are sturmmgruppes(sp?) gamey?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The Allies also found the MG42 and MP44 "crude". Got Intel reports which say exactly that. But why then did every military after the war build their weapons based on these two examples? Because they sucked?

As for "crude" you can not get more crude than the Sten. Yet it was highly effective. Don't be suckered in by gun snobs or misunderstanding what words like "crude" mean in the real world. The PPsH was a fine weapon and highly prized by German NCOs in particular.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "nah-nah-nah" as loud as you can, but the fact is that it was in many ways superior to the MP40 in terms of functionality. And to a soldier who lives and dies due to functionality, that is all that matters. Rear line gun snobs, or ones who have to be careful to not disrupt morale (i.e. telling troops the MG42 is a piece of crap), are not the best judge. The guy in the trench is.

The PPsH was a weapon the Germans tried to duplicate. They went so far as to plan on making a quick knockoff. But pride got in the way of that and so it was canned. However, they did rechamber slews of them to take standard German 9mm ammo. And yes, many of them (modified and unmodified) did make their way to the West, although many were discarded when Soviet ammo stocks were used up. We didn't include them in CMBO, along with dozens of other captured weapons, because they were relatively rare and overly complicated coding. However, in CMBB you will see these guns used by Axis troops.

Steve

I never said the Soviet Smg was not effective, it was very effective. The MG-42 was the best machine gun of the war in my opinion as well. I said it was crude to the meaning of it was crude. The craftmanship was very poor, thats all i meant by crude.

[Enoch]

You said it was a piece of poo, which is more than saying it was crude.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

The craftsmanship was deliberately poor (referred to the MG42), as the "slop" in the parts allowed greater tolerance of dirt than the closely machined MG34 that it replaced did.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I would'nt take to much pass of the reports, they claimed the sherman was better then anything the germans had. The American soldiers went itno the war thinking we had the best tanks in the world.

Alot of the Germans simply wanted to copy the T-34 but ego's got in the way of that and they came up with the Panther. INstead of reading propaganda, your best bet is to talk to the veterens who used the stuff.

So if your refering to me as a gun snob, i must say you jumped to a quick and wrong conclusion. Thompson Smg's look "cooler then their Russian counterpart,...but if i was a soldier and i had to use one, take a guess wich one i'd be carrying.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Enoch:

You said it was a piece of poo, which is more than saying it was crude.

Ok i'm young and still use slang, i can see where that would mislead people, but that is not actualy what i intended to put forward. I'll have to work on that.

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Ok i'm young and still use slang, i can see where that would mislead people, but that is not actualy what i intended to put forward. I'll have to work on that.[/QB]

Just say what you mean and mean what you say. This way you will avoid misunderstandings.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

The craftsmanship was deliberately poor (referred to the MG42), as the "slop" in the parts allowed greater tolerance of dirt than the closely machined MG34 that it replaced did.</font>

That was the nice part about the Russian smg, you could drop the thing out the window of a building and pick it up and fire it.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Enoch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Ok i'm young and still use slang, i can see where that would mislead people, but that is not actualy what i intended to put forward. I'll have to work on that.

Just say what you mean and mean what you say. This way you will avoid misunderstandings.[/QB]</font>

[M Hofbauer]

oh yes, good point by Steve about the majority of Panzergrenadiers, in the Panzergrenadier Divisions. Forgot to add that.

They were called Panzergrenadiere because they supposedly had special skills (training) in the cooperation with tanks, combined arms tactics. They usually did not have armor themselves, apart from occasional HTs and StuGs as SP AT assets.

Dorosh made a good point about the WW II literature highlighting famous units who did have shiny HTs and thereby skewing the image of how the war was fought for the majority of soldiers outside the high-profile unts.

For example, there were very vast areas of the russian front devoid of any tanks at all.

[ February 01, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[rucrazee]

I think it is just best to play the hand your dealt or don't play humans. What is GAMEY to one man is not necessarily gamey to another. (Everyone knows the color blue is the best color in the spectrum).

