JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: [QB]If you think about it, a railway has all the elements of a tank trap, but scaled down... [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is all well and good, but does the weather affect the chance of bogging on rails?

the key point here is that it is a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. The English language is quite amazing, the way the words tell you what a thing is or does. Incredible. Who would have thought? Its a wonder ...

Obrigado barak, Tero

I get the same thing Stalin. Per chance you have to be a member?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: If you were an old time CM-ur ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How does August '99 grab you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fortunately for America, you aren't in charge of purchasing policy. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m119.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Original drivel by Maxipad: ... all of us old time CM'ers ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What a pompous statement, but then I guess it suits your style Maxipad. IMHO that's reason enough to not go there. [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The self-propelled ones show some of the problems with modifying battery rates of fire to account for supposed TOE battery size differences, however. The principle reason SP guns use 6 compared to 4 for towed was not "50% more fire per unit time". It was maintenance on complicated tracks AFVs. One or two could be expected to be in the shop at any given time; an 80% readiness rate is good for any tracked vehicle in wartime. By providing 6 vehicles per battery, an ordinary full strength firing battery would generally be operational. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This stikes me as ... odd to say the least. Could I extend your reasoning to say that all US armoured forces TO&E were 50% over what was estimated to be required so that they could have 1 or 2 in the shoop at any given moment and still be effective? So a platoon was only supposed to be 3 tanks, but adding the one thats in the shop we get the standard 4 tank platoon? And a company should only have had about 12, but to make up for poor mechanical reliability they were given 16-17? Really, I find this a little hard to swallow. If these vehicles truly were spares, they would be held by the Q element and issued when required (that is, when one broke down, or was lost in action). They would not have a crew. And they would not be included in the standard TO&E. IMHO. Regards JonS

yes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: ... Perhaps a 1.4 factor that is reasonable ... was magically granted to everything thrown by a tea-drinker?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, now this actually makes sense. My source? Goscinny and Uderzo "Asterix in Britain", 1966

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I wasn't talking about you, git... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect the smelly spawn of a convict in the worlds remotest city was referring to my good self. In my defence: * the gun had transport, * I'm on defence, * the setup zone specifically included the area the gun was set up in * the scenario designer originally had the gun in a worse (ie, gamier if you will) position, and finally, * its a pre-canned scenario (quite a good one too. Not sure who wrote it - Simon will be able to tell you. A big Thanks! to the author), not an ME. One last point ... what's with all the "Hi Moms" and "pleez lok dis phread" comments half way through? No bad language, not overkill on the acrimony front, nothing off topic/political/racial, etc. Just because you've finished with a thread doesn't mean others have ... Regards JonS

8 gun btys Michael. Otherwise ... the same thought had occured to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ... Andreas is talking about is burning houses on the attack ... I am not so sure that they would have used the same tactics when on the defense...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point - I'd overlooked the attack/defense distinction.

yipee!! :cool:

RV I would suggest that it is harder to get a patch of trees/pines/shrubs/wheat/insert-your-favourite-natural-vegetation-here burning merrily in nice little discrete clumps than it is to torch an isolated village building. Vegetation tends to spread out in all directions, leading to the spread of the fire - as has been pointed out - into areas not especially useful to you. Like, onto your own positions. Buildings, on the other hand, tend to come with their own built-in firebreaks - the external walls. This is especially so where those walls are stone or concrete. Sure, fire can spread out of a building, but I would contend that it does so relatively slowly (read: takes more time than the length of the game. But, a building will become fully involved fairly quickly, making the building un-tenable (not least due to contained smoke) Vegetation doesn't have the contained smoke problem (making it easier to move through), and does have the ability to spread fairly easily. Aw, shoot - I'm rambling. Where's a fireman when you need one? IMHO: burning knowingly empty buildings = acceptable burning knowingly empty vegetation = not acceptable Regards JonS [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... I think the problem with the British artillery you are seeing is that by June 1944 most of the British redlegs could in no way be considered normal troops. They were veteran to crack. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How could this be seen as a problem? :confused: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... Perhaps you should try the commonwealth in sets of 2 FOs, and with the batteries vet or even crack...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a good suggestion, and it goes some way toward correcting the flaw/mistake/poor modelling of the number of guns in an RA bty, but it still doesn't correct the ROF. In the game 2 FOs at 3rpg/min = 24 rnds / minute. In RL , 1 FO with an 8 gun bty firing at 5 rounds per gun per min = 40 rounds/min. IOW, nearly double what you would get from the game with 2 FOs. For that you would need 3, or maybe 4 FOs, but then you would have to hope that players would use them all on the same target. Yeah, right. Regards JonS Oh, BTW - I think "Redlegs" must be an Americanism. I've never heard of it, let alone heard it applied to the men of the Royal Regiment.

Ina similar vein to the post above are Ken Touts' experiences as a tankr with the British from Normandy till Holland. He was rumbling around in a Sherman for the most part, and what struck me was not so much how busy he was, but how much time-off he got. IIRC, in his 4-5 month campaign, he was in action for a total of about a week, maybe two. The rest was in the rear, or waiting for something to happen. Though not explicitly chronicled, the losses to Touts unit appear to be of a similar magnitude as those of the 68th Armd Bn detailed above. Regards Jon

Thanks for another thoughtful post Jason. As always, well grounded, and well written. Cheers Jon

damn! :confused:

My guess would be that by the time the germans figured it out after seeing the Allied tanks so equipped, the need for it had passed. The Americans started using it for Op Cobra, and within a week or two (no references handy, sorry) the bocage fighting was pretty much a thing of the past. BTW, there was no fighting in Normandy in WWI. Its fair to say that a fair few lessons from WWI were forgotten (or the wrong ones taken on board - but thats a whole different matter), but I don't think fighting in the Bocage can be grouped in there. A disproportionate amount of the Allied training pre-Overlord focussed on just getting ashore. Quite what they were supposed to do, and how they were going to do it, seems to have been treated almost as an afterthought. The Bocage area was recognised as potentially good defensive ground, but it was blithely assumed that they would be through it before it became an issue. The area of true Bocage was relatively small - the entire Battle of Normandy fits in an area of something like 100km x 100km and the Bocage was only part of that. Now its even smaller. Like tanks, tractors don't take kindly to impenetrable hedges and 6 foot earthen banks ... Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EricM: Actually it is historical to use a unarmed jeep for scouting if it carries some troopers. It was common to use as a scout durning the Normandy breakout and at the very end of the war to send a couple of troops with a radio to scout out ahead of a Armor unit to look for ambushes. I don't know how well it translates into CMBO. Eric<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those Americans eh? What a bunch of Gamey Buggers!

No, sorry Kubels are completely different - they cannot carry PIAT teams or bazookas, nor tow a 6pdr. Sorry, but there it is. Something about Union Rules I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Well that's original - a rabbit that's trained to...um...do things to posteriors on command! how do you think he trained it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... don't rabbits like carrots? wouldn't a carrot fit...? Maybe that explains his speach impediment, and that funny, rolling gait.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stixx: Although i haven't found any major use for them. I do use them for carrying FO's on large maps. Being the fastest/one of the fastest? units in the game they are great for that role. Although that is mainly only of any assistance in large games they are useful for that purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yeah, what he said. Ditto for spare HQ units. And support weapons.