JonS

1) not 100% sure - I think so 2) It was. In UK parlance this was known as the 6pdr, and it was a fairly common mount on mid-war UK armour (eg, early Churchills).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ... hand picked cronies like Bastardables and Jon ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oi, you silly Aussie git! The only emails Slap and I have exchanged have been a couple to clear up a lost email. Nothing about uberAmerican, envy-of-the-free-world, envy-of-the-unfree-world, couldn't-be-bettered-even-if-you-tried, not-to-be-discussed-on-an-open-forum, US artillery at all. Bastables, on the other hand, is definte crony material I suspect he is going to be at rahter a severe disadvantage in the forthcoming backroom knitting circle due to the limited library in his current burg. [ edited just to annoy The Anglophile ] [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And why the hell doesn't it have the drum mag and AA sights???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, you tit! It doesn't have those things because its a platoon one, and - as is clear from the background detail - he's just run from Bardia to Tobruk, with the rest of his platoon (although judging from the state of his clothes he might have tripped over the tea mug dangling from his web gear). Platoon SHMGs* (Super Heavy Machine Guns) were never issued the drum mag and AA sights. Sheesh. Call yourself a grog huh? Regardless JonS * Ask Hof why the Bren-with-tripod qualifies for this status. He's the only one who seems to believe that little nugget, but then he's the expert on CW kit. ** FSTK - ever since this came up oh so many threads ago I've been thinking of that poster. :cool: [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: JonS, not because he needed to. Rather its because The Anglophile needs his daily dose of frustration. Otherwise he gets all groggy on us too. ] [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... crew survival in Commonwealth tanks was actually getting better each year...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In keeping with that, my votes for the two pieces of late-war, frontline, kit you really wanted to be a crewman of (ie, if you had to be at the pointy end, be in one of these): a) Mosquito Churchill

hmm. Higher than I thought. Thanks for that Slap.

Bas! How was the Badlands?

I'm fairly sure it wasn't behind enemy lines. There was a lot of training involved in their use, but that was in the week before they went up to the line. Arrgh. Its a one off anyway, so not representative. BTW, I'm fairly sure that is a King Tiger. Note the curved turret side, and the track covers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ts: ... 9) I do not want to trigger a new round of quibbling over this. My quick 2 cents on crews is that way too many survive the demise of their vehicles. I would feel comfortable with 9 out of 10 tanks having no survivors and 1 out of 10 having 1 or 2 at most. Just historical...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe not so historical. During Op Goodwod the two-and-a-bit armoured divs the Brits committed lost a buttload of tanks, but had very few casualties given the nature of the operation (which was of course one of the reasons for using armour in the first place). I don't have the figures handy, but if you divided casualties by AFV losses I very much doubt you would come close to the 4:1 / 5:1 you propose. Regards JonS

IIRC, one of the US airborne units made extensive use of a cache of Panzerfausts they captured. I think this event was the basis for and SL/ASL scen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: snip... To answer rexfords question yes I typically try to operate my fireflys as part of a standard 3 plus 1 troop. But not always.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you can't when they're dead. tee hee.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fytinghellfish: US fire mission procedure Was it like this in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nearly but not quite for the CW. See my post about ordering and requesting above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ...No one is saying that the CW sucked, just that it was not as good of a system -- as reflected in CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you now using CM as a source? As in, "if its in CM it must be real"?

Slap, it wasn't a question, it was a reply to several of yours in the thread about long range accuracy. Title of the email was "Sight adjustments". The date may differ for you due to timezones.

Apologies for the multiple posts folks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... The US system devoted nearly twice the number of people to communications than the commonwealth system, one of the reasons why the US had a larger tail than other countries <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Numbers? The RA radio nets were noted for their speed and reliability. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(the other was supply)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which would explain why 4 regiments of 25pdrs were handed over to the US during the winter of 44-45... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the CW system, no FO meant no arty generally (I know of exceptions though)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true to an extent - FOs were for calling in fire, infantry were for getting closing with the enemy. Infantry pers were trained to call in fire, but it wasn't their primary role, and they weren't encouraged to do it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... while each platoon leader in the US system could call down a barrage with excellent accuracy, kind of useful when the battery FO is 5 km away and has never even seen or heard of your platoon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is just silly. As Scott has pointed out, both nations developed very, very fine artillery systems, neither of which is well modeled in CM. Your unjustified nationalistic bias, Slap, does you no credit. Regards Jon [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

As I understand it: Ordering: The FO calls for the number of guns, the number of rounds, rate of fire. And that is what he gets. The various command posts do the calculations required to get the rounds onto the target, but make no judgement calls about the appropiateness of it on a target they cannot see. Requesting: The FO (or whoever with a radio) calls for fire, and describes the target. The FDC make an assessment based on the information they have, and deliver a number and type of rounds that seems appropriate to them.

