Hand to Hand combat?

[cassh]

Bigduke6 - again suggest you read up on reality verses whatever "source" you have for information. Sturmtruppen battle drill ended with a close assault of their targeted weak point.

They used a recon-pull form of attack allowing junior-leaders to determine the line of least resistance and pull the follow-up forces in behind the channels cleared by the Sturmabteilung.

They used a plentiful supply of grenades and charges against their target position. This was key to their tactics, as they were able to largely neutralise the position before conducting the close assault. The close assault was necessary as it allowed them to clear the position and then move forward to the next weak point they had identified. This allowed the depth of the enemy defence to be engaged and important command posts and artillery positions to be reached by the assault.

Stosstruppen were not, as far as I am aware, trained in the "spirit of the bayonet".The idea of foresaking firepower, close coordination with the artillery, and a high level of indivual intitiative, for an opportunity to try and stick an enemy with a knife attached to the end of one's personal fire arm, would hardly have been considered intelligent by most Stosstruppen, I think.

Please don't attribute or infer points and arguments one has not made!

Where have I stated at any point the idea of forsaking firepower, close coordination with the artillery, and a high level of individual initiative? These are not exclusive of infantry capable of conducting close quarter battle and close assault.

You chose the phrase "spirit of the bayonet" and whatever **** tactics you identify with it - I did not.

I said the bayonet is part of the arsenal of the infantry - and if you wish to see how it should be used the first proponents of what "mobile" modern infantry do in battle the German Army's sturmtruppen of 1917-1918 are a good starting point.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the follow drivel…

But on the individual soldier level, cowardice is a virtue. You want to increase your chances of living, hide...

You want to decrease you chances of living through a war as a soldier, stand up, expose yourself to the artillery, and do what the officers suggest. It is the officer's career on the line, but then, it is the infantryman's life on the line. Threat of death has a wonderful way of undermininng just about any argument, even on the minds of young men with little experience and less personal stake in life.

I would love to see the type of army your training philosophy would produce.

</font>

• They would be static</font>
• Permanently cowered in cover - rather than taking cover when under effective enemy fire</font>
• They'd never capture or take any positions</font>
• They'd never counter attack</font>
• They'd be vulnerable to close assault</font>
• They'd be vulnerable to infiltration</font>
• They'd be vulnerable to high tempo forces</font>
• They'd lack situational awareness - difficult to know what's going on when constantly hunkered down</font>
• Their moral would be rubbish as they'd never have won anything</font>
• Their officers would be loathed; one because you seem to dislike officers and that would rub off on the men; and two because they would inevitably keep taking casualties from arty, airpower etc yet without ever seeming to get anywhere.</font>
• Prone to mutiny, poor discipline and any form of initiative - difficult to lead men and make the right decision when you're constantly on the men's frag list.</font>

Please, please, please can you volunteer as soon as Britain next enemy is identified and sign-up as their director of infantry training.

Your "lets fight, but not really fight" view of war is cosy and sweet, but ultimately a complete load of bollocks. You seem to think your view is protective toward the infantryman - protecting him from the career aspirations of his officers who can be blamed for ever exposing him to enemy action.

Any professional army from soldier, to NCO, junior and field officers up to the generals know that the best way to reduce casualties in a conventional war is a high tempo, fast moving war that achieves victory rapidly by bringing about the complete collapse of the enemy.

Your military doctrine would never achieve this; and your view of warfare is a skewed one that fundamentally misses the prerequisite of an army to act in a highly bellicose manner when called on to do so.

You may not like it; you may think violence is being used for violence sake; but you must understand that you win by making the enemy feel defeated as much as being defeated, and this relies on threat. Your philosophy offers little threat.

In your view of war it would appear achieving a result is not the object - just not getting killed is the objective in itself - which I hope all can see is false premise.

[Bigduke6]

Cassh,

I'm not arguing passivity as a warfighting technique. I'm arguing bayonets are silly in modern war. The way to win close combat is to have a few rounds in your weapon and to shoot the enemy, rather than waiting to stick him with a pointy object. After all, what if he has not been to bayonet school. He might forgoe duking it out with you man to man, and shoot you!

