Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 2,001 through 2,040 (of 2,157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Kyoteblue's Terrain & Wargame Photos #18091
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    What in THE hell is going on here???

    in reply to: Kyoteblue's Terrain & Wargame Photos #18013
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Sorry, I misread the situation.  I thought it was showing a Panda sex-stalking the goat.  Art imitating life and such…

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Another go at Brigade Commander #18009
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Yes, now we’re getting somewhere!  But you’ve got to go better than 30 minutes, Sir!

    In any case, they’re looking good, each side mixed it up some, took some casualties, let’s see where this goes.

    I need to finish my last couple write-ups, as well as some forces for this, then start digging into these rules.

    Thanks for posting, and you’ve whet my appetite for more.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Kyoteblue's Terrain & Wargame Photos #18008
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Wow, that’s pretty awesome actually.  On the one hand, until I saw these pictures I didn’t actually believe the old hippie was actually a wargamer.  On the other hand, the collection is pretty small, given he’s been gaming for the past 300 years. 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Spurious,

    Great game, great minis, and great write-up.  I agree with your observation about vehicles not being overly powerful, and I’d extend that to shooting in general (at least that was my experience).  For me the key was keeping a unit close to the action that was shielded/leader was keeping motivated, so that I could get them into close combat when the time was right to put a pinned/suppressed enemy unit out of the fight.  Then again, shoving my little lead troops into close combat is kind of my calling card 😉

    “…the Marines took further casualties from pretty much everything that could shoot, but the Russians failed to force them back.”
    That’s what I’m talking about 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 14 #18000
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Thanks Panda, and glad to hear the cotton wasn’t an aggravation/distraction.  I won’t be doing it again, but I just wanted to see what it looked like, and to get an idea of how many shots it would take to knock out a few tanks.  I’ll try and get more closeups in the future, but I’m not nearly the artist you are so my paintjobs aren’t generally too much to look at.  Plus I have a crappy camera that makes it hard to get non-fuzzy closeups.

    Rod – Regarding Napoleonic lines, the more I read German tank commanders’ accounts the more basic stuff seems.  I’d always given them lots of credit with regards to battlefield tactics, but, from reading the Panzer Aces series (in particular), it seems the German edge was largely 1) being super aggressive, 2) keeping it simple, 3) great crew proficiency, and (later) 4) simply having better vehicles.  So, having read about countless accounts of “I got my tanks on line and we moved directly into contact with the enemy’s line, halting only to fire,” I had no problem playing it out like that.

    My only complaint was that I probably had too many vehicles on the field; I’d like to reduce each side by three or four, and that’s probably what I’ll do in the future.

    A carpet-rich environment, eh?  You’re killing me.  I wouldn’t worry too much about surrender monkeys; from my readings the French fought very well on the battlefield, they simply got circles run around them in the operational scheme of maneuver.  As I’m only relating what happened on the battlefield, it’s safe to anticipate another campaign of very tough fights.  And I’ll look into Bulson/Connage.

    Thanks for looking and commenting guys, I appreciate it.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 13 #17999
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Well, I for one enjoyed the view into Panda’s home life, and kudos, that’s a lovely singing voice you’ve got on display there John 😉

    I must ask though; does anyone in the Isles have any bass in there voice?  Why does everyone sound like ornery, 80-year old ladies?

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Ever Played Blitzkrieg Commander? #17807
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Panda,

    Sorry I’m late to the party here, but I think you’ve received a fantastic glimpse at the Commander series of rules.  I agree with the comment of having smaller units with more headquarters, it offsets the aggravation of having only three units and having all three of them fail their morale roll.  I also played that hits were static, i.e., not removed at the end of the turn, which felt right to me, and sped the game up.  And I’ll say I never had a problem with the idea of a strong unit being overwhelmed by a bunch of weak units.

    The rules are fast, fun, and flexible.  My early FFL games (in Perplakistan) were actually using modified BKC.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 13 #17805
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Keep it up with the carpet jokes, ya bastids.  Right now I’m cutting up a purple rug, which will serve as the pallet for all future battle report works of art.  Just for you guys I’m even going to begin basing my infantry on little pieces of carpet, and I’m going to fashion all my tanks out of carpet.  You’ll love it.

    Tim – Thanks man, I’m glad you’re enjoying them.  It’s not Crossfire, but it works for me 😉  I, too, like most of my games ‘tank-less,’ but every now and again I go ‘tank-full,’ which is what is coming up next, so avert your eyes if you can’t stand it 😉

    Panda – Thanks.  I think.  I’m not sure though.  The southern belle comments are making me quite uneasy, as it seems you’ve moved on from fantasizing about goats to…  Well, best left alone I suppose, but I’ve got a feeling you’ve probably been going through a lot of your wife’s lipstick recently.  Regarding grass, every clime and place, buddy, every clime and place.

