Ogadai

I have a scenario designed which needs playtesting. It is the German naval raid on Granville, France, 8 March 1945 and is semi-historical. From the general briefing: By March 1945, the war had moved on from Normandy, on, into the Reich itself. German forces though, were still near by, on the Channel Islands. Blockaded and isolated, they were, as far as the Allies concerned, a self-contained POW camp holding roughly the equivalent of 2 full divisions of infantry and their supporting arms. Hitler had decreed that they were never to be allowed to fall back into British hands and had turned them into a fortress, mounting huge guns, honeycombed by tunnels and defensive works. They were to become, "anchored battleships", posted in the Channel. However, by March 1945, the situation for the garrison in the islands was grim. Fuel, of all kinds, including coal, food and other staples of life were growing short. If it was grim for the occupiers, it was even grimmer for the occupied. So, the garrison commander, Rear-Admiral Huffmeier (although its more likely to have been his immediate predecesser, Count von Schmettow, Field-Marshal von Runstedt's nephew) hatched an audacious plan. Just across the channel on the coast of France, within sight almost of the islands lay the port of Granville. The Allies had occupied it and it was being used as a minor port, to supply the local troops in the area. On 7 March, 1945 several small coasters were observed in the port of Granville, including the small British freighters Kyle Castle, Nephrite, and Parkwood, and Norwegian merchantman Heien. Most importantly, one, the Eskwood a collier was present. Now was their chance, they could mount a quick raid on the garrison, capture the coal ship and give the Allies a bloody nose. So, on the night of 8 March, a small force of infantry mounted an equally small fleet composed of minesweepers and R-boats and sailed for Granville to attack the largest Army on the continent. Their initial landing was almost completely unopposed. The outer harbour was quickly secured, along with several small coasters, including the precious collier. The American response was swift though. Although only a small affair, it reminded the world, with the Ardennes counter-attack, how much fighting spirit the German war-machine still held. Any takers? Post your name and email address and I'll email the scenario to you.

Interesting. A good contrast with the Australian experience in Korea, where no such episodes occurred. As there is no death penalty under our military law, any NCO who did that would have to be tried for murder. Is there a similar situation under American military law? I've only ever heard of one incidence of "fragging" in the AMF which occurred during the Vietnam war, just before the end of the tour of one of our infantry battalions. As a consequence, the entire battalion was held back a month, in South Vietnam while the court-martial progressed. Apparently the defendent was placed in close confinement more for his own protection than anything else. One has to wonder about the discipline of a force where shooting one's own soldiers is apparently commonly accepted and where the soldiers murder their own officers on whim.

Perhaps one of the best war autobiographies to ever appear. The information in these books should be treated with considerable caution, as has been pointed out many times on the Yahoo mailing list devoted to the study of Japanese Armour, "Senshagun". They are basicly reprints of US Army intelligence reports are often wildly inaccurate and racially biased as well. I'd recommend looking at Akira Taki's web page, if you want accurate information on Japanese AFV's. Another good webpage to look at is this page. [ February 18, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Ogadai ]

First Irish Voice: "Ssssh! Be quiet Jimmy! I tell you, its around here somewhere, a huge warehouse of the most amazing guns and tanks and everything!" Second Irish Voice: "Are yer sure, Sean? Will the Provos be willing to pay?" First Irish Voice: "Of course! Have you ever heard of them knocking back a chance to get their grubby hands on a gun?" Second Irish Voice: "To be sure, to be sure, yer right there, lad. So, where is this huge warehouse then?" First Irish Voice: "Just down this laneway, around the corner. Here yer go! Quick, with the Jemmy and will get that lock off! Sssh! Whats that?" [sounds of gunfire, screams, armoured vehicles, artillery rounds exploding] Second Irish Voice: "Bugger! Thats torn it! Sounds like they're practicing with them weapons! Lets scarper!" [sound of running boots disappearing in the distance] American Voice: "And you can see, the game has been improved markedly, gentlemen. Yes, in our new Irish Warehouse we have several thousand copies of Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" available. Yes, our phones are open right now..."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I say this because a few folks on this forum and who have been involved in the production of this GREAT game have such respectable credentials (or should have by way of knowledge demonstrated in this forum eg. Jason Cawley) <hr></blockquote> Errr, is this the same JasonC who tried to convince us that the history books had miscounted the number of Fireflys in service with 21 Army Grp? :eek: I'd also be very carefully at believing statistical research can fully replace imperical. Not so long ago a link was posted to a picture of a US M4 Sherman which had had a Japanese 37mm AT gun fire a round down its tube. Exactly how would you quantify the likelihood of that occuring? Human experience and the sheer flukiness of the universe will often throw up that sort of unlikely event. Remember, its very easy to misuse statistics. Its even harder to understand that they can be misused for some people. That doesn't mean ignore them, rather it means that you should temper their use with some qualification, thats all.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: These three points combined are why I propose an accuracy drop for CS tanks and SP artillery. Even if not directly justifyable by velocity, we can say the wind isn't taken into account in CMBO, and -more importantly- the CS guys were not trained for moving target shooting. P.S. thanks for the new tests with other ranges. I think they are still a little unfair to the Panther, since all tanks stand. A competent Panther owner facing a Churchill will move. Either to close the range, or at least to prevent the Churchill from zeroing in. If the Churchill cannot zero in, it will misfire the few HC charges it has, and then things get down a tough road for it. I still don't get why people don't fear the Cromwell as much. At least in bigger games where you can buy a full platoon of them they can play havok with the entire Axis force, short of Tiger II and Jagdtiger, but including Jagdpanther and Tiger I and -of course- infantry, a rather unique combination. Of course, vehicle crew morale in CMBB will help here to prevent the Cromwell bunch from charging the Jagdpanther. [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote> I'd support an accurary drop for CS weapons but not necessarily SP artillery - which was often trained to fire against tanks. To assume they weren't is going too far. Its like suggesting that Medium artillery could be used against tanks - yet Ian Hogg recounts how 5.5in gun crews were trained to do exactly that, if necessary. I'm also very worried by your last comment. It appears that while you're seeking greater "accuracy" in how accurate the 95mm CS How is, you're still not recognising that there weren't such things as "platoons" of tanks equipped with that weapon (with the notable exception of the RM Support Group). Therefore, people shouldn't, unless they are being excessively "gamey" should be creating such units. Indeed, if I found myself facing an opponent who purchased that, I'd forfeit the game, rather than allow him the pleasure of beating me with such an unhistorical force. Indeed, one has to wonder why proper historical organisations weren't forced on players for armour assets, as they were for infantry. [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Ogadai ]</p>

I've recently created a scenario and done the map and everything but I created it in error as an "operation" whereas I find I really wanted it as a "battle". Is there a way to change the game settings from one to the other without having to redo the whole map, yet again?

7) We tend to forget that CM imposes artificially short ranges on most battles...

Aren't these sorts of test very artificial? The reason why I say that is because of several factors (in no particular order of importance): 1) We know that CM does not model meteoreological effects (ie windage) which means that low-velocity weapons, such as the 95mm CS How. are much more accurate at medium to long range than they should be. 2) The Churchill VIII was in reality a relatively rare vehicle, I believe there were less than 100 or so made. 3) Players for some reason who "purchase" these sorts of vehicles do so without consideration of the proper organisational constraints under which they were used (ie 2 per Squadron, part of Squadon HQ, etc). 4) CM assumes that the HEAT round for the 95mm CS How was on widespread issue when no evidence has been presented to suggest so, when the role of the vehicle was "Close Support" (ie direct fire of HE against targets which were visible), which suggests that HEAT wasn't often used. 5) Players ignore the doctrinal constraints on the use of particular weapons (this is related to 3, above), in otherwords, the weapon wasn't meant to be a tank killer so it would rarely have been employed as such. 6) The way the tests are structured in "laboratory conditions" means they ignore that no tank commander in his right mind would sit directly opposite another on a billiard table flat piece of terrain and flail away at a another. It is interesting though, that the tests, in all their artificiality confirm that the Churchill VII/VIII was the safest tank to man in the western Allied armoury (units equipped with them had the lowest casualty rates in NW Europe).