The point to war is killing, or at the very least imposing the threat of death on one's opponent so that he gives up, or does something that makes killing him easier somewhere down the line. Bayonets achieve neither of those goals, but they are admirable for convincing the most expendable part of one's force - the infantry - to close with the enemy.

Fast-moving war brings decisive results only when it is, obviously, successful on the strategic level. Fast-moving war that does not achieve a strategic result just gets people killed faster. World War One is a horrific example of the danger of seeking a decisive, non-attritional result, when in fact the only way to get results was attrition.

It is at least arguable that that same disconnect - the seeking of a decisive result in a war where it was impossible to achieve it for reasons out of the seekers' control - was responsible for the U.S. failure in Vietnam, and U.S. difficulties in present Iraq. The U.S. military in both those conflicts was/is steeped in the ethos of decisive warfare, and in both cases (in Iraq, so far) failed to end an insurgency, which (in Vietnam, so far) forced the U.S. to punt and run.

Now look at Afghanistan. The Soviets - and I am no fan so I am having a little trouble saying this - to their credit realized no nation had ever decisively defeated an Afghan insurgency. So their technique was not to try, and use secret police to supress the insurgency. It didn't work, but as a result, in Afghanistan something like 17,000 Soviets died.

In Vietnam the U.S. lost three times as many American citizens, while agressively seeking a decisive victory, actively patrolling, taking the fight to Charlie, and so on. I would say that is evidence that seeking a decisive result on the battlefield - of which the "spirit of the bayonet" is pretty emblematic, is not always the best way to go about winning a war.

Infantry in an ideal world needs to be agressive, well-armed, well-trained, well-equipped, and intelligent. It needs to be flexible, throroughly capable of combined arms operations, and ready to move in any terrain or weather.

But infantry's main function in modern war remains going out and getting shot, as a means of detecting enemy infantry; or on the flip side hiding somewhere and forcing the enemy to expose valuable machines (aircraft, tanks, etc.) to counterblows, by preventing the enemy infantry from getting close.

The main thing infantry needs to do in either of these circumstances is survive in sufficient numbers to do its job. Therefore, the main strength of infantry is its ability to get shot at, to be hurt, and to continue to function.

That means for infantry to do its job, even correctly, some portion of the young men serving as infantrymen will die. The problem is how do you convince them to do that in an industrialized society, in an era where giving your life for the sake of a military goal is considered, by most, stupid?

That's where the bayonet comes in. Its only use in modern war is as a tool, an icon for convincing people in the infantry to risk getting shot. It is especially popular in militaries unable to motivate their infantry by traditional means, i.e., we are fighting to kill off another nation we hate, we are defending our women and children, we are fighting for loot and glory, or whatever.

The bayonet is really useful in a military where the infantry is sent somewhere godforsaken and told to do its job, but the sender is unable to come up with a compelling reason for demanding the sacrifice, such as "our country is in real danger, and your risking your life by walking out in the open will reduce that danger."

Here are some examples of my ideal infantry: von Hutier's Stosstruppen, the Frontoviki of Stalingrad, the Panzer Grenadiers of the Wehrmacht and (even) S.S. Panzer units, the Boer Commandos, pretty much any Gurkha unit in the last two centuries (yes I know about Kukris, that's not what makes the Gurkhas as good as they are), 61st Field Army; and so on. All these formations combined stealth, motivation, mobility, intiative, discipline, ability to take casualties, and ingenuity to achieve battle results hugely out of proportion from their theoretical combat power.

For practical purposes, none of these infantry forces were armed with bayonets. They went into history as some of the greatest infantry formations ever, without the safety blanket of "the spirit of the bayonet".

[Sequoia]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread to see if Battlefront would comment as to if Hand to Hand Combat was included in CMSF. As you can read there is a debate as to if it was necessary

[rudel.dietrich]

Another one of those resources versus importance debates and this one loses as well

I highly doubt it will make it in

[Sequoia]

Well it's certainly not a game breaker for me but I'd like it to be at least considered for the USMC module.

[Kineas]

The 1:1 representation needs a really sophisticated system otherwise the combat animation would look just funny. Soldiers can't just stand in front of eachother and stab bayonets ahead into the air. Maybe for the ww2 version, if we are lucky.

