A WW2 fan's guide to the CM:SF setting

[Salkin]

Is it okay to *bump* this thread ?

//Salkin

[ParaBellum]

Ah, this makes me remember all the fun I had with Microprose's heli-sim Gunship back in the 80s.

The following weapons system is fully capable of ruining an AH-64's pilot's day:

The ZSU-23-4

Think of a Flakpanzer IV with quad 23mm autocannons and a radar system.

And yes, it can mess with ground targets, too. Syria currently has about 400 of those thingies.

So don't rely on your air support too hard, it might get...distracted.

[ October 09, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[MPK]

Just a thought for those wishing

to quickly acquaint themselves

with 'modern era' warfare...

The Wargames Research Group (WRG)

publishes two excellent sets of

rules for "all-arms land warfare

from platoon to battalion level"

-one set covers 1925-1950, the second

(perhaps updated by now?) covers 1950-

2000. The modern set is used as a training

aid by various militaries.

Note that both sets use the same game

system in every respect...the 1950-2000

set introduces helicopters, ATGM,

various types of imaging, specialized

munitions etc etc...

These rules are very close to the CM

'philosophy'-the emphasis being on c&c

and what troops actually do in RL as

opposed to theoretical models...

I've found them very useful in gaining

an understanding of the evolution of

weapons systems and tactics...

Note that in these rules, troops are

classified as INEPT, GREEN, STUBBORN,

DASHING, SKILLED, THRUSTING, FANATIC,

and IRREGULAR.

'Stubborn troops are adequately trained

in a limited range of battle skills, and

emphasise obedience to orders and tolerance

of losses...they include Soviet tank or motor

rifle, US Special Forces and Rangers, Iraqi

Republican Guard and SYRIANS...'

'Green troops have basic training not emphas-

ising fire & movement and reasonable morale...

they are easily pinned by fire...they include

US Army Infantry and most Israeli infantry

and Iraqi regulars...'

'Skilled troops are tough, well-trained and emphasise the fire in "fire & movement"...

they include US Armored Cavalry...'

'Thrusting troops are also well-trained, but

emphasise the movement in "fire & movement"...

they include US Armor, USMC, Spetznaz and

Russian Air Assault..' (

'Irregulars rely on natural talent instead

of formal training and have high but brittle morale...include most mujahadeen, Palestinians, and similar insurgents...'

Anyway...worth a look...

cheers,

matt

[hellfish]

Who the hell came up with those definitions? Rangers and SF are "are adequately trained

in a limited range of battle skills, and

emphasise obedience to orders and tolerance

of losses"?

US Army and Israeli infantry "have basic training not emphasising fire & movement and reasonable morale... they are easily pinned by fire"

I think history has proven all of those wrong.

[MPK]

"Who the hell came up with those definitions?"

Heh...I knew that would spark

controversy...

the WRG guys have done a LOT of research...

and their troop classification carries the

following rider...

"...these govern the[tactical]modes that

can be used and the reaction of the troops

to enemy fire and assault...They are

primarily based on combat performance

since WW2, reflect selection, training and leadership practice during the period

coverd, and do not impute a lack of bravery

or intelligence to any nation."

"For example,US Army infantry get a lower

grade of recruits than other arms, depend excessively on fire support instead of

using fire & movement, and lack the morale advantages of a traditional regimental system"

-This is from the 1993 edition of these rules...

Definitely an enjoyable debate

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Time for a deluge of relevant websites, methinks.

<snip>

US army field manuals in here

This one is asking for an account and password. For those of us not in the military; will some one with an account please share their password?

[juan_gigante]

Thank you fytinghellfish. I think some of the initial resistance to CM:SF came from WWII grogs who didn't want to be out of their element. For their sake, it is important that we acclimitize them to the modern world as soon as possible.

Yes, it spelled it wrong. No, I won't look up how to spell it. Yes, this means the terrorists will win.

[Battlefront.com]

The funny thing is that the WWII guys that are "out of their element" and complaining that CM:SF won't offer any challenge... well... I'll take a couple of scrappy Syrian milita units in a built up area and show them how "unchallenging" modern warfare can be

But I do sympathize with the WWII grogs. I used to think modern warfare wasn't very interesting. The Cold War and 3rd World Blue Helmet type scenarios I grew up with seemed to be not much fun. Desert Storm also did nothing to change my opinion, rather it reinforced it. Of course, the war last 100 hours that largely avoided builtup areas and was a follow up to a massive air campaign. One of the reasons cited for not going to Baghdad was that it would be, in wargame terms, "challenging". And that is where OIF comes in...

