<t>Ammosgt,<br/>
<br/>
Well geez, you think maybe it's possible that all German tactics (or anyone elses) can't be summed up in 1 extracted paragraph? You think maybe I've read more than that 1 paragraph? You think maybe I didn't feel like cutting and pasting several books worth of text into a ...

<t>AmmoSGT, did you check out the date on that document? 1945. That was the tactics the Germans developed _after_ infantry got fairly comfortable with the idea of standing off tanks, and had the equipment to do so fairly well. Note also that the infantry were trailing by less than 150 yards -- 3 SP ...

<t>Every 3rd post here talks about how vulnerable 'unsupported' tanks are to infantry... the trouble is the definition of unsupported. Infantry following close behind a tank _will not_ protect it in SP. Only infantry _between_ the enemy infantry and the tank, or infantry actually stuck to the tank's ...

victorhauser,

Well, the adjustment of the destruction percentages is the removal of a BUG that was tripling those percentages from what the intended baseline.

<t>It's always entertaining to read here about the awesome anti-armor destructive power of the humble hand grenade, which so far exceeds that of any specially designed anti-tank weapon that armored crews quiver in terror at the thought of passing within a couple hundred yards of an infantryman ...

<t>Radical: 1. fundamental, basic. 2. carried to the farthest limit, extreme. <br/>
<br/>
The switch from smoothbore muskets was radical; it dramatically increased range and accuracy with no performance drawbacks, and drastically changed battlefield tactics. Same with the change from black powder to ...

hhsohn,

Go here: http://talk.shooters.com/

They've got several forums on collecting military firearms.

<t>Sorry Arralen, that performance doesn't qualify as a radical improvement. Compare the issue weapons of 1840 (single shot black powder muskets, the same basic design as had been in use at the beginning of the century) to the issue weapons of 1900. Now _that's_ a radical improvement in the same ...

<t>Sure, caseless ammo is an incremental improvement... if it worked. Didn't the German army finally decide not to adopt the G11 because it never did work quite right?<br/>
As for armor piercing, I've got some 7.62x39 steel cored soft point ammo that's not radical, but probably does about as good a ...

<t>Jerrek,<br/>
<br/>
You're quite right; advances in small arms have been very, very slight since about the mid 1930's. A bit of juggling with the mass/velocity part of the bullet end of things has allowed lighter weapons, but the additional ammo brings the total weight up to the same range (I own ...

The MG42 is still in use too; converted to NATO caliber and with a few other minor changes it still serves the German army as the MG1 (I believe that's the designation....)

<r>The battle for Manila went on almost a month.<br/>
<URL url="http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/luzon/72-28.htm"><s>[url="http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/luzon/72-28.htm"]</s>http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/luzon/72-28.htm<e>[/url]</e></URL> <br/>
<br/>
Scroll down about halfway ...

<r>Bing,<br/>
<br/>
It looks like "FM 6-20 Field Artillery Field Manual. Tactics and Technique<br/>
(1940)(+Change 1); 193 pages, 10 illus. Price 20.00 {Item No.3408}" would be the most useful one (Interesting site, Elvis), but I'm just guessing. Hmm.... you'd think the cannon cockers would have a ...

<r>Page 16 of this PDF lists the relevent manuals for the period. <URL url="http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=454"><s>[url="http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=454"]</s>http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=454<e ...

Doesn't _sound_ like the operation to relieve the 320th division in Feb. '43... was there an earlier KG Peiper?

A lot of human commanders haven't done much better than the AI on the battlefield either, come to that....

AI.

<t>Penalty or not, I regularly see units opfire 10 or so times. <shrug> Believe in it or not, it happens.<br/>
<br/>
Why attack it at full strength? Well, units that can't be bypassed ("That is, when an enemy unit is in a position where you have to get him out" I did say) are usually on objective ...

CJ,

I didn't say a word about fleeing or routed units.

<t>Annoying yes, but I don't see realistic in it.... Look at it this way; you have a squad surrounded in a cloud of smoke. 6 enemy squads rush it simultaneously from all sides. The defenders, in the real world, may put out a maximum effort -- say double their normal firepower -- but each attacking ...