Steel Panthers 2: useless infantry?
Henri H. Arsenault
Here is a tip when playing modern scenarios with SP2, especially when
playing the Americans: don't take any infantry; take all tanks and
artillery, and maybe choppers. Take heavy tanks instead of Bradleys.
Infantry and Bradleys are destroyed by the enemy as soon as they appear
(and it appears to me that the computer is much more efficient at
destroying infantry than the Abrams tanks- quite often two blasts from an
enemy infantry four or five hexes away will annihilate my infantry,
whereas I can shoot point-blank at an enemy unit four or five times before
it is destroyed...).
By the way, why doesn't the Abrams shoot HE at infantry units in addition
to machine guns (it seems to only do the former when the infantry is in a
bunker)?
In the Desert Storm campaign, in the first couple of scenarios, all my
infantry were killed before they could get into action.
As for choppers, mine usually get chewed up and run for the border early
in the scenario. Except in one scenario, where I carefully used them to
ferry infantry near the front.
So far I have played only a limited number of scenarios, so there may be
circumstances where the above is not valid. The question is open to
debate.
Come to think of it, the US didn't use much infantry in their offensive in
Desert Storm, did they?
Henri
Daniel Drumm
Henri H. Arsenault (ars...@phy.ulaval.ca) wrote:
: In the Desert Storm campaign, in the first couple of scenarios, all my
: infantry were killed before they could get into action.
: Henri
Henri,
I don't have SP2. Yet.
But it seems really odd to say infantry is useless in Modern campaigns.
In a Panama or a West Germany, infantry is absolutely essential to move
through forests and rough.
I would think, if anything, well placed infantry in SP2 would be really
deadly given they now have things like Stingers for the choppers and nasty
AT weapons that are portable. Plus mines and c4.
Obviously, in a desert fight, there is little use for them...
--
--
Daniel G. Drumm "Hi Everybody!"
dr...@tezcat.com - PGP Key via WWW -Doctor Nick
http://www.tezcat.com/~drmm
Marcin Radzikowski
Daniel Drumm (dr...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: Henri H. Arsenault (ars...@phy.ulaval.ca) wrote:
: : In the Desert Storm campaign, in the first couple of scenarios, all my
: : infantry were killed before they could get into action.
: But it seems really odd to say infantry is useless in Modern campaigns.
: In a Panama or a West Germany, infantry is absolutely essential to move
: through forests and rough.
Yes, you have a good point. However, in the game I have experienced the
very same thing that Daniel writes about. My infantry, as soon as it
dismounts will get chewed up by any other infantry group...and these
troops are not dug in or anything. Also, it is difficult to kill other
enemy infantry with your own. Better to get that M1A2 with it's .50cal
HMG, and twin 7.62 MMG to cut through enemy troops.
: I would think, if anything, well placed infantry in SP2 would be really
: deadly given they now have things like Stingers for the choppers and nasty
: AT weapons that are portable. Plus mines and c4.
Great tactics when you are on the defensive...dug in with machine guns,
granade launchers, TOW2 missiles, etc...But not in an offensive role.
Best force to have is as many tanks as you can get and lots of artillery,
especially MLRS batteries (these things cover a large area). As support
troops, get heavy infantry and choppers to ferry them (APCs, even
Bradleys are to vulnerable to Tank cannons and AT missiles)...just make
sure you've taken out any SAM capable troops. The helicopters have great
mobility and you can usually ferry a couple of squads in one turn.
============================================================================
| Marcin P. Radzikowski | _o_ "In the battle between |
| mrad...@achilles.net | <\_/> good and evil, |
| http://www.achilles.net/~mradziko | _/ \_ evil has more fun!" |
============================================================================
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: This is US Army doctrine. The basic reason is that the tank only will
: carry about 20 HEAT rounds but 10,800 rounds of 7.62mm machinegun
: ammunition.
Then why will IPM1s fire their main guns at enemy infantry? M1A1s don't,
but IPM1s do.
Besides, if I were a tank gunner and I suddenly was surprised by a squad
of infantry bearing RPGs, I'd blow U.S. Army doctrine out my ass and shoot
them with everything I had available.
Mattias Andersen
On 11 Nov 1996 16:47:50 GMT, dr...@tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm) wrote:
>But it seems really odd to say infantry is useless in Modern campaigns.
>In a Panama or a West Germany, infantry is absolutely essential to move
>through forests and rough.
>
SP2, like SP1, seems unfamilar with the concept of impassible terrain.
In fact most of the terrain in Europe is very ill suited for tank
combat.
I personally can´t see any harm what so ever in adding dense forest,
cliffs, swamp (impassible for vehicles) etc. to the map. This would
give the infantry a fighting chance again and make for a more dynamic
battlefield .
Mattias
Colin Campbell
ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) wrote:
>By the way, why doesn't the Abrams shoot HE at infantry units in addition
>to machine guns (it seems to only do the former when the infantry is in a
>bunker)?
This is US Army doctrine. The basic reason is that the tank only will
carry about 20 HEAT rounds but 10,800 rounds of 7.62mm machinegun
ammunition. Of these 20 HEAT rounds only about 10 of them will be
available as 'ready ammunition' the rest require a complicated and
time consuming shuffle between the tank commander and loader to move
them to the ready rack.
Jason Uecker
e...@algonet.se (Mattias Andersen) wrote:
I think the above poster has an excellent idea, here. Admittedly,
this is an armored combat simulation(even if the game's title is a bit
of a misnomer this time around...Panthers? Post WWII? Hmmmm...).
Nevertheless, infantry still played a major role in many engagements
over the last fifty years(for the U.S. alone, there's Korea, Vietnam,
etc.), and it simply smacks of poor play balance when the following
situations occurs time after time
I move infantry towards urban or jungle area, thinking(rather rightly,
I imagine, in conventional thought) that tanks are at a rather extreme
disadvantage here. As I close the distance, suddenly the tell-tale
rat-a-tat-tat of machine gun fire surrounds my men and immediatly SP
reports "6 MEN KILLED", the machine gun fires again..."INFANTRY SQUAD
DESTROYED". A squad wiped out by a single enemy unit in a single
turn! Generally I lose several in a row this way.
Now, admittedly, machine guns are quite deadly(go ask your town's last
surviving WWI vet if he thinks otherwise, and watch the old coot break
into hysterical laughter), but this can happen with any unit,
including other regular infantry units several hexes away and in open
country! In fact, it seems infantry battles in SP2 are decided on who
gets the first shot off almost every single time, considering the
loser in this battle of reactions will get wiped out in short order.
This leads me to playing an unrealistic game of "Load up on armor and
damn the little fleshy weak creatures in snappy uniforms!"...All-armor
platoons rolling through cityscapes getting hit by Anti-tank infantry
left and right because I fear the huge lossess an infantry assualt
will bring(and when I say huge losses, I mean I'll probably lose EVERY
unit I send into the fray, not just "acceptable losses". Even
Stalingrad scenarios in SP1 weren't this bloody...if the SP2 model
were the one we had to face in RL, infantry lossess in Vietnam would
have sent the U.S. packing in '67 or so!
Perhaps I'm merely a poor tactician incapable of using infantry
properly. I do admit I have had a few isolated successess with normal
infantry(AT infantry do their job pretty compentently, amazingly
enough), but I do long for the more moderate casuality figures of SP1,
or some new form of play balancing, which brings the post full
circle...maybe the impassable terrain idea has merit?
Jason
John J. Powderly
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:02:07 GMT, jas...@sprynet.com (Jason Uecker)
wrote:
>... but I do long for the more moderate casuality figures of SP1,
>or some new form of play balancing, which brings the post full
>circle...maybe the impassable terrain idea has merit?
>
> Jason
Heck, the casualty figures in SP1 may have been lower, but they were
still useless. If they weren't, why would so many of my e-mail
opponents purchase all Tigers with the only "infantry support" being
engineers or snipers/MG teams/AT teams?
I dunno if this is the designer or SSI, the publisher. I have heard
through the rumor mill that SSI pretty much forced Norm Koger to
modify the Age of Rifles engine so that more "bloody" results would
occur. I guess they felt, although it was unrealistic, it would help
sales of the game. Is that the thinking in this game as well?
Just my thoughts...
John Powderly aka austinvc
LeadEaters PBEM Wargaming Club
LE_Chat
Dale Hight
> >Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >: This is US Army doctrine. The basic reason is that the tank only will
> >: carry about 20 HEAT rounds but 10,800 rounds of 7.62mm machinegun
> >: ammunition.
> >
> >Then why will IPM1s fire their main guns at enemy infantry? M1A1s
don't,
> >but IPM1s do.
>
> I'd say this is a game'bug.' Machineguns are the weapon of choice
> vs. infantry (you avoid that 6-second gap while the loader puts
> another round in the main gun).
Colin,
first, your remarks here are helpful thanks. We don't have any Master
Gunners on the design team <g>
The issue with the firing of MG vs main gun is more due to design than
anything else. In SP the main gun always fired HE at infantry (right or
wrong). With SP2, units that carry the 105m gun still have HE rounds and
they do fire main guns at infantry. The newer tanks (with the 120m gun)
are modeled with no HE but do have HEAT-MP rounds. Heat is not fired at
close range to save ammo. When the bugs are out, the basic plan it to have
heat-mp OP fire on ATGM teams. You can always (although there is a bug in
some scenarios) fire HEAT at infantry at your option by using the "w" key.
