More flamethrower stuff, because I'm crazy like that

[Sgt. Beavis]

I believe the inital debate started with the idea that FTs should be an integral part of engineer squads...which of course they were. Someone posted some information to that effect, at least as it related to German assault/engineer squads. Unfortunately, such important information was generally ignored in the original thread.

It defies common sense to say that 2 men would be sent off on their own, 50 meters away from other friendly infantry, while assaulting an enemy position. I think that they would instead be within the engineer squad itself.

As it is in CM, engineers are quite pathetic while engaged in close quarters fighting, which does not strike me as being correct. Part of it stems from the fact that satchel charges seem to be less effective than they should be, but also the lack of an integral flamethrower within the squad. Yes, if FTs were added to engineer squads they should be slower. So what? I'd actually consider buying engineer squds then, since

******

they would be able to do much more effectively what they were formed and trained to do, i.e., attack strong positions.

******

They would use the FTs automatically, just as grenades are used automatically at a certain range.

As for the issue of increasing FT survivability...yes, of course. That's the whole point. As the gentleman who informed us of his... Father's? Grandfathers? experience in Russia, FTs were not sent off by themselves. They were part of an assault or engineer squad. The rest of the squad was there to provide fire support, and the guy with the FT made use of it while within the squad.

If the guy with the FT happens to be hit, well then the game should model the FT as being destroyed, and the engineer squad loses an important asset. Then they can toss their satchel charges

The current price point of the FTs should remain the same, and the engineer squads should have a little FT icon in their information panel, kinda like a German squad has an icon for a panzerfaust.

[LGMB]

Soldier,

I imagine that your are adressing this in the same way as LMGs in rifle squads? So basically, we can pick them for external use (seperate teams), or for internal use (added to the squad, increasing fire power). This is all good, and well, but the real question is simple: Wouldn't it look wierd to see three men squads spewing fire?

[Priest]

If you read the previous thread Steve already answered this and proved quite well why the FT teams are seperate and why it is realistic.

[Berlichtingen]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

It defies common sense to say that 2 men would be sent off on their own, 50 meters away from other friendly infantry, while assaulting an enemy position. I think that they would instead be within the engineer squad itself. <hr></blockquote>

First... the only reason they would be off by themselves is because the player moves them off by themselves.

Second... they shouldn't be with the squad, but behind it. Even if part of the squad, they still hang back until its safe to move forward.

Third... In CM, casualties are randomly spead out over the squad. Problem is that the flamethrower should be one of the first killed as that is what the enemy is aiming at. Flamethrowers draw fire because of the basic human fear of burning to death.

[dalem]

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

...Flamethrowers draw fire because of the basic human fear of burning to death.<hr></blockquote>

Not to be confused with the basic Berli need to burn people to death.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Not to be confused with the basic Berli need to burn people to death.<hr></blockquote>

I don't start the burning until after they are dead

[Bruce Robert]

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

If you read the previous thread Steve already answered this and proved quite well why the FT teams are seperate and why it is realistic.<hr></blockquote>

"...proved quite well...". If that is your idea of proof, I hope you don't make your living in the legal profession.

"The FT should be the first to get hit". When you're in combat, your not shooting at a stationary target that is not shooting back at you. You are firing into an area - not at the whites of their eyes. If you really must, give a slightly greater % chance that the FT is hit.

INTEGRAL FT'S FOR A MORE "PERFECT" GAME

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Beavis:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Unfortunately, such important information was generally ignored in the original thread.<hr></blockquote>

I think it was discussed to death, actually, and only "ignored" when I kinda figured out why people wanted them stuck into squads -> soakoff factor Berli recapped my points quite nicely on that.

Folks, we have to remember that each individual man acts as part of a squad, a squad as part of a platoon, a platoon as part of a company, a company as part of a battalion, a battalion as part of a regiment, a regiment as part of a division (or brigade, then division), a division part of an army, an army as part of a corps, a corps as part of an army group, an army group as part of a larger grouping (front for example), a larger grouping as part of a theater, a theater as part of a nation's national armed services.

