Combat Phrases

[trafix]

Hello folks!

I'm am trying to figure out the meaning of some of the combat phrases when battle is occuring.

1 - during naval combat:
"<commander> crosses the T"
"belt armor penetration" - I know it is is a hit on the ship, but I
don't know what beld armor is, much less where.
2 - during airial combat:
"<aircraft> bounces <aircraft>"

Is there a reference somewhere I could look up to find out what things like these mean?

Oh, and what is a grognard? And where do I join up to be one?

(obviously, I am a fledgling war gamer with hopes of someday getting pushed out of the nest)

Thanks gentlepeople

[bradfordkay]

Let's see what we can do for you...

1. In naval surface combat, the way to bring the maximum number of guns on the ship to bear on the enemy is to be firing at him on either side of your ship ("broadside"). With more than one ship in your fleet, the best way to present multiple broadsides to the enemy is to sail in a "line ahead" formation, where each ship follows behind the previous (at a discreet distance). Now, if you are sailing directly towards (or away from) your enemy, then you can only fire the forward (aft) guns of the forwardmost (aftmost) ship in your line at the enemy.

If you manage to put your ships in the position where every ship in your "line of battle" can fire its full broadside at your enemy's ships who can only fire their forward (or aft) guns back at you, then you have successfully "crossed the T". You can now concentrate fire on the first ship or two in his line and cause them serious damage quickly, while not taking very much damage yourself.

2. Belt Armour Penetration. Combat vessels did not have the full thickness of their armour covering every inch of the ship. This would add far too much weight and slow the ships so as to make them useless. Therefore the armour had to be added where it was most useful. Typically a ship would have the following armour:

deck armour (usually the thinnest) protected the ship against plunging fire and aerial bombs. Normally located over the magazines and engineering spaces (ammo supply and engines).

tower armour (pretty thick) protected the command centre of the ship

belt armour (varying thicknesses depending upon what behind it) protected the sides of the ship and were thickest at the locations of the magazines and engineering spaces (usually the central portion of hte ship).

Turret armour protected the actual guns and was thicker in the turret front than the sides or top


3. "Bouncing" an enemy aircraft usually means that you were above him and saw him first, allowing you to "appear out of nowhere fast" and get in the first shot.

I don't know of a single reference work that will help you there. I think you just need to go to the largest bookstore near you and choose a book on the subject that looks interesting. When you finish that, buy another, and another, until you're broke...

If you do that and spend every loose moment playing UV, WITP (not too far away?), any other Grigsby product, or any other quality wargame then you will soon be considered another grognard (from the French "grogner": to grumble - the Old Guard under Napoleon weere known as the grognards - the old soldiers griped a lot but were the best fighters in the army).

[Marc von Martial]

If you do that and spend every loose moment playing UV, WITP (not too far away?), any other Grigsby product, or any other quality wargame then you will soon be considered another grognard (from the French "grogner": to grumble - the Old Guard under Napoleon weere known as the grognards - the old soldiers griped a lot but were the best fighters in the army).

"Grogs" or "Grognards" are known for bitching over the tiniest single detail of a game if it´s wrong, hehe . They seem to know (and most do really) a lot if not everything, down to the nuts and bolts supply in SOPAC, about their favourite historical period and battles. Often they disagree with other Grogs about so called "historical facts" and like to ingnore the fact that military history is a discussable field and so called "facts" are often made worthless by other so called "facts".

Altogether a wierd bunch, but a nice and worthy one too.

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Marc

and like to ingnore the fact that military history is a discussable field and so called "facts" are often made worthless by other so called "facts".

interesting statement, but I must be one of them Grog's as I disagree, History and or Historical Fact is just that, it happened, and it happened the way it did, "we" are the ones who change history and "we" change fact

(we have a lot of people who still do not think the Germens killed any Jews during the war, and as time goes on, more people are beginning to think along the same lines, 100-200 years from now, who knows, maybe no one will believe anymore)

if it wasn' for the Light Brigade, we would all know and have to learn a poem about the Charge of the Heavy Brigade which had happened earlier in the day, but "we" remember one and forget the other, but both are facts and both happened, but for the most part only the DieHards know about the Heavy Brigade but almost all of the "we" know about the Light Brigade

the discussable part comes in with the idea we can talk and take sides on if the Charge was right or wrong, needed or wasted, but the charge did go in and it is History

HARD_Sarge

p.s. sorry if I misread your intent

[IMJennifer]

Richard Berg, the great war game designer, responding to 'grognard' critiques of one of his civil war games said"

"They know the dimensions of a minie ball, but have only the vaguest notion of who Lincoln was."

In my experience grognards, in their quest for the 'perfect' wargame, tend to become obsessed with the minutiae of materiel, rely heavily on non-scholarly secondary sources, and have a somewhat foggy notion of the larger context in which military operations take place. As an example, perusing the WWII ETA game forums, you find what is almost a reverence for the (for the most part) tactical and operational excellence of the Wehrmacht -- and a total lack of awareness of the generally poor strategic direction provided by a German command structure beset by internal disharmony, confusion, and a fatal addiction to wishful thinking.

