last 50 years to a period where tactical thinking was actually dedicated to the lessons learned in the previous 50 years.

Its essentially like comparing apples and oranges. That was obvious from the way in which people got upset when I suggested that 2 or 3 men made the optimum LMG crew. Such crews carry far more than just the weapon - they carry spare barrel(s), ammunition and yes, even a bloody cleaning kit for it - which is why you need more than one man to operate it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The same goes for the offence. I am interested in weapons systems "Get that MG up here." "Where is my firebase and that arty?" The actual dogfight trench clearing is the last of my problems. In fact if I can get the rifleman into the trench, we've pretty much one because all of the enemies weapons systems (AT, MGS and arty) have been defeated to get the troops there. Hell Manouevre Doctrine teaches that you don't even bother with the trench clearing, just leave what is left of them (ie guard them) and charge on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still missing the point, again. Why suppress the enemy? To what purpose - to get the infantry - what ever they are armed with, be it slingshots or nuclear grenades onto that objective - siezing the ground. Once there, you have to help them defend it - holding the ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So you see, I think you are oversimplifying the battlefield. The infantry have a role but it is a pale comparison to what it used to be...now follow the curve to the end and see what you get. Infantry becoming security guards for weapon systems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an ex-infantryman I think you've lost sight that the reason why the other arms exist is to get that infantryman onto that objective. You still seem to be failing to grasp the question I keep asking - who are they being "security guards" _against_, unless it is the enemy's infantry?

Therefore, it would appear that you recognise that the enemy's infantry can fulfill this traditional role of "seizing and holding ground" (ie threatening your superior organised support weapons), but believe you cannot do the same to his weapons. Weird.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Do not start with optical sights!!

I have no idea why we (Canadians) and our UK allies are switching to them. Hell we used to use the FNC1 which had an effective fire out to 600m and a serious punch when it got there. Then we switched to the M16A2 because we finally got on the "firepower bandwagon". Then we brilliantly saddled the damn thing with a scope. Now take it from me (I have been there) trying to find a sniper and take an aimed shot from that scope while being shot at is downright silly (Hmm now which tree on that hills side did I see a flash...oh ya that's right the use covers for the flash). I would have much rather had a weapon which could keep his head down (like 6 GPMGs or a minigun) until mortars or a tank could do the job. The idea that I need a platoon full of sharpshooters is counter-productive. The only answer I can come up with is to enhance our OOTW capability, where the need for selective shooting would be an asset.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I suspect its to allow the digger to hit a target with less training - the aim of most militaries - decrease the training on smallarms and therefore allow more time on other things, which used to be periphial to the role of the infantryman.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The bottom line is and will be "firepower". If you can project sufficent amounts at an enemy, accuracy ceases to really matter on the scale of an individual rifle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, bull****, pure and simple. If this is the new Canadian approach to warfare, heaven help the Canadian soldier. Australians have stood by and watched the Americans attempt to use that rationale in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. In each and every case, the PBI has had to go in and clear the enemy out. It does not work and this is one of the major lessons we teach our diggers - firepower without discipline is simply a waste of ammunition and a pretty fireworks display.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I would hazard that the M1 had a very high rate of fire. The FN which has a 7.62mm round had a 30 round per minute (or one every two seconds) but you could put out twice that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And not hit the target. It appears you're content to simply blazing down range in the general direction of the enemy, hoping that he might be foolish enough to put himself in front of your rounds.

The reason why we downunder always quoted the ROF for the L1a1 (or in your case the C1a1?) and which you mistakenly seem to call the "FN", was only 20 RPM was becuase we liked to hit our targets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As to BTS biased, well they did a lot right and they did a lot wrong but I think the key point is that "they did something". Wargaming has somewhere to go now and CM has shown it the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I has a great deal of potential, I agree. That does not mean it is not in need of correction where its made a more obvious mistake.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tero, this thread is about the British being shafted (or not), not the Germans. So go hijack another thread for your "the Allies sucked" spiel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I trust you actually read my post and not just respond with a rabid gut reaction after seeing my name appear in the left hand column.

An oversight on BTS's part prohibits pitting the British against the Americans in combat in CM so I have to use Germans in my examples. I trust in CMBB there will be an option to pit troops of the same nationality againts each other in civil war style scenarios. This will enable to exclusion of nationalities from the examples as it will only be the guns we are pitting against each other without any regard to the nationality of the cybersoldiers fielding them.

