M Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: His failure to appear in May 1945 shows he was a democrat at heart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> splendid ! sehr trocken!

Nothing beats the Bob Semple. WW II would've been lost to the axis if it hadn't been for the ANZAC's Bob Semple.

terrific. totally commendable. splendid.

IMHO I think impersonating another person, hiding under a fake identity should be reason to at least ban people.

JonS, the Challenger may now have in the meantime eventually been refitted and enhanced sufficiently to put it on par with the Abrams and the Leopard 2A4, when in the meantime these MBTs have already taken the next step in evolution. E.g., compare the AP performance of the rifled Challenger gun to the new 120mm L/55 and the DM53 ammunition plus the other improvements on the Leo2A6.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Therefore I'd suggest that perhaps the NATO tank gunnery competitions are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of determining which tank is "better" - except in the artificial conditions of the competition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> basically I agree with your opinion on the "value" and realism of these competitions, but I cannot help but comment that a comparison jumps to my mind regarding the initial argument in this thread on whether or not the training footage of orchestrated, rehearsed and set-up ARVE action are representative of the vehicles' actual use in combat or not, and Mr Beazleys "I'd suggest that the RTR would have portrayed accurated how they intended their equipment to be utilised in a film they were showing to their own troops/commanders. Showing your own troops/commanders fantaties tends to have bad results in the end." and your comments "Indeed, but again, this is not a case of what they were told but what they were demonstrated, via a film - remember in those days, there was no Industrial Light and Magic Company - the camera did not lie. Moreover, why bother to lie? Most military training films are not propaganda - they are designed to inform. I've shown as an army projectionist quite a fair number of them and they are meant to show the soldier something that cannot be more easily explained by other means." regarding using the gunnery competitions as a means of comparing the vehicles and the performances of the rules - why bother to lie, and why create artificial rules? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Oh, and BTW, the use of a rifled gun barrel is not quite as silly as it seems - considering that the secondary round the British use is HESH, not HEAT,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the main problem with a rifled barrel is not the rotation caused in HEAT rounds (this can be offset and today HEAT is not that much of an issue anymore anyways), but the friction generated by the rifling, resulting in a lower Vo and therefore lower AP. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Err, Hogg, Chamberlain and Gander<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have been unaware so far that these authors -who did a wide range of books- should have made an authoritative book dedicated to the subject, but perhaps you would disclose more about it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and a couple of other sources that I have all state that the Puppchen was not generally issued, nor a terribly succesful weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> both is not the issue here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: The sources might be wrong, and you might have access to different sources, but that does not necessarily mean that I or Kim are lying merely for repeating what we have read in our sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have yet to see these sources claim that the Puppchen was "as rare as rocking horse ****". Mr Beazley btw has so far refused to give ANY facts regarding his original preposterous claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: As to the funnies versus Puppchen - I'll lay odds that you'd have been far more likely to see an AVRE in you were serving in a British armoured Regiment than you were a Puppchen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> although your statement is a bit sketchy, if I interpret it correctly than this is nothing but your iteration of your opinion which is what we are arguing about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Out of a matter of interest, what do your sources say about the PAW-600? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the PWK 8 H 63 ("PAW 600") was rare indeed, but that is beside the point because the original statement pertained to the Puppchen not the PAW 600 (an altogether vastly different weapon concept)(that said with the PAW you'ld have had a much better argument, I have a total production number for the PAW 600 of 260 here, with the delivery of the first 81 in January 1945, and a documented combat use of 105 by the 30. and 31. PzGrenRgt. Now, please don't take the following as impolite are as offending, but if you do a search under my member number and PWK as a key word then I am sure you will find an earlier article of mine on this subject)

