Battlefront pay attention for CMAK! This is how the Second World War was fought :-)

[Michael Emrys]

Otherwise, bring a mortar FO to the party. They can shoot where nobody can see.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Indirect MG fire has indeed been discussed extensively here. Not sure how often it was done; I gather from previous conversations not all that often. It was used in Veritable to thicken the pepperpot barrages, in the same manner as indirect artillery fire. Maybe John Salt has access to some of these questionnaires (they are British forms, after all) and might be able to reference some comments about it from, say, a gunner in an MG battalion?

As for mortars; not sure how often they were fired singly at random targets. The Mortar FO nicely simulates their main uses, IMO, though I'm certainly not an expert. I presume their main use (I refer to 81mm and 3" varieties, attached to company and battalion weapons platoons) was to fire in battery for support of attacks/defence on/of specific localities. Blooping with a single tube at "suspected" targets doesn't seem right to me.

I would also like to see ammunition trucks/carriers and in-game replenishment. Not sure if it would be worth the trouble in game terms, but given a long enough scenario, would be neat to be able to send a squad back, spend a minute Temporarily Immobilized (as they called it in ASL) at an ammo vehicle, and then be replenished, or alternately, to be able to take ammo back to the front to distribute.

Perhaps like medical evacuation this is best left abstracted, but still, it is frustrating to have no way at all of in game replenishment, especially for long scenarios. That's not abstraction, it's deletion altogether.

If we're going to simulate a company commander's burden, let's really do it, and add in PW collection points, casualty evacuation routes, battle exhaustion casualties, and ammunition resupply. Detaching a half squad to guard prisoners is unrealistic, when walking wounded did the job in real life, or in many cases at most a couple of riflemen. BFC have abstracted prisoner taking, but only gone halfway - the walking wounded are removed entirely from the game, but with it their ability to escort PWs. Perhaps PWs should have been removed from the game in the same manner as casualties?

I'd also like to see depleted squads at game start not through casualty shortages, but through the LOB system which was standard in the CW. In Operations, you should be allowed to bring your LOBs up as you see fit.

[PeterX]

Michael Dorosh:

I would also like to see ammunition trucks/carriers and in-game replenishment.

I'd like to see them in the game, as well. But not for simulating resupply, which I beleive is outside the scope of CM, but as destroyable props. Along with parked planes, ambulances, haystacks, and oil drums. Even private cars for city scenarios. BFC, IMO, needs to enable the designer to furnish the battlefield with more objects. And buildings should be scenario specific, as well. Becasue the war-related decor in CM is a bit undernourished. There, I've said it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Civilian cars would only be necessary if they provided some actual cover; and even then, how many men could you fit behind one?

For commando type ops, it would be interesting to have more stuff to blow up. A(n inelegant) workaround now is to use bunkers with no ammo to represent stuff you wanna destroy. Planes would be a bit rare; though a typical platoon or company mission in static areas might very well include sending a patrol to destroy an abandoned tank (friendly or enemy) or downed aircraft. These missions might conceivably make use of such game "units".

I'd be more prone to concentrating on the norm rather than the neat exceptions, though. The fact that these questionnaires ask each and every respondent about how well ammunition was brought forward suggests to me that it was a very real cause for concern, to someone at least, at some point.

Again, BFC was wise to abstract it, but took it to the point where any replenishment was eliminated altogether. Hopefully it is something on the plate for the engine rewrite. A history written solely about the RSM of the Hasty P's in Italy suggests that the matter of getting ammunition forward was not always straight forward, and in fact, battles could and did hinge on the ability of ammo parties to get forward. Yet another thing for the beleagured company commander to have to worry about, rather than just gamily spotting for his light mortar section!

[Andrew H.]

These are very interesting; thanks for taking the time to post them.

Also, no one has mentioned this, but it seems that heated cans of soup should be available as power-ups, at least for commonwealth troops.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've never had to use the 18 set, but the 77 sets we use (PRC-25, as the Yanks called them in Vietnam) are probably just as bad.

Minor correction. Your 77 is probably the US PRC-77. The older PRC-25 looked about the same as its replacement the PRC-77, but it used tubes where the PRC-77 was solid state. The 77 was in use in some training schools as of the early 1990s. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Indirect MG fire has indeed been discussed extensively here. Not sure how often it was done; I gather from previous conversations not all that often. ...

You gathered wrong. It's effectiveness, on the other hand ...

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, its American tankers and they're not using a questionaire but an interview format, but you can find out what a bunch of front line tank commanders in the US 2nd Armored thought of the Sherman at this site.

Particularly interesting are the "Interview Transcripts."

BTW, these questionaire posts are terrific, Michael. Thanks.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by JonS:

*ahem* that's AN/PRC-77.

Don't make me go into radio grog mode on you, it isn't pretty. Besides, we never called it by its proper nomenclature, we had a somewhat less flattering nickname for it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

*ahem* that's AN/PRC-77.

Don't make me go into radio grog mode on you, it isn't pretty. Besides, we never called it by its proper nomenclature, we had a somewhat less flattering nickname for it. </font>

[Nippy]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, its American tankers and they're not using a questionaire but an interview format, but you can find out what a bunch of front line tank commanders in the US 2nd Armored thought of the Sherman at this site.

Particularly interesting are the "Interview Transcripts."