To recap: IMO the AMERICAN semiautomatic M1 Garand is overmodelled in the game through being modelled solely on the basis of technical facts.

The technical specs for all weapons in the game are pretty much correctly modelled. However, the actual, doctrinal usage of said weapon (M1 Garand) is disregarded through the Universal Soldier premise. Thus ALL nationalities using bolt-action rifles (NOTE ! this includes the British) get shafted when compared to the AMERICAN rifle squad in the CM world.

An AMERICAN squad carries exclusively semi- and full-auto weapons (the only nationality to have ALL the squads available to it equipped with that kind of technically superior firepower. Which is not historically inaccurate as such). Of the weapons in the AMERICAN squad the M1 Garand is rated (quite correctly and true to life) as being at least as powerfull and effective as any bolt-action rifle. The British squad has the Bren gun and the German squad has the MG42 to counter the AMERICAN squads (technically feasible) overwhelming ROF. However, if the ROF depicted in CM was calculated as actual battlefield/combat ROF based the technical ROF coupled with the actual tactical and doctrinal use of said weapon (M1 Garand) the AMERICAN squad would lose some of its teeth. Some of this built in AMERICAN superiority is downplayed with experience ratings but if we make all the contenders the same experience level the AMERICANS will come on top as the best.

BTW: I prefer British when playing as Allied.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

8-16 aimed shots a minute with a semi-auto? Are you serious?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically. Remember, you have to stop and push that charger in, that will decrease your rate of fire compared to a weapon on which the magazine is changed.

My question to you, Vanir, have you ever served in the military and been taught to shoot in a military situation?

You might believe my beliefs hark back closer to 1911 (interesting choice of year BTW) than 2001 yet what I've been saying is still taught in our Army. Perhaps our tactical doctrine, which is dedicated more to "pure" infantry tactics, in close terrain such as Jungle or scrub (which is what predominates in our region) is closer to what they used in WWII compared to what NATO or US Armies use, which rather makes me think what I'm saying is far more applicable to a game devoted to WWII than trying to suggest that a tactical doctrine from 2001 is relevent to 1944-45.

[Brian]

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

One thing to keep in mind when comparing bolt-action to semi-auto is that it is much harder to keep a bolt-action lined up on your target while you are attempting to cock it between shots. Not only does the rifle jerk around while your cocking it, it also interferes with your sight picture. This would be a real disadvantage firing at troops running to new cover. In combat I'd take a semi-auto anytime. The same things apply to revolvers vs. semi-auto pistols. I've shot both and there is no comparsion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. A well trained soldier does to wave his muzzle around whilst recocking the weapon.

Let me guess, you also believe you use the palm of the hand to push the bolt of a rifle home when chambering a round?

[Brian]

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

[QB]

I used that one in my military service. I can't hit anything with it

Plus, in some fire range I pick one from the armory which had the gas selector put in the position to fire rifle grenades and salvo, and I got a nice scratch in my cheek when I fired the first shot and the thing recoiled

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Serves you right. You obviously failed to strip and clean your weapon before using it.

Many the time I caught the fact the preceeding digger who'd been issued with an M60 GPMG had turned the gas piston around the wrong way when he'd reinserted it into the gas cylinder.

What I find interesting is that the picture posted is obviously of an FN-FAL rifle, whereas I was under the impression the Canadian armed forces had used the C1 - a variation on the L1a1 which was developed from the FN-FAL but which featured only semi-automatic fire selection and a very different flash-eliminator. The C1 also featured a cutout according to my sources over the magazine for allowing it to be loaded with clips, without removing the magazine (a strange modification IMO but each to their own).

Personally, I loved the L1a1 when I was in the Oz Army. Great weapon, very accurate. Only the F-88 proved more accurate with its 1.5x scope (which IMO is cheating).

[Guest Babra]

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

What I find interesting is that the picture posted is obviously of an FN-FAL rifle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FN-FAL Para actually. Same rifle with a folding stock and an 18 inch barrel. Much lighter and handier.

[Triumvir]

Speaking about dirty gas regulators reminds me that I have actually fired an LMG like a bolt-action rifle. Blanks are evil carbon-making bastards, and in one night-firing exercise, I was given a really filthy SAW to fire.

In the rundowns with blanks, everything went fine, but when we went to live rounds, the freaking gas regulator was so jammed that I had to work the action by hand throughout.

I know I emptied just under two 30rd magazines, but that was over about 5 minutes of fire and movement. It's surprisingly easy when you get the hang of it...