Now... if someone says "a FT was part of a squad, therefore it should be integrated into it. To not do this is wrong" I can just as easily say "a FT was part of a platoon, therefore it should be integrated into a platoon unit. To not do this is wrong" all the way on up the chain of command like I did above.

Remember that in real life squads, platoons, etc. are just artificial, paper organizations which represent best case groupings of individual men. They are not some piece of concrete that never can be chipped into smaller pieces without it all crumbling to nothing.

As stated in the previous thread, and not recapped by Berli in detail, is the fact that sticking the FT into a squad actually decreases realism and really hinders tactical use. Well, unless the rest of the squad is there as a soakoff factor, which as I also said before is 100% unrealistic and gamey. Which is exactly why FT organizational simulation will not change in CMBB

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Bruce,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"...proved quite well...". If that is your idea of proof, I hope you don't make your living in the legal profession.<hr></blockquote>

The argument to put them into a squad or keep them seperate is neither right or wrong from an organizational standpoint. However, one has serious unrealistic tactical drawbacks and the other doesn't. The irony is, of course, that the people arguing for more realism are actually pursuing a path which will lead to less.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"The FT should be the first to get hit". When you're in combat, your not shooting at a stationary target that is not shooting back at you. You are firing into an area - not at the whites of their eyes.<hr></blockquote>

At 30m you are firing at the whites of their eyes. Check out some historical examples of flamethrower use and you will find that they were picked off like fleas when the enemy wasn't sufficiently suppressed. Having worn a fully loaded set I can tell you that there is NO way a man can be stealthy with the thing on. Slow, akward, and highly visible. No wonder nobody wanted to use the thing in combat

When I actually used a flamethrower I spoke with a Vietnam vet who owned it. He used to be an instructer for the Army. He rattled off the entire history of its use and how it changed over time. In the Pacific (where they were used a lot more than in the ETO) the original tactic was to advance the FT up with the full platoon to the target area. This resulted in very high mortality rates for the FT man. So they changed their tactics.

The full platoon would advance without the FT team. The platoon would then identify and fix the target with supressive fire. A man would detach himself and go back to the FT and guide him directly to a predetermined firing position. The FT would fire at the target while the full platoon suppressed the hell out of anything that looked likely to move. Then he would retreat back to safety.

This information given to me directly is supported by the few highly detailed FT uses I have read about in the ETO/PTO, so I find no reason to doubt it.

Now... try doing what I just said if the FT was part of 1/3 of the platoon. Impossible.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>INTEGRAL FT'S FOR A MORE "PERFECT" GAME<hr></blockquote>

Couldn't disagree more

Steve

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[JPS]

Steve,

does the "extreme FoW" setting in CMBB affect also how the easily the type of infantry team is identified? In CMBO, IMHO, FT teams are identified as such a bit too easily (and the lack of relative spotting enhances the effect of this, thus creating too much overall situational awareness for both combatants).

Of course, after a burst of flame is out everyone and their cousin should be firing to that direction

JPS

[E Wendebourg]

First of all I have to say that I fully agree with Herr Hofbauer in the original thread. If I put up enough firepower, there's seldom any need for a flamethrower. One problem that I experience in the game is the lack of staying power. With enough firepower the enemy will panic and dash out one the street, instead of taking cover in the back of the building (or in the cellar). I would rather like panicked squads to either stay put or surrender. I also feel that buildings doesn't provide enough cover, but that is just a hunch.

For my part the idea to have integral FT has nothing to do with the soakoff factor as Steve calls it, but with some other aspects to lessen the limitations of the CM engine. For example, let us say I occupy a building with a pioneer platoon, with two of the squads in the front suppressing an enemy inside a building on the other side of the street. The two squads manage to provide enough suppresive fire that I now want to move forward my flamethrower team. But in order to do so, as a consequence of the space a unit needs (ie that a building only has space for one squad in each corner), I have to withdraw one of the squads so that the FT-team can make their way to the front of the building, which leads to a diminished amount of suppresive fire, when in fact I actually would like to peak the suppression for a short while. In real life I obviously have to make room for the FTs, but I wouldn't withdraw a whole squad to let a twoman team into firing position.

