Kevin Peltz

I built all of the Monogram kits, including three kits of their StuG. They actually scaled out to 1/32nd, but they were pretty nice, considering how old they were. I used to stare at Shep Paine's diorama work for hours- he did all the dio's in the Monogram literature. My fave was the knocked out PzIV in Afrika Korps markings,all burned out with the engine and turret hatches all opened up.

The fact that he is not a wargamer per se (freely admitted by himself), and still enjoyed CM, I think makes big marks for the game- it is admittedly unfortunate that he reviewed the demo at such a late and inconvenient time. As I said earlier, I wrote him a polite note, describing many of the things that have been added/changed since the demo (nothing that could not have been gleaned from this forum, but there are 40,000+ posts, that's a lot of reading to have to catch up on for anybody). I don't know, I just don't think the game came off sounding that bad, really.Another person, who didn't like wargames,never mind play them at all, my son, finally played the demo. He can't wait to see the real thing now. That is a BIG accolade, from my point of view (he's 12, and as jaded as they come...) [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 04-30-2000).]

My brother and I played Tobruk, as a matter of fact, I think he still has it in his closet... the die-rolling was a bit of a chore...

The review wasn't that bad- but I wrote him a note describing some of the changes between then and now anyway.

Sometimes you can get a hit and still be mad...in CE I foolishly moved beyond my infantry support and got hit in the turret from about 15m by a Panzerschreck. There was a penetration, but no damage or injuries. This Sherman went on to destroy two StuGs and survived the battle intact. My brother, whom I was playing, almost had a coronary over this...

Mark IV: Myth, rumour, BS,-who know's for sure? "...having no anti-tank weapons-not even one of the much lauded but virtually useless Boys anti-tank rifles- the sergeant (50th Division, apparently- my quote)realized that his only hope of stopping any German armour coming this way was by subterfuge. So, from a nearby estaminet, he collected a few dozen china plates which he proceeded to lay out in a pattern across the road. An hour later, a troop of panzers came nosing down the road and halted when they saw the unorthodox "minefield." When their crews got out and walked cautiously forward to inspect it, the sergeant's men shot them and subsequently set fire to the crewless tanks." pg. 51- Dunkirk: The Great Escape If myth- an entertaining story for the pub- if true, those guys had big brass ones...

That was a good bit of writing. For those interested in this time frame and location, an excellent book called, Dunkirk: The Great Escape, by A.J. Barker(David McKay Company,1977), relates the Battle of France, up to, and including, the evacuation. It includes numerous interesting anecdotes, including one where some British infantry created a false minefield using china plates from a nearby cafe!

Actually the torp duel was not fought using sonar, but from bearings via hydrophone, the "ears" of the subs, I believe.I would think that would be really tough to hit anything that way... I really liked the movie though, especially Harvey Keitel. Can anybody tell me when the Germans started messing around with acoustic homing torps?

JonS: The turn sequence for the Panzer Campaign games is as follows: Axis Movement Phase Allied Defensive Fire Phase Axis Offensive Fire Phase Axis Assault Phase Allied Movement Phase Axis Defensive Fire Phase Allied Offensive Fire Phase Allied Assault Phase A lot of PBEM players will groan at all the phases- there is an optional auto defensive fire setting that reduces a couple of the phases in PBEM by allowing the AI to defend for you. The game was designed by John Tiller, who did the Battleground series for Talonsoft, and the phasing is similar to the BG games. The game is excellent in multiplayer- unit command selection is done exactly the same way as in West Front/East Front/Rising Sun. In our games, each player gets to handle one or two divisions per- around 30-35 units, not an overwhelming amount. The large maps and the rolling Russian landscape gives plenty of scope for maneuver combat. A friend of mine sent me a post today from some game site that claims that Normandy '44 has been released- I checked the HPS site just now and there is nothing new on it- if it has been released, you should be able to order it in the next few days(get in line behind me!), once the site is updated.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets within CM is that you are not able to micromanage down to the nth degree- your troops surrendering under these circumstances being an example of this. I would rather have it this way, then in a game like West Front/East Front, where units can basically fight until there is nothing left of them. CM certainly puts more of an onus on taking care of your men- I think it should.

JonS: Myself and four other fellows all have Smolensk, and we play it almost every Sunday, TCP/IP. We all like the game tremendously. It was easy to learn, the graphics are more than satisfactory (except in 3D mode- they look awful- but no one ever uses 3D mode anyway, except to verify the lay of the land once in awhile). The scenario mix included with the game has both historical and what-if battles in a useful combination. Due to the fact that the scale is 1 km/hex and basically battalion sized units, there are abstractions to detail that are necessary to keep the game manageable- in our minds, they do not detract from the game in any way we can see. It has a complete editor for creating both units and OOB's. I have already experimented with creating units that did not exist in 1941, such as the Tiger I, Pz IVF2, T34/85. I created plausible OOB's for a later time frame and played games with the new equipment on the original maps. You can have units from platoon size upwards. Since all unit characteristics can be changed, including attack range, the game is scalable: if I could figure out how to make my own maps, I could create any battle I wanted, and not necessarily just WWII either. I am champing at the bit for Normandy '44 to release. It will have even more features, and those also applicable to Smolensk will be retrofitted via a patch. Smolensk has been improved two or three times since it came out- HPS is really on the bit when it comes to customer service. Between Normandy '44 and CM, I will be a happy camper for the rest of this year, as far as gaming goes.