Its well out of context now. I posted it to the email in your profile (combatmission@goathead.org) on the 5th of this month.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: The great strength of the Commonwealth artillery system was the attachment system whereby regiments were attached to brigades, batteries to battalions etc. The result was that the most senior artillery officers were up with the infantry, either in their brigade and Bn HQ or as FOOs with the forward companies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Something Simon doesn't mention is that these semi-permanent attachments also encouraged close working relationships between inf and arty pers who were used to working with each other. In Sgt Steiners thread about the effectiveness of late war German infantry Jary is quoted as saying ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...To knock them out we required HE, fired directly by supporting armour or, indirectly by Dennis Clarke or Bramley Hancock, our beloved F00s...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I.e. He knew the two FOs who regularly worked with the battalion (of which 18 platoon was part) by name and held them in very high regard. Regards JonS [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: JonS because it drives The Anglophile wild, and he's posting to this thread so will probably see it, tee hee ] [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Berli, As pointed out by Andreas you are incorrect in your statment regarding FOOs and batteries, at least for commonwealth arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But I think he might be close for the method the Germans used.

I think Gauchi is the guy you need to get in touch with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I would like you to justify your contention that the "US system" was "better than any other country"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't hold your breath. I'm waiting for an acknowledgement (at least) of something I sent him a week and a half ago.

Ah. OK. But can't you acheive that as the game stands now through the effective use of ground and the hide command?

Wouldn't this apply at a much higher level than CM depicts? IOW, you want to decieve your enemy into thinking an attack is going to happen 100s of miles away, rather than 100s of yards.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: apparently they forgot to use the tripods for their Brens. now it dawns on me: WW II could have been over in fall ("autumn") 1944 if those british infantry platoons hadn't forgotten their bren-tripods stashed away in the trucks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Twat No one except you and Slapnuts thinks the tripod should give Bren a boost in firepower such as to make it the equivalent of the MG42. Oh, and by jiggering around with the dates you can get VS whenever you want (same method works to get NGS after July) {Similes included to make post polite} [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

to reinforce what Andreas has just said, its worth considering where FOs come from. In the Commonwealth FOs are Captains or higher, with long experience and thorough training. FOing is something to aspire to, after 'doing your time' at the gun position. AFAIK, in the US nearly the reverse is true. FOs are junior Lts, and FOing is their first role in a battery. After spending time at the pointy end, they graduate to positions in the rear. For some interesting insights, take a look at "Allies and Mates"*. It is the story of a US FO attached to the ANZAC field force in Vietnam. When he first arrived all the Kiwi and Aussie FOs assumed he must have been something special with long experience to have been assigned to a foreign unit. He kept it quiet that this was in fact his very first posting. Regards Jon * Its been a while, so I don't recall the exact title nor the author. I'll try and verify it when I can. ** Found it. Here's the Amazon page, and the B&N page. *** BTW, as the basis of an idea, I quite like Hellfishs' proposal. Potentially, his suggestion could be varied to reflect different nationalities doctines. Though, how that would fit with BTSs' "one size fits all" apoproach to national traits is open to question. **** I just noticed that I refer to 'junior' FOs two posts up, and in this one state they were all senior officers. This isn't a contradiction. A senior officer may still be referred to as 'junior' if all his colleagues are more senior. [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This was called the "British System" and had advantages and disadvantages over the the "US system". But again, it was a rare FO who could call up a 5.5 inch from an ajoining regiment for a fight between a couple of companies of infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Slap, any Commonwealth FO had the authority to order any gun within range. As I understand it US FOs (and infantry commanders) could only request artillery support. The difference between ordering and requesting is subtle but important. After their misadventures in the Western Desert (see the thread about the 25pdr being [mis]used as an AT platform and in "Jock Columns"), the Royal Artillery worked very hard to successfully develop systems to give junior FOs the ability to swiftly call down massive bombardments Your point about there being only so many barrels and so much ammo is correct, but peripheral in terms of CM the game. IMHO. Jon