As I see it, in order to simulate a more integrated assault of a pioneer squad, one solution would be to have integral FTs, or seriously lessen the space the flamethrower team needs, so that I, to take the example from above, can keep up the suppression with the two squads and still move a flamethrower team up between them, without risking that one of the squads move out on the street.

As for the speed of the pioneer squad with integral FT, maybe they shouldn't be able to run, but they should be able to assault in CMBB.

And with some thought, maybe a soakoff factor should be appropriate before reaching the firing position to simulate the extra cautiousness of the FT team.

I'm not that happy about the demo charges either, but maybe that is worth a thread on it's own.

[M Hofbauer]

Let me clear a few things up.

First, I never argued for the inclusion of the FT into the engineer squad for any "soaking" effect.

My point is not diminishing vulnerability, but to increase realism and game handling by putting this engineer asset within the engineer squad just like the explosives they use.

CM does not feature a seperate two-man engineer team with 3-kg Geballte Ladung charges, instead they are carried by some engineers within the engineer squad. The same should apply to the flamethrower. They were an integral part of the engineer squad, and the option in CMBO to micromanage them in detail as a seperate team is not more realistic than letting the TacAI of an engineer suqad decide when and how to use it.

Finally, the FT tactics of the US Army in the pacific and of the Wehrmacht in russia or the ETO do not neccesarily have to be the same. In fact. They might very well have been different for a number of reasons, and personally I think they were different.

My point was that having FT teams as seperate teams allows a level of micromanagement that is not usual for CM. Having seperate teams is realistic in terms of HMG, Bazookas and mortars, because they *were* broken down like that and not part of a compact assault squad. FTs however were engineer assets just like explosives etc., carried by engineer squads.

Personally, I think the best for people who do not agree or aren't satisfied with the current and most likely future portrayal of flamethrowers in CM should simply not use them.

It is hard to model a weapon like the FT in a game like CM. I am not only referring to the technical ways that a flamethrower works, or the tactical individual soldier behavior, but not the least to the psychological effects that such a weapon had in reality.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Keep in mind that we will NOT be rolling the FT into a Squad no matter how hard it is argued for. It would create far more problems (some of which are coding issues) than it would solve. Therefore, this discussion is purely just that... a discussion. I rarely ever say "never" about something, but this is one of those cases. FTs will never be a part of a squad. Period. I have stated our case and have yet to see why it is less right.

But this is an interesting discussion, so I'll kick it around a little more

1. What should be, and should not be separate? This is a very good question which we do wrestle with since there is NO one right answer. As for Hofbauer's example of the mines, we look at them as being exactly the same as rifle grenades and regular grenades. They are adjunct weapons to the primary ones (i.e. small arms). The Flamethrower totally does NOT fit that description. It is as much its own weapon as a HMG, Panzerschreck, or Pak40. The LMG analogy also doesn't work for me since the LMG is treated as both integral and stand alone, making it unique.

2. Micromanagement. Hofbauer makes a case that the FT shouldn't be able to be micromanaged on the battlefield based on his understanding of how it was used by German forces. Well... this might be true for the Germans but is absolutely not true for other nations on the Eastern Front. So inherently this argument is, at best, only true for the Germans as far as I know. However, although I have seen the TO&E that Hofbauer posted I have not seen evidence they all stuck to each other like glue in practice. If they did not all walk around within a few meters of each other, then having the FT be separate is not unrealistic even though it would be up to the player to keep it realistically close to its parent squad because CM can not handle Squad to Team C&C attachment.