Black Sabot: Thanks for the info- I have bookmarked all the sites that yourself, von Lucke, and KwazyDog posted, and have found useful info in all of them. I have in fact ordered the tape mentioned by von Lucke, as it sounds like it should have at least some of what I need. Between the fighting around Caen, Trun and the Falaise Gap, the liberation of the Channel ports, and the battles at Walcheren, Breskins, and Breda in Holland, there is a wealth of material for some good scenarios.(Not to mention some important history to be learned as well.)

KwazyDog/von Lucke: Thanks for the info-will have a look. It's shameful to go to my public library and find virtually nothing on Canada's role in WWII. There has not been a terrible amount on the net either, at least where I looked, anyway. Hoping to gather enough information to create a few scenarios for CM.

Can anybody direct me to some good references of the fighting by 1st Canadian Army/2nd Canadian Corps, to clear the Scheldt Estuary, between late September to mid November, 1944? I am not having a lot of luck in this area.

Germans at a disadvantage...hmm...yes, I can see that. Some of those disadvantages would be Tiger tanks, the MG42, the Panzerfaust, the Panzerschreck, crack SS and Fallschirmjaeger units. Those poor fellers...

One of my all time fave movies. I read somewhere that the T34/85's came from Yugoslavia. Don't know if it is true, but they certainly looked like the real deal to me.

It's worth a lot... I built their kits for over twenty years, and I can vouch for the quality of both the armour and aircraft kits they make. Had to stop building models when I lost the use of my right eye- but it was fun while it lasted.

Possibly the 15% figure is a reference to the number of logistics and support personnel involved ("REMF's"), vs the number of troops in the line. I read somewhere that it took something like 14 rear echelon troops to support 1 fighting soldier in the ETO, and even more in the Pacific theatre.

That is the 105/flamethrower combo. I can tell by the shape of the mantlet and lifting rings that that is the 105. The "Easy-Eight" suspension and the look of the countryside makes me think Korea.

Just a connected anecdote- the 37mm adapter was known as the Littlejohn Adapter- the fellow who designed it was Czech and his name was Frantisek Janacek, which was anglicized to Littlejohn. His adapter was actually first developed for the 2pdr AT gun, but developed too slowly until the only vehicles left with the 2pdr were armoured cars. The 37mm adaptation came next, but was unpopular with the crews as the 24 inch adapter had to be threaded on by hand, and special ammo had to be used (tungsten cored with collapsible skirts). Many crews apparently fired the special ammo witthout the adapter, and still got superior results vs the standard loadouts. This could be true, as the tungsten rounds would be denser and have more mass when striking a target. Penetration for the 2pdr was 81mm at 1000 yards- almost double the norm.

A wombat...

I have been away from the BF site for a long time- I notice numerous changes graphically, etc to CM. Will this alter the original system requirements by much?

Here is a web page describing the PIAT in action- Canadian readers may find this of particular interest: http://www.harrypalmergallery.ab.ca/galwarvetstwo/smith.html

I have read two or three accounts that stated that the rifle grenades were next to useless, and the GI's tended to throw them away first chance they got...

Here are some more tidbits on the PIAT: - The round was not actually launched by the spring- each round had a small explosive base charge that the spring drove a spigot into; this launched the round off the spigot. - The PIAT could not be fired from the hip or even from the shoulder- it was usually fired in the prone position. It weighed 32lb, and had a good kick, both of which could cause serious injury if fired from other than prone - It fired a 3lb bomb to a max range of 110 yds at about 250 ft/sec, initial velocity. It could also be used as a crude mortar out to 750 yds. It was 39 inches long. - The trigger was so stiff that two fingers had to be used to pull it, tending to throw off aim. Also, there was a pause between pulling the trigger and the round actually leaving the launcher- anybody who forgot this invariably loosened their grip and got a painful punch in the shoulder, plus the spring would not recock (the explosive charge also recocked the spring when it fired the bomb- you only had to manually cock the spring for the first shot). - It could be fired in an enclosed space without danger to the occupants- unlike the Panzerschreck and Bazooka. - It remained the standard platoon AT weapon until 1950 (issued one per platoon, normally) - The inventor, Lt Col Blacker (ret'd) successfully pleaded patent rights to the design in 1944 and was awarded the equivalent of $150,000 US for his troubles.