Happily, the grognards on this forum (perhaps it's in the very nature of UV) seem much more knowledgeable of the larger context and frequently cite primary source material in defending position.

[trafix]

Thank you guys for the explanations - the fog of my knowledge is gradually starting to clear. By this time, oh say 2010, I think it may be clear enough to call me an infant grognard.

Have a great week guys - I gotta go get married.

[Admiral DadMan]

Wedding... UV...
Wedding... UV...
Wedding... UV...
Wedding... UV...
Wedding... UV...
Wedding... UV...

Hmmmmmmm

Hint: Leave the laptop at home. It's the one that won't leave you if you don't play with it for a while...

[FAdmiral]

MARRIED !!!! Well there goes his gronard status, shot to H
before it even gets started....

JIM BERG, SR.

[mbatch729]

Yeah, but just wait until he has kids. Try finding time to play UV w/a wife and twenty month old twins (boy and girl)

[HARD_SARGE]

IMJennifer

again, can agree, but most of that quote, sounds like sour grapes, the designer knows everything about everything and the people who play know nothing, but as we have already seen in UV, the players are finding the mistakes and letting Matrix know about them, and to there great credit they are makeing the changes

I would say a Grog is more of a person who is passionate about the time and scope and the game in question, and has knowledge about said area, and would like to see it be right

(just came back from from seeing Windtalkers, good movie, good story, great action, but far from what happened (great F6's makeing bombing runs)(but lousy way to do it)

and as for the GE, they were some of the best soliders who have ever fought, so I see no reason for people not to admire that, the High Command was a bunch of toadies and Hitler ran the show

HARD_Sarge

[IMJennifer]

Hard Sarge...

In the majority of cases, I guess I'd agree with you. You have to love the grognards for their tenacity in an unrelenting drive for accuracy. In gaming, I guess I'd consider myself a grognard aspirant and that's why I love UV so much, even though the war in the South Pacific normally doesn't interest me.

Want very much to see Windtalkers. One of the original Navaho Marines was interviewed last week, he thought the movie wasn't bad. His only criticism was the use of profanity -- he said that kind of language was used, but nowhere near to the degree it was used in the movie. I found that interesting.

I agree with you, the Wehrmacht was operationally and tactically superb. I can think of only a couple of instances where the U.S. defeated them in an even battle. I think I would characterize your comment that "the high command was a bunch of toadies and Hitler ran the show" as a bit of an overstatement . This has been the subject of intense historical debate and I think it has more validity for the final year of the war than for earlier. An example of what I was referring to would be something like the Armed Forces Command Staff (Wehrmachtführungsstab) in the planning and initial implementation of the war against the Soviet Union. The staff seemed to be living in some sort of fantasyland of self-delusion that was entirely of their own making. But that's a topic all its own, and this isn't really the forum for that. I'd like to see a UV-like game on the first two years of the Russo-German war.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by HARD_SARGE

and as for the GE, they were some of the best soliders who have ever fought, so I see no reason for people not to admire that, the High Command was a bunch of toadies and Hitler ran the show

HARD_Sarge

IMJennifer rests his (her?) case.....

Just for the record, German troops were no 'better' or 'worse' than anyone else. They started the war better trained for the style of warfare that actually occurred (as opposed to WW1), and to some extent kept the tactical skill. However when the standard of training declined, so did the performance. Just look at the collapse of AGC in 1944. I know they were out produced, and out numbered, but they did lose on the battlefield as well! Meanwhile, other nationalities got better.
It is very tempting to rely on these myths of the Germans being somehow 'better soldiers' as if by inherited national characteristic, but it really doesn't hold water.

Paraphrased quote from a British tank commander on a documentary about the Tiger tank on UK Channel 4 last night (I think he was the guy who had a shoot out with Wittman at 200yds, and lost 2 of his crew doing it)
-The Tiger crews were elite troops, really good....but then again so were we.

[IMJennifer]

HMS Warspite -- You're not related to a fellow named Baldrick, are you? ( I just noticed your signature)

I don't believe Hard Sarge meant to imply (and I certainly did not) that the Germans were "...somehow 'better soldiers' as if by inherited national characteristics". Whether the result of training, doctrine, whatever, the operational and tactical virtuosity of the WWII German army is difficult to dismiss. One might argue that the fact that they were outproduced and outnumbered is in itself evidence of flaws in strategic thinking at the highest levels.

Certainly later in the war declining standards of training and recruitment as well as material shortages had great effect -- but the Russians, the British, and especially the Americans showed a remarkable propensity to learn from their mistakes and that was probably more important. The German focus on operational excellence to the detriment of materiel, personell management, and intelligence was both their strength and their undoing.

