JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... As for the skid bailey, there is one record of a bailey being constructed for use at the Rapido under fire...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that a skid bailey, or a regular one? If it was a regular one then there are several other examples: The Kiwis at Orsogna, and the 43rd over the Seine, are two I can think of. However, given the blah, blah, blah this doesn't fit in the scope of the game. I think Simons point about the arbitrary time limit that you seem to impose on these is that 30 mins (up, I notice, from the initail 15mins) is only 1/4 of the time available to a scenario designer. If a designer wanted to create a two hour long breaching and/or bridging scenario and it took 1 or 1 1/2 hours to get the bridge up, because the necessary vehicles and units were available, I say good luck to them. And even you, Slap, can't believe that it would take that long to position a Fascine, an SBG, or an Ark. Sure, Funnies (I'm specifically not including Baileys here) wouldn't - and shouldn't - be in every scenario. And not every scenario involving them would or should run to two hours. But then neither should King Tigers and Pumas, but no-one moans about their presence in the overall game. And, for example, I've yet to use the Gebirgsjagers, so from my POV the time spent on developing them for the game was time wasted. But, they are another element that add to the overall completeness of the game. Regards Jon

... and again after a mod...

just testing my new sig ...

yeah, yeah - I understand that part of it just fine It's the number of games, sides, scenarios and matches, and what all that meant for the tourney that I was getting fouled up with. I'm going to pretend I'm a starfish now. Starfish don't have these problems in their lives. [hands_over_ears][chanting] I'm a starfish, I'm a starfish, I'm a starfish[/chanting][/hands_over_ears] There. I feel better already

Oh, I agree its better. No problem there. Just getting a tad confused trying to work out all the permutations in my head...

my head hurts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: ...There is a slight problem I've discovered. Each scenario is played only four times in each section ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about that? I initially thought that too, but I'm pretty sure its 7 in each group. Everyone plays all the scens after all <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: ...I think it might be better to compare scores among all three groups. Each scenario will be played twelve times in all three sections combined. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only 'problem' I see with this is that then there is effectively only one, large, group, rather than the three sections we have now. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Ok, having thought about it more, what I mean is that my total score will be based on a mix of 7 games that no-one else in the same section will have played. But, as you say, this is no different to how things are now. I say lets do it

TB, regarding the scoring: It sounds ok to me, but I have a slight niggle in the back of my mind regarding the fact that we play each scen as one side only. I'm assuming the smart folk who put the bridge scoring system together have taken this into account though. Jon Oh yeah - thouroghly enjoying the games so far Thanks to all the designers and testers.

Michael, hmm, that's an interesting point about producing a false film. And it would be still easier to write a training pam (remember we were talking about a training film) complete with spurious times, distances, manpower requirements, capabilities, limitations, etc. And the point would be ... what? Using a variety of sources is always a good idea, and the training film was brought up as an additional source that seemed to support the times given in an engineering pam from the same era. The conclusion: well, either the author and the film-maker colluded, or they were honest. YMMV Jon [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

I'm pretty sure you are correct Michael, though the greater manpower requirement would be on the 'home' bank. What are you getting at?

Right - the Bailey did take hours to erect, but that's still quick compared to the months it takes civvy contractors to do something similar And there are other ways of getting troops across a river - wading, boats, rafts, etc. All of which were in existance before the funnies were developed. The pictures of fascines that I've seen had led me to believe that they were little more than straight-ish branches and young trees, cut to approximately the same length and tied into a bundle so they more or less retained their shape when droped in a hole. Some work would be required, certainly, but no more than an engineer regiment would be capable of with its own resources. IMHO of course

