JonS

The 70lb weight limit for man-packing has been around for a while. The Romans, IIRC, were the first to formalise it, and the practicality of that limit has been shown time and again in the 2 Millenia since. Sure, any given person can carry more on any given day, but to carry that weight in the intervening periods between our CM battles is simply not practical. And if they didn't carry it with them before the battle, then how on earth did it get there? JasonCs' magical waterslide perhaps? Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Brians point was that the shroud around the MG34/42 barrel, like the one around parts of the C9/M249 barrel doesn't really help the barrel to cool, but does give the user a degree of safety by making it more difficult to inadvertently touch a piping hot barrel (As McDonalds have on the wrapping of their apple pies, "Caution, contents may be hot")

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In addition to the M119/L119 the US purchased, were you aware that the M68 105mm/51cal tank gun mounted in the M48A5, the M60A1 and -A3, and in the M1/IPM1 was a British design, aka the L7?

I can't do pics yet, but i can shamelessly post links to other websites ... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard2.htm Of note are the two distinctly different turrets (is one the swedish indigenouse turret?), and the generally vertical armour ... have the Germans forgotten about sloped armour :confused: Other new kitties from the Germans are the Jaguar, Luchs, and Wolf (ok, not really part of the cat family).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fieldmarshall: ...lets start compairing Maximus to someone around the world...like I dont know...Stalin...! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah ... more like the village idiot

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Yeah, what Kingfish said. You know who you will be playing so utilize the several weeks you have to get to know each other a bit. Discuss my "Potentially Gamey Tactics" with each other. Here they are again: ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> TB155, I've been following this and your other tourney threads erratically over the last couple of weeks, and I wanted to clarify something based on your post above. In the other threads you seem to have taken an (understandable) position which could be paraphrased as "As far as I'm concerned, there are NO gamey tactics. Sort it out amoungst yourselves and don't bug me with it!" Does the same thing apply to ROW, or will the potentially-gamey tactics list be policed given the different nature of this tourney (pre-set, pre-purchased, historically based scenarios)? Cheers for the clarification Jon Oh yeah: WAHOO!! I'm in!!! And in Group One no less. There are some talented prose-merchants on this board, so I guess my writing skills must be better than I thought ... :cool: Oh yeah 2: Good game on Saturday night [ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

oops - my bad. But, even disbanding 'only' one div - in addition to the other, smaller, units - is still a fairly significant step, wouldn't you say?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg: In order to keep up with the large manpower replacement needs, the Brits were required to even canabalize back line infantry divisions to provide a sufficient number of infantry replacements for the front line fighting divisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and even got to the stage of disbanding frontline units - including divisions - to make replacements available for other units. Grim times

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: In theater, both the US and the Brits used heavy air power during large attacks. Goodwood and Cobra both saw enourmous carpet bombing raids by heavy bombers ... It also tended to make a moonscape that was difficult for vehicles to navigate. That is probably responsible for part of the "traffic jam" aspect of Goodwood....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The traffic jam was more due to only having a single bridge to feed three armd divs across, and to the restrictions imposed by the limited gaps in the minefields. The Goodwood bombing was mainly on the flanks of the intended breakin/through, and used instantaneous (Point Detonating) fuzes to minimise cratering. Note: the minefields were mostly British in origin. Presumably the airborne intended to fight a defensive battle in what was originally their sector, and set themselves up accordingly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the Brits fought over ground particularly unsuited to overfoundness for leading with massed tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Out of interest, what would you consider to be good ground for the british attacks? The open ground around Goodwood wasn't it, and the close country of the Bocage prsumably wouldn't have been especially suitable for massed armour. Also, I think you are being a bit general with your description of British tactics. There are plenty of examples of attacks initiated by infantry divisions, with the armour to be used for exploitation. Goodwood was, as you say, an outlier in terms of losses and tactics. I realise 'overfondness' is not the same as 'always used', but I think the intended meaning is nearly the same. Regards JonS

Lewis, several people with experience on the Bren from the armed forces of at least two countries have posted to this and the other thread. If you had read either thread - rather than just random snippets of Davids posts - you would be aware of this. To answer your question about the TOE, the bren was used - as a seperate team - in many units. Read Simons' post on the first page of the "Bren: Not Sold Seperately" thread. [ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Try AAMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shouldn't that be AAAR according to the new definition of the Bren as a rifle (albeit an automatic one) :confused: Semantically Yours JonS [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

But Simon - your name will live on in eternity/infamy (your choice). I'm going skiing now :cool: , so you won't see it till probably Sunday night now

TARFU anyone? (Things Are Really Fecked Up) _______ "Girls! Drink! Arse! Feck!" Father Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: An LMG gunner fires in bursts rather than just running through the ammo supply. This is because firing bursts was discovered to be better. The 20 round rule is first found in German MG34 mauals in 1938 (or at least, that is the first time Ezell attributes it) and shows up in Belgian literature on the MAG-58, US literature on the M-60, and is the current GPMG practice in most militaries using a GPMG (modern LMG). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think what has Stalin confused is that we were both trained to fire in 3-5 round bursts. Not 20 rounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Most people here, if they despise me or not, know that I have a military background, have worked on weapons development and hold an engineering degree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that's what we've been told. Knowing it is another matter entirely...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MSBoxer: ... I agree that spotting on the move may be difficult ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't this what tanks and other armed vehicles do all the time ...? :confused:

Magua mentions this in his readme file, and asks you to look the other way when one appears. I like to think od them as flowers [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

IIRC the LMG42 (or maybe it was the 34 ... maybe both?) used a conical drum magazine, in addition to belted ammo. Did this go out of service early in the war, or continue until the end? If it was used during the timescale of CMBO, how would that affect the comparative performance?

Not true. Sorry L. Wrong again.

Yes it has started, and has been going for 9 game hours (3 turns). AFAIK there is no press corps this time. Sorry. Suffice to say, there has been mucho fighting, some very large battles, and a modereate amount of confusion generated I'd like to post more but ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Isn't there still self propelled 8 inch guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> nope End of an era [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Babs, I think he's talking about SP Artillery. I.e., in the name of increased mobility all the really heavy calibres have been dropped. And he's right, depending on how you count MLRS I suppose. Although, having MLRS handy kind of makes the heavy calibres moot ... Note: No malice was intended in the construction of this post. Some smilies were forced to work overtime however. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the LMG42 isn't dependant on a belt/mag monkey?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: ... Britian developed some heavy armor and a decent tank gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who are you? And what have you done with Lewis? :confused: