JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ...In fact you don't even have to plot the move through the impassable terrain just too close to it and an end of move rotate order will turn into a move order. I understand that when the game sees your route goes too close or through impassable terrain it replots the route but in doing so it takes the end of the rotate order as the final way point...<hr></blockquote> Simon, Is this what happened to your cromwell in our game?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Herder: ...Just heard about this game. I am a die hard wargamer...<hr></blockquote> Are these two statements contradictory? How can you be a diehard gamer and have only just heard about this game? Just kidding Welcome aboard <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>... Can you imagine your TO&E for a scenario being determined by the results of a higher level strategic game? ...<hr></blockquote> Yes. Yes I can. In fact, I'm living it Check out the CMMC. It is always looking for new players. Regards JonS

[shrug]you're on your own then[/shrug]

Patrik View -> Text Size -> pick a size. Be cool JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: ...150mm ricket FOOs...<hr></blockquote> Rickets huh? I didn't know the Germans used biological warfare in WW2 Edit: Because I'm not ashamed to admit the odd mistake [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

Just checking something: you do know that artillery is supposed to fall in a large, spread-out pattern, yeah? I'm not going to go into the stats of the thing (if you want a course on stats, just check any of JasonCs' posts ), but artillery is an area weapon, and the spread of rounds around the aim point is actually a desirable characteristic, not an unpleasant side effect. Of course, the degree of spread may be more than you were wanting or expecting. There was a thread recently about accuracy and dispersion of artillery, both in real life and in relation to CM. For gunnery stuff, search for the following users: Tero, JasonC, and in particular Bullethead. Regards JonS

Just thought I'd pop in here to point out that Nick Anglophile managed to mis-spell 'the', rendering it 'teh', in one of his posts today. That is all. Move along. regardless JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously! <hr></blockquote> Then I'll have to take Myitkyina* JonS *Obscure Chindit reference

the CMMC artillery rules have a table of ranges at the end.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berkut: Dora could chuck 80cm shells around but required a lot of effort to use it. It had, I believe(I may be slightly off but not by much)a gun and rail carriage crew of around 500. <hr></blockquote> It took 1,500 men 2.5 days just to set the bloody thing up. And this from the people who gave the world Blitzkreig! Talk about edifice-complex ... :eek:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tuomas: And BTW what makes me a Finn?<hr></blockquote> Your profile.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: ...Gebirgsjägers, on the otherhand, were insanely rare.<hr></blockquote> I can find reference to two Gebirgs Divs on the Western Front: 6th SS Gebirgs Div "Nord", and 2nd Gebirgsjager Div. The Heer division served in Southern Germany in 1945, while the SS blokes where along the central Rhine(?), also in 1945.

Getting back to the point about the last man in a CM HQ always having a pistol ... they don't. In a current PBEM I have a German Coy HQ down to 1 man (yes, it's not going well ) and he is carrying an MP40. The pistol got ditched somewhere among the rubble. Regards JonS

May 12 1943: End of conflict in North Africa July 9 1943: Start of Op Husky (landings in Sicily) Aug 17 1943: Sicily clear of Axis forces Sept 3 1943: First landings on Italian mainland Sept 9 1943: Landings at Salerno Sep 11 1943: Landings at Brindisi Jan 3 1944: Cassino I Jan 22 1944: Landings at Anzio and Nettuno Feb 15 1944: Cassino II The landings at Anzio came over four months after the first landings on the mainland (6 months after the first landings on Sicily), and after the first battle of Cassino. IMHO, that makes it well after "the opening stages". YMMV.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: yes the opening stages of the italian campaign were hard fought and could have ended in a loss. the stukas realy did a number on the anzio assault<hr></blockquote> I wouldn't consider Anzio to be in "the opening stages of the Italian Campaign".