Just target and infantry unit and press "w" it will fire a main HEAT-MP
round.
Best,
Dale
stea...@aol.com
>Actually, you would probably do it the way you were trained. Tank
Table VIII _tests_ this scenario in one of the engagements. During
daylight a moving tank has to suppress two sets of troops - one on the
left and one on the right side of the tank. The TC must engage one
set with his Cal. 50 and at the same time the gunner engages the other
with his coax. There is also a night engagement (called "the
widowmaker') where a tank is suddenly presented (at 500M) a BMP and a
RPG team. The tank must _quickly_ kill the BMP then engage the
troops. Again using the correct ammunition for the target.
BTW, anybody who is going to blow doctrine out his ass on the
battlefield won't make it as a tank commander - both the tank and the
lives on board are irreplaceable. Also irreplaceable is the Hemmet
truck and the guy driving it (this is an unarmored truck filled with
ammunition) who has to risk his life to replenish the ammunition you
wasted.
Colin Campbell
Master Gunner: M60A3, M1IP, M1A1
Unit Master Gunner
B Troop, 1/18 Cavalry<
This a very interesting comment based on actual experience, however, we
must remember that we are playing a game based on its rules of engagement
and limitations. Therefore, as it stands, SP1 and SP2 make it unprofitable
to use infantry to any great extent and afvs do seem to have a higher
rate of survivability. I too played most of my SP games with only the
smallest amounts of infantry. They simply died to easily or were otherwise
useless.
I suspect that the terrain is not set up to be more impassible against
tanks is because the game AI would not be able to figure out how to
navigate an armoured column through without it getting stuck in a dead end
or a loop somewhere....
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>: This is US Army doctrine. The basic reason is that the tank only will
>: carry about 20 HEAT rounds but 10,800 rounds of 7.62mm machinegun
>: ammunition.
>
>Then why will IPM1s fire their main guns at enemy infantry? M1A1s don't,
>but IPM1s do.
I'd say this is a game'bug.' Machineguns are the weapon of choice
vs. infantry (you avoid that 6-second gap while the loader puts
another round in the main gun).
>
>Besides, if I were a tank gunner and I suddenly was surprised by a squad
>of infantry bearing RPGs, I'd blow U.S. Army doctrine out my ass and shoot
>them with everything I had available.
Actually, you would probably do it the way you were trained. Tank
Colin Campbell
"Dale Hight" <dale...@aol.com> wrote:
>The issue with the firing of MG vs main gun is more due to design than
>anything else. In SP the main gun always fired HE at infantry (right or
>wrong). With SP2, units that carry the 105m gun still have HE rounds and
>they do fire main guns at infantry. The newer tanks (with the 120m gun)
>are modeled with no HE but do have HEAT-MP rounds. Heat is not fired at
>close range to save ammo. When the bugs are out, the basic plan it to have
>heat-mp OP fire on ATGM teams. You can always (although there is a bug in
>some scenarios) fire HEAT at infantry at your option by using the "w" key.
>Just target and infantry unit and press "w" it will fire a main HEAT-MP
>round.
Actually, the HE rounds (called HEP by us tankers) are not in
inventory with the US army. Currently, the only service rounds for
the 105mm gun are Sabot and HEAT. For the 120mm there is Sabot, HEAT,
and MPAT (you call it HEAT-MP). The manufacturer (Alliant
Techsystems, they have a web page) has developed an MPAT round for the
105mm but it has not been purchased due to budgetary constraints. The
STAFF round (Self TArgeting Fire and Forget) is probably going to be
delayed as there are still technical glitches that need to be worked
out.
BTW, in real life there is not enough time to select and fire an MPAT
round at an ATGM launch signature. Generally, you fire whatever is
loaded in the gun, pop smoke and evade. Try anything fancy, and the
missile will hit you before you finish the fire command. If the ATGM
guys are within machinegun range you hose them with cyclic fire
(generally ATGM teams with good survival instincts stay out of
machinegun range).
Dale Hight
Colin,
thank you so much. This information is very helpful. I have posted it to
the design and test team and they WILL enjoy reading it. (or I'll kill um
<g>).
Best Regards,
Dale
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3288d645...@news.pacbell.net>...
Andrew Fraser
>Therefore, as it stands, SP1 and SP2 make it unprofitable
>to use infantry to any great extent and afvs do seem to have a higher
>rate of survivability. I too played most of my SP games with only the
>smallest amounts of infantry. They simply died to easily or were otherwise
>useless.
I agree that infantry in SP2 is at a much greater risk of suffering from
sudden projectile deceleration sickness than infantry in SP1.
In SP1 however, infantry is far from useless. They just need to be in
suitable terrain. On many occasions, I managed to stop a swarm of Russian
tanks with a few squads of German army regulars. You need three things: good
troops (morale, rally, and experience), favorable terrain, and a chokepoint.
Case in point: I hunkered three squads of infantry on a reverse slope on one
side of a bridge. The Russians had one way to go to get to it's objectives.
There were 8 burning tanks on that ridge by the time they're morale broke.
Granted, I did have other infantry shooting rifles and LMGs at the lead tanks
on the bridge. It of course didn't kill any but, it didn't do much for Ivan's
morale. oh, and pour on the smoke. They can't kill you, if they can't see
you. (with a concilliatory bow towards our friend, artillery)
Joel Hulsey
>Actually, the HE rounds (called HEP by us tankers) are not in
>inventory with the US army. Currently, the only service rounds for
>the 105mm gun are Sabot and HEAT. For the 120mm there is Sabot, HEAT,
>and MPAT (you call it HEAT-MP). The manufacturer (Alliant
>Techsystems, they have a web page) has developed an MPAT round for the
>105mm but it has not been purchased due to budgetary constraints. The
>STAFF round (Self TArgeting Fire and Forget) is probably going to be
>delayed as there are still technical glitches that need to be worked
>out.
Did they get rid of the beehive round? It was in service when I was in
the service ('86-'90) although mostly in Korea.
Joel Hulsey
P.S. Yes, I was a tanker. First on M60A3 and then M1A1's.
Ruy Horta
Finally a sensible post WRT SP infantry.
Infantry (with the right tactics and and tactical situation) can be
one of the deadliest weapons in SP, in close combat they are very
dangerous for all armoured vehicles. The ATGM units in SP2 have the
same function, and many infantry units ahve good secondary AT weapons.
Use the infantry to protect the ATGM units and you'll see that they
are a great and cheap weapon.
Now I'll go back to my 1985 BRD vs Warsaw Pact clash.
Love those Leopards!
Guess I'm so used in PANZERS that even in SP2 I have to use them :)
RH
Mark Wilkins
"Dale Hight" <dale...@aol.com> wrote:
(interesting stuff snipped for brevity)
>Colin,
>first, your remarks here are helpful thanks. We don't have any Master
>Gunners on the design team <g>
>
>The issue with the firing of MG vs main gun is more due to design than
>anything else. In SP the main gun always fired HE at infantry (right or
>wrong). With SP2, units that carry the 105m gun still have HE rounds and
>they do fire main guns at infantry. The newer tanks (with the 120m gun)
>are modeled with no HE but do have HEAT-MP rounds. Heat is not fired at
>close range to save ammo. When the bugs are out, the basic plan it to have
>heat-mp OP fire on ATGM teams. You can always (although there is a bug in
>some scenarios) fire HEAT at infantry at your option by using the "w" key.
>Just target and infantry unit and press "w" it will fire a main HEAT-MP
>round.
>
>Best,
>Dale
Dale, are you on the SP II design team? Have you looked at TACOPS
much? One of the really nice things about TACOPS is the ability to
'program' immediate action drills for units in the game. For example,
you can tell a unit to do things like 'find cover', or 'stop and
return fire.' Given that these types of immediate action drills are
part and parcel of tactical doctrine, would it be possible to include
these types of drills in SP II, perhaps in a later patch.
What I have in mind would work something like this: right-click on
unit to get information screen. left click on 'Immediate action
drills' to step through choices. The choices could include:
1) pop smoke and find cover (if there is movement available)
2) return fire and move (if there is movement and fire available)
3) pop smoke and reverse
4) return fire, pop smoke, and find cover
These choices of course would be for armored units that have smoke
dispensers like the M1's. Infantry and air units would have different
immediate action drills. The ability to accomplish the drills would
be dependent on morale and training, and have the requisite time
available for movement and firing.
I think having this ability would add a lot to the game as I often
find myself yelling at the unit on the screen to do what he was taught
and get out from under the missile and shot headed his way rather than
just sit there.
BTW, I noticed during a German 1980 campaign scenario that my
artillery was conducting counter-battery fire. How does this work?
It seemed like it was being pretty effective with a number of hits
every round, though I couldn't confirm at the end of the scenario that
much of the enemy artillery had been suppressed.
TIA,
Mark
Andrew Fraser
Today's topic: Infantry Movement and Smoke
The main cause of head count reduction in a SP1 battle is the mismanagement of
infantry, partiularly in movement.
Human waves get cut down like so much wheat.
When I began playing SP, I lost far too many infantry squads due to unwise
movement. I tended to charge right up to suspected enemy locations without
concern for the safety of the squad. I'd say about a third of my infantry
losses were due to this "drawing of fire" from hidden units. My "doctrine"
was to send up a squad to draw fire (and take casualties, unavoidably heavy)
and then pepper the now exposed-enemy squad with two or three squads in
support. Perhaps moving a second squad adjacent for a close assault, once the
enemy had been suppressed.