    Cheers fellas, next fight coming right up.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 13 #17755
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Oh, and it should go without saying, getting ready for and playing some 5Core Brigade Command.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 13 #17754
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Hey, thanks fellas, I appreciate the kind words and the encouragement!  I’ll get to all I can, thinking about starting with modern USMC, though I actually forgot about WWII USMC “island hopping.’  I also have some air combat stuff I’m looking at; is anyone interested in simple dogfighting rules, WWI to roughly present (and I mean dogfighting, not BVR air combat with stealth, airborne C4ISR, etc…)?

    “Imagine the look on  Herr Klink’s face when the Somua S-35’s or the Char B1 bis tanks turn up. That will be memorable!”
    Imagine the look on my face, I’m the one that’s gotta beat them!  So far I have 1 Char B, two Somuas, and three H35s (or 39s, I don’t recall).  I also have a Brit Matilda II, a Cruiser, two Matilda Is, and a couple Vickers.  I was actually perusing Pendraken’s website last night, pondering whether I need more French and German armor.  On the one hand, I’m a wargamer, so of course I want  more.  On the other, I don’t want to sink a lot more money into my early war Germans as it won’t get used (after France the KG is headed to the desert, not to Barbarossa), and if I don’t do that I don’t need more French (though I may drive historical purists crazy by putting French and Brit forces on the table together).

    We’ll see…

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #17693
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Glad you liked it Irish, another one on the way.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Attack on safe house Mogadishu 12th July 1993 #17576
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Great looking toys, and cool scenario.  Look forward to part 3.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Holy cow, quite a few responses, thanks fellas.

    Rod – “You can never have too much micro armour!” Perhaps, but you can have more than you’ll ever get on the table, and that’s what my worry is.  And the fact I keep perusing GHQ’s website and Ebay for more.  It’s sickness…  Now that you’re all caught up I need to do some more write-ups (I have two I haven’t gotten to yet).

    Kyote – “You have been busy, and yes you did over buy…”  Yes and yes.  And hurry up with your 15mm stuff, I want to see deep into some Company Command.  And find your Elvira 😉

    Jim – The bases are 60mm x 40mm, and they’re just fitting three of the large, modern MBTs.  I love PicoArmor/Oddzial Ozmy, but this 6mm stuff looks pretty cool too 😉

    Spurious – “…is there a sneaky system going on…”  Nothing sneaky man, I’m not clever enough for that.  But I will marking them, probably just with a Sharpie on the back edge.  I agree about needing something to identify the units; if you’ve read any of my batreps you’ve seen I’m big into following units through a campaign, so I absolutely have to have a means of identifying them.  But I’m lazy so I just take a marker and do it.  Works for me.

    Thanks again guys, and I’m glad to hear about all the guys getting stuff ready for Company and Brigade Command.  Take care.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Yeah, yeah, I was typing while holding the baby.  Though I am more Irish than Panda.

    Hereby amended: “I do NOT wish for, nor shall…”  That was pretty funny though.

    Anyway, quite yakking and get over and take a look at my 6mm Brigade Command bases and let me know what you think.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Bastards!!!

    I do no wish for, nor shall I accept, any of your faux hills!!!  I hereby vow to use my current carpet hill til the end of my days!

    I’m glad I remain so popular even in my absence.  Now get off your butts and post some batreps.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: "Hold Until Relieved" Part II #17160
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    After reading your post, I now get that videos are attractive to you due to your reading comprehension problems.  I simply can’t imagine how difficult typing, or even reading, batreps must have been.  You’re so brave!

    “…Jack’s face in a ugly grimace…”
    Yes, I still had the video running with that whiney-ass furriner in it.

    “…you’d realize just how fully grown Jack’s got…”
    I get it John, anything over 3 foot is a giant…

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    I didn’t say use unpainted figures, I said hurry up!  So hurry up! 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: "Hold Until Relieved" Part II #17141
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    “…I’m finding that making the video is completely distracting and I’m not really considering the consequences of my actions.”

    *Ahem* Yes, but I’m being chicken for not making videos? 😉

    In all seriousness, this, and the immense amount of time editing/uploading, is why I have no interest in doing videos.  Right now, for better or worse, I have a system down that works for me (in terms of taking photos and notes while playing) which is pretty seamless in terms of not pulling my (limited) mind away from the game, and still allowing me to tell my story once the game is finished.  It works for me.