JonS, I was referring to the "fabulous" performance of the Challenger in all the NATO competitions up until they were discontinued , the fact that they tend to loosen their loose tracks , that they still use the rifles 120mm, that it is so fast that it indeed brings back memories of the WW II Churchill , that it originally lacked a ballistics computer worth its name (see again the first point), et cetera perge perge. I am not "fixiated on production numbers", please read my original post, I was merely responding to the (quote) "talking out of the ass" of two individuals -who were stomping into this virtual room like senseless drunkards clamoring into the next pub- regarding how common any funny was vs the Puppchen. I am not fixiated on production numbers at all, we can use numbers issued just the same (see my former posts), I am merely holding them to their original, totally unholdable statements.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: First, are we sure that this is a real web page for an MP, and not a sham in and of itself? Doesn't do any good to e-mail the MP only to have that e-mail routed to a sham artist. I can see I need to start a new invesitgation. Any volunteers to share the load?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well if this http://www.alp.org.au//kimbeazley/ is a sham website then this guy is surely going to great lengths to provide for his fake identity. besides, the URL looks pretty much official to me. Therefore, my conclusion is "real website", the question remains "real Beazley" or "fake Beazley linking to real Beazley Page to cover his fake ID".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: Your figures were for numbers produced and numbers held, if memory serves me correctly. That does not necessarily equate to numbers issued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well your memory serves you wrong. you are free to go back and read my original post again, it's there for everybody with typing fingers faster than their memory to revisit. The last figure I gave was number of guns issued to actual army units. Which is a general number but immeasurably more than you ever provided for your funnies, whatever type. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to its utility, the German army was, as Richard Overy pointed out, rather technologically "fastidious" - they often refused the workable in favour of the gold-plated - witness the Panther.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> not sure what you are trying to prove with that statement. actually, if anything, you are arguing in my favor if you say that even though it might have been advanced yet unreliable and problematic it would have still been used....?? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to why you think the Germans were badly off for AT weapons I have no idea. Mid-war perhaps, before the deployment of the Panzerfaust and Panzershrek but late war they were more than adequately served IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [sigh] ... well look here, the very reason that the germans took so much effort to provide their infantry with the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck was because they were so woefully short of "real" AT means in the form of SP and regular AT guns. Apparently your WW II literature collection doesn't conatain a lot of books because that is a universal (and obvious) view shared by all the books dedicated to the topic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: M Hofbauer, funnies were widely used. 79th AD had about 1,500 or thereabouts AFVs (...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germanboy, I know, I am well aware of the use of the funnies by 79th AR (or rather them sending their funnies to wherever they were needed), especially from my research for CC5. I never questioned their use. What I am trying to say is that Mr Beazley's presumptuous statement re. Puppchen/Funnies ratio cannot be held at all, I still have to see him come up with a production or OOB number for any type of Funny anywhere near much less in excess of the number I had cited for the Puppchen...well actually *any* number at all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: As an aside to this glorious debate, I note that Churchill AVRE were used in Korea and served until about 1960 or so in the British Army. The Brits must think there was something in it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [tongue into cheek]well just because they use something doesn't mean a lot with an army that's currently using the Challenger II as an MBT and the SA80 / L85 as an assault rifle [tongue out of cheek] again, Hobart's funnies might be fun, I'm not against them in the game (in fact I once wrote an article on Hobart himself -very intriguing career- because I was interested in the matter), but the effort needed to do them vs the use they would have in a CMBO environment precluded BTS from doing them, especially since the terrain features they are used for are not modeled in the game (and cannot be modeled using the current 20x20 tile system), and there won't be any patches, so there you go. [edited for typos] [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