Movement in the open is the most dangerous thing infantry can do in SP1.
Unfortunately, smoke does not help too much as it only blocks LOS through the
hex, not into it.
In my mind, a unit in a smoke-filled hex, should have visibility limited into
and out of the hex to range 1. Only adjacent units should be able to have a
LOS into the hex and to be fair, units in the hex should only be able to have
a LOS into adjacent hexes.
OR
fire into a smoke-obscured hex should be resolved as if the firing unit was
conducting AREA FIRE ("bombardment") This would lessen the resulting
casualties of a close assaulting unit obscured by it's own smoke screen.
I continue to defend the efficacy of infantry in SP. I maintain that infantry
in SP2 need not be "dropped off" out of harms way, or be fed into the meat
grinder of modern combat. Of course, this is merely speculation as I don't
yet own a copy of SP2. I've only played the demo. I buy my copy in two
weeks. Donated copies graciously accepted.
Dale Hight
Mark Wilkins <mwil...@stacinc.com> wrote in article
<3289c9bb...@news.cais.com>...
>
> Dale, are you on the SP II design team?
Mark, design decisions are made by Gary Grigsby, Keith Brors and Jim Wirth.
We (beta testers) provide design input for consideration and use our
wargamming experience to recommend improvements. (in addition to finding
bugs).
>Have you looked at TACOPS much?
No, not me. But several testers (John Waters for sure) are TACOPS players.
>One of the really nice things about TACOPS is the ability to
> 'program' immediate action drills for units in the game. For example,
> you can tell a unit to do things like 'find cover', or 'stop and
> return fire.' Given that these types of immediate action drills are
> part and parcel of tactical doctrine, would it be possible to include
> these types of drills in SP II, perhaps in a later patch.
I don't think so because this would require too much new code. I will pass
on your good suggestion for inclusion on our "wish list".
> What I have in mind would work something like this: right-click on
> unit to get information screen. left click on 'Immediate action
> drills' to step through choices. The choices could include:
> 1) pop smoke and find cover (if there is movement available)
> 2) return fire and move (if there is movement and fire available)
> 3) pop smoke and reverse
> 4) return fire, pop smoke, and find cover
>
> These choices of course would be for armored units that have smoke
> dispensers like the M1's. Infantry and air units would have different
> immediate action drills. The ability to accomplish the drills would
> be dependent on morale and training, and have the requisite time
> available for movement and firing.
>
> I think having this ability would add a lot to the game as I often
> find myself yelling at the unit on the screen to do what he was taught
> and get out from under the missile and shot headed his way rather than
> just sit there.
>
Yes, it would be nice to see the units do that.
> BTW, I noticed during a German 1980 campaign scenario that my
> artillery was conducting counter-battery fire. How does this work?
> It seemed like it was being pretty effective with a number of hits
> every round, though I couldn't confirm at the end of the scenario that
> much of the enemy artillery had been suppressed.
>
Basically, as you have seen the counter-battery fire is handled abstractly.
And, some units can be lost or put out of action for x number of turns.
People who can tell you more about these routines are: Arnaud
(abo...@pratique.fr) and John (JWate...@aol.com).
Best Regards,
Dale
Dan Osterlund
I've used infantry Stinger teams as cheap antidotes to Hind's -- sprinkle
the teams around the battlefield (especially in isolated clusters of trees)
and they're good to go. They work the same way as SP's Sniper units as
reconnaissance too, at least until they get over-run/run-over :)
John J. Powderly
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:49:10 -0500, ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H.
Arsenault) wrote:
>The
>readme file says that the M1A2 NEVER uses HE against infantry (and it
>never does, as far as I can see in the game it does not even carry HE. Is
>this what what US military doctrine suggest?
>
>Henri
The M1A2 does not carry HE? I would hope not! Didn't we learn from
the British tank forces in North Africa in World War II? It was kind
of tough to kill the 88s at long range when you didn't have any HE
shells with which to supress the crews.
Henri H. Arsenault
In article <32883c29...@news.pacbell.net>, co...@pacbell.net (Colin
Campbell) wrote:
> BTW, anybody who is going to blow doctrine out his ass on the
> battlefield won't make it as a tank commander - both the tank and the
> lives on board are irreplaceable. Also irreplaceable is the Hemmet
> truck and the guy driving it (this is an unarmored truck filled with
> ammunition) who has to risk his life to replenish the ammunition you
> wasted.
>
Ok, but I wasn't talking about the kinds of situations you describe. How
about the enemy infantry holed up in a building, and which is very
difficult to neutralize with machine guns. A round of HE would help in a
situation like this - and the IPM1 DOES use the HP against infantry. The
John W. Childress
I'm looking for two more players to make an E-Mail three-way.
Steve
I have found infantry very useful in SP2. I use them in two ways.
1) After the heavies have blown everything up, I move my infantry in
to mop up and secure the area and objectives taken while the big
boys move on to the objectives that need to still be taken.
2) I use my infantry in conjunction with my armor in town and city
hexes. First I spot the enemy position with good spotters, then
supress them from a distance with the heavies. Once suppressed I
move my ground pounders in to clean up. During the clean up I keep
artillary fire coming in ahead of my troops to surpress any
yet unseen enemy positions. Then I repeat the whole process.
I try to make the most of combined arms.
Good Luck,
Steve
Colin Campbell
gum...@earthlink.net (Joel Hulsey) wrote:
>Did they get rid of the beehive round? It was in service when I was in
>the service ('86-'90) although mostly in Korea.
The Beehive rounds were all given to the marines (who now have the
M1A1 so I have no idea what they did with the rounds).
>
>Joel Hulsey
>
>P.S. Yes, I was a tanker. First on M60A3 and then M1A1's.
Ah, yes. The M60A3 - "Outstanding tankers in dinosuar clankers."
John Witas
Hey, no cracks ! I was a treadhead in Korea when all we had were M48A2's
1968-70.
Jack Witas
Henri H. Arsenault
> Finally a sensible post WRT SP infantry.
> Infantry (with the right tactics and and tactical situation) can be
> one of the deadliest weapons in SP, in close combat they are very
> dangerous for all armoured vehicles. The ATGM units in SP2 have the
> same function, and many infantry units ahve good secondary AT weapons.
>
GRRRR! People keep replying to my post about useless infantry with
examples of how to use infantry on the defensive. No one (I think) is
saying infantry is useless on the defensive. Obviously, entrenched (and
invisible) infantry (especially with AT missiles) can be useful: one shot
with a missile, and (with luck) one enemy tanks is gone.
The problem is using infantry in an assault or a mobile battle. Then the
infantry is visible because it is moving, or it is inside APCs (actually
infantry carried on tanks is invulnerable until the tank is immobilized or
destroyed). If it is moving, it is usually destroyed with two or three
blasts from an enemy tank, APC or infantry (enemy infantry is a lot harder
to destroy, at least in the Desert Storm scenarios), if it is inside an
APC, the APC is usually destroyed as soon as it appears in range of an
enemy unit, and if it is safely on a tank, it is destroyed as soon as the
tank unloads it.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
In article <56d0f7$2...@news.isc.rit.edu>, adfr...@servtech.com (Andrew
Fraser) wrote:
> I continue to defend the efficacy of infantry in SP. I maintain that
infantry
> in SP2 need not be "dropped off" out of harms way, or be fed into the meat
> grinder of modern combat. Of course, this is merely speculation as I don't
> yet own a copy of SP2. I've only played the demo. I buy my copy in two
> weeks. Donated copies graciously accepted.
I have not been able to verify whether or not your "doctrine" for using
infantry works in SP or not, because none of the infantry ever survived
unbroken long enough to try ANYTHING, not to mention a concerted
assault...
Henri
ketsugo
I also crewed M60A1's(rise passive) and M60A3's in the 8th ID in Germany
during the late 70's and early 80's,and we did not have any "beehive" in
our basic load-in fact it was APDS,HEAT,and believe it or not,8 rounds of
WP! The only beehive/canister rounds being carried I know of personally
were by the lone M60A2 battalion in the 3rd AD..(I think this was 3rd Bn,
33rd Armor,but I could be wrong).
Dale Hight
Yes, John, at this time the M1A2 does not have HE and they say that is
realistic. They do have HEAT which can be fired at infantry by using the
"w" key and doing it manually.
Best,
Dale
John J. Powderly <aust...@calweb.com> wrote in article
<328a377c...@nntp.calweb.com>...
> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:49:10 -0500, ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H.
> Arsenault) wrote:
>
> >The
> >readme file says that the M1A2 NEVER uses HE against infantry (and it
> >never does, as far as I can see in the game it does not even carry HE.
Is
> >this what what US military doctrine suggest?
> >
> >Henri
>
Charles J Johnson Jr.
Colin Campbell wrote:
>
> gum...@earthlink.net (Joel Hulsey) wrote:
>
> >Did they get rid of the beehive round? It was in service when I was in
> >the service ('86-'90) although mostly in Korea.
>
> The Beehive rounds were all given to the marines (who now have the
> M1A1 so I have no idea what they did with the rounds).
>
> >
> >Joel Hulsey
> >
> >P.S. Yes, I was a tanker. First on M60A3 and then M1A1's.
>
> Ah, yes. The M60A3 - "Outstanding tankers in dinosuar clankers."