    Having said that, your videos are fantastic (excepting the voice work, of course) for showing what’s going on, and I’m looking forward to more.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Well, hurry up then, we’re finally getting somewhere!!! 😉

    I worked on some figures today, but no @#$%ing games.  I’ll look to remedy that tomorrow.  I hope.  Real life can really suck sometimes, I’ve had  a lot going on recently, though this evening was a labor of love (Daddy-Daughter dance).

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #16964
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Close enough I suppose, my ability to be entertained by them hasn’t really progressed off their mark.

    On a related note, I’m betting you and Yosemite can shop at the same clothes stores (Baby Gap?)…

    Stop it John, you’re only allowing me to pull you down to my level; it’s a fight you can’t win, I’ve spent my whole life here.  Get out now, while you still have some dignity.  My only talent in the civilian world is being able to say things more shocking, more disgusting, more over and past the line than everyone else.  I’m not proud, but it’s all I’ve got…

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Hold Until Relieved AAR #16963
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Negative buddy, not happening, you guys will have to be content with still action photography.  Mostly because of the work involved; while it takes me quite awhile to download the photos to the computer, upload them to the blog, write the batrep, update the campaign roster, then post to the various websites, it seems to me that’s a bargain compared to all the chopping you did to your video.  I happen to know that’s pretty time consuming unless you have a professional editing studio in your house.

    And sorry again, no drawl.  I’m actually a transplant, I’m from up north, but my family ended up in Texas and it’s home now.  And unfortunately the fake belly ain’t so fake; it’s what happens when you go from being a man amongst men, to, well, just a guy like the rest of you schlubs…

    It is kinda funny, though, and disturbing at the same time: so you’re actually admitting to wanting to see me in a pirate costume, with a big belly, and sounding like LBJ and Dolly when I talk.  Go ahead, Panda, this is your dream, finish it! Go ahead and tell the fellas what you hope I’m wearing under the pirate costume.  Watch yourself buddy, I promise I can kick harder than your drugged goats…

    And let me say it one more time, no videos.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #16958
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    A favorite of mine, I was raised on those 😉

    in reply to: Bocage fight, A Sergeant's War AAR #16957
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Looks great man, and I’m loving the 6mm H&R troops and vehicles.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW and what I have been up too. #16956
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Good, so hurry up, and don’t forget to take pics this time!

    And where is the Commissar?  He gets no slack from me for putting out 2nd editions…

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Hold Until Relieved AAR #16955
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Your voice most definitely is NOT fine, though it was ungentlemanly of me to point out your empty bag, and for that I apologize.

    Oh, and I’m glad to see where I really stand with Rod; you’re going to wake up with a rolled up carpet next to you.  And you wargaming snobs have done nothing but harden mt stand: I vow I’ll NEVER leave my beloved carpet, it will be a key battlefield feature on the tabletop for the remainder of my days!

    “…an acute state of paroxysm.”
    Ooooh, I know what someone got for Christmas.  Though I need to get one too, as I have no idea what a ballyragger is…

    “…lack of carpet obviously sent him into another of these states.”
    That’s pretty funny though.

    “He’s just upset that there are no swaths of carpet from which to look down at you from.”
    ????  You haven’t been paying attention Rod, I have NO problems looking down on Panda.  Conversely, we’d need to roll up six or eight full carpets and place the wee little guy atop them…

    Sure, my tables will never look like Panda’s, but thy’re mine and I love them.  As opposed to someone here that’s so ashamed of his tables he hides them by refusing to post pics 😉

    “…it seems he’s a Texan as well as a Marine!!!”
    No excuses necessary my pint-sized friend, proud on both accounts.

    I did get a laugh today and thought of you (Panda) when I got home from work today and found an advertisement for various Irish paraphernalia (hats, T-shirts, posters, bags, etc…) with my family name emblazoned across the front of each.  At least one of us is recognized…

    “Hope all is good on the home front.”
    Yes, we’re doing well man, thanks for noting, we’ve just been busy.  Hope all is well there too, and whatever you’re upcoming deluge is doesn’t keep you out of here too long.

    Take care fellas.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW and what I have been up too. #16953
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Company Command is fantastic, and FOW-style basing works like a champ.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW and what I have been up too. #16946
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    I second the Bongo Haram caper.
    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #16944
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Norm – Good luck with the boardgame, but I’m absolutely looking forward to you getting back on your beautiful Hexon terrain and Pendraken figs.