I was told about the awl by an old digger, who had served in WWII, Korea, Malaya and Vietnam whom I knew, Michael. I suspect the awl was more a hangover from when the knife was originally a "sailor's knife" than anything else. My question is, why did the Swiss feel the need to put so many tools on their knife?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: The Ram Kangaroo might make a good representation of landing craft, but you couldn't use them unless you used fords for the water.<hr></blockquote> Unfortunately, for some strange reason, CM's fords are only fordable by foot soldiers, not by vehicles. It is perhaps one of the most bizare aspects of the game.

On a slightly more serious note, the "marlin spike" as you call it Michael is actually an "awl", which is used to poke holes in canvas so it can be sewn much more easily. As to what value this is to the soldier in the field, I have no idea but I suspect it was found to be more useful for punching holes in tins, in reality...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PawBroon: Just like this one maybe? Doing fast MODs on request to BUMP fellow MODers Sneak Previews is what I call service... Clubfoot, that one is very nice indeed. I can't see Hanks & Sizemore though. Please fix or do somefink!! [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: PawBroon ]<hr></blockquote> Isn't that just a modded Assault Boat? I'd like to see LCA's and LCM's and LCT's. The challenge of organising a real assault landing would be very nice, indeed.

I believe the, "Peeler, Potato, 6 inch, Steam Powered, Mk.II***" was tripod mounted and this obviously makes it superior to all other potato peeler, particularly at medium to long range.

I was under the impression it had already been stated that the multiple turreted/gunned tanks would not be part of CMBB because of limitations in the engine. This means no T26 (early), T28, T35 or Lee/Grant. I'm unsure how they'll handle the rear-facing MG on the KV series.

Andreas, why don't you just download the file? Brian's included it on the webpage, at the bottom.

Vader's Jester, I think you're referring to the FG42 which is a very different weapon to the MG42. The FG42 can lay claim to being the first modern Assault Rifle, being able to fire both in the open and closed bolt position. The FG42 was also magazine fed (from the left side) and came in two versions, one firing the full-power 7.92mm round and another firing the "Kurtz" round.

Redwolf, I'd just like to see landing craft and gliders included in the game. Splash, the original M3 Stuart had 3 MG's, one controlled by the co-driver/radio operator and two in the hull sponsons, firing forwards which were controlled by the driver. These were, for the most part, by the British dispensed with in favour of extra stowage. The idea of the fixed MG fired by the driver also surfaced in the M4 Sherman, with 2 x .30cal fixed in the bow plate, between the driver and the co-driver, controlled by the driver. Interestingly, the idea didn't die in the early years of WWII, the Soviets also had fixed MG's in the first versions of the T54. They discovered like the US and British armies, that the driver has his hands more than full enough driving his tank, so he won't be too interested in trying to aim an MG as well (which would require the whole vehicle to be jerked around, which I'm sure wouldn't have endeared him to the gunner )

Iron Chef and Busboy, there were two major versions of the Ta152 and one must be careful to differentiate between them because of their very different types of performance. The "h" was designed as a high-altitude fighter and so had a very wide wingspan of narrow aspect ratio, so that it had adequate lift above 40,000 feet, where it was able to outperform most Allied fighters. Several squadrons were equipped with and used primarily (and perhaps inappropriately) on airfield defence duties for the Me262 squadrons. The "c" was as I suggested, perhaps the fastest production fighter. Although far fewer reached frontline squadrons than the "h" it was generally considered an extremely "hot" fighter. If the Zerstorer version had reached production, it would have been armed with no less than 5 x 30mm Mk108 cannon, making it the most heavily armed, single-engined fighter in the war. Normal armament though, was to be only 1 x 30mm and 4 x 20mm (or 3 x 30mm and 2 x 20mm) was pretty heavy, anyway.

You don't think it might be the calibre of the round as it exits the muzzle? It might start at .311in but it is more than likely .303in after its been down the bore.