BTW, these questionaire posts are terrific, Michael. Thanks. </font>

Interesting read to say the least. After both that and fiddling around in CMBB a bit, it seems like the Soviets should have been sending the Americans and Brits Lend Lease T-34/85 and JS-2. I was surpised about the commends concerning the Sherman's poor off road preformance. Here's a good read from the Soviet perspective:

A Tiger! The gunner doesn't see it yet in the field of view of his gun sight. And the machine gunner fires a burst at the tank, like a shotgun against an elephant, to attract the gunner's attention. The gun's barrel is lowered immediately, a shot, and the armor piercing shell ricochets off the front armor. And it was only fifty meters! "Subcaliber!" - the gunner yells desperately. The breech block clanks, swallowing the round. Fortunately, both the tank's gun and its driver look upward while the tank hasn't got out of the hollow. The subcaliber shell hits the bottom of the turret at almost point blank range. Apparently, something burst inside, a blue light flashed from all of the AFV's holes. The AFV doesn't burst into flames, but the crew tries to bail out through the hatches. A machine gun burst finishes the business...

[Maj. Battaglia]

Michael, another voice thanking you for posting these. Brings up a lot of intersting ideas and questions.

Regarding ammo resupply, perhaps we are approaching the issue the wrong way. It is possible (I take BFdotC's word) that CM ammo loads are accurate and heat-of-battle resupply being left out is also accurate. Perhaps we (in CM) are always running low on ammo (and hence this becomes an issue to us) because we keep our squads engaged for too long and they fire too much (either because of game engine or our own tactical need).

Maybe Marshall was right (that only a few men really fired their weapons)? Or maybe the no-reload in CM is another way of saying "after X amount of combat, a unit is no longer effective and needs to be relieved if you want to hold the position or move forward."

The going to a supply point, being TI for a bit, and returning with more ammo and a smile is a good idea, but in practice would units really do this? I mean, after fighting so much your ammo runs out, are you going to go back a few hundred meters and NOT find a way out of returning within half an hour (or more)?

On the other hand, perhaps scenarios are just too long, and all but the shortest should be converted to operations with only a few turns per round (say 20 or less). Perhaps a 60 (or even 30) turn scenario is just not accurate: under the time pressure, you keep pushing your squads until they run out of ammo (or even then you fix bayonets).

When reading about the length of time some Real Life™ engagements took (all day), but are then boiled down to a 60 turn scenario, I have to wonder if we are going in the right direction. Is being engaged for 60 full minutes accurate? Or should we consider something closer to a series of shorter engagements, where resupply is handled between turns (as it is now). The latter is closer to what I (at least) have read regarding combat.

Just some thoughts. I do not claim to have any definitive (or even close) answers.

[Franko]

Geez, Dorosh, you really come up with some obscure ****. However, its always useful. Thanks!

F

[Maj. Battaglia]

Another thought on ammo resupply (and if I'm hijacking, say so and I'll shut up). Also forgive me if this has come up in other ammo resupply discussions (I have not participated in many of them).

Perhaps the abstractions included in operations are a problem and long scenarios are the answer (complete with ammo resupply). Two problems I have with operations are the map control determination and mitigation of counterattacks.

With map control, if you have a long scenario where it is necessary to rest and replenish troops (and have an option to do so) natural lulls will occur in fighting, particularly if for resupply you can't just send one squad back willy nilly, but have to resupply platoons or even companies at a time, and this takes quite a while to accomplish.

The result may be intermediate objectives, and once secured, hold with some troops and, if the enemy has not retreated far away, move back to resupply. Commanders wishing to preserve their forces would have to pull back where necessary to strengthen newly-won ground, but not be forced to abandon strongholds at the computer's whim while on defense. If supply units were modeled, supply points would have to be far enough back to be unseen by the enemy.

This would also bring counterattacks into play. Currently, why counterattack in an operation if you are on defense when you can better use your troops in defensive positions? Plus, the initiative is always with the attacker by default, there is no ability for the defender to launch a surprise counterattack while the erstwhile attackers are opening self-heating soup cans: when the next turn rolls around, the attacker has done all this and has remarshalled his troops on the front line. No vulnerable spots to counterattack (and recent intel from fighting is lost anyway during the re setup).

One common theme I've seen in pieces by US veterans is how they usually expected and typically prepared for a German counterattack after taking some real estate.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've never had to use the 18 set, but the 77 sets we use (PRC-25, as the Yanks called them in Vietnam) are probably just as bad.

The PRC-25 and 77 sets are quite different, internally from one another. The -77 has a much greater use of solid-state electronics, whereas the -25 is mainly transistors.

The 18 Set was a dog to tune and use. Unreliable and power hungry.

[Wisbech_lad]

Major Battaglia, agree with your points

I think in CM we very rarely attack as in real life, or only simulate a portion of a typical attack.

Almost all accounts I read of CW tactics talk about “two up, two down” attacks, with phase lines, and of need to dig in against immediate counterattacks (and mortar stonks). A whole company (or bn) may just be tasked with clearing the start line, and see no more action for the rest of the day. Likewise a trailing company may see no action, but take over the forward positions gained by the assault company to allow them to pull back. But in CM, the temptation is to scout enough, then use all your forces to take the objectives. Or push your initial probe to destruction/ completely out of ammo, rather than halting them and letting the reserves take over.

I agree long scenarios are probably the answer, but with phased reinforcements and multiple layers of objectives to simulate the battle plan, and release of local reserves for counterattacks. Would have to be some house rule on withdrawing/ digging in units with low ammo, rather than using them as scouts.

This would be processor and time hungry though. Having 15-20 PBEM turns while the trailing companies move up with no action apart from interdiction arty may not be the most enthralling, even if more accurate.