    Rod – Well, you got your wish man, ‘real life’ has got me overrun.  No gaming last weekend, and I still haven’t written up games 13 and 14…  I’ll look to get some stuff done this weekend, so, as Kyote says, read faster 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Hold Until Relieved AAR #16894
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    ”Some may think these statements seem unrelated. We both know different Jack.”
    Ah, yes, what it must be like to have ‘life-sized’ wargame figures, to be able to paint your toys using both hands, while standing eye-to eye.  It’s no wonder you have the most realistic livestock 😉

    “…allowing your wife to listen to that beautiful Irish accent…I’m just saying you’re asking for trouble…”
    Oh, my poor Panda, apparently you’ve been watching your videos with the sound muted.  You sound like Mickey Mouse, but speaking a foreign language, and with undescended testicles.

    “And hey, thanks for the kind words…I know how difficult it is for you”
    Yes, I’m not much for niceties, but I must show some respect for the table, it is simply awesome.  I keep staring at it: “how the @#$% did he do that?”
    That is definitely some master craftsmanship; I’m sure you’re doing the local model railroader’s club proud 😉

    I’m glad you posted this stuff, and I can’t imagine how much time you put into setup, play, the comic book backdrop for the video, and the editing/posting of the video, thanks for taking the time, I appreciate what goes into it (even if my stuff doesn’t look anywhere near as good).

    On my end, I have yet to watch the 2nd part of your video, but I’ll get to it soon.  I’ve had a rash of ‘real-life’ crap break out, and so I haven’t gotten anything done with regards to wargaming lately.  I’ll look to remedy that this weekend.  Take care man.
    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Machine Guns in Defence #16805
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    John,

    “While the USMC often does things its own way, I doubt they do things differently from the USA on this.”
    I really don’t recall, but I’m sure it’s on the web somewhere.

    “…the Russians have a term for extremely intense close-range MG fire.”
    Sounds like it fits the bill for firing the FPF.

    “I have never heard of rifle sections using aiming posts.”
    Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear.  Riflemen don’t use aiming posts, they used engineer stakes, or, more commonly, they used tent pegs to delineate their fields of fire (left and right lateral limits) in their fighting holes.  They fill out a range card for the whole, which is given to the squad leader, who puts together all three in a squad fire-plan sketch for inclusion in the platoon’s fire-plan sketch.  To fill out the range card the riflemen mark their left and right lateral limits and shoot an azimuth off them for the range card.  But, being that their rifles and SAWs are not on a tripod, the engineer stakes/tent pegs are very useful for keeping them in their field of fire, particularly at night (the stakes are put in on t he forward lip of the fighting hole, so you take your firing position and turn left or right until your rifle hits the stake).

    Interesting about the Brit organization; as a former machine gunner, I must say they got it all wrong 😉

    “Nowadays, interest in massed armoured combat has faded, dismounted combat is much more the thing, and MG platoons are to be found in light and mech infantry battalions.”
    Sure, MGs are everywhere now, but all this insurgency fighting stuff was a bit frustrating from my standpoint, with regard to MG employment.  In Afghanistan and Iraq guys weren’t even carrying the tripods, which meant the MG was really just a larger caliber, belt-fed rifle…  Now, fighting a non-traditional enemy largely in the streets, at very close range, and pretty much always on offense, or fighting a non-traditional enemy at either very, very long range, or very, very short range, can have that affect I suppose.  My personal feeling was that, a lot of times, the MG teams may as well have had SAWs…

    Gotta love the M2 and Mk19, both unmistakable sounds that were ‘heartwarming.’  For us they were battalion-level weapons, i.e, Weapons Company assets (just like 81mm mortars and Javelins), not company level (60mm mortars and SMAWs).

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Hold Until Relieved AAR #16804
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Good Lord, John, the table is so beautiful it actually makes it worth the four-month wait 😉

    I admit it, I’m jealous.  I showed the wife, she said “no, you already have too much stuff.”  I said “look at that, it looks amazing.”  She said, “you could do that,” but the truth is, no, no I couldn’t, I really don’t know how you do that man, it’s just awesome.

    If only you’d quit having the midget leprechaun do your voice-over work.  😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #16595
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Hey, welcome Foxred, glad you’re enjoying them!  The campaign is going great, hopefully I’ll get Poland finished up next weekend, I can already see it’s not going to happen this weekend.  And I’m not sure what’s going on with Kyote, he’s sure trying to drive comments!  Oh, and pay no attention to the midget animal fondler identified as Panda here, he’s harmless (and apparently off his meds again) 😉

    Panda – What the hell is going on here?  That’s a very interesting post: “Great photos and words.”  You’re doing great buddy, really easing yourself into the wargaming business.  Should be ready for a game by early 2023 at this rate 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Machine Guns in Defence #16594
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    “…I was the guy with the black Canadian maple leaf…”
    Oh, we know who you are Tim, we’ve been watching you.  Just kidding of course, but yes, I recall we had discussed MG stuff on TMP.