Now I find even the Counter Insurgency stuff interesting subject matter and tactically challenging. Sure, not on a grand WWII or Cold War scale... but at a small unit level I think it is as challenging if not more so. All those gizmos the soldiers have can be real helpful, but at the end of the day it is the Mk1 Eyeball with the Gray Matter backing it up that figures out how to get the job done. We should never loose sight of that because if we do, then we will think war is a pushover option. In fact, I think that already happened and now, very sadly, is being proven very wrong. You can gizmo your way into trouble a lot easier than you can gizmo your way out.

Steve

[rai kitsune]

Urban warfare is hell! if you think about somalia and the casultys infliced upon US forces by an extreamly untrained milita with only the most basic of weaponary (ok one hell of a lot more somalis died but like i said untrained not to mention the fact of lack of medical care and armour) where as the syrians have a pretty hardened army with some fearsome equipment hell hide one guy in a village with some anti tank mines let the front guard of strykers roll through pop out into the open lay down a few mines in the supposedly clear route and all of a sudden you have yourself a leogistics nightmare especially if you're luck enough to have an ammo carrier roll onto the mine loss of vital supplys for enemy probably ROE for causing extensive damage to the village and the chance of halting the advance while the strykers pull back to help! just one scenario of many.

[Crinius]

Thx, a very usefull post. Maybe ill give it a shot when it comes out.

[Redwolf]

I once wrote an article to introduce CM players to TacOps, another game from BFC that plays modern armored combat and fictional cold war scenarios.

I think it will now come in very handy for WW2-oriented CM players.

http://schlepper.hanse.de/redwolf/tacops-for-cmplayers.html

The third section is a guide to modern units for people who know WW2 equipment and OOBs:

http://schlepper.hanse.de/redwolf/tacops-for-cmplayers3.html

Over the years since I put this on my homepage I "met" (electronically) quite a few people who were very surprised how interesting modern combat can be.

%%

P.S. ironically, TacOps 4 now has a free WW2 upgrade. What comes around comes around .

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001045

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001046

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The funny thing is that the WWII guys that are "out of their element" and complaining that CM:SF won't offer any challenge... well... I'll take a couple of scrappy Syrian milita units in a built up area and show them how "unchallenging" modern warfare can be

But I do sympathize with the WWII grogs. I used to think modern warfare wasn't very interesting. The Cold War and 3rd World Blue Helmet type scenarios I grew up with seemed to be not much fun. Desert Storm also did nothing to change my opinion, rather it reinforced it. Of course, the war last 100 hours that largely avoided builtup areas and was a follow up to a massive air campaign. One of the reasons cited for not going to Baghdad was that it would be, in wargame terms, "challenging". And that is where OIF comes in...

Now I find even the Counter Insurgency stuff interesting subject matter and tactically challenging. Sure, not on a grand WWII or Cold War scale... but at a small unit level I think it is as challenging if not more so. All those gizmos the soldiers have can be real helpful, but at the end of the day it is the Mk1 Eyeball with the Gray Matter backing it up that figures out how to get the job done. We should never loose sight of that because if we do, then we will think war is a pushover option. In fact, I think that already happened and now, very sadly, is being proven very wrong. You can gizmo your way into trouble a lot easier than you can gizmo your way out.

Steve

What will this US soldiers have as support goes? Will they be in contact with some one to call for help? AWACS, will it be present?

Any air support?

Or will the time scale not allow for the above.

I hope that the US military had learned from what had happened in Somalia.

[Battlefront.com]

If Air and Artillery support are made available to the player's force prior to the start of the battle, then they can show up. Otherwise, from a realism standpoint, the battle would have to end and wait for the assets to become available (if a stoppage was allowed, that is). We might be able to simulate this sort of "it's a hard nut, better not crack it without a bigger hammer" victory condition, but it is tough so perhaps not.

I hope that the US military had learned from what had happened in Somalia.

