quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

I don’t remember seeing any scenarios for the Paraguayan War ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

And finally WWI. But never on tactical level because everyone knows that WWI on tactical level is all about running at a machine gun and getting killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

And finally WWI. But never on tactical level because everyone knows that WWI on tactical level is all about running at a machine gun and getting killed.

Educate yourself and read some decent WW1 books...you'd be very surprised. It always makes me go tut tut when I read this sort of comment. The image in everyones heads is the men walking in line on the Somme...there where reasons for that...wrong ones as it happens but a reason from High command to adopt this basic attack....other battles we have fire and movemnt at platoon level and as the war went on squad level...tactics weren't invented after WW1 but during.

Jack Sheldon "The German Army on..." series is superb and highley recommended..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

<Applause>

Let's hear it for games about obscure periods!

How about the South American wars of Chile vs Peru and Bolivia, Bolivia vs Paraguay, and Paraguay vs Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Redcoat. Yeah. Its a great game that can mimic practicly any historical period at the right scale. Although i wouldnt recommend buying it just to get those scenarios. But there are many more.

Here is a somewhat outdated list of the scenarios available for the game

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2759761

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

By the way. For what game was the scenarios you found for Paraguayan war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I have noticed that 19th century rifles have pretty crazy effective ranges - like in over 1km without optics. In 20th century effective ranges drop to ~500 metres despite higher muzzle velocities and more aerodynamic projectiles.

Then I have read an article about Chassepot rifle and it wrote that:

quote:

Dossiers at the French Army Archives at Vincennes (the S.H.A.T-Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre) seem to bear out this published account. According to trials carried out in May 1867 by the Chasseurs batallion of the 1st Division and the Chasseurs of the Imperial Guard, two-rank fires for three minutes under less than ideal conditions resulted in 25.4% hits at 600 meters on a target 50 meters long and 2 meters high;

Does it mean that 19th century rifles had longer effective range because they were aimed at crowds, not on point targets?

While researching the Stg44 online last week I came across a quote similar to the following:

quote:


The rifle was chambered for the 7.92 x 33mm Kurz cartridge, also known as 7.92 mm Kurz
(German for "short"). This shorter version of the German standard (7.92 x 57mm Mauser)
rifle round, in combination with the weapon's selective-fire design, provided a
compromise between the controllable firepower of a submachine gun at close quarters with
the accuracy and power of a Karabiner 98k bolt action rifle at intermediate ranges.
While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the
day, Wehrmacht studies had shown that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300
meters with the majority within 200 meters. Full-power rifle cartridges were overpowered
for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier.

In the German case at least I think they were moving towards designs that were optimal for engagements at those ranges.

The thing is that it includes practically all the full-powered infantry rifles since Mosin-Nagant. They can fire up to 800+ metres but only with a scope. Effective range without a scope is only 500 metres, while rifles from 10-30 years earlier have an effective range of over 1km without a scope. The only reasonable reason I can think of is that the definition of effective range changed over time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Ok, cool.

Well, one of my scenarios: The Russo-Turkish war is based on a series of boardgame that also include a Franco-Prussian boardgame and a Austrian-Prussian boardgame. So i cant see why it couldnt be done.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8913/the-russo-turkish-war-1877-78

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Well, it means your pog's are firing too... and they aren't supposed to be that close to the front line... If you assume the original question only related to 'squad-level' combat troops, then again relatively few are rifle-men - a fair proportion are supposed to be servicing their heavy weapons - if they are using their self-protection weapons then something isn't quite as it should be - enemy too close, ammunition shortages, broken/missing equipment, personnel shortages forcing the voluntary use of non-riflemen in the front-line etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

Was the case of that sniper typical (initially not firing but firing later after reminding themselves what's at stake)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Here's an equally compelling counterargument:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

To be honest, I haven't ever heard about the issue of masses of soldiers not firing in combat from any source that wouldn't cite his source. I have never read about anything like this in any soldier's/officer's memoirs.

IIRC he explains it quite well in his book.

edit: What sold me were first hand accounts from Afghanistan, where men who were in their first contact had trouble opening fire. And by first hand I don't mean "first hand which i read over the internet"

But how many men exactly? What kind of trouble did they have? Did they eventually open fire? Why did they have trouble opening fire after being conditioned to kill people by evil movies and computer games for years/decades and by the improved training program?

Not many in numbers, but all of whom have either talked about this issue or have answered about it. Most surprising (or perhaps not) was a case of a sniper, who in his first contact failed to fire. He then made it clear for himself that if he also failed to do it in his next contact, he would be putting his unit in danger, and managed to bypass his psychological block.

His reasoning for not firing? "How can I fire at another human being?"

Was the case of that sniper typical (initially not firing but firing later after reminding themselves what's at stake)?

From what i've heard and seen, yes it happens more often than one thinks.