VT = Variable Time. Otherwise Chad's description is correct The distinction comes from the earlier, Mechanical Time, fuses. These were set before loading to detonate the shell a certain number of seconds after being fired. With these fuses you can get airbursts, but it isn't as accurate or reliable as using the VT fuses, which always (baring a fuse malfunction) detonate at the optimum 20-40m above the ground. Incidentally, depending on the degree of cover, firing VT on a target in heavy forest could be a waste of time, as the VT fuse could cause the round to detonate 20-40m above the canopy, which could be 20-40m above the ground. At this height the fragments would be too dispersed by the time they reach the ground to be really effective. AFAIK, now-a-days MT is mostly used to fire smoke rounds (where the height of burst is important but not critical), and the VT fuses are used for "troops in open" or "troops dug in with no OHP". Oh yeah - MT is also used for Illum rounds, as the flares need to pop at about 700-800m, which the VT fuse can't do. As a side note, a favourite hypothetical scenario: fire a VT mission onto a fuel dump and rupture all the fuel containers, then follow it up with a single illum round at a 100m height-of-burst. Then sit back and watch the logistics chappies run like hell before the para-flare lands amongst all the spilt fuel Regards JonS

Tee hee - I got two names in CMBO :cool:

In an attempt to defuse this a little... John, I've had another look at Overlord and found the passage you mention. It is very brief, and without something more to go on I would question its veracity in the same way Steve (BTS) recently dismissed a documented case of an AFV shrugging off bazooka hits. Eleven-odd words don't make a very strong case. That aside, I think you have read more into what I originally wrote than was intended. I still doubt that RA field, medium or heavy regiments were used in a direct fire role in NWE in 1944-45. I haven't been through every regiments unit historys, of course, and am basing my comments on what I have read, and an understanding of the role of the indirect fire units. If you can come up with more, or better, examples I'd love to read them. You defended your use of the Tomcats, etc, as examples to back up your central argument (weapons get used outside their designed-for role IIRC). I pilloried it because, while valid, it has nothing to do with what I was saying (25prs used in direct fire in NWE in 1944-45) - which was, after all, what you were seeking to demolish, was it not? Having said that, I basically agree with you about the inclusion of as wide a range of weapons and systems as practical, all realistically modelled. That extends to British indirect fire systems. They were in the theatre, and given different circumstances could have been called upon to fight for themselves. So fine, model it. But don't kid yourself that it was something that was encouraged, or practiced on a regular basis. Hmm. Not sure how useful that was in terms of defusing things. {shrug} Regards JonS

I did just now.

John, er, yeah, what Andreas and Simon said. My post was specifically about the 25pr in NWE. Not the Tomcat(?!?), not US GMCs, not any Russian piece that happened to be towed into Berlin. And not even the 25pr pre-1944. And even more specifically, it was about the lack of smoke for the 25pr when it is emplaced on-map in a CMBO map. I had a look through Hastings' Overlord and couldn't find any mention of the incident you referred to. Regards JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: It looks like an error was made and the shell was accidentally left out. I've mentioned it to Charles. If he has anything other than a "DOH! Sorry about that" reply I'll post it here. Otherwise assume it was "our bad"<hr></blockquote> I think the same error may have occured with the 25pr when used on-map. Although, of course, in the case of the 25pr its even less of a problem as that gun shouldn't ever be involved in any direct fire engagements (ie, it shouldn't, historically, be included in any scenarios). Different story for CM3 though

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by RMC: ... No more strained peas?<hr></blockquote> C'mon now RMC - that kind of thing belongs in the Cesspool. And if you're straining to pee you really should go see someone at the clinic

this one? [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>10th Para Regt 11th Para Regt 156th Para Regt<hr></blockquote> These three were batalions, and all part of the same regiment (The Parachute Regiment). err. I guess you knew that already. Just ignore me ... [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scott B: ...Source on the company organizations: US War Department TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces ... According to Handbook on German Military Forces ... Again, from Handbook on German Military Forces ... The Handbook says ... Handbook of German Military Forces ... Handbook claims <hr></blockquote> Unfortunately, I can't help much with your questions, but I just wanted to point out that you need to be a little careful when using these handbooks put out by the War Department during the war. I've seen posts on this forum before describing these handbooks as being the be-all and end-all of TO&E research needs, but at the time they were put out they didn't really have access to check and verify what they were writing, expecially for the enemy forces The Handbook on the British Army (1943), for example, describes the Sten as a popular, reliable, and accurate weapon :eek: . It makes extensive mention of the AT rifle, and none of the PIAT or the 17pr. These faults are all understandable and easily explained, but the point is to treat it with some caution. Using Nafzinger and the other sources you mention will certainly help Good luck with it! Regards JonS