Learning new things every day in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only about tactics and weapons, but also how to deal with cultures that are very different from those in the West. For example, at first the US treated mosques as sacred buildings that they couldn't so much as shoot at. Reasoning was that in the West, holy places are considered sacred and not to be used for activities related to war. Hard lesson learned was that Muslims do not think the same about mosques. At least not the ones in Iraq. One field report showed that nearly 80% of the mosques in one city (IIRC an Fallujah) were actively in use by insurgent forces (regrouping, bomb making, strong points, etc). So now the US forces have to make some tough decisions about "do we shoot them out or do we wait them out". This is apparently done on a case by case basis with the tendency to not shoot up a mosque if there are alternatives.

Steve

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For example, at first the US treated mosques as sacred buildings that they couldn't so much as shoot at. Reasoning was that in the West, holy places are considered sacred and not to be used for activities related to war. Hard lesson learned was that Muslims do not think the same about mosques.

Church bell towers always made good OP's in WW2.

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For example, at first the US treated mosques as sacred buildings that they couldn't so much as shoot at. Reasoning was that in the West, holy places are considered sacred and not to be used for activities related to war. Hard lesson learned was that Muslims do not think the same about mosques.

Church bell towers always made good OP's in WW2. </font>

[Splinty]

Originally posted by MPK:

"Who the hell came up with those definitions?"

Heh...I knew that would spark

controversy...

the WRG guys have done a LOT of research...

and their troop classification carries the

following rider...

"...these govern the[tactical]modes that

can be used and the reaction of the troops

to enemy fire and assault...They are

primarily based on combat performance

since WW2, reflect selection, training and leadership practice during the period

coverd, and do not impute a lack of bravery

or intelligence to any nation."

"For example,US Army infantry get a lower

grade of recruits than other arms, depend excessively on fire support instead of

using fire & movement, and lack the morale advantages of a traditional regimental system"

-This is from the 1993 edition of these rules...

Definitely an enjoyable debate

As a former U.S. Infantryman, who was active-duty in 1992, I can tell you that these assumptions are based on draftees from pre 1973, not the volunteer Army. These days the higher quality folks tend to show up in combat arms,they join for the challenge, not just to get out of the house. The middle/low quality folks join up for a job or the benefits and seem to end up as rear echelon types.

[MikeyD]

The part of this game that it'll take some getting used to will be playing the guerilla side against U.S. in the game. Stalking a convoy with snipers and RPGs might be hitting a bit too close to home for some folks. But hey, we got used to 'our' German troops shooting captured U.S. prisoners in CMBO (yes, I saw that happen several times). I suspect Shock Force will be played on every laptop in the Pentagon.

[Erik Springelkamp]

In 1945 Canadians and Germans decided not to destroy our tower, the pride of the city Groningen in the Netherlands:

Martinitoren</img>

The Germans promised not to use the tower, the Canadians promised not to shoot at it.

You see what happened with the buildings the Germans did use.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The part of this game that it'll take some getting used to will be playing the guerilla side against U.S. in the game. Stalking a convoy with snipers and RPGs might be hitting a bit too close to home for some folks. But hey, we got used to 'our' German troops shooting captured U.S. prisoners in CMBO (yes, I saw that happen several times). I suspect Shock Force will be played on every laptop in the Pentagon.

I don't know how common it will be to stalk convoys in the game. Its almost certainly going to be a possibility, but I imagine most of the scenarios and/or the campaign will be more like the "tip-of-the-spear" type combat we saw in the first weeks of OIF. Things like a cavalry troop stumbling into a dug in tank battalion or the Marines' seizure of the Nassiriya crossings.

[mattwagner]

Originally posted by Splinty:

As a former U.S. Infantryman, who was active-duty in 1992, I can tell you that these assumptions are based on draftees from pre 1973, not the volunteer Army. These days the higher quality folks tend to show up in combat arms,they join for the challenge, not just to get out of the house. The middle/low quality folks join up for a job or the benefits and seem to end up as rear echelon types.

I agree, having been active for 3 years in a Scout unit. Although you do get your occasional "dont wanna work dirtbag" and braindead types, combat units seemed to have rather intelligent people. A lot of middle class types too.

Although, I do think quite a few did want to get out of the house. A lot of us joined because we were bored and lacked ambition in other areas, not because we didn't have opportunities/came from the ghetto(i love how the media mentions that a lot). The military gave us a type of motivation we couldn't get on the outside. A swift kick in the @$$!

Maybe it's my anti-pogue sentiment, but a lotta of the support types seemed to be not so bright.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MPK:

"Who the hell came up with those definitions?"

