US Arm Inf Battalion TO&E

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi all,

I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing

Steve

Thank goodness my member number is high enough to ask pretty much anything!

So:

How come Berli's member number is lower than battlefront.com's?

Is he special?

[Wisbech_lad]

Because 42 is the answer...

[Wisbech_lad]

Because 42 is the answer...

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Dale,

I'm not cross, but we did have disucssions about this in the past This was pointed out long ago in CMBO days for the very same reason. People said "you gave the Germans all the Schrecks in their TO&E, but not the Americans. You must be baised against the Americans, so fix it or do somefink!!!!". Or something like that

The problem here is that the Germans DID assign dedicated crews to their Schrecks while the US didn't. So having the Germans fully up to TO&E was a no brainer. What you will notice is that even though we haven't fully outfitted the Americans the still have roughly the same (generally more, sometimes MUCH more) organic Bazookas assigned to their formations compared to the Germans. And realistically, that is probably about right. While the Americans might have had large numbers available in theory, that doesn't mean they were lugged into combat. The Germans on the other hand lugged whatever they had into combat because they had dedicated crews (and generally no dedicated transport!).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Dale,

I'm not cross, but we did have disucssions about this in the past This was pointed out long ago in CMBO days for the very same reason. People said "you gave the Germans all the Schrecks in their TO&E, but not the Americans. You must be baised against the Americans, so fix it or do somefink!!!!". Or something like that

The problem here is that the Germans DID assign dedicated crews to their Schrecks while the US didn't. So having the Germans fully up to TO&E was a no brainer. What you will notice is that even though we haven't fully outfitted the Americans the still have roughly the same (generally more, sometimes MUCH more) organic Bazookas assigned to their formations compared to the Germans. And realistically, that is probably about right. While the Americans might have had large numbers available in theory, that doesn't mean they were lugged into combat. The Germans on the other hand lugged whatever they had into combat because they had dedicated crews (and generally no dedicated transport!).

Steve

[Treeburst155]

Berlichtingen insisted on it. It had to be done.

[Treeburst155]

Berlichtingen insisted on it. It had to be done.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

While the Americans might have had large numbers available in theory, that doesn't mean they were lugged into combat. The Germans on the other hand lugged whatever they had into combat because they had dedicated crews (and generally no dedicated transport!).

Steve

Actually I would disagree. Since all they had to do was stow them in the HT with a few rounds. But right or wrong I still see that your point about crewed/non-crewed overrides it for now. Maybe in "ZE FUTURE!" of CMitude I'll be able to cover the hills with my antlike hordes of bazooka minions.

And again, thanks for reading and responding - it is always appreciated very much. Well, except by Jim Boggs. He sez terrible things about you guys.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

While the Americans might have had large numbers available in theory, that doesn't mean they were lugged into combat. The Germans on the other hand lugged whatever they had into combat because they had dedicated crews (and generally no dedicated transport!).

Steve

Actually I would disagree. Since all they had to do was stow them in the HT with a few rounds. But right or wrong I still see that your point about crewed/non-crewed overrides it for now. Maybe in "ZE FUTURE!" of CMitude I'll be able to cover the hills with my antlike hordes of bazooka minions.

And again, thanks for reading and responding - it is always appreciated very much. Well, except by Jim Boggs. He sez terrible things about you guys.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, but it is HOW he insisted that made the difference. All I have to say is... Visa, it's the new way to bribe your way to the top

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, but it is HOW he insisted that made the difference. All I have to say is... Visa, it's the new way to bribe your way to the top

Steve

[JonS]

From what I can tell, the same thing applies to many of the PIATs - they were part of a unit's stores, but there was no dedicated crews for them.

One possible solution would be to make the zooks (and PIATs I suppose) part of a squads organic weaponry, much like rifle grenades are now. Then you'd most-likely end up with a mix of dedicated AT teams, and enhanced AT capability in some/most/all squads. This would be somewhat similar to the treatment of 'fausts in CM:BB - they can be found in squads as 'special weapons', or in dedicated tank-hunter teams albeit still as special weapons, except that the teams can use the "cover armour arc" command.

Of course, that approach would potentially open up a whole bunch of other questions/problems. Nothing insurmountable mind, but some things to think about all the same.

Regards

JonS

[ December 05, 2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

From what I can tell, the same thing applies to many of the PIATs - they were part of a unit's stores, but there was no dedicated crews for them.

One possible solution would be to make the zooks (and PIATs I suppose) part of a squads organic weaponry, much like rifle grenades are now. Then you'd most-likely end up with a mix of dedicated AT teams, and enhanced AT capability in some/most/all squads. This would be somewhat similar to the treatment of 'fausts in CM:BB - they can be found in squads as 'special weapons', or in dedicated tank-hunter teams albeit still as special weapons, except that the teams can use the "cover armour arc" command.

Of course, that approach would potentially open up a whole bunch of other questions/problems. Nothing insurmountable mind, but some things to think about all the same.

Regards

JonS

[ December 05, 2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Zooks tended to be one of those extra items squads aquired when they got the chance. As has been stated, the Americans rarely had to face large numbers of German armor so there was no real need to have dedicated crews. It was seen as more of a suplimental weapon. During down time people would familiarize themselves with it so that nearly everyone could fire it but it wasn't normally assigned as someone's personel weapon. Normally someone was detailed to carry it if it was felt it would be needed.

