Major Tom

Zulu, I read the book, which, I think along with the movie, is actually called "Cruel Sea". Indeed the Corvette is named the Compass Rose. The book is much more descriptive and indeed has another entire part to it than the movie. I REALLY recommend this book.

Has anyone seen "How I won the war?" It is one of those weird comedy/dreaded war type movies. I saw it a long time ago on A&E, but, that must have been back in the late 1980's. It was a weird film, all about a British soldier. If my mind serves me, I think it starts off in France, then, they are in North Africa, and then in Western Europe again. The thing that really sticks in my mind, is, that practically all of the extras, those who are British soldiers, were coloured head to to (in full military gear) in bright florescent colours. It was like it was painted on. I am sure that these blokes were representative of all who died, and that in fact this British soldier was going gradualy insaine throughout the film. I would surely like to see it again. It probably won't turn out to be as good as my memory says it is. The best war film I have seen would probably not be a World War Two film. It is a contest between "Apocalypse Now" and "Hamburger Hill". Some might remember "HH" as being chalked full of violence, which it was, but, I saw an "edited for television" version on the history channel. It was a really good movie beyond the violence. It showed, really well I might add, that in war soldiers tend not to focus on the "bigger goals", that of winning the war for king and country. What it does show, is that soldiers fought and died for eachother.

What's with all this running anyway!?! I rarely run, especially when just trying out a new scenario. When I started Random Encounter, I snuck my forces around the map. I didn't know where anyone was, you don't want to run into an ambush, do you? However, with all of us knowing inside and out these three demo scenarios we can afford to be a litte reckless in running troops as you know where the enemy is and isn't. Later on, when we get the game this won't seem as that big of a deal, since we won't be running as much. I rarely run with my bazooka teams anyway, frankly, I rarely move them other than to get into position or to get better firing angles, and this is usually done by crawling. Hasn't your Mother ever told you not to run around with Panzerschrecks? As a kid, not TOO long ago, I had some of these miniature 1cm tall soldiers. In one of the packs, I had an American Bazooka gunner, and in the other, a Panzerschreck. The Panzerschreck was not quite as long, but, it was much fatter. I don't know the model's accuracy, but, it looked pretty unwieldy. I have some pictures of an American Bazooka, it is a pretty thin looking thing. Want to see something REALLY ackward looking? Take a look at a PIAT. I actually have a pretty interesting story about my first experience in seeing an actual PIAT. Some friends and I were waiting outside of a building (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) to see a concert, and the line just happens to pass some sort of Army Surplus store. This being late at night it seemed really strange that some guy leaves this store carrying a PIAT. Now what the heck is he going to do in a downtown city at night with that?!?! [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-07-99).]

Heh heh heh, I laughed until I stopped. Actually, I thought that Hammel was pretty good in that flick, for a stage actor in a movie... At least he isn't as bad as William Shatner! I bought a musical collection of him singing some of the great songs of all time "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "Mr. Tamorine Man", which made my ears bleed. Probably my most favorite movie, of World War Two, would have to be Tora Tora Tora. I mean, they actually got personal for both sides of the conflict! Just to show, that in war there is more than one side. How ironic that I bring this up exactly 58 years to the day of the event. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-07-99).]

Rommel, think about it like this. 10 minutes into the battle, you manage to capture a few prisoners, probably only a few privates. I am pretty darned sure that they won't have the positioning for the major strike against your left flank fresh in their memory, or even in their memory at all. Most soldiers aren't told their objectives let alone other unit's objectives. Sure, they might be told, "take that hill/House/Forest", but, beyond that, they probably don't know anything else. Still, if you just managed to capture some prisoners, and you are in the middle of an attack or defense, your main priority is continuing on with your objectives. You send the prisoners back to Divisional or Corps HQ to drill out information. Ever wonder why the take no prisoners call is used? Usually not for vengeance, but, it slows down your advance. Any information you could get from prisoners at the moment of capture is probably stuff you already know, like, the goal, composition, and experience of that particular unit. I am not trying to flame you, it is a good question you raise. I am only trying to get an adequate explanation for it ;->