Given that Bailey bridges were/are "the envy of the civilised world" in terms of quick to erect, semi-permanent bridging, what would be the point of fooling about with facsines, bobbins, and the rest of the funnies if they weren't intended to be used under fire? And why base them on armoured vehicles? (Ok, ready availability and weight - as in counterweight - might have something to do with that last point.) It seems to me that in all the to-ing and fro-ing about these vehicles we're overlooking the obvious. A fascine bundle is a quick-and-dirty, very temporary, way of getting vehicles across ditches and rivers. Same thing for bobbins and arks. Furthermore, a fascine bundle has little intrinsic worth - collecting together a bundle of branches, etc, is something that could be done easily enough, in any location (well, in NWE and Italy anyway), to consider them utterly expendable - there is no drain on industry, shipping or manpower to consider. So, why would they not be used under fire? Then again, maybe it's just a question of timing regarding just when - in a battle - they were used. Which I suppose is what this thread has become about. Gah - now I'm talking myself into circles :confused: Regards Jon [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As for the fascine disucssion, Blackburn is an interesting secondary source for extended use of the devices, but he does not really help us in our quest for defining times and employments of the fascine carriers during regular battles... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I wasn't realy addressing the time-to-use question. I was more interested in the observation that they could be used to span obstacles larger the the minimum resolution that CM has. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... which is difficult to simulate in the game because 3000 poinst are would need to be spent just on funnies, and the question still remains if the fascine would be better simulated as already dropped in place to avoid an endless relatively boring "engineering battle."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This doesn't apply to pre-made scenarios. You seem to have a fixation with QBs ... IMHO the engineer battle could quite easily be dropped from consideration in QBs. However, having the tools to simulate it well in a well designed, pre-built, scenario is desirable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, the nights preperation is not such a big deal, but it does imply that these weapons may not have been flung about the way a tank or infantry unit could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, in the full quote the following units are directly referenced: 3rd Canadian Inf Div, 2nd Canadian Armd Bde, 4th Canadian Armd Div, Polish Armd Div, and the 79th Armd Div. Other units are implied but not named. The night was used for shuffling units around and marshalling them prior to the attack. Presumably there may have been patrolling, recon, and other forms of preparation going on, but that is not mentioned. Regards Jon [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Did you know that Blackburn authored a history of the 4th Field Regiment that was published in (I believe) 1945? So he was definitely either taking notes at the time, or was intimately involved with some else's notes shortly after the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Blackburn makes extensive comments about writing this history in the intro to "Guns of Normandy". I think Blackburn's combination of personal experience, writing official histories, post war career as a writer, and the research he has put into the "Guns" trilogy make them very credible, even when not talking specifically about gunnery.

Good point Michael - I meant to put a caveat in about Blackburn being a gunner, not a sapper. Something to think about though: We often find fascinating in others work what they find mundane. What I mean is that a gunner observing the engineers doing something might be more likely to pick out and comment on unusual (or even commonplace) details that the sappers wouldn't feel worth noting.

Andreas, Maybe I didn't put enough of the quote in place - the actions overnight were the arranging of all the assault units, prior to the attack beginning at around midday on the 14th (after an unfortunate short-bombing incident). What I found interesting was using multiple fascines to build causeways to span larger gaps (in this case a river) rather than just a single fascine for small streams or tank ditches. Its the first time I'd come across reference to them being used in this way. Jon

A recent thread about Commonwealth engineering techniques sputtered out when an American had a poster driven from the forum and the thread locked. Anyway, since then I've come across an interesting, and relevant snippet regarding the use of fascines: "Overnight there were massive movements of troops and tanks ... the 79th Armoured Division, that special British division equipped with various "funnies," including the tanks carrying fascines (enormous bundles of densely packed tree branches) meant to be dropped into the laison river at shallow spots to provide causeways for tanks and recce cars..." "The Guns of Normandy", George C Blackburn, P403 "Overnight" refers to the night of 13/14 August, and the preperations were for the opening of Operation Tractable. My reading of this passage is that the fascines were (sometimes) placed side-by-side in order to span larger obstacles ("causeways"). YMMV Regards JonS

Try going downhill with a tailwind and the doors open. It used to work on my old Ford ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... Please ignore his comments ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand you may be about irked by his behaviour, however I would prefer you not advise me whom I can or cannot listen to. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Andrew, if you aren't interested then save your keyboard some wear and tear, and don't bother posting. There are several aspects of this game that interest me not a jot - mods being foremost among them - but manage to restrain myself when yet another mods thread appears. Please, for both our sakes, have the good grace to do likewise. Thank you Jon

If I was any good at ascii art I'd draw a picture of a hand in the air, but I'm not, so I won't

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes ... Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives". This is a major issue if you have not played the game enough to find out that the maximum battle length is 60 minutes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: The Soviets fought over their own territory for most of the war. They wouldn't have had the type of problems that invading armies had - at least until late summer '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Russia is a big country. I doubt that the Cossacks had much of a clue about the terrain around Leningrad, or that the Siberians had much of a clue about ... anywhere!* Hell, even in my own little country I'm constantly surprised by the variety of landforms around the place. JonS *I'm not bagging the Siberians here, just pointing out they were a loooooong way from home. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: Crochet, actually, old chap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :eek: Surely you mean Croquet? Messing about with string and fiddly knots making tea-cosies is hardly a martial activity.