Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: I have told this earlier, but lieutenant-colonel Pekka Kantakoski (the writer of 'Red tanks - Red Army armoured forces 1918-1945', in Finnish only) makes a very interesting point about the LOOKOUT equipment in the German Stu-40 (Stug III) assault guns. According to him the equipment was the best he has ever used, even better than that in the much later T-72M1 tank !! Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep - but that is Sfz 14 or whatever the real name of the Scherenfernrohr was and not your bog-standard tank gunner optics, and IIRC there is no conclusive evidence (although Jeff Duquette dug out some pictuers) that this was in widespread use on tanks, as opposed to Stugs (which were part of the Artillery). Newcomers to the optics debate can go either to the orginal thread (somewhere around post 550) or through Der Kessel to the site where I have some pictures by my grandfather, where I have a picture taken through his Sfz14. So this does not really have a bearing on the general debate about optics, although it may give food for thought re: optics on Stugs. Sfz14 was a special issue to artillery observers. My grandfather's voice still goes reverend when he talks about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: gunnergoz, thanks for the reply. I read the same figure of 1648 Wolverines from Ian Hogg's "Allied Armour of WWII". I think the Brits got the non-gasoline engines.Most of these were converted to Achilles in late 44/early 45. What I'd like to know is how the UK forces used them. Did they accompany infantry like the US used the M10's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They formed the Tank Destroyer Regiment (SP) in the UK Armoured Divisions, and I am sure that some of them also served in the TD Regiments of the infantry divisions. I have seen a number of pictures of them accompanying infantry, but they also seem to have been used to back up Churchill tanks (e.g. attack of A Sqdr 9th RTR & 7th Hampshires on Maltot, 9th July 44). AFAIK there were no independent TD Battalions, they were all organic division level assets, at least in North-West Europe. Hope that helps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Hey, Andreas! Where ya been? Haven't seen any posts from you for months! Welcome back to the fold...or should that be asylum? :eek: Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Busy with RL stuff - being paid to work instead of study has its downsides. I just follow the CM2 threads now. Glad someone missed me though

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Is this a sign of the return of Germanboy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah. Just checking the board for CM2 stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99: Wild Bill already has a scenario called "To The Last Man" depicting fighting between the Sword and Juno Beaches. Any chance of getting a slight name change?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it went through a variety of incarnations, most of them as boring as my life, and I really could not come up with something better. I'll think about it. Edit: Berli - thanks for the hype [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

Must have run over a BUMP

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Hey, Kesselleute: When you say a scenario should be 2500 pts. or less for submission, are you talking total, or for the attacking side?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 2,500 total, if I have my way. Whatever happened to the fight in hell?

Glantz is a lot more accessible. Ericsson is very good too, but it takes a lot of effort to follow, and his books were written with a scholarly audience in view. The absence of maps in it (at least my cheap edition) makes it very difficult to follow events too. Start with Glantz - if you want more after that, go for Ericsson.

It is a great design Grego. Good job between you and Berli. On might even think you have some talent... Oh wait...