Hofbauer mentions it being correct to break out the Bazooka as its own Team. We agree, however if you looked up the TO&E you would not see a separate TO&E line item for a Bazooka Team. Same for the FT in a US Engineer Platoon. If it were mentioned at all it would look just like the German Pioneer TO&E you typed up in the previous thread since they were allocated to Squads to deal with. Using Hofbauer's line of reasoning we should have made the Bazooka a part of the Squad and not broken it out separately. But I think most everybody would agree this would be unrealistically restrictive, even if the TO&E says they are supposed to be that way. And as I stated in my previous postings, the US tactical doctrine very much did use the FT as a separate element even though there was no explicit FT TO&E notations. The reason was that the FT was not a dedicated weapon and therefore it could be assigned to any two unlucky sods.

3. Consistency. It is true that what the US did might not be reflected in what the Germans did. However, what the Germans did might not be reflective of what other nations on the Eastern Front did. The Romanians had full Flamethrower PLATOONS at higher levels, the Finns used their pioneers in small teams and not full formations. We are not going to have different ways of portraying the FT in CMBB, so once again notch up another reason to keep them separate from the Squad.

4. Soakoff. I have asked before and now what the difference is between having a full squad and a FT team move up together as compared to a single squad with internal FT. The number one reason, and it is certainly being argued for by some (even in this thread) is to use the rest of the squad members as a "soakoff". That is, as I have said in both threads, totally unrealistic and we would never simulate it that way even if the FT was put into the squad.

5. Crowding problems. I can see Wendebourg's point, but am not sure it is totally valid. In CM the footprint of units is based on how many men could realistically operate in a given space. If you have 20-30 or so guys in the front of a building... that is a lot. I'm not sure it is realistic for a highly dangerous and destructive team to wedge itself in there, so I am not sure it is unrealistic that you have to withdraw one squad before moving the FT up. Think about it this way... no soldier in his right mind would allow himself to be stuffed into a room with a Panzerschreck which was about to fire. Therefore I think the problem you are having is more or less one of asking for too much in too little space. If you were having the same sorts of problems out in the "open" then I might be more inclined to see the validity here.

6. Enemy troops running. This is an entirely separate discussion from that of the FT and therefore I don't think it has any unique bearing on this issue.

OK, I think that about does it I hope people can see that the argument to have the FT be part of the Squad (or at least a German Squad) is not a clear cut one. Therefore, it is not inherently wrong to have it broken out separately EVEN if there is disagreement and debate about some of the points I raised. Since, on balance, the FT would be hamstrung if integrated into the Squad, perhaps to an unrealistic degree (definitely unrealistic in many cases), it seems to us pretty clear cut that on balance having the team be separate is more realistic. Which is why we are not budging from our position

Steve

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Okay, I read a bit more about FTs in the Wehrmacht. I must change my point of view (from the earlier threats). The truth is:

- The (Wehrmacht) FT were indeed organized as troop: troop leader, FT, assistent (yes, three men). The reason is simply that the FT were not always taken to the front. If it were needed, the special troop were build. It was a special weapon for special jobs. If it was not needed, the FT was left at the camp, so the men could be used in a more sensefull way.

- as said, FTs were not always used as part of the platoon, they were only used when they were really needed. So it would be unrealistic to combine them with the squad. But for that reason it is also unrealistic that the players are forced to purchase them in QBs together with pioneers. What would make sense whould be a pioneer platoon with FT troop (and 1 less man in each squad) and a pioneer platoon without FT troop (with full squad).

- The soak off factor: you are right, Steve. But the soak off factor IS already modeled in CM. When an FT squad is hit, the assistant always dies first. And other then a MG or Zook, the FT is not a weapon that can be quickly taken from a dead man's back by the assistant. Beside that, as you said by yourself, no one was lucky to carry the FT, so the assistant wouldn't be very enthusiastic to be the next primary target of the whole frontline.

Eat this, Steve .

[PiggDogg]

Everyone,

Remember, FT teams can only be really used against enemies that are about to die anyway. This means that anyone, & I mean anyone, who might be able to shoot at the FT team must be surpressed or dead. Otherwise, the FT team will be dead. :eek: :eek:

Indeed, I really have not mastered FT teams use, but I do know the ideal.