[MikeyD]

Maybe BFC can hire two hobos to wrassle eachother for beer money and they can get the movements in motion-capture :eek:

Actually, a soldier with 40+ pounds of body armor engaging in hand-to-hand probably would be about as quick & graceful as a hobo drunk!

[flammenwerfer]

They can animate it like the cartoons do- with a cloud of dust and legs and arms flying.

[MikeyD]

i posted on another topic my opinion that BFC should make a point to include one thing in the game that would cause players to exclaim 'Woa! Those guys are f**ked-up!" That suggestion may qualify :eek:

[Sixxkiller]

I only want it in if it has the Bruce Lee Wing Chung animations.

But I know the only time I ever had a fixed bayonet on my rifle was basic. The Army is trying to shorten the length nowadays, not make them longer. I personally would doubt Charles will spend too much time doing this. Lots of other stuff you guys will want in before this useless thing.

[Capt. Toleran]

Seems like a simple "rifle butt to the face" animation will suffice.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Seems like a simple "rifle butt to the face" animation will suffice.

I cant think of a single situation where a 'rifle butt to the face' would ever come into play

This entire topic is a little out in left field and waaaaay down on the list of alot of other important things that are being left out for possible inclusion late

[Capt. Toleran]

Interesting -- Rifle butts were never used as clubs? News to me! What part of a gun do you hit someone with? The barrel? I don't really see a lot of bayonets on the ends of the m-4s and m-16s I see in the Iraq vids.

I believe the pic at the top of this page (but you can read about other techniques) demonstrates what I mean:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/image1073.jpg

Anyways, my point was just that a simple placeholder will do, we don't need elaborate or varied animations for something that doesn't happen much in modern combat.

Edited to kill big url.

[ May 04, 2007, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

[John Kettler]

Capt. Toleran,

For the sake of our remaining sanity, please rein in your gigantic URLs. This is your friend--and ours!

http://tinyurl.com/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Thomm]

Bayonets are (and have been through the ages) basically been weapons of psychological warfare: they were hardly ever actually used (there are great psychological inhibitors to stabbing somebody up-close and personal), but they did cause the enemy to turn and run, or to surrender (great fear of being stabbed).

Source: "On Killing", by Grossman.

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

Contemprary combat accounts don't mention fixed bayonets but I have seen multiple mention of knives and even axe handles! In Vietnam (yeh, 40 years ago I know) soldier were known to sharpen the edges of their trenching tools. If you listen closely in CMx1 you can hear 'fist-to-face' and 'knocking helmet' sounds. About using rifle butts, the term 'butt-swipe' came to the surface in the Vietnam days. But getting whacked by the butt-end of an M4 carbine might be a bit less daunting than the butt of a heavy old M1 Garand. I haven't heard a peep about close combat simulation in the CMx2 engine.

[Moon]

At the moment, what's happening as distance closes is that a) hand grenades fly, soldiers use full-auto. It's over real quick. No literal hand-to-hand, and I very much doubt if you'll see it in Game 1.

Martin

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Moon:

At the moment, what's happening as distance closes is that a) hand grenades fly, soldiers use full-auto. It's over real quick. No literal hand-to-hand, and I very much doubt if you'll see it in Game 1.

Martin

Seeing grenades fly and simulating their effect is certainly good enough for me. Is the amount of grenades each soldier carries tracked?

[Moon]

Yes. In fact, the weight, ammo and equipment for each individual soldier is tracked. But it is presented to the player in the usual Squad/Team format for stuff like ammo (only special equipment is shown individually)

Grenade throwing animations are next on my list for video footage.

Martin

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Moon:

At the moment, what's happening as distance closes is that a) hand grenades fly, soldiers use full-auto. It's over real quick. No literal hand-to-hand, and I very much doubt if you'll see it in Game 1.

Martin

They seem to be ussing bursts all the time at the moment. Do they every use single shot?

[C'Rogers]

Capt. Toleran ,

I think Rudel is saying "it wouldn't come into play". You seem to be taking a pretty big leap from his statement.

Of course there are some situations where rifles are used as improvised clubs. However for gameplay it really doesn't add much to simulate it.