if beazley isn't Beazley, then that's a much worse case of identity theft IMHO, because our board-Beazley gives the official website of the real Mr Beazley as his homepage and a picture of the real Mr Beazley in the profile. Go to the website linked there, there's an internet email contact form there, I was already about to inquire whether this guy is for real, but then I figured (just like Slappy) that actually his behavior *does* fit the stereotypes that exist about politicians...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not how the game works, using 20x20m tiles etc. (see other posts before). Look, others said it repeatedly before, let me say it again: your comments, however justified or not, are moot, because BTS is now working on CMBB - eastern front. I am sure not even you are lobbying for an inclusion of Hobarts funnies there. They have stated repeatedly that CMBO is *done*. No more patches, and surely no re-writing of code. Your energy is ill-spent on this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: I think you need to have a civility implant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> says who??? looks like you were the one coming in here like the proverbial disgruntled ex-US postal worker revisiting his former workplace. tu quoque, Mr Beazley! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You also seem to equate "production numbers" with "numbers issued".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> can you not read? the final figure I gave was that of actual field strength, not of production or arsenal stock. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the sources I have<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> which don't seem to be a lot <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> state that the Puppchen was not widely issued or used - indeed most refer to the point that becuase it was mounted on wheels/skids it was not considered a proper infantry weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well no ****, I guess that's why it was discontinued in February 1944? now guess what, even given it's suboptimal characteristics, given the chronic shortage of AT measures in the german army all during ww II, if you were put to the alternative of having an imperfect weapon or none at all, what would you choose? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I'm always willing to be corrected, if its done in civil manner and you provide some references.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> tu quoque. You were the one coming in here, and I still haven't seen you elaborate on exact figures or combat reports from reliable official sources for your claim to Funnies. You are the onme making the claim, so it is your first turn to base it on respective evidence which you still haven't done. Instead, you are talking "out of your ass" (to quote your fellow commonwealther Mike) about things where you clearly have no clue. When confronted, you take evasive action and shift to new preposterous claims. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Funnies were not produced in large numbers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aha! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but they were widely used, being attached to even US Army units because the Americans were either unable or unwilling to produce their own equivalent vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know about this use *in general*. But still you are not giving any concrete evidence on combat use. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, I used the example of the Elephant/Ferdinand as a vehicle which was extremely rare, and unless you served on the Eastern Front at Kursk or in Italy, you'd never even have known of its existence, not that it was included in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well then how does that have anything to do with your whining about CMBO modeling oh-so-rare vehicles while leaving out those british specialty tanks? It does not further your argument the least bit. M.Hofbauer, Hfw cd iur WA KA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: There's also the possibility that BTS incorrectly chose "ford" when perhaps another word might've been better. Whatever word means "spot in an otherwise-uncrossable river where humans can cross but vehicles cannot." DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> now we're talking.

hey KB MP Ma, I called you on your original presumptous statement; I think you had better come up with a production figure for Hobart funnies in excess of three thousand per type before you wander off to new preposterous claims (and btw, in case you hadn't noticed - there is no Ferdinand/Elephant in CMBO) or other unwarranted statements about BTS etc. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: how common were Ferdinands/Elephants/Tiger(p) in NW Europe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the main gripe I have with the 37mm guns is their supernatural accuracy. CMBO really makes you wonder why the Merkins ever bothered to replace the Stuart (with the Chaffee), it is a wonderfully (literally) effective tank in CMBO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Sorry, I didn't mean to spoil people's fun but I simply couldn't stand further desecration of the "Queen's English". Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> oh, it seems to me the queen and her strange dialect will have a tough time now that Stransky is back

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: Maybe so but they included a lot of stuff which according to my sources was a lot rarer than the funnies - the Puppchen for example. The Jumbo Sherman for another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I'd like to see Bren tripods included, more because they were issued and they were used, as against such oddities as the Puppchen which all my sources indicate were as rare as rocking horse ****.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTFLMAO what an incredibly ignorant statment... Kim Beazley and Brian, I dare both of you... Production figures for the 8,8cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen" are 2,862 in 1943 and 288 in 1944 (production ceased in February 1944). A second production run of another planned 3,000 was canceled and scrapped. At the end of documentation in 45 the army figures still showed a total of 1,649 active Puppchen in actual field use. Now - let's see your figures on "funnies" and all your "sources which indicate (they) were as rare as rocking horse ****"... btw I feel the urge to change my sig.

Doug, I did the work of looking through a dictionary for you: from Merriam-Webster on: "fording/to ford" Main Entry: ford Function: transitive verb Date: 1614 : to cross (a body of water) by wading to elaborate, this refers to *humans* wading through said ford. Therefore, if humans *wade* through a body of water (by using a ford), it's unlikely to be very deep ("wading" *usually* implying a waterline somewhere at the waist). If a ford is so deep that no vehicle, not even the most apt at fording, can cross it (a la in CMBO), then this would be a depth at which a fully combat-ladden soldier would have at least a hard time at fording, too. Hence my original post: "IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross."

Doug, your question doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, I don't understand it. I was not taking issue with your notion that tanks have troubles fording rivers deeper than a certain depth; I also do not question that humans can cross rivers much easier than vehicles. However, I was concentrating on the literal meaning of the word "fording" - look up the definition in a dictionary. The problem is that no vehicle in CMBO can cross fords which infantry soldiers in full combat gear are "fording" at ease with no problems. I am not saying it's totally impossible but unlikely that there is a ford in it's true sense of the word through which a fully ladden infantry soldier can walk through with that ease and security shown in CMBO, which is a ford that not even the best-suited tanks or vehicles can cross. Now I am not sure if that makes sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Hof, why do you say that infantry should have trouble crossing a ford that a vehicle cannot? If you got a river 20m wide, 5m deep that has some narrow thing across it (eg falled tree, beaver damn, maybe a very minor spot of rocks/rapids) infantry would be able to cross that whereas vehicles could not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please notice my use of inverted commas to emphasize that I was stressing the literal meaning of the word "to ford". What *you* are describing are the various ways for infantry of "crossing" a river, not of "fording" it. "Fording" implies they are wading through the river using the shallowness. It is not swimming or balancing over some tree log nor using stepping stones.

IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: How much armor thickness can a rifle grenade penetrate? Can a hit by a rifle grenade penetrate the Tiger side 60mm or 80mm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the real rifle grenades had been anywhere near as effective as they are in CMBO, then the germans would have never bothered to develop the Panzerfaust, since in RealLife their rifle grenade types were at least comparable to the american rifle grenade models (if not better) which we have come to fear in the game. [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: What I am calling an improved Tiger is referred in this book as "Tiger" ( Redesigned). It's not the "King Tiger" or "Royal Tiger". In looking at it closer the hull does differ from the Pz.Kpfw. VI or Tiger as it's normaly called. It's actually the Pz. Kpfw. and weighted 75 tons just like the King Tiger. Oh this probably is what you are talking about David but looking at the specs it's quite different from the specs for the King Tiger however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> first, the designation "King Tiger" is wrong in itself since the german tanks were named after animal (sub)species, hence the Königstiger, Panthera tigris tigris, translates into Bengal Tiger in English since there is no animal subspecies with the name King Tiger or Royal Tiger in English. second, "Pz.Kpfw." as the abbreviation for Panzerkampfwagen is a generic name literally meaning "armor combat vehicle", a german generic name in the same meaning as Battle Tank, Tank or MBT. In other words, it refers to any tank from the Pz.Kpfw. I to the Pz.Kpfw. VI. third, the "Königstiger mit Porscheturm" *is* indeed modeled in CMBO but only in the early months of the game; unfortunately it uses the regular Königstiger graphics model with the ugly Krupp turret. fourth, there were numerous improvement projects pertaining to the Tiger, therefore it is unclear to what that book might be referring to with the unspecific term "Tiger (Redesigned)". There were numerous efforts to improve upon the basic Tiger, which among others included the mounting of the 8,8cm KwK 43 L/71, the 8,8cm FlaK 41 L/71 and even a complete new design of an 8,8cm L/100 gun. All the improvement projects re. the Tiger eventually led to the Tiger II or Königstiger which we are all familiar with. Maybe with the specific mention of a planned weight of 75 tons it is referring to the planned E-75 project of a MBT in the 75-ton class. However, both the E-50 and the E-75 were based on the Königstiger, and not the Tiger. [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: It's possible, I suppose, that all men are hidden in such a manner that they have LOS to the squad leader and could therefore see what he wants them to do and carry out the orders right away. But that's not necessarily the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would take your first sentence further and suggest that this would be the default. When you as the squad/platoon leader put your squad into hiding state, you provide for the fact that you will not stay hidden there forever until the end of time. You will provide for a limited variety of actions ending the hidden nature of your squad. Two regular choices will be to ambush or a secret withdrawal (in the face of an overwhelming enemy, movement to a better engagement location etc.). You will make sure that your order to commit to either one of the actions will be transferred upon the rest of the squad via some means. To remain hidden, you have to provide for LOS between individual members of the squad (not of the leader to everybody) so the signal will be passed along. Whispering might also be possible, or special sounds (bird call) whose meaning has been agreed upon beforehand. Granted that sometimes this is not possible. But usually you would attempt to make it possible when setting up. Agree with your notion that it is dependant on concrete circumstances / terrain features etc.

Forget the G 41. What you want is the G 43. The G 41 was a piece of crap as a direct result of the OKW's mandatory request that the to-be-developed new semi-auto rifle have *no* holes drilled into the rifled barrel itself, so the G 41 was constrcuted with the nozzle at the muzzle. Needless to say that was just an invitation to malfaunction. The G43 was a sound design and according to plans would have replaced the 98k as the standard infantry rifle. However, by the time it came into service there was a better thing in the form of the StG 44 as the ultimate battlefield weapon for the common infantry soldier (even if CM doesn't model the advantages of the StG 44 to any valid degree IMHO).