One additional tactic for FT teams is in defense, with a number of supporting & close friendly infantry squads, against advancing enemy infantry that enters a nearby building. If the friendly supporting infantry can keep the advancing enemy infantry's heads down & the FT remains hidden or unidentified, the FT team can torch the nearby building across an open space as the enemy infantry enters the building. :eek: :eek:

Also, FT teams can torch cover (trees & buildings) to deny that terrain to the enemy. :cool:

Cheers, Richard

[Tanaka]

The question shouldn't be why aren't FT inside squads ?... The question should be, why are not squads divided into man ?

I will try to make myself clear...

Right now the men in the battlefield are abstracted, unlike AFVs that are represented individually, they are represented by a squad (group).

A squad turns and fires like 1 man without much brain (just try put a fast moving target running around a squad and you will see what I mean).

This is done because the current CPU limitations that prevents the vehicle game engine to be translated into soft targets (much more abstracted one).

In my view, anything on the game engine that goes in the direction of portrait the reality better is welcome (like fire arks).

Putting the LMGs/ AT/ FT teams back inside the squad just goes onto the opposite direction...

As for the teams to be pointed out at 300m and fire upon, that’s a FOW “problem” and putting the teams inside squads in order to dilute the “problem” is not the good solution.

Understand that I do not wish to control every man on the battlefield.... (CM is for Bn level and not squad level).

A good representation of a infantry squad should be made like on the CC series... I command de Sgt, and the TacAi commands the single man...

Now there are 2 problems...

1- CC was a 2D game engine... So much, much less CPU resources were needed, remember a 3d fire arc is an all volume integral and not an area one...

2- Even on 2D, those like me who played CC, remember the bad TacAI... So to make a good one on a 3D level would be a masterpiece on his won.

From what I have read, CM is going into the “right” direction…so no worries.

[Eric Alkema]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Everyone,

Remember, FT teams can only be really used against enemies that are about to die anyway. This means that anyone, & I mean anyone, who might be able to shoot at the FT team must be surpressed or dead. Otherwise, the FT team will be dead. :eek: :eek:

It is for this reason that last night was the first and only time I have been able to have a FT team fire a shot on the attack. I was so happy!:grin: They even caused the targeted squad to bug out. Up until then the badguys either died or ran away before I could get the FT close enough to take a shot (or they turned out to not be suppressed enough and killed or chased off the FT).

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Tanaka First, you bring a big 'problem' of CM to the point: infantry is in princip simulated like a vehicel. I guess that's much more important then anything else. But why complicate things? Do we need each man displayed on the screen like in CC? I don't think so. It wouldn't make things easier or more realistic. I also don't see opportunitys regarding movement orders or position the units.

But how about the weapons? Well, a tank or gun can fire for example 5 times in one minute. But this abstraction of infantry fire is absolutly unrealistic, and indeed it produces several problems like the known MG issue. I guess the only way out would be to simultate each single rifle, pistol, MP etc. A 10 men squad can fire in 10 different directions on 10 different targets. And not only 5 times a turn, during the whole turn. An MG can cover a whole area with fire. Mh...BTS fix of something . At least in the next engine.

[ February 03, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

1. What should be, and should not be separate? This is a very good question which we do wrestle with since there is NO one right answer.

Steve

One way to get to an answer, traditional to programmers, is to add a level of indirection (I don't know who said "All programming problems can be solved by adding a level of indirection", but I know someone who does).

The ultimate answer -- to life, integral flamethrower teams and everything -- is to give the players a taskorg/TOE editor, so that they can assign weapons and soldiers as they wish to teams/sections/squads/platoons in a proper hierarchical fashion. This could be used to model the sub-section level of organisation that CM:BO misses out; squads are not really made of "half-squads", but of gun group and rifle group (British or German stlye) or Able, Baker and Charlie teams (US style). A British platoon is nominally three sections, the platoon commander's group and platoon serjeant's group (with 2-in mortar). However, it probably fights as a fire group, under the serjeant with all the brens and the 2-in mortar, and an assault group, under the subaltern with the bulk of the riflemen. Or maybe the 2-in mortar and some Brens have been snaffled by the CSM for a company "pepper-pot". These things happened. A suitable editor would let the player construct the taskorg he wished, under any of these schemes or his own. Integral or separate FTs is then left as an exercise for the reader.

