Pack Rat
Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000 From: north central Pennsylvania USA Status: offline
|
I'm going on the presumtion that what I saw on tne history channel was not propoganda for the Israelis. They, as most are aware of, during their fight for survival in 49 had a very wide (wide being an understatement) variaty of weapons, including German rifles made during the war. They discovered upon testing them they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with them. Turns out the the rifles where made by Czechs, more then likly slave labor. They had discovered a way to screw up the sights. Having said that, I don't think it possable to model this into the game. One has to wonder though if equipment for the Germans did play some type of variable in the performance of their infantry. (OT: I made AmmoSgt aware of this some time ago in an email, where upon she informed me of a trip as a guest of the Israelis, while she was in the Service, and still feels honor bound not to talk about much of what she knows. I won't go any further about her as it was private, but I will add that, be careful as most of her books are autographed :))
I can't imagine the comparison between the BAR and the MG42 being anything but unequal. So I would guess this adds to the German cost vs American. It's my understanding that the American M-60 of today is very close to a MG-42, slowed down. The M-60 was/is a very sweet shooter. Given the chance I was on the 60 and the hell with that M-16 piece of crap. I never did like the .222/.223 caliber even before I went in the Army, give me open sights and a heavy grained bullet any day, they will plow through stuff the sun won't shine through.
That damn Garande rifle of the Americans though is a son of a gun. I've learned to dread its sound when in a fire fight with the Americans. It was the first weapon issued to me in the Army, although I suspect it was a variation, it is very accurate straight out of the box, where as the Mausuars while having a very sweet action don't compare as well, IMO. Mausuars are still popular deer rifles in my area, with new sights, hehe. This rifle plus the number of troops in an American squad seems to me to be the focal point for any real decision on cost.
Basic training. How much material/time could any country afford to spend on new recruits? While I think it a given that combat is the best teacher, basic training can be a very big factor. Every drill instructor I had when in was a Nam vet, that was then. My understanding of American basic during the war was they had a huge problem getting the knowledge the combat vet knew back to the troops being trained. It just didn't happen. It wasn't until in the line that the information was passed along. I've never heard how other countries handled it. But one must admit that the Americans had the time and material luxury. So I'm not sure how I land on this issue. I do wonder though how many troops had North Africa exp. though, for the French landings.
_____________________________
PR
|