For prisoners, I think that you only recieve more victory points at the end for them. I am not totally sure about this though. The reason you only captured 1 German prisoner in the Last Defence is most probably due to the fact that the Americans were defending. Plus, those fanatics (Regulars, Veterans, and Elite) usually take the stand or die rule more to heart than Constripts and Green troops. It is much harder to capture enemies when on the defence than on the attack. This is purely on the idea that a Defender is usually static, resulting in less envelopment moves which usually bag most of the prisoners. Whereas, the attacker is mostly on the move, bypassing enemy forces, and attacking an enemy with larger numbers resulting in the defender surrendering more often. Check out the 'Alpha Battle AAR!!! A Classic' at TGN's Combat Mission HQ. When on the attack you get a VAST number more prisoners on the defence. The only information you recieve from prisoners is Name, Rank, and Serial Number (or Cereal number?) One interesting thing though. I once captured American forces who were wandering through the forest and stumbled upon my ambush in the Random Encounter scenario. However, soon enough Americans came near resulting in this unit getting enough nerve back to rejoin it's friends (this all happened in 1 turn, resulting in me not being able to move my prisoners around). However, it still counted as me capturing an enemy unit, even though they escaped. This means, that I could capture a single unit over and over and still keep on getting points for it!

The Australian Light Horse had suprise though, of course, it may have just been the movie I watched. No, they didn't suddenly sneak up on the Turks, it was just that in previous engagements with the ALH they always dismounted out of range of enemy guns and attacked like infantry. From what I am aware, the ALH were basically mounted Infantry, not true Cavalry. The reason they didn't have lances or swords, was the fact that they weren't ever really used as cavalry. The shock value of this unexpected move helped overwhelm the Turks. Of course, I am not saying that Cavalry charges are stupid, most of them actually got good results, however, USUALLY at a high price. I may be totally wrong about this, my field of study doesn't really move into WWI in the Middle East, so I am relying on the usually flawed historical movie industry.

Oh yeah, I certainly agree that the British had a terrible time in coordinating Infantry and Armour. One quote that I have, although I don't have the book on hand, so don't quote me on this , but, during Operation Crusader, November 1941 North Africa, the British were getting their butt's nocked around, and at a certian point I think the 4th Armoured Brigage was being engaged by the 15th Panzer Division. The 2nd New Zealand Division was close by, with full Divisional Artillery, 3 Brigades of Infantry, and one Battalion of Infantry tanks. However, the commander of the 4th Armoured refused support, stating that it was to be a purely tank vs. tank engangement (even though the Germans refused to follow this advice and used large amounts of artillery and Infantry). Later, General Freyburg, the Commander of the New Zealands sent a message to the Commander of 4th Armoured, stating "Is this a private war, or can anyone join in". The British tactics stem from a pre-war belief that war in the Desert will be a truely armoured affair. They related it to Naval war in the desert. They didn't want to be "handycapped" by large numbers of "slow" Infantry and Artillery. For Crusader, the 7th Armoured division had over 500 tanks and only 2 Battalions of Infantry. 80% of the tanks were knocked out over the course of the battle, with little return. The reason that the British failed so badly in most of their armoured assaults in Western Europe, and in Italy (the 1st Armoured was worn down to the strength of a Brigade attacking in hilly terrain in Italy) is, that they were so used to the flat terrain in the desert, with little room for Infantry to hide and get close enough to tanks for ambush. In Europe there were multiple places for snipers to pick off tank commanders, and, the limited avenues for armoured assaults (fields and roads), especially in Normandy. You would think that the charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean war in the 1850's would have caused the British to rethink the value of charging with cavalry and tanks against enemy positions? Indeed, you are correct in the mentality of the cavalry formations. They seem to get the most casualties, for the least amount of gain. I could talk about militiary blunders and hipocracy all day. But it gets me to darned depressed.