[SgtMuhammed]

Zooks tended to be one of those extra items squads aquired when they got the chance. As has been stated, the Americans rarely had to face large numbers of German armor so there was no real need to have dedicated crews. It was seen as more of a suplimental weapon. During down time people would familiarize themselves with it so that nearly everyone could fire it but it wasn't normally assigned as someone's personel weapon. Normally someone was detailed to carry it if it was felt it would be needed.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

One possible solution would be to make the zooks (and PIATs I suppose) part of a squads organic weaponry, much like rifle grenades are now. Then you'd most-likely end up with a mix of dedicated AT teams, and enhanced AT capability in some/most/all squads. This would be somewhat similar to the treatment of 'fausts in CM:BB - they can be found in squads as 'special weapons', or in dedicated tank-hunter teams albeit still as special weapons, except that the teams can use the "cover armour arc" command.

That's kind of what I was thinking too. So, for the record, I endorse this idea.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

One possible solution would be to make the zooks (and PIATs I suppose) part of a squads organic weaponry, much like rifle grenades are now. Then you'd most-likely end up with a mix of dedicated AT teams, and enhanced AT capability in some/most/all squads. This would be somewhat similar to the treatment of 'fausts in CM:BB - they can be found in squads as 'special weapons', or in dedicated tank-hunter teams albeit still as special weapons, except that the teams can use the "cover armour arc" command.

That's kind of what I was thinking too. So, for the record, I endorse this idea.

Michael

[CombinedArms]

BTW, has zook penetrating/killing power been seriously downgraded from CMBO? It may be too early to say, but I played a scenario vs. the AI last night that featured US infantry vs. German armor and HTs. Had a couple of zooks that emptied all of their rockets on German armor, but no kills. One got a penetration on a PzIV, but apparently to no effect. Close range shots on HT flanks (say 50-80m) showed only FAIR penetration chances on the HT. In CMBO, at hit on an HT would be almost a sure kill. In my CMAK scenrio, no HTs were killed by such shots, though many were attempted. By contrast, I got a couple of kills on PSW 222's at very close range with rifle grenades and demo charges.

So all in all, it LOOKs like zook kill potential has been much downgraded from CMBO. Is this an accurate perception? And, if so, is this correct in terms of real life characteristics?

[CombinedArms]

BTW, has zook penetrating/killing power been seriously downgraded from CMBO? It may be too early to say, but I played a scenario vs. the AI last night that featured US infantry vs. German armor and HTs. Had a couple of zooks that emptied all of their rockets on German armor, but no kills. One got a penetration on a PzIV, but apparently to no effect. Close range shots on HT flanks (say 50-80m) showed only FAIR penetration chances on the HT. In CMBO, at hit on an HT would be almost a sure kill. In my CMAK scenrio, no HTs were killed by such shots, though many were attempted. By contrast, I got a couple of kills on PSW 222's at very close range with rifle grenades and demo charges.

So all in all, it LOOKs like zook kill potential has been much downgraded from CMBO. Is this an accurate perception? And, if so, is this correct in terms of real life characteristics?

[flamingknives]

Shaped charge weapons were definately downgraded from CMBO to CMBB, with the whole behind armour effect thing. That's probably what you're seeing in CMAK (but I'm not, as I haven't got it yet. )

[flamingknives]

Shaped charge weapons were definately downgraded from CMBO to CMBB, with the whole behind armour effect thing. That's probably what you're seeing in CMAK (but I'm not, as I haven't got it yet. )

[Maj. Battaglia]

I brought this up once before, but only recently, in this thread. Dale, thanks for bringing it up again and thanks Steve for clarifying things.

In the thread above, YankeeDog had a good idea for the new engine which would place bazookas in squads like panzerfausts are now, but change the model for splitting squads so that you could tailor ir more to a few guys around the BAR or a couple guys break off with the bazooka (and they keep their M1s). It seemed like a good idea to me at the time.

[Maj. Battaglia]

I brought this up once before, but only recently, in this thread. Dale, thanks for bringing it up again and thanks Steve for clarifying things.

In the thread above, YankeeDog had a good idea for the new engine which would place bazookas in squads like panzerfausts are now, but change the model for splitting squads so that you could tailor ir more to a few guys around the BAR or a couple guys break off with the bazooka (and they keep their M1s). It seemed like a good idea to me at the time.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

I brought this up once before, but only recently, in this thread. Dale, thanks for bringing it up again and thanks Steve for clarifying things.

In the thread above, YankeeDog had a good idea for the new engine which would place bazookas in squads like panzerfausts are now, but change the model for splitting squads so that you could tailor ir more to a few guys around the BAR or a couple guys break off with the bazooka (and they keep their M1s). It seemed like a good idea to me at the time.

I would daresay that if the Boys in Company BFC can get their wishlist accomplished, the basic infantry squad modeling for CM2 will be malleable in ways that we can only dream of currently. Now of course, if they want to send me that wishlist to, uh, proofread, then I would be happy to do that for them. You know, because I'm a nice guy and all.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

I brought this up once before, but only recently, in this thread. Dale, thanks for bringing it up again and thanks Steve for clarifying things.

In the thread above, YankeeDog had a good idea for the new engine which would place bazookas in squads like panzerfausts are now, but change the model for splitting squads so that you could tailor ir more to a few guys around the BAR or a couple guys break off with the bazooka (and they keep their M1s). It seemed like a good idea to me at the time.

I would daresay that if the Boys in Company BFC can get their wishlist accomplished, the basic infantry squad modeling for CM2 will be malleable in ways that we can only dream of currently. Now of course, if they want to send me that wishlist to, uh, proofread, then I would be happy to do that for them. You know, because I'm a nice guy and all.

-dale