Sheesh - what a bunch of Germanophiles ;-)

[Bigduke6]

Abbot,

Yikes! No need to get personal. Just because you are discussing the combat utility of the Kalashnikov rifle, and we disagree, it's no reason to slam me delusions of godhood, ranting, and alcholism, all in one paragraph.

If you think my conclusions wrong, refute them.

None of what I have written here is particularly original - read Trevor Dupuy's Weapons and Warfare, or SLAM Marshalls study on WW2 infantry combat (I forgot the title).

If it helps, by bringing up my personal experience with the Kalashnikov and the M-16, I wasn't trying to show you up particularly. Just throwing some information into the conversation. Sorry if it contradicted what your were saying.

So tell me, what's your favorite CM unit? I am guessing an elite Royal Tiger. Maybe crack S.S. Panzer Grenadiers armed with the MP44. Am I warm?

I'm serious. I bet your answers can prove my point.

Just to show you I'm on the up and up, I am a big fan of the British 6 lber and the Soviet ISU-152.

And did you play Dorosh's scenario?

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

On May 21, I posted two "vs AI" versions of a battle on the SD site. It pits Guards Cav vs SS Cav.

Here are the current download stats:

WBRP - Company Town (vs Ad AI); 85 downloads

WBRP - Company Town (vs Ax AI); 64 downloads

Both are still on the Current Submission table, so the apparent bias in favour of donning SS uniforms can't be due to "Marketing".

I noted a similar bias in download rates when they were imultaneously available on The Proving Grounds site, although I didn't record the numbers.

Discuss...well, discuss things other than the fact that I am a lousy statistician...

To paradrop back into topic...

Brent,

Couldn't it be that the Germans lost? And that it is more stimulating defeating history than repeating it? Seeing as no political consequences of a reversed course of history need be suffered in this case. Defeating odds is attractive.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Europa]

The Germans got cooler stuff to play with. Maybe not always better, but cooler.

[Andreas]

As a designer who mostly does 2-player/German vs. AI stuff in CMBB, my reason for that is that I feel a bit more confident about getting the briefings to sound right for the German side, I normally have better information for this, and I just feel a little bit more confident about getting the situation right.

That certainly does not have anything to do with German worship, even though I would not mind being worshipped a bit, myself.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Abbot,

So tell me, what's your favorite CM unit? I am guessing an elite Royal Tiger. Maybe crack S.S. Panzer Grenadiers armed with the MP44. Am I warm?

I'm serious. I bet your answers can prove my point.

LOL. I am a big Eastern Front fan. I enjoy playing either the Russian or German side and am particularly fond of the early war, 1941-42. I enjoy the early T-34’s and BT7’s, the Mk IV short barrel 75 and the 38T. ATG’s and infantry are my favorite units and I will take pioneers into the field on occasion.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Abbot,

Sorry if it contradicted what your were saying.

That is not a problem. I just got a laugh out of your chastising me from the point of view of a "professional soldier", trying to slap me down with your well written but often incorrect assumptions or theories. By the tone of your posts I gathered you were either seriously underestimating the membership base of this Forum or pleasantly drinking and typing away with a silly grin on your face and caring more about laughs then accuracy.

I usually find your posts biased towards Russian arms and equipment but always well written. I consider you a good addition to this Forum and find you sharing a differing point of view interesting.

Regards,

Nick

[ June 19, 2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Abbott:

ATG’s and infantry are my favorite units and I will take pioneers into the field on occasion.

Gamey sod.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That certainly does not have anything to do with German worship, even though I would not mind being worshipped a bit, myself.

Andreas can vouch for me as to being a mean SOB. I cannot recall a time on the General Forum when he and I have agreed, even having a heated exchange now and then over the years. However I have no doubt whatsoever of the man's fine character or his exceptional WW II knowledge that he openheartedly shares with us here. At one time some of us considered thanking him for his contributions by showing a bit of German worship , then he up and moved to Paris and we now consider him no better then Australians or Canadian Grogs.

Well, I am off to "The Luga Breakthrough" tourney. Where I am furiously engaged in German worship with my green and conscript Russian infantry. I discourage my troops from taking gold teeth from the bodies (enemy and friendly), it seems every time I collect their pliers they just resort to prying them out with dull bayonets or a fist sized rock. What the heck, they have to eat too.

[ June 19, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Andreas:

As a designer who mostly does 2-player/German vs. AI stuff in CMBB, my reason for that is that I feel a bit more confident about getting the briefings to sound right for the German side, I normally have better information for this, and I just feel a little bit more confident about getting the situation right.

That certainly does not have anything to do with German worship, even though I would not mind being worshipped a bit, myself.

So despite your first paragraph it seems that your actual underlying motivation is the one I alluded to earlier in the thread? Unfortunately there is two sides to every coin and having performed brilliantly in your execution of the axis side of things the allied side is a dog's breakfast.

[Andreas]

You think those Allieds need a good barrel reaming too?

Don't try to project your phobias on me lad. Back to the lab with you.