What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
Thomas Davie
In article <arseno-1411...@132.203.250.22>, ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) wrote:
>I have not been able to verify whether or not your "doctrine" for using
>infantry works in SP or not, because none of the infantry ever survived
>unbroken long enough to try ANYTHING, not to mention a concerted
>assault...
>
>Henri
I played the Germany 80 short campaign in SP2, and if I hadn't purchased a
company of infantry, I would have been toast. I had one platoon of M60's,
scads of AT teams, 6 M110's and one company of infantrey as my core. It was
the 4th battle of the campaign, and I'd been pushed back to Frankfurt. At the
beginning of the battle, I dropped smoke around mt positions, and pushed a few
snipers out to see where the Russians were coming from. Horror; I'd forgotten
about defending one flank, and here the Russians were coming from across the
river( I retargeted my arty in an attempt to blow the bridge...why oh why
didn't I buy engineers ).
I tried to withdraw my tanks into better positions. Two got destroyed moving
out. Eventually, four of my tanks made it into city terrain where Russian arty
started pouring down. I did lose the game on the last turn, but it was back
and forth, with American squads stumbling out of the smoke to retake a
position, only to get pushed back.
Soviet tanks would rumble right by an American squad( covered by smoke from
grenades, burning buldings and Russian arty )only to get immobilized.
It was easily the most bloody battle I'd played yet in SP2 and the most
enjoyable as well.
No, I'll always purchase infantry.
Regards
Tom
Brian Trosko
Peter Mancini <peter_...@onesource.com> wrote:
: hundreds (?) of slugs. When fired the slugs would spread out. Think of
: it as a 105 gauge shotgun!
Quibble: A 105 gauge shotgun would be *really* teensy. Gauge is the
number of lead balls of barrel diameter it takes to weigh one pound.
Brian Trosko
Charles J Johnson Jr. <gut...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
Envision a 105mm round of 00 buckshot.
Colin Campbell
ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) wrote:
>Ok, but I wasn't talking about the kinds of situations you describe. How
>about the enemy infantry holed up in a building, and which is very
>difficult to neutralize with machine guns. A round of HE would help in a
>situation like this - and the IPM1 DOES use the HP against infantry. The
>readme file says that the M1A2 NEVER uses HE against infantry (and it
>never does, as far as I can see in the game it does not even carry HE. Is
>this what what US military doctrine suggest?
It depends on the construction of the building. Generally, your first
choice will be the coax. Next comes the TC's .50 cal. If these don't
work then you have to use your HEAT rounds. I got a message that you
can use a keystroke to override the defaults and fire main gun at
entrenched infantry. IMO, this is a realsitic way of doing it.
Colin Campbell
aust...@calweb.com (John J. Powderly) wrote:
>The M1A2 does not carry HE? I would hope not! Didn't we learn from
>the British tank forces in North Africa in World War II? It was kind
>of tough to kill the 88s at long range when you didn't have any HE
>shells with which to supress the crews.
The M1A2's ballistic computer is programmed to provide fire control
solutions for the following ammunition: Sabot, HEAT, MPAT, STAFF,
Sabot-TP, HEAT-TP, Coax, .50 Cal subcaliber and 35mm subcaliber.
Also it can select the specefic model of a particular type of
ammunition (for instance between M829, M829A1 and M829A2 Sabot
rounds).
Note: 'TP' indicates that the round is a target practice round (inert
and limited range) while the subcaliber rounds are used for target
practice on ranges too shallow to allow even the reduced range TP
ammunition, and as an economy measure (a .50 cal bullet is 1/100th the
price of a TP round).
Colin Campbell
"Charles J Johnson Jr." <gut...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes (think of them as
nails with fins instead of a flat head). It also has a mechanical
timer and a small bursting charge. You set the timer with the range
to the target and the shell bursts about 75 meters away from the
target. This will do unpleasant things to infantry located between
150-4,400 meters from the tank. Note the _minimum_ range of 150
meters however!
Brian Trosko
Henri H. Arsenault <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote:
: to destroy, at least in the Desert Storm scenarios), if it is inside an
: APC, the APC is usually destroyed as soon as it appears in range of an
: enemy unit, and if it is safely on a tank, it is destroyed as soon as the
: tank unloads it.
And the flip side of this strangeness is that artillery seems almost
useless against infantry. I've hit exposed, unmoving infantry with MRLS,
and caused only one casualty among 4 separate units. MLRS and
conventional artillery should *shred* unprotected infantry.
Paul A. Byers
Colin Campbell wrote:
> 'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
> The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes (think of them as
> nails with fins instead of a flat head). It also has a mechanical
> timer and a small bursting charge. You set the timer with the range
> to the target and the shell bursts about 75 meters away from the
> target. This will do unpleasant things to infantry located between
> 150-4,400 meters from the tank. Note the _minimum_ range of 150
> meters however!
Huh...They trained us to set it for muzzle action for 50m-300m
Pavel
M60A1, M60A1E1(M60A2), M48A5
Peter Mancini
Charles J Johnson Jr. wrote:
> What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
It is the modern equivilent of a 'Cannister' round from ye days of
olde. Basically it is a round with a disintegrating shell filled with
hundreds (?) of slugs. When fired the slugs would spread out. Think of
it as a 105 gauge shotgun! In Viet Nam the recoiless rifle and the Bee
Hive were a deadly combination.
Patrick C Miller
thlink.net> <328ab54d...@news.pacbell.net>
<328ABF...@ix.netcom.com> <328B5B...@onesource.com>:
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN)
Distribution:
Peter Mancini (peter_...@onesource.com) wrote:
Close, but not exactly. A bee hive is a higher-tech version of
canister. It doesn't contain slugs or shot, but hundreds (or is it
thousands?) of flechettes that look like nails with fins. The round can
be set to detonate a certain distance after leaving the gun barrel or as
soon as it leaves the barrel. When the round detonates, it blasts a
deadly pattern of flechettes ahead of it.
I believe it was S.L.A. Marshall's book Ambush and Bird that
described a VC attack on a US firebase in Vietnam. The VC had
practically overrun the base when a couple of brave gunners emerged from
hiding in their bunkers to fire two 105mm beehive rounds from their
artillery pieces at point-blank range. The entire course of the battle
was changed as a result.
*****************************
Patrick C. Miller
pami...@plains.NoDak.edu
*****************************
Colin Campbell
Yea, but the fuze won't burst until the round has traveled 75-100
meters.
Victor Milan
Peter Mancini <peter_...@onesource.com> wrote:
>Charles J Johnson Jr. wrote:
>> What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
>
>It is the modern equivilent of a 'Cannister' round from ye days of
>olde. Basically it is a round with a disintegrating shell filled with
>hundreds (?) of slugs. When fired the slugs would spread out. Think of
>it as a 105 gauge shotgun! In Viet Nam the recoiless rifle and the Bee
>Hive were a deadly combination.
Speaking of beehive rounds, is the Ontos modelled, & can it use
beehive in the game? I've longed to use that combo against massed
infantry in a game.
-Vic Milan
Tim McBride
Charles J Johnson Jr. wrote:
>
TIM
Henri H. Arsenault
In article <56fqak$c...@news.isc.rit.edu>, adfr...@servtech.com (Andrew
Fraser) wrote:
> How can these things be done in SP2? Well, maybe they can't be done to the
> extent that we would like due to the turn limitations of most scenarios. We
> can buy snipers (right?) to recon ahead of the main force. We can buy air
> cover that can overfly the battlefield and spot the enemy concentrations.
> We can also move the attacking force at the speed of the slowest unit, thus
> keeping them together. A cohesive force gives the attack much more momentum
> than a diluted one.
>
YOur view is essentially correct in principle, but maybve it is the game
that is deficient.
I have found that choppers in the game are extremely vulnerable compared
to tanks and no more deadly, so surveying the battlefield with choppers in
90's scenarios in this game is kissing your chopper goodbye (I haven't had
a chopper yet that survived more than two moves when I used it up front).
Airplanes are very expensive and not too effective either for spotting or
for killing enemies.
You are right about concentration of force, though.
My problems with infantry may be partially due to the fact that I am
heavily outnumbered and fighting in the desert. In scenarios previous to
the Kuwait airport, I would have been wiped out in a few moves were it not
for my practically unvulnerabvle tanks.
Henri
Jan Mattsson
co...@pacbell.net (Colin Campbell) writes:
>The M1A2's ballistic computer is programmed to provide fire control
>solutions for the following ammunition: Sabot, HEAT, MPAT, STAFF,
>Sabot-TP, HEAT-TP, Coax, .50 Cal subcaliber and 35mm subcaliber.
Could you please explain what MPAT and STAFF are?
Jan Mattsson
Coenraad
I have had little problems using combined arms. I have won both the
Israeli and Desert Storm campaigns (in the Bahgdad scenario, the
Iraqi HQ is labelled Sadam...)
My battlefield doctrine is always about having informational superiority.
The steps I go through are (i) knock out enemy AA, (ii) knock out enemy
AFV and infantry ATGM, and do not move APC or any other vulnerable
pieces - moving them will give away their position and the enemy will
knock them out with one ATGM (iii) move in close, to within 8 hexes (just out
of RPG range) and knock out AT infantry, (iv) make enemy infantry rout
or retreat using MG and other AFV/artillery combinations, (v) use
APC to deposit infantry next to routed/retreating enemy infantry and
watch them finish of the Iraqis in one turn, (vi) load infantry into
APC to protect them against enemy MG fire from rallied units during
enemy turn.
With informational superiority this is a breeze to achieve. Without
informational superiority it becomes very difficult, because you
need spot enemy ATGM units and RPG's which can knock APC's and
sometimes tanks. To get information, I use as much air resources
as I can buy. Normally this is 2 ALARM (or other anti-radar)
equiped planes, and 2 Helicopters (any heli's will do). At the
beginning of the first turn the planes can knock out most radar
AA (e.g. ZSU-23) with 100% accuracy, making all the ZSU's useless.
They also draw most of the enemies SAM's. Then during the first
turn, the 2 (or preferably 4) helicopters can roam freely, and obtain
huge information. Notice that firing helicopter guns/missiles is
useless after they have moved, they are totally inaccurate. But
put them behind a hill, so that at the beginning of the next
turn you can make them go high altitude, take 2 Hellfire accurate
shots at any remaining SAM carriers (or rockets at Infantry SAM's)
and continue roaming. When they run out of ammo, fly them over to a
Ammo/ordnance truck and land them until their ammo is full again.
Then they can keep shooting....
I also found that once I get to the finish off the infantry stage,
moving artillery e.g. the 175mm and 203mm guns into LOS of the
enemy really finishes them quickly.
The fun starts when you can't get the information edge e.g. the
computer has air superiority. Then assaults and advances can get
really dangerous. I also found that playing in the mid-seventies
is really difficult as NATO, since the T-72's seem to have an
edge over NATO tanks. Means you have to think more and you end
up with a lot of burning hulks!
Coenraad.
Peter Mancini
I went looking for the Ontos for the first battle generator game I
played and could not find it. <sigh> Something to be said for a
micro-tank with 6 recoiless rifles strapped to it all packing
beehives...
--Pete
Tero P. Mustalahti
Brian Trosko wrote in article <56g70a$2...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>:
Well, I guess nothing has changed from SP1 then...
Tero P. Mustalahti
Colin Campbell
ja...@mydata.se (Jan Mattsson) wrote:
MPAT is a dual purpose HEAT ammunition. It has a switch in the nose
which can be set for either 'ground' or 'air.' In ground mode it uses
an impact switch and is used against lightly-armored targets (APC's
etc). In air mode it uses a radar proximity fuse and is used against
helicopters. Now an attack helicopter will still generally have an
advantage against a tank, but now the tank can effectively shoot back.
STAFF (Self TArgeting Fire and Forget) is a new round still in
development. It is a 'smart' weapon which detects and attacks armor
in defelade (ie. hiding behind something). The round is fired over
the suspected enemy position and fires a self-forging fragment into
the top armor as it passes over.
David Pugh
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<328d0d2a...@news.pacbell.net>...
> MPAT is a dual purpose HEAT ammunition. It has a switch in the nose
> which can be set for either 'ground' or 'air.'
Thanks. One question though ... why a switch in the nose instead of some
type of data feed so that it can be changed without unloading the gun?
Obviously, the nose switch is cheaper and easier but the ability to shoot
one or the other at a moments notice would sound like a big win.
Robert Wartburg
Concur with your tactics.
Tim McBride
Peter Mancini wrote:
>
> Charles J Johnson Jr. wrote:
> > What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
>
> olde. Basically it is a round with a disintegrating shell filled with
> hundreds (?) of slugs. When fired the slugs would spread out. Think of
> it as a 105 gauge shotgun! In Viet Nam the recoiless rifle and the Bee
> Hive were a deadly combination.
firebase had a detacment of 8 inch S.P.A. Seems as tho a Viet Cong
sniper hit a loader. The guns were droped to the levelist possible
setting and fired 3 rouds a peice into the jungle. They found parts of
the snipers stuck to trees. Now talk about making infantry usless! : )
Tim
Trey Marshall
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:37:19 GMT, co...@pacbell.net (Colin Campbell)
wrote:
>"Charles J Johnson Jr." <gut...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
>
>'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
>
>The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes (think of them as
>nails with fins instead of a flat head). It also has a mechanical
>timer and a small bursting charge. You set the timer with the range
>to the target and the shell bursts about 75 meters away from the
>target. This will do unpleasant things to infantry located between
>150-4,400 meters from the tank. Note the _minimum_ range of 150
>meters however!
>
Beehive rounds are also used by artillery pieces, 105mm and
155mm. Stuff is used for emergency battery defense and is a killer
with a fuze setting of about 2 seconds fired point blank range at
approaching infantry.
Trey
Trey Marshall,2Lt,FA 4-1 FA Bn, 3 Bde, 1st Arm Div
Fire Support Officer, B Company, 1-13 AR/HHB Supply Officer
"Wolfpack" 14 Actual
http://www.kansas.net/~snakes/index.html
SP/SP2 site!
Dale Hight
Tero P. Mustalahti <term...@utu.fi> wrote in article
<56iuo0$3...@castor.utu.fi>...
Despite his experience artillery HAS changed, a LOT, in SP2. In SP1 I
never bought it (cause I found it to be useless), in SP2 I NEVER leave home
without it (because it is so useful).
Dale
Brian Trosko
Trey Marshall <sna...@kansas.net> wrote:
: with a fuze setting of about 2 seconds fired point blank range at
: approaching infantry.
I'm trying to imagine what actual point blank range is for an artillery
piece.
Do you really mean 'point blank' in the technical sense, or are you just
using it to mean 'absurdly close range?'
Kevin Metcalfe
> >> The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes (think of them as
> >> nails with fins instead of a flat head). It also has a mechanical
> >> timer and a small bursting charge. You set the timer with the range
> >> to the target and the shell bursts about 75 meters away from the
> >> target. This will do unpleasant things to infantry located between
> >> 150-4,400 meters from the tank. Note the _minimum_ range of 150
> >> meters however!
> >
>
> Yea, but the fuze won't burst until the round has traveled 75-100
> meters.
I've seen what was called "Splintex" rounds fired from a Leopard 1 - the
detonated about 50 - 100M short of the target and sprayed the aread with
flechettes as above, very spectacular.
Also seen "cannister" from a 76mm M113 FSV - big shotgun.
Jay Martino
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>And the flip side of this strangeness is that artillery seems almost
>useless against infantry. I've hit exposed, unmoving infantry with MRLS,
>and caused only one casualty among 4 separate units. MLRS and
>conventional artillery should *shred* unprotected infantry.
Unmoving infantry is assumed to have taken whatever cover is available
in the hex. As well, they are considered to be prone, so the effect of
artillery of any kind other than ICM is reduced. If it was ICM that
you used, then there may be a problem. Moving infantry gets shot up
pretty badly by arty in SP2, unlike SP.
Jay
***If you are responding to my comments on
a newsgroup, please do not send me an e-mail
copy of your reply unless you intend
carry on the discussion privately.***
mjma...@igs.net
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Do you really mean 'point blank' in the technical sense, or are you just
>using it to mean 'absurdly close range?'
Yes. For the arty guys, just about any direct fire situation means
'absurdly close range.'
Rune Fostervoll
CJJr >>What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
Colin>
Colin>'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
Colin>
Colin>The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes <snip>
I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
--
Rune Fostervoll, run...@ifi.uio.no
----------------------------------
ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Lou
Dale Hight wrote:
> >
> Despite his experience artillery HAS changed, a LOT, in SP2. In SP1 I
> never bought it (cause I found it to be useless), in SP2 I NEVER leave home
> without it (because it is so useful).
>
> Dale
I'd disagree with the uselessness of SP1 arty. I'm playing a long campaign in the
PTO and when on the defensive, I put some low cost units (support units...never core)
way up next to my opponents line of demarcation. Once I have an idea of which way he's
coming, I start pouring down everything I can. Very often the incoming shells will set
fire to the jungle causing suppression on anything moving through it. If I get a really
good fix on the direction of the attack and if I guess the speed right (I'm getting
better at this), I just walk the arty back towards my position.
I'm pretty sure this has worked because I've shot at units as they've popped into the
clear and have killed them with just a few shots. I'll get messages saying 2 men
killed/7 total for instance. They must have incurred the casualties while walking
against my artillary barrage. This doesn't completely stop the Japanese units from
swarming and I still have lots of hard fighting once they get to my position. But, I
have won battles where the 6 or 7 enemy squads might have swung it the other way.
Usually, the arty I buy comes in the form of board base Priests. I love these things. I
keep them behind a hill I'm protecting and fire indirect stuff until the enemy units
make it to the crest of that hill. Then I use them in direct fire. They sound cool,
look cool, can shoot down enemy a/c, and make really pretty holes in the ground. ;)
Of course, I haven't tried this method in a European campaign. With the lack of Jungle
there, I expect it might be a little different.
Lou
Brian Trosko
Rune Fostervoll <run...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
: I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
: Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
The particular convention which outlaws ammunition designed to maim or
otherwise cause unnecessary suffering is the Hague Convention, not the
Geneva.
The objection to flechette rounds is that the entrance wounds they create
are very very tiny, and are very difficult for medical personnel to
detect, especially when the patient is covered in blood. The flechettes
in a beehive round fired from a tank gun might very well be large enough
to create obvious entrance wounds, and thus might be just fine. I know
flechette warheads for FFARs exist, and are okey-dokey, so why not for
tanks?
