Moving in snow - ridiculous

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Moving rapidly in snow is tiring unless the snow is light. But Sven may be right that it is overdone. In CMBB, you essentially have to use "move". The problem is move pins very easily. "Advance" is the only thing stiff enough to cross even short areas of open ground.

Yeah, but think about it. Waist deep snow, with a brisk jog, with a full kit, thick and heavy winter garb to stay warm in, trying to be aware of your surroundings, ducking, hunching, quick sprints, and trying to lay down fire if any enemy is in front of you.

I think 10 meters my be slightly overdone (let's say 20 is better), but that would still be a rough deal for any person for sure.

[Jarmo]

But then... 30cm isn't exactly waist deep.

Not for me anyway...

[Lars]

You guys forgot the best part.

When you quit running in the snow and all that sweat freezes on you...

[Michael Dorosh]

Bump for JasonC

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

One wonders, will it be that in CMAK, moving in soft-sand is considered as difficult?

Walking in soft sand can certainly be tiring, especially if you're in a hurry. But I wouldn't expect that to be a common factor in CMAK. Whereas a lot of the fighting on the East Front was done in snow, it was extremely rare to be fighting in deep or soft sand in Africa. The deep sand was mostly found in areas called sand seas, and the armies stayed away from those. The only troops that went into them with any regularity were the special forces like the LRDG or SAS, and since they were there by themselves, they weren't fighting, they were transiting.

Michael

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

One wonders, will it be that in CMAK, moving in soft-sand is considered as difficult?

Walking in soft sand can certainly be tiring, especially if you're in a hurry. But I wouldn't expect that to be a common factor in CMAK. Whereas a lot of the fighting on the East Front was done in snow, it was extremely rare to be fighting in deep or soft sand in Africa. The deep sand was mostly found in areas called sand seas, and the armies stayed away from those. The only troops that went into them with any regularity were the special forces like the LRDG or SAS, and since they were there by themselves, they weren't fighting, they were transiting.

Michael </font>

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The young fit 18/20-year old may have been prevalent in the US Army (and maybe the Canadian sub-department of the US Army), but not in any other major army of World War II.

I'd also like to know what you were refering to. Perhaps a few more words so we can all be clear as to what this comment means.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

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

The young fit 18/20-year old may have been prevalent in the US Army (and maybe the Canadian sub-department of the US Army), but not in any other major army of World War II.

I'd also like to know what you were refering to. Perhaps a few more words so we can all be clear as to what this comment means. </font>

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The mushy-pea eating squarehead was making a funny!!!! [/QB]

I'm not laughing.

[Holien]

A pity....

Laughter is so much fun...

Now Mr MD will you stop bumping this thread and e-mail Jason directly...

We all know he won't respond here...

Or will he....

And on topic I think the modelling of snow is fine. It is white enough and stuff you don't really want to fight in...

H

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

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

The mushy-pea eating squarehead was making a funny!!!!

I'm not laughing. [/QB]</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Well if his email address worked, it would be one thing, wouldn't it.

[Michael Emrys]

He has now posted his new address in his profile. Try it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

One wonders, will it be that in CMAK, moving in soft-sand is considered as difficult?

Walking in soft sand can certainly be tiring, especially if you're in a hurry. But I wouldn't expect that to be a common factor in CMAK. Whereas a lot of the fighting on the East Front was done in snow, it was extremely rare to be fighting in deep or soft sand in Africa. The deep sand was mostly found in areas called sand seas, and the armies stayed away from those. The only troops that went into them with any regularity were the special forces like the LRDG or SAS, and since they were there by themselves, they weren't fighting, they were transiting.

Michael </font>

[Sven]

Maybe you're right, but I still think it's slightly overdone. I've done my military service,in the winter, and a tour to Kosovo, so I'm perfectly aware of the weight. However. Russian soldiers charging don't/didn't carry a full kit, at least not in WWII. (1940)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Seanachai]

Also, people keep talking about 'snow depths' as though they were a hard and fast number. Remember that the numbers given were the minumum coverage, not the maximum, so we're not talking about 12" here for deep snow, we're talking about 12" or more.

And the snow is not out there like it was layed down by a Zamboni. It is drifted, it is wind-scooped. And under the snow are things you can't see. Ridges or rocks that trip you. Tangles of branches or undergrowth that trip you up.

And the snow is not, as edgars pointed out, some standardized quantity. It can be heavy and wet, impeding movement and clinging to boots and legs to further slow you down, or it can be fine and sifting powder, light to plow through but shifting underfoot, or it can be hopelessly crusted, where your boot breaks through into soft powder, but the edges cut at your legs and trip you up as you pull your foot out.

A lot of you guys are from northern climes, and I'm sure deal with snow. But throughout most of this discussion you describe it like it was an element in a Disney cartoon!

Besides, as Moon pointed out, we're not talking about troops collapsing in the snow and dying. We're talking about them being winded and tired, and needing a moment to recover.

On top of the special nightmare of just moving through snow, we are, as has been pointed out, talking about advancing. Cold weather takes its toll in energy, as well. Being wet with sweat or from having dived into the snow adds to the weight of clothing and helps drain energy.