Fact is, as long as there are no sheep modelled, it will be impossible to portray the Commonwealth correctly in a scenario. Sad but true.

[Bigduke6]

The reason Andreas likes Germans is really too unpleasantly intimate to describe in this family-oriented forum. Suffice it to say it involves the placement of monocles in unconventional locations. And worship.

Now watch, Andreas going to come back with some bovine crack. You Teutons are so predictable.

[ June 20, 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Bigduke6]

Abbot,

Well if you play Soviets even half the time then I owe you a big fat apology, so here it is:

I didn't mean to imply you were an unprofessional soldier nor did I mean to imply that all professional soldiers at all times would choose a Kalashnikov over all other possible small arms. I should have qualified that with "most" or "the overwhelming majority" or "throughout the 20th century" or something similar. I wasn't clear enough with my writing, and I regret that. I really don't enjoy insulting people unless they deserve it, and that certainly isn't my view of you. If you felt insulted, I apologize, that wasn't my intent at all.

Just for the record, I was in active service in my day and my job still keeps me in periodic contact with militaries. Also just for the record, I don't think I am so much biased particularly towards things Soviet. Rather IMO the general grog population is biased against things Soviet (ignorance and Cold War hangover). I am trying to do my bit to keep the alternate point of view out there in the forum.

Your impressions and mine on personal weapons probably differ less than you think: If I were in a firefight and forced to defend myself (Hah! I'm old, I can leave that to others!) I probably would want an M-16A2 and a ton of lubricating fluid, because I am far more familiar with that weapon, and also I like peep sights. Although I probably wouldn't be as upset as you would be if the choice was Kalashnikov.

But my point is, what you or I may want personally if we are unfortunate enough to be in a firefight, is not nearly the same thing as the best weapon for an army trying to figure out how to win a war where infantry fighting and infantry casualties are inevitable.

I really do think you are supporting this view.

You said:

"I enjoy the early T-34’s and BT7’s, the Mk IV short barrel 75 and the 38T. ATG’s and infantry are my favorite units and I will take pioneers into the field on occasion."

All of those units are not hands-down battlefield dominators like, for instance, a Royal Tiger. Your preferences on what is good to have in a CM battle are based on on, I assume, your playing style, what works for you (i.e. points-to-payoff on the CM battlefield), and of course fun.

Same deal with small arms. My arguement is that giving grunts a "Royal Tiger"-type small arm is at least to some extent a waste of resources.

[Abbott]

No need for apologies. It is difficult to communicate on an Internet forum. I bet I would enjoy your company and a good conversation over a beer at the local pub. I got out of bed about 4:00 am yesterday morning, did a few chores and met some family members for Fathers day. We went to the movies. I came home sent off a PBEM turn, then ate dinner and took a nap. When I awakened I sent another e-mail turn and commented “What a nice nap!” This morning I received a turn with the comment “Yes, I like the map also”. It is just the Internet and written communication, it is tough to communicate properly at times.

[Abbott]

(snipped) …nor did I mean to imply that all professional soldiers at all times would choose a Kalashnikov over all other possible small arms. I should have qualified that with "most" or "the overwhelming majority" or "throughout the 20th century" or something similar.

Ok, you have a point with "most". I believe the only reason that is correct is because the AK 47 was so cheap to build and acquire. The poor SOB's who have no choice of weapons make up that vast majority. Western professionals have access to better quality weapons, being built not only in the US but in several other nations as well.

The Soviet doctrine still relied on “quantity has a quality all it’s own”. I still get a chuckle out of that sergeant who told you cleaning weapons was a waste of time, that says more then you may know to a Western soldier. I appreciate you sharing that.

I really do think you are supporting this view.

..and I wonder if you’re sober?

[ June 20, 2005, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Bigduke6]

Abbot,

I met Starshina (Sgt major, roughly) Bohdan Zaharenko in Moscow in the mid 1990s. He wasn't exactly saying cleaning weapons was a waste of time. His point was there is always plenty of things for infantry to do, and if they have to spend time babying their rifles, then they have less time to do useful things like dig holes, conduct patrols, forage for food, brew moonshine, etc.

It was kind of an eye-opener for me. Up to that point I had been of the conventional western opinion that a good soldier was a soldier always taking care of his personal weapon, full stop.

Zaharenko laughed at that, his arguement being was why not just make a rifle that works fine, without having to clean it all the time? Self-respecting infantry does not obscessively tooth brush its entrenching tools and boots, why should such silliness be necessary for a rifle, which since the infantryman carries it is going to get just as dirty? His issue wasn't quantity and mass, it was just infantry fighting is rough on equipment and a finicky rifle is not worth the trouble, and quite possibly can be lethal to its user.

The guy admitted to either two or three tours in Afghanistan, and was murky but hinted about Congo and Angola as well. When I had met him Zaharenko was pushing 30 years in the service. So a "pro" by most standards, although possibly not yours.

A pity we can't have that beer, he had incredible stories about Mujahaddin and Lee-Enfields.

[roqf77]

well to but in as i always do!...... i agree with abbot!