Personally, the very idea of outlawing weapons designed to
cause 'unnecessary' suffering is absolutely ridiculous. The Hague
Convention dates to 1898, when there were still a lot of people holding
onto the concept that war is a fair and honorable pursuit.
Jonathan Aitken
So are shotguns, poison gas, biological weapons (I think) by various
treatie/conventions, etc etc. They are still used.
J. Aitken
run...@ifi.uio.no (Rune Fostervoll) wrote:
>CJJr >>What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
>Colin>
>Colin>'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
>Colin>
>Colin>The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes <snip>
>I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
>Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
>--
Dale Hight
Lou <ldi...@ime.net> wrote in article <328FA1...@ime.net>...
>
> I'd disagree with the uselessness of SP1 arty. <snipped all the good
stuff Lou wrote>
>
Yes Lou, that is arguable. Some have found arty useful in SP1 as you have
said. "I" just didn't find it too useful. In SP2 I think one can do a lot
more with it and I think you actually need it.
Best,
Dale
Jonathan Aitken
Smoke.
J. Aitken
Colin Campbell
run...@ifi.uio.no (Rune Fostervoll) wrote:
>I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
>Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
Nope. Flechettes are legal. Banned weapons generally have articles
speceifcally banning them.
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Personally, the very idea of outlawing weapons designed to
>cause 'unnecessary' suffering is absolutely ridiculous. The Hague
>Convention dates to 1898, when there were still a lot of people holding
>onto the concept that war is a fair and honorable pursuit.
Uh, some of us do regard soldiering and war as a fair and honorable
pursuit. We also abmit that it isn't pretty. And, among
professionals the _spirit_ of the Geneva Conventions/Hauge Accords are
followed.
Andrew Krszinski
In article <56or0r$3...@tiger.aba.net.au>,
ait...@ocean.com.au (Jonathan Aitken) wrote:
>Smoke.
Don't mind if I do.
Lou
Dale Hight wrote:
>
> Lou <ldi...@ime.net> wrote in article <328FA1...@ime.net>...
> >
> > I'd disagree with the uselessness of SP1 arty. <snipped all the good
> stuff Lou wrote>
> >
>
> Yes Lou, that is arguable. Some have found arty useful in SP1 as you have
> said. "I" just didn't find it too useful. In SP2 I think one can do a lot
> more with it and I think you actually need it.
>
> Best,
> Dale
You're absolutely right there. I tried one game with it and another w/o. What a
difference. My complaint is that OBA seems much more expensive in SPII and SPI.
Probably 'cuz it is in real life. Like a kid in a candy store, I dream of buying the
Snickers, but must settle for the sour ball. ;)
Lou
Dale Hight
Yep, thats what arty is good for in SP1!! Smoke....
Dale
Jonathan Aitken <ait...@ocean.com.au> wrote in article
<56or0r$3...@tiger.aba.net.au>...
> Smoke.
>
> J. Aitken
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: Uh, some of us do regard soldiering and war as a fair and honorable
: pursuit.
You're the first military person I've ever encountered who feels that war
is 'fair.'
All the others tell me that 'fair' gets you dead. Is a sniper fair? Is a
night attack against an enemy without nightvision capability fair? Does
the OfFor at Irwin fight fair? Did we fight fair in Iraq? How about in
WWII?
And as for honorable, that's a holdover from the days when wars consisted
of a gentleman's agreement where set-piece battles were fought at a
predetermined plane and time, and the winner came away from it with an
agreed-upon sum or concession. There's nothing honorable about dropping
high explosives on civilians. There's nothing honorable about burning Jap
soldiers alive in their caves. There's nothing honorable about sniping a
a teenage Vietnam girl off of her bicycle because she's spotting for
mortar fire from VC emplacements out in the jungle. When the Japs on
Saipan starting jumping to their deaths rather than submit, was that
'honorable?' When the 8th Air Force went on apparently useless bombing
raids that lost 600 B-17s in a single day, was that honorable? Is tank
plinking with 500lb. LGBs from an F-111 honorable? When the Israelis
randomly shelled neighborhoods during their invasion of Lebanon, was that
honorable?
There's *nothing* fair or honorable about war. There's honor in
integrity, professionalism, and dedication, but those are human virtues.
War is a *thing*, an awful, horrible thing whose sole aim is the mass
destruction of thousands of human lives.
: We also abmit that it isn't pretty. And, among
: professionals the _spirit_ of the Geneva Conventions/Hauge Accords are
: followed.
The _spirit_ of the Geneva Convention and Hague accord are worse than
useless; they're harmful. Before the invasion of Iwo Jima, the use of
poison gas was considered; Iwo was mountainous, and everyone was aware it
was going to be a much harder objective than previous island-hopping
targets. Gas was suggested, and rejected, because of the political cost.
So, thousands of Marines died when their losses might have been lessened
if gas had been used.
Somehow, I don't think anyone can assure me that burning the Japs to death
with jellied gasoline was any less painful or cruel than searing their
lungs with phosgene would have been.
*That's* the kind of thing I'm talking about. When you're at war, your
job is to kill the other guy. 'Fair' and 'honorable' get in the way, and
the whole idea of 'war crimes,' is but a socially-acceptable
self-delusion, whereby current generations get to feel that they're
somehow morally superior to their ancestors. "Oh, look, we've outlawed
phosgene, so we're a *better* society then existed in 1914 Europe. Now,
pardon us, we've got impoverished enemy civilians we've got to go and drop
napalm on." You'll note that the winners of armed conflict have never
been held accountable for war crimes; that's a priviledge reserved for the
losers.
Feh. It's *all* unfair, and dishonorable, and the worst part is that
it is occasionally *necessary*. The sooner we all take that to heart, the
fewer unnecessary wars we'll have.
Mattias Andersen
On 18 Nov 1996 15:57:57 GMT, "Dale Hight" <dale...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yep, thats what arty is good for in SP1!! Smoke....
>Dale
>
I have played hundreds of games of SP, dozens of the PBEM and you´ll
never find me without at least a pair of mortars. I don´t understand
what the problem is with your arty, but mine always work very well
indeed. Nothing like setting the world on fire to disrupt the enemy.
Naturally you use your other forces in close cooperation with the arty
so that you can exploit the supresson built up.
Mattias
Paul Dziekonski
>I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
>Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
I think it's OK, as long as you kill all the wounded guys afterwards.
You know, so they don't suffer...
Dale Hight
Nothing wrong with my arty. It's that damn commander that don't seem to
know it's "true" value.<g> I admit to having use it to start fires though.
Dale
Mattias Andersen <e...@algonet.se> wrote in article
<3290897...@news.algonet.se>...
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>: Uh, some of us do regard soldiering and war as a fair and honorable
>: pursuit.
>
>You're the first military person I've ever encountered who feels that war
>is 'fair.'
>
>All the others tell me that 'fair' gets you dead. Is a sniper fair? Is a
>night attack against an enemy without nightvision capability fair? Does
>the OfFor at Irwin fight fair? Did we fight fair in Iraq? How about in
>WWII?
You misunderstand me. The rules are rough but do include an element
of fairness. The ethics and morality of soldiering and warfare are a
complex subject which has been discussed in alt.war (and the
discussion will probably begin again once alt.war becomes
alt.war.moderated).
It would probably surprise you to learn what real soldiers feel about
war - and how war can be fair even when each side is doing its utmost
to win.
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: It would probably surprise you to learn what real soldiers feel about
: war
Well, again, I've talked to 'real soldiers.' These folks include my
grandfather, who was a Master Sergeant in the Army Air Corps, and who was
awarded a BSV. A friend from work who is an intelligence officer in the
Air Force NG. A former teacher who was a Brigadier General in the NG. A
former fighter pilot who flew Wild Weasel missions during Vietnam. One
grizzled old bastard who was one of the first ones ashore onto Iwo Jima,
who was awarded a silver star for singlehandedly destroying a Jap
pillbox, and whose unit saw some godawful casualty figures. Several
others, too, who while they might not have seen actual combat certainly
fit any reasonable definition of 'real soldier.'
All these people agree that fair gets you dead. What, exactly, do you
mean by the rules being rough, but still possessing 'an element of
fairness?'
Jacky Tooma
snip
>
>Feh. It's *all* unfair, and dishonorable, and the worst part is that
>it is occasionally *necessary*. The sooner we all take that to heart, the
>fewer unnecessary wars we'll have.
>
>
Well said!!
Tero P. Mustalahti
Mattias Andersen wrote in article <3290897...@news.algonet.se>:
>
>On 18 Nov 1996 15:57:57 GMT, "Dale Hight" <dale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Yep, thats what arty is good for in SP1!! Smoke....
>>Dale
>>
>
>
>I have played hundreds of games of SP, dozens of the PBEM and you´ll
>never find me without at least a pair of mortars. I don´t understand
>what the problem is with your arty, but mine always work very well
>indeed. Nothing like setting the world on fire to disrupt the enemy.
Well, I agree, it is useful and I normally use it in SP1 if I can afford it.
Still, it isn't as efficient as it should be, especially exposed infantry does
not seem to take much more casualties than entrenched infantry, even though the
difference should be very significant. The mortars seem to be very inaccurate
and I use them mainly for smoke.
Tero P. Mustalahti
sar...@aol.com
Mr. Trosko made a lot of fine points about how war is not fair. I agree
completely with him. However, I'm wondering if it was just coincidence
that most of the examples he used were about unfair things the US had
done. We are neither uniquely fair or unfair when it comes to how we fight
wars.