Such a hierarchical taskorg could be made part of the command system, too. At the moment, players can conveniently give orders to infantry platoons by clicking on their command element. Why not let them give commands at any hierarchical level they wish? "A Coy, advance to that hill, 8 platoon stand fast, I've got another job for you". Re-squadding during play should be possible, but incurring a morale penalty.

For even more fun, the disorganising effects of fire could be shown by making individuals take cover on their own, splitting off from the specified taskorg, so that the owning player does not immediately get an accurate count of friendly casualties, but has to wait until the section (or whatever) is reorged and a casualty check conducted before he knows. Such a mechanism could well reflect the real differences between green and veteran troops, as discussed elsewhere on this forum; veterans know to take cover under effective fire, and so are easily stopped, but re-organise quickly to have another go; fresh green soldiers bash on regardless, perhaps carrying all before them, probably suffering heavy casualties as a result, but once they have gone to ground those that are left take a long, long time to get moving again.

Reorgs over multiple turns, offering a chance of "lost" soldiers re-joining each turn if they are not incapacitated, would both offer an irritating puzzle to the owning player (press on with the guys we have, or wait another couple of minutes?) and present the possibility of a "missing in action" category on the AARs for those men not re-joined by the end of the game.

Now, about these ideas I've got for modelling the social structure of infantry units by creating a weighted directed graph showing who is mates with who...

[i won't complain if I have to wait for CM 5 for these...]

All the best,

John.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

John

The ultimate answer -- to life, integral flamethrower teams and everything...

:confused:

I thought the answer is 42?

[Battlefront.com]

Some random answers...

As for "massed" small arms fire, this is obviously an abstraction done out of necessity. However, it is FAR less realistic than some of you think. The key to a sucessful abstraction is to keep everything in balance. The massed small arms fire works, and works well, even though not realistic because we have "massed" suppression as well. In other words, both cause and effect aspects are abstracted in the same way so that when everything is said and done the results come out the same (or damned close).

This does not mean that abstractions like this are without certain problems. We fixed dozens of these long before any of you ever even heard of CM, and probably many more than that through the various stages of development. But that doesn't mean we caught everything. The combination of the way running and suppressive fire was simulated caused certain problems. Other problems were also found that had nothing inherently to do with the "massed" abstraction, but instead were outgrowths of other abstractions.

Point is... just because what you see on your monitor doesn't relate 1:1 with real life doesn't mean that its results aren't consistant and realistic. A difference on the surface means little if underneath there is none. I think players often forget this. Honestly, if the way CM simulates small arms fire wasn't pretty close to the mark the game would suck and suck hard since the entire core of the game is based around infantry and infantry tactics. Not saying things are perfect (never have, never will), but inherently flawed it certainly is not.

Yes, a good point about the FT team being able to hand off the weapon to ONE individual is very much a soakoff situation. But to compare that with having 7-10 additional soakoff chances is rather silly. FT teams are simulated just like any other team, but I think it is true that FTs are really unique since there was probably little chance of handing the weapon off. I'll see if something can be done with that for CMBB.

As for not having FTs purchased with Pioneer formations... I can see this as a valid point. However, units also left behind things like MMG/HMGs sometimes too, so should we strip these out as well? I don't think so. Pioneers also brought certain numbers of mines/grenades/demo charges with them depending on their mission, but we give no choice for the player to purchase stripped down Pioneers either. So I think they should be left in just like other support weapons.

Steve

[John Kettler]

A most interesting thread! Here are some well considered queries and remarks of my own. Steve, you figure prominently in what follows.