[Marlow]

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

Many the time I caught the fact the preceeding digger who'd been issued with an M60 GPMG had turned the gas piston around the wrong way when he'd reinserted it into the gas cylinder.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be because of that high quality of Australian infantry training that you have been talking constantly about. I have never, in many years as a 60 gunner, checked a misassembled MG out of the arms room.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Basically. Remember, you have to stop and push that charger in, that will decrease your rate of fire compared to a weapon on which the magazine is changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought you said you had no idea the ROF for the M1? Now you're sticking to your 8-16 number after I've posted numbers showing the ROF to be twice that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question to you, Vanir, have you ever served in the military and been taught to shoot in a military situation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. I've spent a lot of time shooting guns, but I never served. It's also irrelevant. Being trained to "shoot in a military situation" and actually doing it when bullets are coming back at you are two different worlds. The Americans discovered this in Normandy when they realized the way they had been trained to shoot "in a military situation" was totally wrong. They had to unlearn.

And the way they were trained sounds a lot like the way you were trained.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps our tactical doctrine, which is dedicated more to "pure" infantry tactics, in close terrain such as Jungle or scrub (which is what predominates in our region) is closer to what they used in WWII compared to what NATO or US Armies use, which rather makes me think what I'm saying is far more applicable to a game devoted to WWII than trying to suggest that a tactical doctrine from 2001 is relevent to 1944-45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Sorry. Wrong.

The Germans did use the "NATO/US" style tactics you dismiss. This is about the sixth time this has been said here and you seem to be ignoring this rather telling bit of information.

What area of the world did the action covered in Combat Mission take place?

Western Europe.

Until very recently, what area of the world did US and NATO forces expect to be fighting and trained as such?

Western Europe.

The US largely adopted the German philosophy of infantry tactics because they had it used against them in WW2 and so they knew it worked.

Refute that.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Major General William Depuy on US and German infantry training and tactics in WW2:

Did the training programs include live fire?

GEN DEPUY: They included infiltration courses, live fire exercises, and overhead fire, all against fixed targets. The enemy doesn’t shoot back, and so, you don’t learn a whole lot, and of course, they were normally not done above maybe, platoon level, or company level at the most. Then, once in awhile we would fire the “mad minute” to impress us with our own firepower. However,

the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier. He was trained to shoot at and hit a target, but in combat, in the attack, he rarely ever saw a target. So, he was indisposed to shoot. The Germans, on the other hand, used machine pistols which were area weapons. That is, they sprayed the area ahead of them and achieved fire superiority which we now call suppression...

...I might add that I think we still had some of that ammunition when the war was over because, as you know, the infantry in World War II didn’t shoot much small arms ammuniton, except the machine guns...

...Could you overwatch from your hedgerow?

GEN DEPUY: We didn’t do that very well. You see, one of our training deficiencies was that almost all suppression was done by indirect fire weapons. Very little suppression was done by small arms. Occasionally, we would use our heavy machine guns. People thought first about mortars and artillery, then heavy machine guns, and finally, light machine guns. Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression. They just thought of using riflemen for maneuvering and sharpshooting. The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets. This problem was not confined to the 90th Division. You have read SLAM Marshall and know that even in the IOlst only 25 percent of the troopers fired.* And, we only had eight heavy machine guns in a battalion. So, it didn’t work very well. We didn’t do direct fire suppression very well in my outfit until the latter part of the war...

Refering here to the Germans...

They simply suppressed and moved, suppressed and moved. They gained fire superiority, and then gobbled up chunks of those companies up there, which, by that time, probably were not returning fire...

...Did they usually include artillery?

GEN DEPUY: Some artillery, but nothing like we had. Some mortars, some assault guns, and a lot of small arms fire by the Germans. A lot of machine pistol fire, a lot of maneuver, and some hand grenades or potato mashers...

...Well, I thought the German machine pistol,which was an area suppression weapon, had great advantages, whereas we were trained for point targets with rifles. So, the Germans, it would seem to me, were ahead of us there...

...Was there anything about their tactics, good or bad, that impressed you?

GEN DEPUY: Yes, the infantry tactics of the Germans involved a lot of direct fire suppression that our tactics didn’t. They didn’t have as much indirect fire suppression, as much artillery, as we

did, but they had mortars, and direct fire suppression, coupled with a lot of movement...

Emphasis added by me, of course.