With regard to the Mongols, it was not Timur the Lame who was defeated by the Mamulukes, it was the nephew of Chingiz Khan, Hulegu Khan. He was defeated only through a ruse, the Mamulukes sent a general to parly and he slashed Hulegu across the face, severely wounding him. As to the invasions of Japan, the Kamikaze (Typhoon) winds did not destroy the invasion fleets until after the invasion forces had come ashore at Kagoshima Bay. In the first case, they were primarily Koreans, and acting on the advice of the Chinese fleet commander, the Mongol force commander re-embarked his forces to ride out the Typhoon afloat. Silly mistake but as a landlubber he knew no better. When the second invasion force arrived, the landed at the same place and in the meantime, the Japanese had constructed a 40 mile long timber wall, enclosing the bay and the Mongols fought at at severe disadvantage. The Japanese had also built/gathered a fleet and attacked the ships off shore. This was clearly detailed in the "Invasion Scroll" which still exists. The Typhoon struck and destroyed/scattered most of the fleet while the forces ashore, cut off were hunted down and killed in detail. Atilla, by the way, was a puppy, compared to the Mongols. Attilla failed dismally to conqueror Rome, he disrupted a few provinces before his defeat at Challons (I think). The Mongols on the otherhand, swept from Mongolia, first SE into China and then across the Steppes to Persia, Asia Minor and the Caucases into Russia (which in this case is a region, not a country, I admit) and across Ukraine to Hungary and Poland. The Mongols themselves were excellent soldiers but reality the real reason why they were so successful was more because of the mediocrity of the opponents which faced them. The Mongols were masters of maneauvre, whereas most of their settled opponents allowed themselves to be defeated in detail. If Ogadai Khan had not died, when he did, which forced a gathering of the tribes to elect a new Ka-Khan (Great Leader), the Mongol drive would have continued on into western Europe, without a doubt. No force was organised well enough to defeat them, nor led properly. Even today, Cracow remembers the Mongol attack, when a lone bugler sounds the alarm each evening, which cost him his life but allowed the gates to be closed just in time. It took the Russians 400 years to throw of the Mongol yoke and they've never forgotten the experience. The Chinese still so fear the Mongols, they make sure they control a good portion of their homelands and refuse to countenance reunification with the rest of Mongolia.

I believe Brian's correct in the Mongols being the most efficient army in history. They conquored most of the Eurasian landmass, would have completed that, except for the death of my namesake and were only defeated in their invasion of Japan because of a combination of bad advice, bad luck and connivance. As for feats of invasion in winter, remember this, the Mongols were the only invader to ever invade Russia in Winter and they were successful, as well, subjugating the Russians for over 400 years! Fuller, Liddel-Hart, Guderian, all drew inspiration from their exploits, seeing them, the perfect model for manaeuvre warfare.

On the Bv141, Eric "Winkle" Brown, Chief RN Test Pilot at Farnborough during most of the war, had the chance after the surrender, to fly one. He writes about his expeirence in one of his books on flying the weird, the wonderful and the prosiac in WWII. While he states it was only a quick circuit or two of the airfield and that he experienced hydraulic problems with the example he flew (something which was apparently endemic to them), he claimed it was pleasant enought to fly, without any major vices, which he considered unusual, considering its configuration. It should not, in my opinion, at least be amongst the "worst aircraft" list. Unusual, yes, but not bad. The Fw-189 was a better, simpler aircraft, which is the reason why it beat it. His books are a treasure trove of information about WWII aircraft. There were very few of the major or even minor types that Brown didn't fly and he's left an excellent record of his experiences in about 4-5 books. He had many notable firsts to his credit, including: First onboard landing & takeoff of a tricycle undercarriaged aircraft on a carrier (P-39). First onboard landing & takeoff of a twin-engined aircraft on a carrier (Mosquito). First onboard landing & takeoff of a jet aircraft on a carrier (Meteor). He also scored 3.5 kills flying Martlets.

And what would a Fin be doing working for the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines?

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/largepic/0016/161091.JPG The caption for the photo reads: "Philippines. 11 November 1944. Sergeant (Sgt) B. Richards of Coeburn, Virginia, inspects the muzzle of a 75mm gun which had been struck by a 37mm Japanese shell. The shell actually passed down the gun barrel slightly wounding one of the crew. Sgt Richards was the commander of the Sherman tank on which the 75mm gun was mounted."