    “My first question is this – in the USMC hand out John presents, is the range card arsed up?”
    Sorry, didn’t address that yesterday.  So, to be fair, it’s kinda fuzzy looking, so hard to be sure, but yeah, it looks kinda screwy.  First, it’s very strange to me that all the plotted targets are on the right side; it’s not that that couldn’t happen, and I haven’t seen the actual terrain they based this card on, but from my experience I’d have to say you’ve got your gun in the wrong place if all your expected lays are on the right side, right next to your FPL.  If your targets are next to your FPL, that means you’re not firing to your front, your firing across someone else’s front (probably a rifle platoon’s), which isn’t really how it’s done.

    The second issue I have, and again, this is not a hard and fast rule, but pretty much SOP: 1 is the PDF, two and three are secondaries, and the PDF is where you expect to engage the enemy the farthest out, but here the PDF is at 600m while target 2 (the lone tree) is at 900.  Just kind of strange.  In the defense, you pick the enemy up at the PDF, and your secondaries are pretty much where you expect him to take cover, or break cover, on his way to your positions, i.e., getting closer to you.  As an example, you’re in your fighting hole looking out: you expect the enemy to show up to your front, specifically you’ve got a forest in front of you with a road that pops through 700m out.  That’s the point you first expect to see the enemy, so you lock that in as your PDF.  So, getting closer to you, there’s a knoll at 550m; you figure that, if your guns don’t break up their formation and force them back, they’re going to get through your PDF and run to the knoll, so that’s target number 2.  At 350 yards there’s a barn, which makes sense as the next likely stop for the enemy on their way to you, so that’s target number 3.  If the enemy gets on top of you, you fire the FPF, which is going to be all the way to the right or left (as designated by the company fireplan), firing across the front of friendly units to keep the bad guys out.

    At least that’s how we did it.

    “I don’t understand the deflection values in the range card compared to what is circled on the diagram as 1, 2, and 3.   Those circled targets are all to the right of the top of the page.”
    Indeed, these are all jacked up.  Now, there’s two ways of doing it: first is, the T&E has a ‘zero’ (gun straight ahead and level), and you mark all targets  (PDF, 2, and 3, in this case) from zero.  Or, and this is how I always did it: you mark the PDF from zero (also taking into account your FPL, which I’ll address in a minute), then you mark targets 2 and 3 from you PDF, not from zero (we’d actually put both, the ‘true’ T&E set and the manipulation from the previous target).  Some guys would try to set their PDF to zero (on traverse, didn’t usually work for elevation); I never did this because of the FPL (again, just a minute).

    “In fact, I would submit that a principal direction of fire is the same as recording a fixed line that is NOT a protective fire fixed line.”
    I dunno, maybe I just look and think about it differently, or maybe I’m misunderstanding.  The concept for MG employment is the same for PDF, secondary targets, and the FPL.  I think folks see MGs in movies (and I know you’re former military, so not you, but just folks in general) and they think you’re pretty free-wheeling, that you’re constantly changing your aiming point, swinging the gun around: “there’s a bad guy (bup-bup-bup) got him!  There’s another one (swing 90 degrees, bup-bup-bup), got him!  Hey, how’d he get over there (swing another 90 degrees, bup-bup-bup), got him!”

    It’s not like that at all.  The gun doesn’t move a whole lot, and the prime reason is because you’re engaging at pretty decent distances (in some cases, 800m away, beaten zone firing), and you’re not tracking individuals, you’re firing at formations.  A lot of people think being a gunner is cool; it’s actually pretty mundane: you set the gun on the PDF, the gun crew commander calls out instructions (PDF, fire at the sustained) and you start shooting.  You can’t see anything, you’re just focusing on your bursts.  The enemy starts breaking through and he says “search and traverse” and now you still can’t see anything, you’re focusing on manipulating the T&E (right 2 down 2 -burst, right 2 down 2 – burst), then ammo’s out and you open the feed tray cover, A-gunner slaps a new belt in, or commander calls for rapid and now you’re thinking about barrel change (even though that’s the A-gunner’s responsibility).  But you don’t really see a whole lot as the gunner, not at 700m; humans are about a millimeter tall 😉

    Regarding FPL: “the Vickers link seems very exact in calculation of where the protective fire fixed line/final protective line is located with respect to the platoon’s front.”  If you’re talking about the “no rounds should impact within 3 degrees of friendly troops,” I don’t recall any hard and fast rules in our field manual, though I know battalions had their own SOPs for how close they wanted you firing to friendlies, regardless of situation.  But with the FPL it was largely dependent on terrain, and it generally corresponded with grenade range.