Phil Barker, as I'm sure we all know. When i saw him at COW this year he was wearing a rather splendid T-shirt bearing the letters DBA, standing for Dam' Barker Again.

Originally posted by MPK:

the WRG guys have done a LOT of research...

[snips]

-This is from the 1993 edition of these rules...

Definitely an enjoyable debate

Given that the rules cover all the latter half of the 20th Century, I think they are pretty good generalisations -- Korea and Viet Nam are the major US wars in the period, and Grenada didn;t show much in the way of sparkling tactical performance that I recollect.

Then again, PB rates US Cav as "Skilled" and US armour and US Marines as "Thrusting" (which is really the "top" category, unless you like "Fanatic", restricted to Khmer Rouge and Iranian Pasdaran.

Of course, the main objection to the system is that it classifies Dorosh, along with all other Canadians, as "Thrusting".

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Erik Springelkamp:

In 1945 Canadians and Germans decided not to destroy our tower, the pride of the city Groningen in the Netherlands:

Martinitoren</img>

The Germans promised not to use the tower, the Canadians promised not to shoot at it.

You see what happened with the buildings the Germans did use.

Do you have a reference for this?

Groningen was actually a bigger city fight than Ortona - Ortona lasted a week but only had two Canadian battalions in the city proper; the entire 2nd Canadian Div fought in Groningen but I think IIRC the fighting took less than three days - lots of civilians there, who came out to watch the fighting. It's odd that the battle hasn't received more attention by historians, but I guess no one thought to name it Little Stalingrad. I though too there wasn't a whole lot of destruction - the Canadians did agree not to shell the city, generally speaking, because so many civilians refused to evacuate.

My own regiment had an issue with collateral damage there, though -

In the early evening, I had a visit from the (Dutch) postmaster, a distinguished man in a morning coat, silk hat, etc. He explained that the Germans were concentrated in the post office which he did not want burned. He wanted me to walk to the post office with a white flag and persuade them to surrender peacefully.

I said "Fine, I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll walk down the street if you walk down the street." He said, "Oh, no."

I told him I'd much sooner burn the post office (with our flamethrowers) than risk any Canadian lives and he left in a bad mood. Next morning we attacked and the Germans tumbled out in a hurry to surrender.

Major "Sandy" Pearson

Officer Commanding

"B" Company

Groningen, The Netherlands, April 1945

Seems odd that the Germans would agree not to use a tower; was pretty late in the war I guess. I just recall reading about the belltower in Bergen op Zoom, where German anti-tank gunners would fire solid shot at it every hour on the hour in order to ring the bell, after the town was liberated by the South Alberta Regiment. Mebbe they saw the writing on the wall by April?

As I recall, the big holdouts in the centre of Groningen were Dutch Nazis and not Germans; the Dutch SS had nothing to lose at that point.

Out of curiousity, whereabouts would that tower be located on the map below?

[ October 11, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by Splinty:

As a former U.S. Infantryman, who was active-duty in 1992, I can tell you that these assumptions are based on draftees from pre 1973, not the volunteer Army. These days the higher quality folks tend to show up in combat arms,they join for the challenge, not just to get out of the house. The middle/low quality folks join up for a job or the benefits and seem to end up as rear echelon types.

Wow. Now, that is a harsh generalization if I've ever seen one.

[Erik Springelkamp]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 1945 Canadians and Germans decided not to destroy our tower.

The Germans promised not to use the tower, the Canadians promised not to shoot at it.

Do you have a reference for this?

</font>

[Erik Springelkamp]

As I recall, the big holdouts in the centre of Groningen were Dutch Nazis and not Germans; the Dutch SS had nothing to lose at that point.

The German garrison in Groningen was a hodgepodge from regular German Infantry, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Gruene Polizei. They just wanted to surrender and go home.

But the bad guys were some elements of the SS-Herman Goering Division and Germaanse SS in Nederland (the Dutch guys).

Further troops were militarized railroadmen and Hitler Jugend, the first too old and the latter too young to be a regular soldier.

Age of the German combatants ranged from 14 to 65.

On the day before the battle for Groningen, a group of German defenders of a strategic bridge south of the city deserted, for the price of half a slaughtered pig from the local farmers who were afraid they couldn't reach their lifestock after a destruction of that bridge.

Those 'soldiers' took the pig, and went on foot back to their farms in Germany, were they lived across the border, some 40 km away. Those soldiers and farmers spoke the same dialect.