I prefer scenarios, but when I do play humans, I have the computer pick our forces. I admit some rather odd things happen, but it has allowed me to play units I might never have tried otherwise. It also takes a lot of the formulatic play out of things and has allowed me to think on feet making the best of the situation. Isn't that more what tactical thinking and combat should be about? I don't think a lot of commanders got to pick their forces. Perhaps if I were in ladder play with a well-defined set of do's and don'ts I might feel differently, but for now I will continue to have fun win or lose.

[Bannon]

I think it’s presumptuous to think that just because someone mixes Heer and Volkssturm or SMGs with Pioneers (didn’t they settle the West in their Conestoga’s?) is gamey. Not all of us have the knowledge many of you do about the intricate details of WWII, and their unit choices could very well be the result of their lack of knowledge on the subject and not some devious gaming of the system. I’m inclined to choose units that are reasonably historically accurate but quite frankly my lack of knowledge on the subject likely results in unit selections some of you would consider gamey. Unlike some other tactical war games, the unit selection function of CMBO provides no help in this regard and I feel it is the weakest aspect of an otherwise superb product

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Bannon:

I think it’s presumptuous to think that just because someone mixes Heer and Volkssturm or SMGs with Pioneers (didn’t they settle the West in their Conestoga’s?) is gamey. Not all of us have the knowledge many of you do about the intricate details of WWII, and their unit choices could very well be the result of their lack of knowledge on the subject and not some devious gaming of the system. I’m inclined to choose units that are reasonably historically accurate but quite frankly my lack of knowledge on the subject likely results in unit selections some of you would consider gamey. Unlike some other tactical war games, the unit selection function of CMBO provides no help in this regard and I feel it is the weakest aspect of an otherwise superb product

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong if 2 players playing each other play like that and are having fun. This thread is pretty pointless now that i think about it, because all people have to do is talk over thier preferences and work out a simple agreement.

If you want some advise on how to go accurate though, say your the Germans....If you decide to Play as say the Volksturm, leave the setting tab as Volksturm and pick anything it offers you. Same for anything else, you'll notice the difference in equipment offered. Or say if you opted for US airborn, pick only what equipment it offers you under the US airborn tab. For example If you choose US airborn, don't choose Jumbo Shermans to fight along with them, as you'll notice if you keep the Tab on US Airborn, you

ll see they do not offer Jumbo Shermans. Also for a betterrr gauge try checking out the scenarios for a better idea, i'm just giving you a quick answer. Also go to the library and check out some books, or surf the web for more in depth. Hope i was of help.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

NOt so fast Commisar - the Germans did rechamber PPSh SMGs to fire German 9mm; do you know for sure they didn't go west?

Where is the source for this? I ask because Finns tried the same but found it too difficult.

Quote: "Heaps of captured PPSh guns were stocked in depots. At one point there were plans to modify them to use 9 mm Luger ammunition by replacing the barrel and shortening the space between the "jaws" of the magazine well to that Finnish magazines could be used. This modification was soon found to be too difficult to accomplish. The Russian 7.62 mm Tokarev cartridge is five millimeters longer than the 9 mm Luger cartridge and Finnish magazines were accordingly less high. It was possible to narrow the magazine jaws by splitting the receiver into two parts, milling and welding the parts together again. However the welding weakened precisely the least durable place of the receiver. (Nobody realized that Russian magazines feed 9 x 19 mm cartridges without a hitch, despite the cartridge's shorter length !)"

(http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi2.html)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

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

NOt so fast Commisar - the Germans did rechamber PPSh SMGs to fire German 9mm; do you know for sure they didn't go west?

Where is the source for this? </font>

[Bannon]

Thanks Iron Chef. I don't mix Heer, Volksturm, etc. because I assumed they were major categories of infantry which generally did not mix. I also think your point about communicating expectations before the game is right on. Hopefully someone who thinks my unit selections are unusual would offer constructive ciricism rather than jumping to the conclusion that I game the system.

[Charlie Rock]

Commissar,

Thanks for getting back to me on that piece with the machine guns, about 30 posts back.

No, I'm familiar with the limitations of the emma gees in CMBO, I just did not know what the 'fix' would be Since the grazing range on most tripod mounted guns is around 900 meters, a flat piece of terrain in CMBO from map edge to map edge should be able to be interdicted by a sole gun. I would assume some sort of squad leader-like 1/2 FP penetration factor if you run through the beaten zone would clear up the problem.