    “Above, Jack mentions just disengaging T&E mechanism and swinging as far left and right as you can go.  Does this mean not bothering about the sort of measurement calculations in the Vickers link or does it mean the max left/right has been calculated to be as careful about not hitting your guys as possible?”
    Above I talked about your PDF being target #1, and how some guys would lay the gun on the T&E at zero on PDF.  What I always did (because you figure if you’re firing the FPF things have gone pretty bad and you’re going to be in a hurry) was (if our FPL was to the right) I’d put the gun on the tripod, swing it all the way to the right, and lay it on the FPL.  Then you conduct the lays for the PDF and secondary targets.  In general, you keep the gun in the T&E on the PDF, because that’s where you expect the enemy to show up.  The bad guys get closer, switch to target 2, closer = switch to target 3, etc…, then “fire the FPF!”  Now you unlock the gun and swing it all the way to the right, lock it back down, and fire ’til your barrel melts.

    So, the calculations for the gun lay on the FPL were done (and FPLs are inspected by Squad Leader’s, Plt Sgts, and Plt Commanders to make sure you’re not lighting up friendlies), but mostly we just ‘eye-balled’ it.

    “I’m also thinking that, except for final protective line (FPL)/protective fire fixed line, PDF/fixed lines are really beyond the range at which Crossfire is assumed to take place.”
    Yeah, I’ve given plenty of thought on how to model MGs in wargames, and nothing ever works out to my satisfaction.  It quickly gets way to complicated for a game.  I dunno; it depends on the scale of game, but if we’re talking about platoon-sized and smaller, I’ve told people that MGs don’t really belong on the table then. at least not on a tripod.  If you’re fighting in from 150m, excluding the FPL, that’s what the rifle platoons are for (with their LMGs), to keep the enemy off the guns, which are stacking bodies at 600m.

    Okay, now I get why you were asking how wide a ‘fire lane’ would be.  If you’re going to try it on a Crossfire table, how wide should it be?  I’d say a couple inches, and anyone moving through there gets five or six dice of fire.  But the MG can’t fire anywhere else (the PDF is locked in), or maybe you have a PDF and two secondaries, and each turn you place a marker showing which target they’re firing on (which literally will just be a ‘road’ from the MG all the way to the opposite table edge) that turn.  I’ve tried this, and the real effect is simply area denial; the opposing player just won’t move any troops down that road or through that field.  The FPL would be nothing more than another field of fire, this one crossing the front of your other units (though I’d only allow it in the defense, not something you do on the fly).

    “What do you think of what I’ve written here? ”
    I think you’ve got it; it’s not rocket science, or I wouldn’t have been able to do it 😉
    Hopefully I addressed all your questions; if there are more, just let me know.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 12 #16589
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Kyote – I don’t, I’ve had enough of them!

    Shaun – Can’t seem to get them written, and I don’t even have a beach to blame it on!  I sure wish I did; how’s Australia feel about immigration for decrepit old white guys with no marketable skills?

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Machine Guns in Defence #16569
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    tlemen,

    Pull up a chair 😉 Just kidding, I’m no genius, just a former machine gunner, and I’ll do the best I can.

    “First are firing “on fixed lines” or “fire lanes’ the same thing?”
    Short answer is, I dunno. As John pointed out, it sounds like Fixed Lines are Final Protective Lines (FPL) for us. In my mind, a fire lane is nothing more than a field of fire. What does that mean? Well, there’s a shifting scale, but in a perfect world you place the gun in a spot with cover and concealment that you can easily get out of (to the rear), and you lay the gun on an enemy avenue of approach that allows you to kill infantry from about 300 to 700m, which is grazing fire. I’ve got the gun locked into the T&E and I’m firing (at that range) with little or no manipulation, and mowing them down (which cracks me up, the other day I read on one of the forums where someone said the point of MGs is to suppress, not kill. BS; suppression is what happens to you when everyone around you is dying).

    Also, I’ve never seen that officer’s MG cheat sheet, but it’s pretty good overall. But stuff like the sketch on page 6 is why so many people fundamentally misunderstand MG employment; the real way we use MGs (inasmuch as you can, terrain dictating) is the sketch on page 7. You place your MG in a spot to kill bad guys with the cone of fire, not the beaten zone. In movies they put MGs in upstairs and fire down on the enemy, which limits how many bad guys you can hit. In real life we use a basement window, or mousehole the ground floor to employ grazing fire. If you have to use plunging fire (i.e., killing with the beaten zone), you want to engage the enemy at long range (500 to 700m) to maximize the size of the beaten path with limited manipulation of the T&E. Sometimes it can’t be helped, but if you can, you use grazing fire.