Funny how those German tactics sound so much like modern US/NATO tactics (sans artillery). Funny how the rarity of aimed shots at visible targets and the dominance of area effect firepower sounds a lot like what the Capt., myself and others have been talking about for six pages now. And this guy was actually there.

But Brian says that stuff didn't work in WW2. It was all about the ability of the individual rifleman to hit his target. And I'm just a civy. What do I know?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Australians have stood by and watched the Americans attempt to use that rationale in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. In each and every case, the PBI has had to go in and clear the enemy out. It does not work and this is one of the major lessons we teach our diggers - firepower without discipline is simply a waste of ammunition and a pretty fireworks display.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are aware that the US achieved a better than 10 to 1 kill/loss ratio in each of those conficts (except the Pacific which was more like 6 or 7 to 1 IIRC).

Yeah, I doesn't work.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[The_Capt]

Quote

"Oh, bull****, pure and simple. If this is the new Canadian approach to warfare, heaven help the Canadian soldier. Australians have stood by and watched the Americans attempt to use that rationale in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. In each and every case, the PBI has had to go in and clear the enemy out. It does not work and this is one of the major lessons we teach our diggers - firepower without discipline is simply a waste of ammunition and a pretty fireworks display."

Brian, you are living in the past and so is the Australia judging by your comments. You may be able to produce a fantastic infantryman but that isn't going to matter?

As to the threat the rifleman will guard against? Well there are many on the modern battlefield and some will continue to be infantry, of course most of them are guarding their weapons systems too.

I have been a professional Army officer for 13 yrs and what I am saying is nothing more than an extension of current NATO doctrine. "Firepower" has come of age in High Intensity conflict. You and yours may continue to pine away for the days when the bayonette, rifle and blood were the principal weapon on the battlefield but I am sorry those days are gone. Hell if airpower continues to excel at the rate it is we could all be out of a "warfighting" job and be restricted to peacemaking and security roles.

There will be exceptions to the rule in environments where the basic grunt is required but for how long? The "means" have become more important than the "ends" in the infantry battle. I am have read about cavalry being of a similar mind towards and during WWI, many swearing up and down that steel and lance would carry the day for Operational breakout...sorry Charlie but those days are gone.

Now it is obvious we are not going to agree and because there is no war on, it really doesn't matter.

I think we should settle this with a CM game...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The US largely adopted the German philosophy of infantry tactics because they had it used against them in WW2 and so they knew it worked.

Refute that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty simple to refute actually. If it worked so bloody well then how come the uber German infantry lost the war? O.K., O.K., a little bit of over simplification here but no more so than your statement.

Regards

Jim R.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Pretty simple to refute actually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your statement doesn't even begin to refute it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it worked so bloody well then how come the uber German infantry lost the war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German armed forces had a lot of problems (antiquated supply and transportation; duplication of effort with SS, Heer and FJ; convoluted procurement; ect., ect.), but small unit infantry tactics was not one of them.

They were also (generally speaking) outnumbered and outproduced.

BTW, I never said German soldiers were "uber". You did. I only said their small unit tactics were more advanced.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>O.K., O.K., a little bit of over simplification here but no more so than your statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read Depuy if you think I oversimplify.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Spook]

Well, the latest posts by Vanir & Capt are pretty good responses, but I will add on this one point:

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

It has a great deal of potential, I agree. That does not mean it is not in need of correction where its made a more obvious mistake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. A "more obvious mistake"? How obvious? Proven by facts or factual trends?

Furthermore, recall my earlier post. I had noted that while the M1 Garand in CMBO has greater "fire value" at point-blank range over an Enfield, note that the Enfield has proportionally even greater fire value over the German Kar98. In other words, the Enfield, as a bolt-action rifle, carrys both more "firepower" and "suppression" value than its German counterpart.

Now, if BTS was so "obviously" biased against the Enfield, then why any difference from a Kar98?

To review, what would then be your argument? That the M1 Garand should be rated down, or that the Enfield should be rated up to the M1?

If you want to prove the "obvious" bias, then roll up your sleeves and gather references specific to Enfield usage on the battlefield. Review after-action reports (AAR's) and seek out "casualty break-out surveys" as to determine the relative effect of Enfield rifle fire against German troops (compared to other weapon types). Correlate with German veterans' reports if available & relevant.

It's the point that Vanir & Capt have made earlier: most WWII rifles were designed to be the most effective in hitting observed point targets at various ranges. If the enemy is kind enough to be an easily spotted target for you, then sure, a rifle can be effective in given situations. Now, if the targets aren't lending themselves so to be easily observed when the shooting starts, then how goes the effectiveness of the Enfield, M1, or any other rifle for that matter?

