JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coach36: From some research done on the Canadian Armoured forces ( specifically the 79th Armoured Division ) ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 79th was a British Division, not Canadian. Still, they were scattered all over the show supporting different units, so I expect elements of the 79th worked with the Canucks often enough. Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Note to self - always send Jon his turns during tea time!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steady on, old man! That's hardly cricket! [mumbles to self] Bloody colonials... [/mumbles to self]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I wonder what the ratio of arty shells fired were. I bet it was at worse odds than the ratio of guns. The allies went on a shooting spree with arty shells and actually were getting short of them at the end of the war...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Would you include, in your definition of 'short', having more rounds in theatre at the close of hostilities than had been fired in total during the previous 11 months? I wouldn't. Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: ... we probably would have seen some sort of American reserve formations concentrated in the Mortain vicinity...1st ID or 2nd AD or 3rd AD. [ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um Jeff - they were concentrated in the Mortain vicinity.

Oh, there is also the issue of silhouettes of units between the observer and the illuminating source. Should that be included too? And what about the effect of burning buildings/trees/AFVs? Should that be included also? Shrug. I can cope without it ... I'll fight during civilised hours. 9am - 5pm please, and can I have some toast and a coffee with the morning paper? Thanks. :cool:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: ... I enjoy fighting at night alot myself. Mostly due, I have to admit, to avoid German armor. This to me evens out their greater range over the American Shermans and makes it a much more even match. So flares would really be super and hope it's at least considered in the next game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry lcm1947 - couldn't resist Don't you think that star shells (or flares. whatever) would defeat your tactic of defeating german armour advantage by fighting at night? Night-into-day and all that. On a techo point ... just how would one model flares - at a reasonable programming overhead - in a 3D environment? If you think about it, its rather a complex problem. * units that are in the primary illumination area actually have reduced vision (due to impact on their night vision) * units that are '00's of metres away can see the illuminated area, but not the intervening ground * how do you taper off the illumination effect as you get futher from the flare *etc. IMHO, nice, but too hard. But then, I'm no programmer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier: But what was the purpose of these degree marking :confused:?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To assist their use in idirect fire support. The tanks could parallel themselves against each other by comparing the markings, then fire as an ad-hoc SP Bty. BTW: no, I don't think tanks firing indirect should be in CM... JonS

Try John Salts' stuff: http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt6.htm JonS

Well, guns are relatively fragile - and exposed - and the 20mm does have a high ROF ... JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: In 1939/40 ... the vast majority of infantry walked and guns were mostly animal towed, even in the German army. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Emphasis mine. Ahem. The Brits had a fully mechanised army by the outbreak of WW2, the first army in the world to do so. JonS

oops [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: ... The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My source is lost in the mists of time, but IIRC the Mongols hold the record for the Army with the fastest sustained rate of advance. I believe the record was set while advancing from Mongolia, through Russia and into Eastern Europe somewhere around 1200. Upon reflection, maybe it was the fastest-longest advance. I supose it really depends on how you choose to measure it. egs: *Fastest advance carried out (foot) *Fastest advance carried out (horse) *Fastest advance carried out (motorised) *Fastest advance carried out (retrograde movement) *Fastest advance carried out (opposed) *Fastest advance carried out (no-opposition) *Fastest advance carried out (against the French) *Fastest advance carried out (under the influence) *Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing) *Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing badly) a bit like the oscars really - think of your favourite advance and there's bound to be a category you can dream up to make it the winner of JonS [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Um, I never said they had Sextons or Priests - only that they were SP Your numbering schema concurs with Fortys. JonS

Nice mod - its always nice to see folk doing the 'other' vehicles rather than just the Panthers, et al. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I think you are safe, as I mentioned in my email, by using the 76 on blue/red - this seems to have been the unit sign for self propelled units of all armoured divisions, British or Canadian. snip... In any event, here is an example for the Fourth Canadian (Armoured) Division. You could substitute any British or Canadian Armoured Divisional marking for the Division sign, the Unit sign (76) would stay the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite true IMHBIO (... Humble But Informed ...). Each regiment had a unique number so the redcaps and others could instanly identify them on the move. Although, looking through my copy of Fortys' "British Army Handbook" I see you may indeed be correct. For Armoured Divs he has the RHA regts identified by the number 76, and RA regts using 74. The LAA Regt is 73, and the AT Regt (incl the TDs) was 77. Also, I'm fairly sure the Brits didn'thave any SP regts in their grunt divs, but the Canucks had at least one such regt - maybe at corps/army level? 14th Canadian Fd Regt I think. FWIW, in an Inf Div the numbers for the 3 RA regts were 42, 43, 44. Now, Forty gives these numbers as 'examples' of numbers for an armd and inf div, so whether he has picked a div at random, and taken their numbers as typical, or whether ALL divs used the same numbers is unclear. Regards JonS

Stacheldraht A book I read a year or so ago may be close to what you want: Len Deighton "Blood, Tears & Folly", Pimlico, first pub 1993. It covers each of the major theatres in six parts, has lots of photos (admittedly mostly of leaders and commanders), plus good maps and quite a few diagrams & tables. Further, Deighton has written quite a few novels - including several on WW2 - so I find his writing style quite accessible. :cool: Largely revisionist, in this book he casts a critical eye over many of the myths that have sprung up around the war from all sides. Also, given that it covers the whole war in 600 odd pages don’t expect too many detailed descriptions of CM sized battles! Finally, most effort is put into the early and mid-stages of each campaign, with relatively little left to the otherwise well know and covered outcomes. For what its worth, this book gets the “JonS Good WWII Book Endorsement” Regards JonS [ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Interesting post - Thanks Vanir for bringing it up (I hadn't seen it before), and thanks X-OO for making it. One observation though - the comments about the Lazy-W betray your origins, so to speak Not everyone used/uses it. The Commonwealth in particular, with larger batterys, used different battery displacements. This has noticeable effects at the target end when LoFP (Lines of Fire Parallel) is used. Ubique JonS

Speaking of whom, I saw Bas the other day. We were heading in opposite directions, so to speak. I must say, it was a little weird finally meeting someone from this forum F2F. Not that Bas is inherently weird or anything, just the situation. As for that shiny CD - she'll be up and running in about, um, 10 days or so. Need to get back to the right time zone and get a new PC. I'll email you for a game when I'm ready? Ubique

Hi Simon <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ... him being a malingereing kiwi and all ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see the chip on the shoulder is coming along fine then? As for the username ... yes, I forgot the password after so long without use. Shame really - otherwise I would have a sexy low number like your good self. And yes, I've finished. In fact, as I type I'm in your fair country eating Sushi and drinking VB [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: The ideas are good, and probably more accurate. HOWEVER, ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why, oh why, do so many people think that it is perfectly acceptable for artillery to be abstracted to near the point of emasculation, but NOT ok to omit skipping shells, dead bodies, grazing fire, or any one of numerous topics-ofthe-day which have illuminated this board with their fury in the past? I would like: 1) lots of things but mostly I'd like a similar level of interest and care given to arty as it is to, say, AFV penetration algorithms. Some abstraction is (always) inevitable, but IMHO what we have now perpetuates the belief that The God Of War isn't that useful. Ubique Jon PS. Dr Brain, this isn't aimed specifically, or only, at you. You just happened to be the one around when I got fired up. PPS. Hi Labrat Keeping well?

Dalem, I IIRC, the one you're thinking of is Wake Island. First up, the Marines gave the Japanes invasion force a jolly good spanking. Unfortunately the Japs came back a few days latter and the paddle was in the other hand. So to speak. Be cool Jon