#61
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The USMC is one of our times most legendary miltary formations. No one has said anything else in this thread so far. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
in fairness for the m1
Quote:
just my opinion of course |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
technology vs doctrine
I believe that most powers in that horrible war fielded some good - and indeed some bad gear.
Doctrine and leadership were often the most difficult obstacle to utilize the technology to a marked advantage.Lack of foresight in the higher echelons and in some cases lack of political will to commit resources to win come to mind. The Germans didnt start to run their aircraft factories around the clock until a couple of years in for example. The last major war still influenced peoples concepts of ho to fight the present one. The Germans were quick however to capitalize on their armour and use modern doctrine- but for instance - during the invasion of France and the low countries in 1940 the actual number of German tanks were NOT superior to allied tank power. The allies spread their thinly - the Germans concentrated /manouvered theirs as proved a winning tactic in that combat enviroment. The Italians believed for the longest time that they did not need to upgrade their airpower / fighters to allied standards. They of course - got clobbered by the Allies overall in the sky. They did make a few good things though such as Beretta MP 38s , and the Beretta service pistol. But they still issued most troops with the questionable Mannlicher-Carcano. The Japanese had fierce troops with what seemed like unswerving loyalty etc. They opted to issue them with semi obsolete bolt action rifles and tried to win the war without upgrading their infantry gear throughout the war The Brits fielded the Sten Gun - arguably one of the simplest automatic firearms ever made prolific - but they made good use of it through training their lads and employing tactics that were workable. Its easy to think that the powers that be in those days cooly calculated their moves - but they made decisions in an enviroment of casualties in the hundreds of thousands and in some cases with enemy arial bombardment actually hitting their place of business / seat of governance. all in all - the shear economical disparity ( especially after the bombing of the industrial base of Germany) made the Axis chances of winning militarily very slim from mid 42. They could of course hope to get a victory because of a US forfeit , but luckily the US saw it through until the end and in a fashion that at the same time showed stalin that his advance had better halt were it did. just one guys opinion everybody. In game terms I find the emergency programs of weapon making that the loosing side and indeed the Soviets ( and to some extent the Brits in 1940) had going highly interesting.The making of field expedient armaments would be a valued skill in T2K I imagine. If you could churn out a few scrap metal/plumbing based SMGs to whatever crate of handgun caliber bullets the village has traded for then you could probably have the best horse, the best-washed wench and the least rotten potatos and the only house with a complete roof in the whole village! Last edited by headquarters; 05-30-2012 at 04:53 PM. Reason: had more to share |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Your typical '42 infantry squad (section) - 10 guys - typically, on average, and there is always exceptions, would only be equipped with one Bren/BAR, and one SMG. That was how things was formed up. Proper Machineguns was all placed in separate battalions, that was chopped up and parcelled out as need. The US at least had two advantages over the British system: The M1 over the SMLE, and the fact that there was a company level weapons platoon that had 2 belt fed machine guns. As the war went on, you would usually see an additional BAR/Bren, and another 1 or 2 SMG's. The Germans, on the other hand, was set with a book value of 12 in a squad. They picked 12 because the assumed that for various reasons, two wouldn't be available, be it sick, lame, lazy, or such like. Each half squad in the Mechanised forces in 42 - and more than a few leg infantry units - had a MG34/42 and a SMG- with the rest of the squad there for the sole reason of protecting the MG, and feeding it. A typical german platoon had more raw firepower than any allied company - and sometimes battalions (Russians anyone?). The main reason behind the makeup of the platoons is from how they was supposed to be used. The western allies felt that the base of fire from the platoon is aimed fire from the riflemen, while the automatic rifle keeps the bad guys at range, and help deal with the rushes. This isn't a bad idea - its very economical in ammo consumption. But it isn't well suited to mobile combat. The Germans on the other hand looked at it like this: No matter what, we are always going to be outnumbered. We have to find a way to make up for that. So they based each squad on a pair of mutually supporting weapon sections, each with the sole reason for existence of feeding a proper machine gun, with a very high rate of fire (1200 rounds a minute) designed to put as many bullets as possible in a small area in a short time. As one friend put it, "It was meant to be a 600m shotgun." Funny enough, most armies these days seem to be built on... 2 Fire Sections... Based around a MG. Granted, as the war wore on those numbers got all messed up. But back on point. The big disadvantage of the MG42 over the Bren/BAR is ammo consumption. After all, the MG42 is only 2 pounds heavier than the Bren, and in my mind, I'm ok with a 2 pound heavier weapon compared to the MG42's biggest advantage over the Bren. Ammo Consumption. Yes, its biggest issues and plusses was ammo: It ran through a lot. Speaking from experience, the advantages that a belt fed machine gun gives over a magazine fed automatic rifle is much better than the problem of toting the ammo. Of course, this is all my opinion, and you know what they say about that.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
In 1939 the Russian army gave them such a hammering in northern China that Japan refused to even think about attacking Russia even after the German invasion. The Japanese Army continued to use the same outdated tactics and type of weapons throughout the war against the Allies instead of learning how to fight against modern mechanised armies. Little or no attempt was made to ask the German army for their very experienced and competant advice in how to counter Soviet or Western mechanised armies and tactics, or to even license producing modern German tanks to give themselves a fighting chance when they went up against modern Allied tanks. The result was a one sided slaughter and led to the biggest military defeat in the history of the Japanese Army when Stalin send the Red Army back into China in August 1945. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Wait, I'm confused. When did the Marines develop a new helmet? What does it look like?
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
This is one of the big problems with NTC and JRTC, in my mind. When you lose the game by a couple of runs, you have a serious look at what you can do improve your game. When you lose the game by a dozen runs, you shrug your shoulders and put it behind you. My brigade walked away from NTC with nothing new to talk about because we got taken so thoroughly to the cleaners that we were more interested in forgetting about the experience and salvaging our self-esteem than in investigating why we got pounded so hard. The OPFOR needs to learn how to back off and provide the BLUFOR with a learning experience, not another high-fiving experience for themselves at the downtown establishments. The Japanese got handled so roughly that they turned their backs on all of the lessons they could have learned.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
mg 34/42 vs Bren
The Bren and the Bar were good squad weapons - probably the best or among the best - until the advent of the MG42 and the German doctrine described by Panther.
So I agree with him - thats not to say that well trained troops didnt make the Bren a potent weapon. The British and others ended up using the Bren far longer than WWII. Quote:
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We whre caught up on the idea of an LSW style support weapon and in the 80's built the L86 to supplement the L85 when the rest of the world had already realised you needed a proper LMG for squad support. Wasn't untill after the gulf war we started using the Minimi.
__________________
Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
That's exactly the point. There was no bash of the US forces, just an overreaction to a non-event.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 05-31-2012 at 05:34 AM. |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
god bless you leg.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|