Rifles (mainly semi & assault) aren't worthless. They still have their role in the infantry today. But again, if the enemy makes the effort to keep from being observed, or uses good cover & defilade, then a rifle can only do so much with aimed fire. Then "suppression" needs more application, whether applied by the rifles or by whatever other weapons available.

[argie]

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

Serves you right. You obviously failed to strip and clean your weapon before using it.

Many the time I caught the fact the preceeding digger who'd been issued with an M60 GPMG had turned the gas piston around the wrong way when he'd reinserted it into the gas cylinder.

What I find interesting is that the picture posted is obviously of an FN-FAL rifle, whereas I was under the impression the Canadian armed forces had used the C1 - a variation on the L1a1 which was developed from the FN-FAL but which featured only semi-automatic fire selection and a very different flash-eliminator. The C1 also featured a cutout according to my sources over the magazine for allowing it to be loaded with clips, without removing the magazine (a strange modification IMO but each to their own).

Personally, I loved the L1a1 when I was in the Oz Army. Great weapon, very accurate. Only the F-88 proved more accurate with its 1.5x scope (which IMO is cheating).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah! If that was MY weapon that wilol not happen. But in the Argentine Army of that time they gave you the rifle to shot, in whatever condition it was. The little valvle which regulates the gas wasn't marked, so is a sort of trial and error if you wasn;t aware of the former use of the weapon, or you disasemble it previous to fire, which you can't as you got it just before the firing. I remember another day, in which I got one issued for a tactical march and live fire... I walked with the thing 40 or 60 kms and when the firing starts, in Auto, I can't get more than Semiauto shots... I checked the weapon and I found that the guide that fixes the cover of the mechnism was out of trail (this is the worst part in the design of that rifle IMHO),

I was lucky that the whole thing don't explodes in my face

I disasembled it and restarted fire in a few moments, and got into the first in finish the range. As I said before, was pretty simple to maintain as rifle.

Oh! The Para has more recoil than normal FALs because the recuperation spring is shorter, as not having a butt to be in...

[StellarRat]

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

Let me guess, you also believe you use the palm of the hand to push the bolt of a rifle home when chambering a round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have fired both types of weapons. I was trying to fire a bolt action .220 Swift rapidly and unless you work the bolt very smoothly and slowly it doesn't stay on target. The fact that I had to take one hand off the rifle grab the bolt and move it just made it impossible for me to fire rapidly and accurately. Granted it was extremely accurate when I had time to aim (I was hitting 2 liter bottles at 200 yards with 2 out of 3 shots.)

I can't imagine that anyone under extreme pressure would be able the work the action without some shaking and slamming. I think it would be very difficult to get more than one aimed shot off against someone hopping from cover to cover.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Colonel Harry B. Shermalt, Commanding Officer -th Infantry, ITALY:

"In most cases it would be better if they fired even if there is no visible target. A group of riflemen may be stopped by a German machine gun which they can’t locate, but if they will open fire in the general direction of the machine gun the Germans will usually pull out. I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on fire orders and fire control by unit leaders. Men must be taught to open fire at once in the general direction of any target that is holding them up"

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Colonel Harry B. Shermatl, Commanding Officer -th Infantry, ITALY:

"In most cases it would be better if they fired even if there is no visible target. A group of riflemen may be stopped by a German machine gun which they can’t locate, but if they will open fire in the general direction of the machine gun the Germans will usually pull out. I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on fire orders and fire control by unit leaders. Men must be taught to open fire at once in the general direction of any target that is holding them up"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey ! Those are MY anti-American national bias quotes you are quoting. Find your own hobby horse, this one is already spoken for.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Hey ! Those are MY anti-American national bias quotes you are quoting. Find your own hobby horse, this one is already spoken for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. And once again thanks for digging them up. I couldn't get to the originals as the links no longer work (the Carlisle-Mil site, or whatever it was called, seems to have disappeared). I'm sure they've been moved somewhere but Google couldn't find it.

Of course, I'm using them for a somewhat different purpose than you originally attempted to do...

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Tero]

>Yup. And once again thanks for digging them

>up.

Happy to oblige.

>I couldn't get to the originals as the

>links no longer work (the Carlisle-Mil

>site, or whatever it was called, seems to

>have disappeared). I'm sure they've been

>moved somewhere but Google couldn't find it.