As a dissenting opinion, I don't think the fire power of MGs is the issue, as I see noone employing the guns the way they should be due to the limitations. MGs are shooting at individual squads and don't bother finding flank positions because they don't replicate beaten zones.

Anyway, I'll stand by and pony up my dough when it comes out. Since there will probably be more than one or two 'thin grey line vs the horde on the steppe' scenarios out there this should be a major change.

Thanks again

CR

[Battlefront.com]

Iron Chef Sakai, I am not surprised you don't understand why I scolded you. To clarify, I don't give a darn what you think about the PPSh. It is just a gun. An important, highly effective gun, but just a gun. What I take offense to is your tone. I also wish you would really question how much you know something about a particular thing before you engage in a debate. In particular, to follow some of your own advice:

INstead of reading propaganda, your best bet is to talk to the veterens who used the stuff.

I also did not call you a gun snob. I said "do not listen to the gun snobs". Looks of a gun do no matter to anybody but them.

Kallimakhos,

I have very little information on the German attempts to rechamber the guns for 9mm. "Weapons of the Third Riech" by Gander and Chamberlain mentions this was done in 1944/45. This is the companion book to the excellent "Encycolpedia" books on German and Allied AFVs that so many of you all have. Excellent work. The other source I have is Ian Hogg, where he states that they were rechambered and altered to accept standard MP40 magazines. Unfortunately, of course, this negated one of the largest advantages of the PPSh (i.e. the drum).

As for using troops like Pioneers and stuff... these were specialist troops. They should not be used on a regular basis if one wishes to play with more or less historical forces. In CMBB formations will be priced (with Rarity on) according to how common they were, which will price things like Pioneers, Sturmtruppen, way higher than they are now (unless Rarity is off).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charlie,

If you are interested in the fixes we plan for CMBB regarding SMG and MG units, Search will turn up crudloads of info. But to be brief...

As a dissenting opinion, I don't think the fire power of MGs is the issue, as I see noone employing the guns the way they should be due to the limitations. MGs are shooting at individual squads and don't bother finding flank positions because they don't replicate beaten zones.

MGs actually shoot at wider areas than just a single point even in CMBO. However, we think it wasn't wide enough so we widened it for CMBB. We also allow units to set up "beaten zones" (we call Cover Arcs). Other fixes mentioned previous pages ago are also in. The other one not mentioned is that we adjusted the cover for running units down to nothing and instead added another movement order, Assault, which takes into account rapid (but slower than Run) moving in bounds. So now "Run" is really an all out sprint, which is not something you want to do against a MG lying in wait.

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Iron Chef Sakai, I am not surprised you don't understand why I scolded you. To clarify, I don't give a darn what you think about the PPSh. It is just a gun. An important, highly effective gun, but just a gun. What I take offense to is your tone. I also wish you would really question how much you know something about a particular thing before you engage in a debate. In particular, to follow some of your own advice:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />INstead of reading propaganda, your best bet is to talk to the veterens who used the stuff.

I also did not call you a gun snob. I said "do not listen to the gun snobs". Looks of a gun do no matter to anybody but them.

Kallimakhos,

I have very little information on the German attempts to rechamber the guns for 9mm. "Weapons of the Third Riech" by Gander and Chamberlain mentions this was done in 1944/45. This is the companion book to the excellent "Encycolpedia" books on German and Allied AFVs that so many of you all have. Excellent work. The other source I have is Ian Hogg, where he states that they were rechambered and altered to accept standard MP40 magazines. Unfortunately, of course, this negated one of the largest advantages of the PPSh (i.e. the drum).

As for using troops like Pioneers and stuff... these were specialist troops. They should not be used on a regular basis if one wishes to play with more or less historical forces. In CMBB formations will be priced (with Rarity on) according to how common they were, which will price things like Pioneers, Sturmtruppen, way higher than they are now (unless Rarity is off).