Steve, did you see the blurb someone posted in the earlier FT thread about the Russian ROKS-2 flamethrower after I described the weapon in general terms? It was specifically designed to look like a rifle, and all the tanks were deliberately concealed in a backpack which looked like regular field equipment.

This was the standard Russian FT, and it seems to me that it would warrant considerably more FOW than the more visible types, hence be harder to single out by players and the AI, at least until it is very close or fires.

Another thought is that I believe there may be considerable weight difference between the U.S. FT rig you fired and the continental types. My FT references are few, but Army official history THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE: FROM LABORATORY TO THE FIELD on page 146 lists the filled weight of the German 1942 model as 40 lbs, quite a contrast with the 70 pounds quoted for the U.S. M2-2 filled.

S.L.A. Marshall brilliantly showed in THE SOLDIER'S LOAD AND THE MOBILITY OF A NATION that a soldier with a total load over 45 pounds becomes more and more hampered in his combat tasks. This problem was aptly demonstrated during the "yomp" in the Falklands where the Royal Marine loads were so heavy that the men could only move a few yards at a time and had great difficulty getting up again after going prone.

I therefore respectfully submit that your enviable hands-on experience with the admitttedly heavy U.S.

model may have had the unfortunate effect of skewing your perceptions on non U.S. models and perhaps unfairly impairing their mobility and survivability.

I have pictures of an FJ Pioneer going into battle at the run (page 346 in Gander and Chamberlain's WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH; FT coverage pp. 345-347), and if this bothers you, think back to the British FT team in "A Bridge Too Far" and how far and fast it moved in order to hose that pillbox protecting the Arnhem bridge approaches. The British FT is practically identical with the 1940 pattern German rig.

Restated, there are big differences in the mobility, energy consumption, total distance movable, ability to use cover and move quietly between a man with a 40 pound load on his back and a man with 70 pounds, especially considering that the lighter FT operator in combat has a lesser load than many infantrymen routinely carry. I really do hope these differences are already modeled in CMBO, though I've found every FT team to be a lead sled, but even if they aren't, I'd like to request that this matter be addressed head-on in CMBB.

Someone mentioned that one country's FT team's No. 2 routinely carried smoke grenades and frag grenades. The inclusion of such capabilities within the team would allow for better suppression and enhance survivability by enabling a more concealed approach. While we're at it, I believe that at the very least HQs, and probably in a limited way squads, should have at least some smoke capability, particularly since this was an important part of improvised defense against the tank, by first blinding it, then close assaulting.

In closing, I'm also still looking for an answer on the status of the low, hard to spot barbed wire obstacles described by the Germans as a favorite Russian obstacle usable even in grass.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 03, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Slapdragon]

I should note that scenario designers can eliminate flame throwers from Engineer units if that is the desire. No one holds a gun to the head of a scenario designer.

[Michael Dorosh]

My God, John do you actually believe the extras in A BRIDGE TOO FAR really had a fully operational flamethrower, and if so, do you really think there was any fuel in it?

Come on!

I was on the set of Legends of the Fall - we had aluminum bayonet cutouts, and our equipment was stuffed with rags - we carried absolutely no weight at all.

Maximus got lambasted for using Hollywood to prove points about WW II, please don't adopt the same approach.

And come to think of it, probably 90 percent of "action" photographs taken in WW II were staged, so the German you mention likely had an empty flamethrower too.

[ February 03, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Battlefront.com]

CMBB uses specific models of FTs. We have all the (correct) data to do this, so have no fear

I also agree that nobody should bring up anything shown in any movie made by any country at any period of time in a conversation about historical accuracy. Was that thorough enough? It doesn't matter what the point is or under what condition it is being mentioned. Anything produced by an entertainment company (incuding wargames!) should never be trusted when it comes to trying to settle questions about historical fact.

Steve

P.S. Gander and Chamberlain show the Model 41 being 47 lds (21.3 kg), not 40 lbs But I guess we modeled the Model 35, which was about 70 lbs. It also had a 2/3rds more fuel, so although German mobility might increase once it gets there it has less it can do.

[ February 03, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]