Sarkus
Colin Campbell
sar...@aol.com wrote:
Depends on what you regard as 'fair'. Faking a pass is 'fair' in
football, so is a sniper in wartime. Mistreating a surrendered enemy
is unfair. Killing for hatred or revenge is dishonorable and unfair.
There are practices in war that allthough 'logical' are considered
dishonorable or 'dastardly.' One example is shooting enemy medics,
this is logical as this means that fewer enemy wounded will recover to
fight again, but is is universally viewed as a barbaric act.
Edward J. Lizak
ait...@ocean.com.au (Jonathan Aitken) wrote:
>So are shotguns, poison gas, biological weapons (I think) by various
>treatie/conventions, etc etc. They are still used.
>J. Aitken
>run...@ifi.uio.no (Rune Fostervoll) wrote:
>>CJJr >>What the hell is a "bee hive" round?
>>Colin>
>>Colin>'Beehive' refers to the M494 APERS multiple projectile round.
>>Colin>
>>Colin>The round is filled with approx. 5,000 flechettes <snip>
>>I was under the impression flechette ammunition is illegal according to the
>>Geneva convention. Anyone out there know for sure?
>>--
>>Rune Fostervoll, run...@ifi.uio.no
>>----------------------------------
>> ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
>> -Ambrose Bierce
I seem to recall something about .50 cal rounds being illegal (by some
convention) for use against personnel. True?
-EJL
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: When you look into the eyes of a surrendering enemy - you will know.
: Otherwise its hard to explain.
That's a cop-out. Explain it.
I'm not suggesting killing prisoners is okay. Once they've surrendered,
they're no longer a threat, and are military useless to the other guy, so
there's no point in killing them.
Unless, of course, you're in a situation which precludes the taking of
prisoners. I seems to recall U.S. troops being in that sort of situation
on a number of different occasions, and not one was ever charged with war
crimes for doing what was expected.
Perhaps this 'fairness' you speak of is not a universal concept, and is
actually a luxury applied only in those situations where it is feasible.
Robert Blake
e...@iglou.com (Edward J. Lizak) wrote:
>
>
>I seem to recall something about .50 cal rounds being illegal (by some
>convention) for use against personnel. True?
>
>-EJL
>
Nope. That's just another one of those myths. Since it was designed way back then
as an anti-personnel/anit-light amor vehicle weapon, it can be used against
personnel. When you fire on ranges, it's against soldier silhouettes and vehicles
also.
Rob
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: There are practices in war that allthough 'logical' are considered
: dishonorable or 'dastardly.' One example is shooting enemy medics,
: this is logical as this means that fewer enemy wounded will recover to
: fight again, but is is universally viewed as a barbaric act.
And what I'm doing is pointing out the pointless double standard of that.
Shooting the solider in the first place, thus necessitating the medic,
should be universally viewed as a barbaric act.
Colin Campbell
e...@iglou.com (Edward J. Lizak) wrote:
>I seem to recall something about .50 cal rounds being illegal (by some
>convention) for use against personnel. True?
It is not banned. Some people claim it is banned under the rule that
bans weapons which cause unnecessary suffering and most countries
doctrine identifies it as an anitmaterial weapon. However, there is
no specefic rule forbidding its use against personnel.
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>I'm not suggesting killing prisoners is okay. Once they've surrendered,
>they're no longer a threat, and are military useless to the other guy, so
>there's no point in killing them.
>
>Unless, of course, you're in a situation which precludes the taking of
>prisoners. I seems to recall U.S. troops being in that sort of situation
>on a number of different occasions, and not one was ever charged with war
>crimes for doing what was expected.
>
>Perhaps this 'fairness' you speak of is not a universal concept, and is
>actually a luxury applied only in those situations where it is feasible.
The point is that the other guy is a human being. Yes he has a duty
to fight to the best of his abilities - as do I. War is a rough, ugly
business with its own specific rules. But, the attitude that "alls
fair in love and war" only creates hatred and vengefulness. Another
point is that we are all morally responsible to other people - even
the enemy. There are things that - even in war - we _must not_ do.
This is why we have the Geneva Conventions and Hauge accords. These
set explicit rules as to our behaviors on the battlefield.
The problem with appling the laws of warfare only when feasable is
that 'feasable' quickly becomes synomous with 'convienent.'
BTW, International law forbids the killing of surrendered enemy
_regardless of circumstances_.
US Army Regulations on the subject of killing prisoners state:
"A commander may not put his prisoners to death because their presence
retards his movements or diminishes his power of resistance by
necessating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies,
or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty
through the impending success od their forces. It is likewise
unlawful for a commander to kill his prisoners on grounds of
self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando
operations, although the circumstances of the operation may make
necessary rigorous supervision and restraint upon the movement of
prisoners of war."
US Army Field Manual 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare)
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>And what I'm doing is pointing out the pointless double standard of that.
>Shooting the solider in the first place, thus necessitating the medic,
>should be universally viewed as a barbaric act.
An enemy soldier who has not surrendered nor rendered 'hors de combat'
from wounds is considered a combatant. A medic, Red Cross observer,
Chapalin, etc are considerd noncombatants.
This is based on the "Western Military Ethic' which limits who is to
be considered a legetimte foe. It may be a double standard but it
does serve to limit the human suffering caused by war.
Rune Fostervoll
><*snip* a lot of less than nice pictures>
>*That's* the kind of thing I'm talking about. When you're at war, your
>job is to kill the other guy. 'Fair' and 'honorable' get in the way, and
>the whole idea of 'war crimes,' is but a socially-acceptable
>self-delusion, whereby current generations get to feel that they're
>somehow morally superior to their ancestors. "Oh, look, we've outlawed
>phosgene, so we're a *better* society then existed in 1914 Europe. Now,
>pardon us, we've got impoverished enemy civilians we've got to go and drop
>napalm on." You'll note that the winners of armed conflict have never
>been held accountable for war crimes; that's a priviledge reserved for the
>losers.
Someone said, it's a good thing war is so terrible, or we'd be at it all the
time.
I agree that the idea of 'fair' doesn't enter into the equation. But honorable?
It should be said that there is a simple difference between an honorable and
dishonorable war.. one where civilians are targets, and one where they are not.
This makes civil wars awful - when it is impossible to know when a civilian
isn't, and you don't even care. The Iraqi conflict was partially honorable, but
not quite - building military installations next to kindergartens isn't an
honorable action. Do you allow this to stay your hand? That is the question.
A professional soldier answers, no, but isn't happy about it.
In WWII, in Norway-45, a German sergeant in a small village whose name escapes
me was ordered to kill some hundred civilians. He refused.
Germany surrendered two days later.
I would consider him a hero, and honorable.
He was executed for disobedience, of course.
Honor lies more in attitude than actions. You might call it professionalism,
integrity, whatever. Morale, even. And it has its place in war as well as
peace.
Stephen C. Griffin
run...@ifi.uio.no (Rune Fostervoll) wrote:
>><*snip* a lot of less than nice pictures>
>>*That's* the kind of thing I'm talking about. When you're at war, your
>>job is to kill the other guy. 'Fair' and 'honorable' get in the way, and
>>the whole idea of 'war crimes,' is but a socially-acceptable
>>self-delusion, whereby current generations get to feel that they're
>>somehow morally superior to their ancestors. "Oh, look, we've outlawed
>>phosgene, so we're a *better* society then existed in 1914 Europe. Now,
>>pardon us, we've got impoverished enemy civilians we've got to go and drop
>>napalm on." You'll note that the winners of armed conflict have never
>>been held accountable for war crimes; that's a priviledge reserved for the
>>losers.
>Someone said, it's a good thing war is so terrible, or we'd be at it all the
>time.
(snip)
Robert E. Lee surveying the Union defeat at Fredericksburg (1862):
"It is good that war is so terrrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
The Union had lost over 12,000 men in a series of senseless charges
against entrenched Confederates.
Regards,
Steve
Brian Trosko
Rune Fostervoll <run...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
: I agree that the idea of 'fair' doesn't enter into the equation. But honorable?
: It should be said that there is a simple difference between an honorable and
: dishonorable war.. one where civilians are targets, and one where they are not.
Civilians have been targets since dirigibles dropped the first bombs on
English cities in WWI. WWII brought attacks on civilian populations to
hitherto unheard-of levels. In Korea, bombing of irrigation dams in the
North culminated in the starvation of tends of thousands of civilians. In
the early stages of WWI, submarine warfare was considered underhanded and
dishonorable, since it violated prior conventions that required attacking
vessels to rescue the crews of the merchant ships they sent to the bottom
of the sea. In Vietnam, bombing of civilian populations was Accepted
Military Strategy, regardless of the fact that it was useless.
There's nothing 'dishonorable' about that, beyond the general background
of war itself. If a nation attacks others, then its civilian population
must occasionally answer for the crimes of their government. Why is the
person driving the tank a valid target, but the person who works in a
factory building the tank not? If you can kill the people in the factory,
and stop them from building tanks, you don't have to kill the tank crews.
You may consider that sort of thing dishonorable; I don't necessarily
disagree. My point is that concepts like 'honor' have no meaning on a
strategic scale. That which furthers your military end is Good, and that
which does not is Bad.