    “And, if you understand what I’m talking about I’m interested in how wide such lanes might be…”
    So, back to fields of fire. I’m not sure how to answer this, or even if I understand properly. Now, a lot of you are probably thinking, “how the hell does a machine gunner not know about fields of fire?” That’s not what I mean; fields of fire are so elementary to what we’re doing that I don’t know how to answer. I.e., you don’t put an MG in a closet; the CO picks a piece of ground he wants to hold, you go through your prep of the defense (Key Terrain, Observation and Fields of Fire, Cover and Concealment, Obstacles, Avenues of Approach), then pick out a spot to place the gun which covers the likely avenue(s) of approach. Then you lay the gun (sight in on where you expect the enemy to show up, more to come on that).

    Here is where you get to fire lanes I guess? Once we’ve identified where to put the gun, and where the gun will be firing, you may have to clear your field of fire a bit. Now, if you’ve got to do a bunch of work, you put the gun in the wrong spot. And you don’t want to do too much, i.e., so much that the enemy can see what you’ve cleared, and it leads them straight to your position. And for folks thinking you’re out there chopping down trees and stuff, that’s not the case; again, this is where grazing fire comes in. My gun is on the ground, not up high, so the trees don’t really affect me, I may just need to clear a bit of underbrush. The Japanese and Vietnamese were particularly skilled at this sort of work.

    How wide would it be? Not wide at all. These are not rifle platoon fighting positions (and event that’s a little unfair, as even they practice fire discipline; but they have true fields of fire (in terms I think most people would think of), and MGs are much smaller. The reason MG fields of fire are so small is because we are not looking to engage the enemy (along our Principle Direction of Fire, which I’ll get to in a minute, and secondaries) at close range, we are looking at getting him from about 200m out to 700m. So you can have a pretty tight window, AKA field of fire, when you’re firing out to that distance. Now, the rifle platoon protecting the guns has much wider fields of fire because they are engaging the enemy from at much closer range, if that makes sense. Don’t misunderstand, they still have a PDF as well, but they’re a lot more flexible.

    But for those folks thinking we free-gun like in the movies, swinging it back and forth through 180 degrees, that’s not how it works…

    “…were there multiple lanes set up…”
    Yes. So you identify your main target, and this is the point (as far away as possible that you can engage the enemy) where you expect the enemy to show up (i.e., avenue of approach). Then you look around for alternate enemy avenues of approach, and places he’ll try to go if he gets past your PDF. So you will have your PDF (main target), and then maybe three or four alternates closer in. Each of those has/is a field of fire.

    “…how the lanes were defined (small stakes on the ground in front of the MG sort of thing, maybe),…”
    The rifles use aiming stakes, not us. We draw up a Range Card (lots of examples if you Google it, though none of them that I’ve seen are filled out correctly; actually, over on TMP I posted one and explained the whole thing, if anyone is interested in looking that up, and sorry, http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=319113). You make a sketch of your position, identifying your targets, then you shoot an azimuth and record the T&E setting to each, and record on the Range Card. So, we don’t need aiming stakes, we’re laying the gun via the T&E, so when we need to get the gun on target you simply reference the T&E and manipulate it. Then you dig in, with primary, alternate (place to fall back to that still covers your PDF), and supplementary (another position to one of your flanks, in case the enemy pops up there unexpectedly).

    Along those lines, regarding the “Fixed Lines,” AKA “Final Protective Line,” this impacts how you lay the gun as well. Typically your gun is set at the juncture of two rifle platoons, and guns are employed in squads of two guns. So, you’ve got a rifle platoon, two guns, a rifle platoon, two guns, and so on. Each gun has a PDF about 500 yards away, then some secondary targets (areas you’re going to fire at) that are successively closer to the gun, to engage the enemy as he gets closer (the gun crew commander directs fire, decides when to change targets). We usually had our closest gun lay at about 200, maybe 150 yards. There’s a bit of dead ground, but when the enemy gets to about 75 yards (usually, closer depending on terrain), that’s when all hell breaks loose.

    So far, all the guns and the infantry fighting holes have been engaging targets in front of them, mostly at a ‘comfortable’ rate of fire (more on that in a minute). In our Company/Platoon fire plan sketch, we’ve decided that when the enemy reaches a certain proximity to our positions, called the Final Protective Line, we need to go berserk to brush the enemy off of us, which is called the Final Protective Fire (FPF). There is a signal to let everyone know when to bust out the can of whoop-ass, different by unit, but usually something like a green starcluster. When that green pop-up goes off, essentially everyone, turns either left or right as far as they can (they’re left or right lateral limit, and the mortars spin the wheel, point the tubes practically straight up) and just begin pouring out fire until the we’re dead or the enemy’s dead.