Steve</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Oh wait i think i get the tone thing, is it like when you said that i'm not making any friends with BTS? Because if that is the tone or whatever your refering to, my posts are missing it. This is not the first time my posts have been misunderstood, and i'll try to clarify more, but at the same time i could do without a bunch of trolling over it. It's never been a big deal to me, but i think this is getting a little to one sided here so i'm speaking up about it. Again, does it say somewhere in the fourm rules that i can never be wrong in a post? For you to tell me to be more knowledgeable before joining a debate is ridiculoous, i could see if i hoped into a thread and started talking about the Flintstones or something way off base, but that is'nt the case. I've seen countless threads where people have made statements about one thing or another and found out later they were wrong and learned a little something from it, is'nt that what a debate is all about? You can't have a debate if everyone agrees now can you?

[Battlefront.com]

My honest suggestion to you Iron Chef is to do two things:

1. Reevaluate how much you think you actually know about WWII. You are certainly someone who is very interested in this topic, but from the first post to the latest it is clear to me (and others) that you think you know much more than you do. Know that there is no shame or problem with someone being less informed than others, however it does wrankle people when that person presents himself in a way that is clearly at odds with this reality.

2. Avoid making wild claims and gross overstatements, especially if you can not control the tone of them. Provocative statements are generally asking for challenges, so choose when and how they are made very carefully. And be fully prepared to back them up with cold, hard facts. Saying you saw something on a TV show once or that you have read a lot of books doesn't cut it.

3. Be prepared to back down on claims made without evidence. Opinions without adequate factual backup are worthless. Sometimes a claim can be pure opinion, but even then an opinion can not be taken seriously if it has not substance behind it. While none of us here have been in WWII, someone who is obviously better read, thought about and researched such issues for over a decade, and has had personal experience firing the guns (target range is better than never) probably has a valuable opinion. I am certainly not always right, nor am I necessarily the "best" (however one wishes to define this), but that doesn't mean we are equals in a debate.

4. Try and consolodate your thoughts before you post. As can be seen on this and the last page, you have in fact posted several responses to the same thing. Communication is not about how fast or frequent one can type, but how well one can get a point accross. And a person who can get a point accross in 10 lines is more apreciated than one who takes 100.

Again, friendly advice for whatever it is worth.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Dorosh made a good point about the WW II literature highlighting famous units who did have shiny HTs and thereby skewing the image of how the war was fought for the majority of soldiers outside the high-profile unts.

For example, there were very vast areas of the russian front devoid of any tanks at all.

See the point I make about German halftracks in Russia in the initial post of this thread (it is highlighted at the end).

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023371

More food for thought - or just bad intell on the part of the Canadian Army?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

My honest suggestion to you Iron Chef is to do two things:

1. Reevaluate how much you think you actually know about WWII. You are certainly someone who is very interested in this topic, but from the first post to the latest it is clear to me (and others) that you think you know much more than you do. Know that there is no shame or problem with someone being less informed than others, however it does wrankle people when that person presents himself in a way that is clearly at odds with this reality.

2. Avoid making wild claims and gross overstatements, especially if you can not control the tone of them. Provocative statements are generally asking for challenges, so choose when and how they are made very carefully. And be fully prepared to back them up with cold, hard facts. Saying you saw something on a TV show once or that you have read a lot of books doesn't cut it.

3. Be prepared to back down on claims made without evidence. Opinions without adequate factual backup are worthless. Sometimes a claim can be pure opinion, but even then an opinion can not be taken seriously if it has not substance behind it. While none of us here have been in WWII, someone who is obviously better read, thought about and researched such issues for over a decade, and has had personal experience firing the guns (target range is better than never) probably has a valuable opinion. I am certainly not always right, nor am I necessarily the "best" (however one wishes to define this), but that doesn't mean we are equals in a debate.

4. Try and consolodate your thoughts before you post. As can be seen on this and the last page, you have in fact posted several responses to the same thing. Communication is not about how fast or frequent one can type, but how well one can get a point accross. And a person who can get a point accross in 10 lines is more apreciated than one who takes 100.

Again, friendly advice for whatever it is worth.

Makes sense to me.

[l3w53r]

well, okay, thanks. didn't read after page 1 though