Just a question here, I thought that most of the German armour was facing the Canadians and British at the early stage of the Normandy beachead? I was unsure about the length of time from the beginning of SPR, the assault on the beaches, and the point of the attack on the airborne, but, it couldn't have been much more than a few days. Tiger's were issued to the SS Armoured Divisions, along with Panzer Korps HQ's. Were the troops attacking the airborne SS soldiers? I know that eventually the I and II SS Korps positioned themselves in front of the Americans, but, was it this soon in the battle? I understand that there were Marders and other vehicles like them, but, I never really believed that there were Tigers in that region at that time. Plus, I think that the last scene of the movie wrecked the entire "war is hell and remember those who died" type theme which was predominant through the rest of the movie. I mean, when the P-51's came bursting out of the air blasting that Tiger at the right moment, and the hundreds of American troops charging to the rescue, it just changed into another "Go America!" movie for me. Not that I am bashing America, but, the movie was supposed to be a-political, focusing on the lives of the soldiers and the morality or a-morality of war. Now, a good soldier perspective movie, even though it is a bit old, and stars Mark Hammel, is "The Big Red One". Sure it used an American Tank with a Black Cross as a StuG, but, it made up with through plot. Another note about Tigers which I picked up somewhere. Even though they are officially Panzerkampfwagen VI, and the Panther is a Mark V, they were developed before the Panther. The King Tiger is much a better than the Tiger (even though it was too heavy for its on good!), because the Tiger was developed before the Germans went into Russia, and learned the value of sloped armour and engine reliability. The Tiger would have been so much better if it had the same heavy armour, only sloped. Just imagine meeting one of those on the battlefield! On the topic of working accurate war vehicles. Has anyone seen the epic "Battle of Britain"? I mean, they used a plethora of Spitfires, Hurricanes, Me 109's, Ju 87's and He 111's! Presently, I think that there is just one operational He 111, and that was originally Spanish! Too bad that moviemakers have been forced to substitute once plentiful machines of war for horribly matched modern contemporaries. What ever happened to those 50,000 Shermans anyway? The Germans didn't brew them all up... did they?

From what I understand of the British Regimental system, is, that it is only applied to for peacetime organization. When war erupts, the regiments are divided up into their respective Battalions, and then sent off to join brigades and divisions. Indeed, a few regimental battalions were in the same formation. Of course, I could be WAY off, so don't chew me off for this! As for British armour being known as cavalry formations, in most sense this is/was true. Most British tank units were, before the late 1930's, cavalry units. They traded in their horses for Mark VI light tanks and Cruiser Mark I's, of which, I might say they would have been safer on their horses in battle. The Royal Tank Regiment doesn't claim any cavalry status, as, it is one of the only units created specifically for the use of AFV's. I might be wrong here, but, from what I read this what the assumption was. The 1st US Cavalry division cashed in their horses for choppers and gone tearing around the Nam looking for trouble, they still call themselves cavalrymen. As Trooper stated, it is more symbolic than anything else. Going back to British Armoured equipment during 1944-45, I would much rather be in a Cromwell than a Sherman. Each of them had a 75mm Gun (Some Cromwells had 6pdr, other versions 75mm) and the armour was virtually similar. The main point being, is that the Cromwell has a much lower siloette. The one good thing about Cruiser tanks, is, that they can go hull down very easy, due to their low hull and turret. When the situation was desperate enough for British tank commanders to use good tactics (vs. charging mass numbers of unsupported tanks piecemiel across the desert) even the venerable Cruisers were easily placed into hastily produced ambush positions, due to their low stature. Indeed, the Stuart was a welcome weapon to the British arsenal, but, many tank commanders complained about them being too much of a target, as they were so high. The same with Grants (American Lee's) and Shermans. The main handycapp for Cruisers was the lack of a reliable engine. The Crusader Mark II had the capability of doing 49 Miles per hour, even faster than the speedy Stuart, but, they were forced to govern their speed due to bad engines. The Australians designed their own Cruiser tank, which if the supply of Shermans didn't flood the tank market it would have been a much welcomed weapon in Western Europe. Cruiser tanks are very underrated in history. Plagued by insufficiend development time, and bad deployment. Nobody seems to mention that the Cruiser Mark IV actually slightly outclassed contemporary Panzer Mark III and IV's in armour, speed and gun power (British 40mm vs. German 37mm and short barrelled 75mm), but neither tank was very reliable when it comes to breakdowns. I can't wait for CM12 "The Battle for France", when the Allies actually have better equipment than the Germans! Ah yes, the Matilda Mark II, Char B1, Samoua S1 and the H39.

Working on the ammo-truck idea... I seem to remember reading that the Germans modified a substantial number of their Wespe's and Hummel's were modified as ammo carriers. This was to make up for the pitiful stores on the regular SP Guns. Sure, they would be virtually useless in direct combat (armed with only a HMG), but, their ammunition supply value would be invaluable. (Regular Hummel carried only 18 150mm shells!) http://www.achtungpanzer.com/humm.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/wespe.htm However, I don't know the time it takes to reload an empty SP-Gun, the value of accurate information from this site, or, the use it would be for a commander to drive around his frontline a virtrual moving bomb. But, it is something to take a look at for possibly CM2.