Although i have no military experience, my brother and about 4 of my friends are or were in the british army. many with experience some are serving in iraq now or were and some were sent to eg my brother were sent to bosnia and kosovo. The western philosophy of cleaning your rifle is not a case of babying your rifle. A friend of mine who was in the para drop in iraq to take the oil fields, he got 30+ confirmed kills(not bragging its true). He says it takes 20 mins to clean the sa 80 and thats doing it slowly. plus he has used an sa 80 A2 a m16A2 and an ak 47. He said his least favourite was the ak 47. in fact all of my friends in the british army are happy with the sa 80 a2. (although im told previous versions especialy the original were terrible). there was also a documentry on the bbc i believe called weapons of war, they pitted in the m16 and ak - 47

the proffesional soldiers who fired the weapon found the m 16 to be notibly more accurate over 200m. i am a poltics student and in one lesson we were looking over documents(are publicly availble as we were reading print outs in a newspaper, the telegraph i believe). and the sa-A2 was said to have jammed less than the m-16A2. although there was not a huge difference. dont know the stats though. Not sure about how long the M-16 takes to clean but your point Bigduke6 about cleaning the rifle is just a bit well off. Because british soldiers with western rifles in iraq didnt have to obbsevily clean there rifles. and belive me you could tell them there not self respecting soldiers because they do but i dont think youd like there responce much.

[bruceb]

(\_/)

(O.o)

(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.

I hear and I obey.

(has as much to do with the original topic as anything else in this thread... btw - I always take the russkies and avoid the kraut-heads whenever possible...)

cheers,

bruceb

[Bigduke6]

I didn't mean to insult any one, I'm just trying to offer an alternative point of view. What Western armies often call "responsible rifle maintenance," eastern armies sometimes have called "babying overly-sensitive equipment."

If your definition of professional soldier is "soldier serving in NATO, and probably non-Latin NATO, and also the Australians and the Kiwis" then absolutely it is a fair statement to say almost all professional soldiers don't like AKs. I personally define professional soldier more widely.

Here's a linky that spells out pretty well the limits of excellent troops with great rifles and other equipment in an infantry-heavy war. It's about Iraq so if that sort of thing makes you angry, don't look at it.

http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf

[Code13]

Originally posted by roqf77:

snip

just to put this into context though.

The British Army has always adopted the posture of its troops making aimed, accurate shots with its rifles, thats why it took so long to replace the Lee Enfield with a semi-auto rifle, and why it took so long to replace that with an automatic rifle.

And as I have already said, the AK is not a rifle, but a machine gun capable of single shot fireing.

This alone will make infantry trained in a culture of making the shot count dislike this weapon.

[roqf77]

good point code 13. and as i say i have no experience with either. and my brother would rather have for general use an ak-47 as well. But i have been told by many of my friends in the army, that unlike movies even firing 3 round burst over 100 yards is a waste of time. its not just a matter of doctrine, the british army and i belive the us army would be much the same, tests were carried out and single aimed shots were found to be so much more effective. there were cases in ww2 where british infantry squads on there merit alone wiped out experienced german squads bcause they were firing, to often without aiming properly and were wasting 90% of there ammo. this type of firing isnt effective against trained soldiers. again the truth remains to be seen, im just talking form what ive been told. But even my brother who had a preference for the ak047 says its purely for reliabilty. not so much the maintenance at least he sayed he would not fancy his chances if he were stuck at 200 yards against someone with an sa-80 or m-16. My brother was only in the signals but he was a dman good shot.

[Splinty]

One point to make about the U.S. Army squad doctrine is the use of multiple weapon types in a single small element. The M4/M16A2 is only one type of weapon in the squad or fire team, the users of those particular weapon types are supposed to use well-aimed shots to kill OR suppress the enemy. The total high volume of suppressive fire comes from the M249 Squad Automatic Weapons that are organic to the squad or team. Each platoon also has a couple of M240B Medium Machine Guns for heavier support. Add in the squads' M203 grenade launchers to target the enemy forces crew served weapons and leadership, and the picture of the lone rifleman just pulling the trigger out of sheer panic changes dramatically. Replace the modern weapons with their WWII equivalents and the CM context is equally applicable. One final key element is the squad leader, a good one will direct the squads fire on key targets and possible cover points in order to break the enemies momentum or punch a hole in his defences.

[Code13]

IMHO the US army squads and platoons are much more based on the German WW2 model than anything else whereas the British Army is still based around the principle of an infantry man and his rifle.

[sdr633]

I play as German against Soviets because I figure the AI plays in a manner more Soviet than German, dense assaults with high casualties but the numbers to overcome the losses.

[roqf77]

code 13 im sorry but your talking out of an hole that isnt your mouth. they have the gpmg for support of the squad as well as the lsw. which function in the same way the us army does.

[Code13]

Thanks for the insult there rofq77, nice to see civility is still alive and well on message boards.

Just out of interest, since you are uch an undoubted oracle, but in the British Army is the GPMG issued at squad level or platoon level, or higher?