It also helps to remember, when discussing these things, that we are looking at a QB, scenario, or what have you, that is a little frozen snap-shot of action, and discussing the elements of distance, snow-depth, speed, weight and fitness as though they were discreet and defined elements to be plugged into a spreadsheet and give x-results every time. Many of these elements, such as snow depth, weight, and consistency could be quite variable. So could fitness and the amount of weight troopers were carrying. Terrain varies, even if it's characterized as 'open', or 'scattered trees' in the game.

So even those with valuable 'Real World' experience in military exercises in snow are still only looking at their particular case. This is usually quite fit, young, well-fed, with good shelter when not in combat or in an exercise, in a certain depth and style of snow over a certain kind of terrain remembering 'hey, we wouldn't have been slowed down by that!'

The game, of course, has to do a certain amount of 'averaging out' of experience. It is an attempt to simulate WWII combat on the East front, not simply predict how x number of men in y deep snow will advance to z point before becoming exhausted.

Z point, after all, is to recreate the battles, armies, units, and equipment of the time. And many elements, often hard to quantify, go into the attempt to yield a specific result.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Also, people keep talking about 'snow depths' as though they were a hard and fast number. Remember that the numbers given were the minumum coverage, not the maximum, so we're not talking about 12" here for deep snow, we're talking about 12" or more.

I am glad you pointed that out, because it seemed like some peiople were thinking that was 'less than' the number rather than 'greater than'.

The game, of course, has to do a certain amount of 'averaging out' of experience. It is an attempt to simulate WWII combat on the East front, not simply predict how x number of men in y deep snow will advance to z point before becoming exhausted.

I dont think anybody is arguing against what you are saying here. But some people think the 'average' of 10m is a little steep. and they are basing that on their real world experiences. And I tend to agree. Tired after 10m of walking through snow that is 12" or higher is pretty steep. Now if deep snow was greater thatn 40", that would be another thing.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

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

The mushy-pea eating squarehead was making a funny!!!!

I'm not laughing. [/QB]</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Tell me Andreas, you're a Russian and German grog-type. What about this nonsense about the Russians having fur lined clothes and the Germans not? Whaddya make of that?

[JonS]

huh - and I always thought he was a Commonwealth Grog. Well ok, a Teutonic, proper English speaking, London residing, pizza eating, energy saving, Commonwealth Grog (TPESLRPEESCG for short) if you want to be pedantic. But a CG nonetheless.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Tell me Andreas, you're a Russian and German grog-type. What about this nonsense about the Russians having fur lined clothes and the Germans not? Whaddya make of that?

Depends on which year you talk about. While I would not profess to know anything about the material used, the general comment I see in German books is that by winter 42/43 German regular winter gear had improved markedly (over and above the 'there was one' level, which in itself would have been an improvement), and was considered adequate by the users. I have no idea how many soldiers were issued with it though, it seems to feature a lot in pictures, which is no prove either way, anyway.

I would be surprised if the Soviets managed to provide fur for all their soldiers' uniforms. Fur was, and is a luxury item, driven by the relative scarcity of it. But again, that is just a hunch. Grisha should know more...

Just going through the pictures in Vladimir Karpov's 'Russia at War' 1941-45, it seems there was a real mix of stuff for the Soviets. The 'fur' caps seem to have been standard issue, but this can not be said for fur-lined overcoats, in those pictures. The quilted variety is standard, and some but not all had fur lining. The Germans seem to have used the same sort of fur cap, just with an eagle attached to the front. Two of von Paulus' staff are wearing them when they come out of their bunker after surrendering.

But again, I am not a uniform grog. I have my ups and downs.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

huh - and I always thought he was a Commonwealth Grog. Well ok, a Teutonic, proper English speaking, London residing, pizza eating, energy saving, Commonwealth Grog (TPESLRPEESCG for short) if you want to be pedantic. But a CG nonetheless.

Yeah, that is what you think. Have you ever heard me speak?

Riddle me this - was the necktie considered an item that the fashionable commonwealth soldier would go into combat with? In reality, not in a 'The way we fight' docu-soap for the home-front. I always had the impression that a scruffy unbuttoned collar, fitting the half-smoked cigarette, was a more likely look.

[JonS]

Dunno, but this entirely unreppresentative sample of pics would seem to indicate that the open-collar-fag-hanging-out look was more common than the tie, for both men and officers.

However, I expect that it wouldn't be all that hard to find exceptions. Also, it would no doubt depend a lot on the CO and RSM in any given unit, and also on the length of time the unit had been in the theatre.

Regards

JonS

[Becket]

Originally posted by Andreas:

MEEP MEEP ... [some other non-meep stuff] MEEP MEEP

At last, the truth is out:

Andreas and Beaker: Separated at Birth?

[Private Bluebottle]

One should also remember that the 8th Army always tended to affect a style of its own, as far as military uniform went. Slacks, suede desert boots, open-necked shirt with perhaps a silk cravat, were de'rigeur for an officer, in from "the blue" for a night on the town in Alex or Cairo.

Whilst out in "the blue", one couldn't wash either oneself or one's uniforms (except in petrol), because of water rationing so being scruffy became rather more acceptable than it would have been on Horse Guards.

Go for a couple of weeks like that and try and tell me you'll still want to wear that collar and tie.

Funny thing is, when winter hit in NW Europe, it was the Guards units which tended to affect their own style of scruffiness. Rather as the Germans did in the winter of 1941-42 when anything was worn, as long as it held the promise of keeping you warm.

[ September 16, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]