: This makes civil wars awful - when it is impossible to know when a civilian
: isn't, and you don't even care. The Iraqi conflict was partially honorable, but
: not quite - building military installations next to kindergartens isn't an
: honorable action. Do you allow this to stay your hand? That is the question.
: A professional soldier answers, no, but isn't happy about it.
All wars, not just civil wars, are awful, and we should never be happy
about it. We should recognize that all wars necessitate evil, even to
further an arguably good cause. We should endeavour to minimize the
threat of war because of that fact. We should not get in wars that are
not strictly necessary. And when we do get into a war, we should use
every objectively useful means at our disposal to bring that war to an
early and abrupt end.
Keep in mind that precision munitions were created for a military purpose,
and not a humanitarian one. They weren't created to minimize collateral
damage, but rather to increase Pk.
: In WWII, in Norway-45, a German sergeant in a small village whose name escapes
: me was ordered to kill some hundred civilians. He refused.
: I would consider him a hero, and honorable.
I would, too. I'm not talking about individual actions or individual
human virtues. I'm talking about war as a whole. Individuals can be
honorable - wars cannot.
Brian "Even Good Wars" Trosko
--
" IF YOU EVER HAVE THE NERVE TO INSULT MY BUDDY JAKE TANNER AGAIN THE WAY
YOU JUST DID, I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU!! GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!"
-Charles Donegan <Cyber...@worldnet.att.net>
getting a bit excited on rec.video.satellite.dbs.
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: This is based on the "Western Military Ethic' which limits who is to
: be considered a legetimte foe. It may be a double standard but it
: does serve to limit the human suffering caused by war.
Ah. Like when we bombed irrigation dams in North Korea and caused the
deaths of tens of thousands of North Korean noncombatants. Or the
doctrine of MAD, which expressly threatened entire populations of
noncombatants.
How recent is this "Western Military Ethic?" Either it's only a few
months old, or it only applies in situations where we want it to apply.
Brian "Isn't that convenient" Trosko
Brian Trosko
Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: the enemy. There are things that - even in war - we _must not_ do.
: This is why we have the Geneva Conventions and Hauge accords. These
: set explicit rules as to our behaviors on the battlefield.
And my point is that these conventions and accords cause more harm than
good. They obviously don't bind any nations which don't sign them, which
allows the nations which Just Don't Care to do as they please. And for
the nations that do sign them, they merely provide for a mindless
feel-goodism. Objectively, doesn't it strike you as silly that you're
allowed to shoot someone with a 750-grain FMJ slug, but not with a
125-grain hollowpoint, because the hollowpoint is designed to cause
needless suffering? Or that you're allowed to shoot 8" artillery rounds
at them, rounds that are designed to fragment and shred everyone with 50
meters, but are *not* allowed to fill that same shell with phosgene? Or
that you're allowed to burn someone to death with napalm or a
flamethrower, but not allowed to smear punji stakes with shit and bury
them in concealed trenches?
The suggestion that being killed by one particularly painful method is
against the rules, but being killed by another similarly painful method is
okay, is just silly. It doesn't help anyone.
: The problem with appling the laws of warfare only when feasable is
: that 'feasable' quickly becomes synomous with 'convienent.'
Now you've got it. When the other guy does it, it's a war crime, and when
we do it, it's strategic bombing, and the winner writes the history books.
: US Army Field Manual 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare)
Yes. Now tell me exactly how much jail time the guys at My Lai served.
Jay Martino
e...@iglou.com (Edward J. Lizak) wrote:
>I seem to recall something about .50 cal rounds being illegal (by some
>convention) for use against personnel. True?
Common legend. Not true.
Jay
***If you are responding to my comments on
a newsgroup, please do not send me an e-mail
copy of your reply unless you intend
carry on the discussion privately.***
mjma...@igs.net
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>All these people agree that fair gets you dead. What, exactly, do you
>mean by the rules being rough, but still possessing 'an element of
>fairness?'
When you look into the eyes of a surrendering enemy - you will know.
Kevin Metcalfe
Colin Campbell wrote:
>
> e...@iglou.com (Edward J. Lizak) wrote:
>
> >I seem to recall something about .50 cal rounds being illegal (by some
> >convention) for use against personnel. True?
>
> bans weapons which cause unnecessary suffering and most countries
> doctrine identifies it as an anitmaterial weapon. However, there is
> no specefic rule forbidding its use against personnel.
Same deal with White Phos (smoke type) ammo.
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
This ethic was initially developed by the Greek city states. The
Roman empire formed their own version until Saint Augustine combined
the two philosophies into his 'just war' doctrine.
Many of our practices concerning POW's date from the Medieval period
where captured prisoners could be held for ransom. Later during the
Renaissance period these practices were modified so as to provide
protection for the 'common' soldiers.
During the Crimean war a Swiss banker was so horrified by the cruelty
he saw that he devoted the rest of his life to creating and running a
new organization - the International Red Cross.
The first set of rules covering the treatment of enemy POW's and
detained noncombatants was the US Army Regulation 100 - more popularly
known as 'The Leiber Code.' The was published at the begriming of the
US Civil War.
Around 1895 Czar Nicholas of Russia convened the Conference of St.
Petersburg. This was the first of a series of conventions which
occurred sporadically, but resulted in the first versions of the Hauge
Accords. Later the discussions were held in Geneva Switzerland
resulting in the "Geneva Conventions".
This is a _very_ basic (and thin) overview of the history of the
Western Military Ethic. It is a subject which I am a (amateur)
student of and if you want to discuss this further - I suggest that we
move this thread to soc.history.military.misc.
Colin Campbell
Kevin Metcalfe <hu...@southcom.com.au> wrote:
>> It is not banned. Some people claim it is banned under the rule that
>> bans weapons which cause unnecessary suffering and most countries
>> doctrine identifies it as an anitmaterial weapon. However, there is
>> no specefic rule forbidding its use against personnel.
>
>Same deal with White Phos (smoke type) ammo.
Not quite. WP is an incendary ammunition and therefore it is
forbidden to be used against personnel. However it can be used
against bunkers, etc which have people inside them.
Colin Campbell
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>And my point is that these conventions and accords cause more harm than
>good. They obviously don't bind any nations which don't sign them, which
>allows the nations which Just Don't Care to do as they please. And for
>the nations that do sign them, they merely provide for a mindless
>feel-goodism. Objectively, doesn't it strike you as silly that you're
>allowed to shoot someone with a 750-grain FMJ slug, but not with a
>125-grain hollowpoint, because the hollowpoint is designed to cause
>needless suffering? Or that you're allowed to shoot 8" artillery rounds
>at them, rounds that are designed to fragment and shred everyone with 50
>meters, but are *not* allowed to fill that same shell with phosgene? Or
>that you're allowed to burn someone to death with napalm or a
>flamethrower, but not allowed to smear punji stakes with shit and bury
>them in concealed trenches?
Sometimes it dosent make any sense. But the current doctrine of
"customary and accepted laws of war" means that for most of the
Genevva Conventions and Hauge Accords - the fact that they have been
signed by over 2/3 of the worlds countries givs them legal status
among the others.
On the subject of bullets - a 750 FMJ is legal, a 750-grain
hollowpoint is not. Likewise for the 125 grain, the FMJ is legal
while the hollowpoint is not. Shooting somebody with a 750-grain FMJ
bullet is going to render that person hors de combat (at least), the
additional wounding caused by the hollowpoint serves no military
purpose and thus is considered to cause unecessary suffering.
>: US Army Field Manual 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare)
>
>Yes. Now tell me exactly how much jail time the guys at My Lai served.
>
Too little. However you will remember that Lt. Calley was sentenced
to life in prison, and the Military Court of Appeals upheld the
sentence. It was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (located in San
Francisco) that set him free. IMO, he should have been hung - along
with his senior NCO's.
Kevin Metcalfe
>
> Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The point is that the other guy is a human being. Yes he has a duty
> to fight to the best of his abilities - as do I. War is a rough, ugly
> business with its own specific rules. But, the attitude that "alls
> fair in love and war" only creates hatred and vengefulness. Another
> point is that we are all morally responsible to other people - even
> This is why we have the Geneva Conventions and Hauge accords. These
> set explicit rules as to our behaviors on the battlefield.
>
> that 'feasable' quickly becomes synomous with 'convienent.'
>
> _regardless of circumstances_.
>
All of the above is relavant, the other thing to consider is that when
the other side learns that your side habitually executes PW's - they
WILL NOT SURRENDER, you will have to go and kill the vast majority of
them at great cost to your own forces, however if they believe that if
they can give up, they will go to a nice warm camp and play volleyball
till the war is over - YOU are far less likely to take needless
casualties, also it is possible that YOUR side may lose in the long run.
Thilo Thiessenhusen
All that double morale standards. Talking about the cruelties of war and being an
enthuiastic wargamer... Do play (as I like to play Doom-like splatter orgies too)
to channel aggressions, but strictly keep it apart from the real-life mass murder
in your discussion, please. Talking about the effectiveness of case shots is the
same technocracy of death which is inherent to polititians of all times, which
let thousands of people die in the trenches while sitting behind their desks.
Finally, this is a game. I'd like to distinguish it from having a little hole
at the point of entrance and a big one at the point of exit.
Does it matter whether a tank fires its main gun at an infantrist ? A computer
game is always virtual. If you want reality, buy yourself a ticket and
become a mercenary in Central Africa. Ehm ... rather not.
Thilo