Jennifer
[It's 'her' by the way ]

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Warspite

but the point is, what other army, could of fought as long as AGC did, if they were not good soliders, the Russian are close to the same, they were very good fighters, there leaders were not worth the name, and even as the war went on, and they gained skill and learned the art of war, they still were not on par with the GE, they won on numbers and waste

change the sides, do you think the GE would of taken 4 years to break the front and drive into Berlin

but like Jennifer says, this is the UV forum, lets get back to the other side of the war, and yes would love to see this style of game taken to the Eastern front or the Med front

HARD_Sarge

[Marc von Martial]

ROFLMAO !!!!!

You guys (and ladies) are the best. The developing discussion above is exactly what makes up Grognards. LOL, man are we predictable.

Hard_Sarge: Note the smileys in my post, considering myself a grognard I tried to make fun of ourselves .

the discussable part comes in with the idea we can talk and take sides on if the Charge was right or wrong, needed or wasted, but the charge did go in and it is History

I never sayed something different. I juts ment that one guy claims "I have the facts right here on my bookshelf" and the other guy says "But my facts are true, I have evidence". And then there comes a third guy that says. "No, you all know nothing". Beeing a Grog you should know what I mean

[IMJennifer]

Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
ROFLMAO !!!!!
I never sayed something different. I juts ment that one guy claims "I have the facts right here on my bookshelf" and the other guy says "But my facts are true, I have evidence". And then there comes a third guy that says. "No, you all know nothing". Beeing a Grog you should know what I mean

Oh.... I had said all I had to say and was going to let this discussion die. But, I couldn't let Marc's comment go without addressing one of the things I find most irritating -- the abuse of evidence. Just because something's "in a book" doesn't mean it's true or that generalizations may be drawn from it. My particular pet peeve is people who cite something they've read in the memoirs of some German general as the ultimate verity; when in fact, taken as a whole, these memoirs have shown themselves to exhibit a remarkable degree of unreliability and self-serving. Or comments like "it's well known that German infantry squads in 1944 were equipped with wunderwaffe X -- I have that fact right here in this book!" -- Unfortunately, it's equally well known that the German supply system could be a complete pig's breakfast at times and to make a blanket statement that it was in the TO&E so everyone had a certain piece of equipment is just wishful thinking.

There. I feel so much better having said that. Now we can get back to the South Pacific (an area I know nothing about and will have to take the word of the Grognards as gospel )

Jennifer

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Marc
LOL we never gonna let this one die

I never sayed something different. I juts ment that one guy claims "I have the facts right here on my bookshelf" and the other guy says "But my facts are true, I have evidence". And then there comes a third guy that says. "No, you all know nothing". Beeing a Grog you should know what I mean

well this is part of the point I was going after, the idea that the Grogs "say" they know something when in fact they don't

we have plenty of people who know (with in reason) what they are talking about, but are not good writers, and others who are great writers, who don't know much (the best Grogs are the ones who do both)

(I for one, don't believe anything I read, I like and try to read all sides of the story before I form my ideas, which must say, it is a lot easier now then it has been in the past, one book I loved was about the BoB, the English writer, tried to knock the numbers that the GE claimed for airplane losses, and used a single day to show his point, the GE claimed 55 kills that day, and the GB ony lost 19 fighters, but as you get into it, the GB had lost alot of planes over France that same day, which when all added together, give them over 60 losses for the day, but "only" 19 fighters were lost, so his point about the BoB was right, the GE claims were pretty close to what the GB had really lost)

hmmmm pig's breakfast, now that is an interesting thought (good point Jennifer)

HARD_Sarge

I think we are getting to a new meaning to Grog now, at least as the designers see them

Grog=someone who thinks they know everthing and are willing to tell everyone what they know, and pity the fool who disagrees with him/her

[Admiral DadMan]

I have been taken to task a few times, even though I often couch my "evidence" with a statement like, "I read in 'Such and Such', by Some SOB that Japan had a tendancy to do X and Y, but not Z".

We grognards fancy ourselves as historians as well as gamers.

(BTW Jennifer, I thought wunderwaffe X went well with jam and bread...)

[HARD_SARGE]

Admiral DadMan

ahhh good point, think you nailed it on the head

see what I mean about some people can write what they are thinking and get the idea across

HARD_Sarge

[Tuomas Seijavuori]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Just look at the collapse of AGC in 1944. I know they were out produced, and out numbered, but they did lose on the battlefield as well!

Army Group Center could have put up a much better fight and remain as a cohesive fighting force, had Hitler allowed the troops to build the main defencive line 12 miles behind the front, or better yet, allowed more mobile, flexible defence. The absolute demand for fully manning the first defencive positions was absurd under those cicrumstances. I don't have the figures with me now, but Soviets had massed more artillery there than in any attack in the history of warfare. Source: Panzer Leader by H.Guderian (the chapter about the collapse of Army Group Center).