Also in addition to Kettler's suggestion there is a far easier way to shrink giant links. Just use the full reply form's url option.

[Sixxkiller]

You start hitting someone with an M4 stock and you will soon need a new weapon.

[ May 04, 2007, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Sixxkiller ]

[Capt. Toleran]

My point was not that I favored a particular setup, though I did make a suggestion (and take a little offense when it was shot down so arbitrarily, though the BFC forums seemed to be populated by folks who know more about tanks than manners). My point is, we don't need a huge song and dance animation for hand to hand -- pick a movement, animate it out, use it as the default.

We're on the same side in terms of this not being a significant event, I just would appreciate someone not making broad sweeping statements that shoot down my suggestion so offhandedly.

[MikeyD]

"BFC forums seemed to be populated by folks who know more about tanks than manners"

Awh, we're mostly harmless... until we stray too far into certain 'sensitive' areas (and we all know what they are, don't we? ). Think of it less as bad manner and more as friendly sparring. If he come at you with a left hook give him an upper-cut in reply. Just remember to keep the helmets on and mouth-guards in.

Lets also remember that though everybody's got notions of what's 'doable' in the game the debate's (or catfights) are mostly taking place in an information vacuum. BFC's bound to disappoint some in the grog community on the little stuff (What? No working wristwatches for the troops?) but will knock our socks off with the big stuff.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

My point was not that I favored a particular setup, though I did make a suggestion (and take a little offense when it was shot down so arbitrarily, though the BFC forums seemed to be populated by folks who know more about tanks than manners). My point is, we don't need a huge song and dance animation for hand to hand -- pick a movement, animate it out, use it as the default.

We're on the same side in terms of this not being a significant event, I just would appreciate someone not making broad sweeping statements that shoot down my suggestion so offhandedly.

I was being rude?

I don't think I was before :confused:

Hand to hand combat would be seen so rarely in modern combat that it would be a complete waste of time and resources to include it in the game above some other things.

There are so many more things above this in importance on the list.

Lets say BF has 500 resource units and 500 time units to allocate to the game.

And it just so happens the game requires 1000 combined resource and time units to complete the game in a reasonable amount of time.

First you have the engine which is 300 resource points and 300 time points.

Then you have art, manual writing, animations, scenario writing, cordinating the beta team, marketing, handling the forums etc etc

All of that is 150 units each

You are left with 50 units

So they make a list of things that are not in the game but they would like to have in the game

They decide to expand out the vehicle list a little

Add more some map editor options and landscape items

They decide to beef up the sound a little bit

All those things get placed on a priority list and chip away at their remaining units.

They get about 30% of the way down the list and are left with precious few units.

So some things get left by the wayside and its why the scope of the game is narrow.

Unfortunatly PC games a whole are getting alot more complex.

Where as CM 1 could sim the entire western front 1944-1945

The new western front game may only sim 1944 to September 1944 (I said MAY, I have NO info on this one way or another just making an example)

That is because the engine gets more complex and everything that had to be done in the first game takes longer time and more resources to do.

It really sucks that BF has so few time and resource units.

But thats the way it has to be until they either hit it big or slowly expand.

Even teams like EA and Ubisoft have limits

Sure they may have 5000 of each compared to 500

But they still have their limits and must pick and choose how to spend theirs just like BF or any other company.

So unfortunatly things like 50 million weapons for the Syrians (my idea )

HtH combat (your idea)

Rivers (someone elses idea)

etc

Those have to be left by the wayside for inclusion either later or or possibly never

And they all have to be ranked and pioritized otherwise you get the dreaed mission creep that leads to long game delays and poor games.

I am not trying to defend BF, I am not on their payroll.

Im just asking the community to scale back its requests a little bit and try and not get angry when Steve has to tell you no on certain things.

And I quoted your post, but im not trying to pick you.

I promise

Nor am I trying to moralize everyone.

Im just trying to give a vivid example of how this works and try and keep the peace and keep expectations at reasonable levels.

So if you think you have something really important, than by all means post it.

Otherwise dont get mad when your told no.

And try and post on things that are in the game. Focusing on that and pooling together knowledge will help improve aspects of the game that are guaranteed to make it.

So hopefully that clears things up a little.