Did you try

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945

I just tried it and the URL seems to work. I am connected to it as I write. They have been on and off the air during the past few weeks. Problems with the IIS flu that is going around ?

>Of course, I'm using them for a somewhat

>different purpose than you originally

>attempted to do...

Well.... this is a debate on the modelling of different small arms and you are rather enhancing my original point in favour of my original purpose. But from a different angle. The way you use it undermines the "universal soldier" approach taken in modelling just the technical aspects of the weapons while disregarding the tactics and doctrine of the different armies and how they solved the problems they faced with the inventory they had at hand.

I'm still compiling data on the subject so I'll leave it at that. No need to stir the pot too much just for the hell of it.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[David Aitken]

Returning to the original topic of this thread, I have come to a personal conclusion about the relative firepower of British, American and German infantry.

Firstly, there is no weight behind arguments along the lines of "oh yeah, well if X firearm was so bad/good, then how come Y army did so well/badly in Z theatre?". Each army was trained to use the weapons they were issued with to optimum effect. How an army fares in a particular scenario is down to myriad factors, and the army's basic organisation, doctrine and experience is much more important than how fast they can burn ammunition. All three armies in question were respected by their opponents, and indeed their allies, regardless of a certain inevitable degree of animosity. They fought well with the weapons they had, and none did any better than the other in all circumstances.

Secondly, it is not apparent to me that one army's infantry firepower was significantly better than another's. The British Lee-Enfield rifle outclassed the German Mauser, but was bettered by the next-generation US Garand. The US, however, had a poor squad automatic (BAR), which was strictly an automatic rifle compared to the British (Bren) and German (MG42) true light machineguns. The Germans made up for their poor rifle firepower with increasing use of SMGs and the introduction of assault rifles, as well as a fearful HMG (MG42), whereas the British had a MMG capable of sustained fire superior to all others, and the US had a light antitank machinegun to supplement its air-cooled MMG.

It all evens out. It's not the individual weapons which are important, it's how they're used and what other weapons they're used with. To answer the basic question which started the thread, no, Commonwealth infantry weapons are not poor. Some are better than others, but taken together, and then considered with the men who are using them, you do not find an army which has an overall firepower deficiency. Even then, firepower is only one facet of overall performance.

[Brian]

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

Must be because of that high quality of Australian infantry training that you have been talking constantly about. I have never, in many years as a 60 gunner, checked a misassembled MG out of the arms room.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one or any organisation is perfect. The fact that I did pick it up, indicated I looked. I was trained to check my weapon(s) before I used them. I trained my diggers to look and check their weapons before they used them. I don't doubt that there were some lazy buggers who simply threw the gas cylinder back in any-which-way after a range shoot when they were looking forward to knocking off. That type exist in every organisation.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Funny how those German tactics sound so much like modern US/NATO tactics (sans artillery). Funny how the rarity of aimed shots at visible targets and the dominance of area effect firepower sounds a lot like what the Capt., myself and others have been talking about for six pages now. And this guy was actually there.

But Brian says that stuff didn't work in WW2. It was all about the ability of the individual rifleman to hit his target. And I'm just a civy. What do I know?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir, I have not said that this "did not work". I have made the point that this was not how the British army worked. Stop erecting a strawman.

They might have got it wrong, armies often do, afterall the old adage is that militaries don't prepar to fight the next war but the last.

In 1944-45, the British still believed in the value of individual accuracy over massed firepower. As I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss how the armies of the period acted, and in particular reference to the way in which the game appears to over-emphasise the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles compared to bolt-action ones, I felt my experience might be useful.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Vanir, I have not said that this "did not work". I have made the point that this was not how the British army worked. Stop erecting a strawman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strawman? The Americans appear to have been trained in a manner similar to the British and found it to be lacking in actual combat. That seems rather pertinent to the discussion to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss how the armies of the period acted, and in particular reference to the way in which the game appears to over-emphasise the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles compared to bolt-action ones, I felt my experience might be useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, lets leave Tero Country behind and get back to the original point.

Lee-Enfield ROF: 15 aimed shots per minute.

M1 Garand ROF: 25-30 aimed shots per minute.

CM firepower rating.

Firepower at: 40m 100m 250m

M1 Garand:__13___7____3

Lee-Enfield:__10___6____3

CM actually rates them pretty close to equal until you get to very short range. So, where is the problem? I don't see it.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]