    So the way you lay the gun is, you use the T&E to engage your PDF and ‘normal’ targets, but when you fire the FPF you unlock the gun (the T&E), and, if you set your tripod up correctly, you simply swing the gun all the way to the left or right (whichever way you were designated in the company fireplan), and you lay down a wall of lead in front of the rifle platoon on that side (they’re supposed to be doing the same for you with their SAWs).

    “…how intense is the firing versus firing on a defined target in line of sight.”
    Intensity of firing is (roughly) such: the sustained rate, the rapid, and the cyclic. Now, I suppose I could look them up, but I don’t feel like it, so I don’t remember technically, but each unit had its own little ditty. Sustained was like “One chugga-chugga (firing, about five rounds), two chuggn-chugga (not firing), one chugga-chugga (firing), two chugga chugga (not firing). ” Rapid is “one chugga-chugga (firing), yut (not firing), two chugga-chugga (firing), yut (not firing), three chugga-chugga (firing), yut (not firing).” It is key to count the yuts as, after so many (I don’t recall) you have to change the barrel. Cyclic is easy: burn it down or we’re gonna die.

    Regarding the ‘constant stream of fire,’ the guns work as a squad, “talking guns,” meaning one is firing while the other is paused, and the rapid rate means there are always rounds in the cone of fire. You mention having a defined target and wondering what the rate of fire is. This is not done by target type, it’s left to the gun commander. So, if we’ve got a sparse target that we’re hitting with sustained rate, and it becomes a dense target (let’s say an enemy platoon entered the kill zone, gets pinned down, and another enemy platoon attempts to pass through them, or the pinned platoon decides to get to its feet and try to double-time out of the kill zone), the gun crew commander will tell the gunner to step it up to the rapid, and once the target is gone, step back down to sustained.

    “It’s a huge topic I know and it would be unfair to ask someone to take the time to write all this stuff out.”
    Indeed, but I enjoy talking about this stuff 😉

    “We are primarily interested in WWII, but I imagine post war and modern techniques would be pretty similar.”
    That is my understanding.

    I’m sure I’m forgetting something I intended to address, or said I’d get to in a moment, but hopefully there’s enough there to chew on for a bit 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Machine Guns in Defence #16535
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Tim,

    Yes, near and dear to my heart! But it has to wait until later, I have to get back to work…

    John’s answe looks to hit a lot of it; I’m a little confused, probably just terminology issues: Fire lane seems to me to be describing our FPF (final protective fire), but then discusses it as our PDF (principal direction of fire).

    I’ll be back later, I promise!

    Jack

    in reply to: Calling War Panda, come in War Panda. #16500
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    “Lengthly reply hmm…not sure if I’m in the right frame of mind for one of your long drawn out  pieces…”

    Ahhh, yes, of course.  Translation: there’s not a child, teen, or adult present in the house currently to assist you in sounding it out 😉

    And don’t try and act like my bloviating isn’t the highlight of your day.
    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Calling War Panda, come in War Panda. #16493
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    That was a great exchange regarding the grovelling 😉

    And Panda, you need to get your butt over to that other website: you asked me a question regarding the rules, and I wrote you a lengthy reply, ya bastid.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 11 #16492
    Avatar photoJust Jack
    Participant

    Norm,

    I’m with you man; I think way too many rule sets make it too easy, too formulaic; I simply moves these assault units here, move these support units there, them move these assault units there while the support units ‘shoot them in.’  Very clinical, precise, way too easy, and not representative of the “the enemy gets a say, too” concept.  I also agree that supporting fires without restrictions can ruin games.  This is not to deny the capability/effectiveness of supporting fires, just a comment on how we should model them to not make them overpowering.

    “four out of 12 units seems quite tight – perhaps the mortars could have a ‘free’ fire say twice per game,”
    It is tight, indeed, and what you recommend is how I’ve played a lot of games in the past; side ‘x’ has 3 fire missions for use during the game, so I’m with you.  But, with these rules, I’m really liking how it works out, and I believe that, for a smart guy it’s self-limiting, and for a dumb guy it’s disastrous.  You can fire that mortar every turn, right up to the point the enemy overruns it.

    This is, of course, also due to the fact the mortars are not super powerful in the rules; you have a 12 in 18 chance of nothing happening, a 3 in 18 chance of a suppression of sorts, and a 1 in 18 chance of knocking a unit out.

    V/R,
    Jack

Viewing 40 posts - 2,001 through 2,040 (of 2,157 total)