Re: [GZG] [GZG Fiction] Basic Street Fighting Manual

On 1/28/07, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> Like I said that was Chuikov's idea not mine ;)

*shrug*  Sovs had a shortage of officers in the worst way, I think he
was making do with what he had.  If you have very few capable platoon
leaders and good company commanders, that might be a way to work it.
Sovs also had fairly simplistic and uncomplicated tactics that didn't
depend on many decisions being made at low levels.

> > WTF is a shock group going to do with sniper rifles and GMS/P??
> > SMGs, PPIGs, and IVARs make sense.	The absolute worst possible
> > weapons for street fighting are sniper rifles, followed closely by
> > long-range antiarmor weapons.
> > Snipers support assaults, they don't participate in them.
>
> Again Chukiov's suggestion, but not so that they fought with the
> assault, but so they could go on rapid detachment and do what snipers
do
> best in those situations, which is basically recon via mobile stalks,
> plus covering routes of approach/exit and even act as spotters to call
> in heavy support. Mark Spicer (15+ year sniper veteran in the UK army,
> as well as instructor for both the Brits and US Marine Corp) also
points
> out their usefulness in such roles in a bunch of essays on the topic
and
> touches on them (though lightly) in his book "Sniper" published by
> Salamander Books.

OK, that wasn't clear.	The wording sounded like they were taking part
in close assaults.

> > Open ground, at point blank?  Lots of supressive fire and a dead
> sprint.
> > Lowcrawl across open ground and you are dead.
>
> Again relying on reports and advise from veterans of Stalingrad, maybe
> because it was slippery or something in all the winter ice, but a
whole
> bunch of them talk about preferring to slide belly first over rubble
> than to risk running.

Also a shortage of automatic weapons besides SMGs.  :)	Also you said
open ground, which didn't make me think 'covered in rubble'.  That
depends on the size of the rubble.

> > If the KV are going to blow the building, they have demolitions
> placed.
> > In that case, slam a couple HE rounds into the building and beat
them
> > to the punch.
>
> Ok this is probably my fault for playing with WWII material, as they
> were low on ammo and didn't want to bring down too many buildings as
> rubble was a pain for them (well some of them, others loved it).

You're also coming close to raising the question of 'why bother going
into the town at all'?	I mean, if the KV are going to defend like
lunatics and rig most buildings for demo, then you don't get anything
out of it.  Everyone I've ever read on the subject agrees that going
into Stalingrad was a mistake.	Cutting off urban areas and letting
them die on the vine is the way to go if your opponent is going to
turn every single one into a fortress anyway.

> > I'm baffled by this.  Obviously the writer
> > has never seen ruined building.  Fine rubble?
>
> This one was adapted from recommendations published in the U.S.
> Department of War WWII "Combat Lessons" Series and US veteran reports.
> All I can guess (and what I imagined) was that the vets were talking
> about rubble that was fist sized or brick sized rather than half wall
> sized.

Depends on building materials.	Remember where the US fought.  Most of
the ruined building I've seen have been slammed with a tank main gun
round or three, or even a bomb, and havn't been wiped out completely.
The Iraqis build with poured concrete.	From the description of the
heavy construction materials in the rest of the piece, that's what I
was imagining the KV using rather than wooden frame buildings with
drywall for the interiors.

You're also contradicting the point above about not wanting to bring
down buildings as rubble. . .

> > I'm baffled as to how it works to the human advantage.  Allegedly
> > the KraVak have all sorts of experience and 'know all the tricks'. .
.
> > They have Grav Tanks and no compunction about knocking down
buildings,
> > further they are the defenders from the tone of this piece, yet they
> > don't know how to take advantage of rubble?
>
> The bigger tanks were having trouble fitting down the rubble strewn
> streets in the game, so we decided that was one trick the humans were
> allowed to be a bit further ahead on. We didn't want it too much in
one
> direction ;)

I'm looking at Monte Cassino here.  Yes, rubble chokes off maneuver.
But if you are the defender, and primarily using infantry, then you
aren't doing diddly for maneuver anyway.  You can set up fields of
fire with heavy weapons in 2nd and 3rd story positions and kill folks
who are held up in the rubble.	It also makes for good positions for
snipers and machine guns to shoot from ambush.

> You could well be right and that may turn up in a later piece (with
due
> credit), but for now they're just learning. The date stamps on the
> pieces show they've been in this kind of fight with the Kra'Vak under
a
> month and a half at this point. Based on the speed in development of
> doctrine in WWII there is a lot of learning to be done.

Lots of things move faster than WWII these days.  :)

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l