SimonFox

Geez, the kiwis are pecking at each other, should be fun (cracks a tinnie and settles back to watch the fun).

But Lewis relative spotting is not the "Full monty" at all, quite the opposite in fact, hehe. BTW I agree with your comments regarding withdraw for tanks.

Hey you can't go without explaining where that quote about Matildas you were using in your sig came from! After that.....

Yes I agree, Brit documents comment that the 105 was unsuitable for conversion to firefly for this reason. As an aside the Brits did use the Sherman 105 in Europe though not in large numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goanna: Bastables is the lowest I've seen. Notice how the lowest also end up in the Pool?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, well it's hardly suprising that a kiwi malingerer is amongst the lowest of the low, is it?

I have been following this thread with interest. Since I have always thought MGs could be better modelled in CM. It seems to me that many people have their wires crossed. Steve has acknowledged that there are a few things which could work better to make MGs more realistic. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with discussing possible approaches to this. The opinions voiced by wreck almost exactly mirror my own. The pinning effect of MGs is currently implemented through the morale state etc etc. MGs firing on fixed lines through obscuration (in the dark especially! also smoke), plunging fire (aka indirect), all the techniques available to "professional" MG units. I would like to ask Kip Anderson what his publication has to say about water cooled MGs? I don't know how MG firepower is determined but I am fairly sure that BTS made some allowance for the dichotomy between sustained fire and rate of fire. Didn't the Russians have some water cooled MGs? [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: SimonFox ]

No problems with this one.

Pacific is OK but a bit one sided for most of the war at the CM scale. Also amphibious assaults would have to be modelled which is a lot of work. Definitely not at the expense of the Mediterranean and North Africa is my opinion

Hey you guys keep rabbiting on about this Schrodi person, but I can't see a post from them anywhere. Maybe it's because I have my special 'Schrodi who?' filter enabled. Perhaps you should enable yours too

There is a long discussion on this subject somewhere on the CM forum. Try searching the archives. I was deliberately being obscure as I was reluctant to dredge it up again

Steve, I don't think you read Tim's post correctly. He wanted to know if you could fire them indirectly. Personally I think if you are on the defense you should be able the preregister your on board mortars/arty (and HMGs too ) for indirect fire. In fact I think you should be allowed to plaster any part of the map you want in or out of LOS with your on-map arty. It just shouldn't be accurate, pretty inaccurate in fact.

Not there either. I'm sure the 1NY would be suprised at being in the Canadian army, the web site you quote is interesting but not exactly reliable. On the subject of ramming. If your vehicle is unable to damage the other or the situation is such (ie very close range) it is not such a silly idea. I have read of a few instances on the Western Front. For example at least one Kangaroo driver was awarded a medal for ramming a Tiger and taking the crew captive. Tout describes another ramming a ?Jagdpanther. Hastings I think also quotes a Sherman commander who rammed a Tiger, baled out, and went and got a Firefly to deal with it.

In a way it's kind of sad as it definitely means we won't be seeing any follow-ups.

Now Martin, you trying to stir up trouble again Let's be precise in our language here. It does not support your point that tanks cannot cross hedgerows (definitions aside) it just supports my point that those with long guns (ie mostly German) didn't.

OK well we seem to have come to an understanding of each others point of view though I wouldn't call our definition of bocage or hedgerow the same Perhaps you can now understand my comment about a hedge on an earthen bank. Since CM doesn't simulate underbelly shots then whether you use hedge or some other terrain to simulate vegetative thinness doesn't matter. But in reality I would expect that there is a difference between the vulnerability of a tank crossing an average thick hedge vs a thick hedge on top of a 3-4 ft high earthen bank (which I would characterise as low density bocage). I would suspect that this extra vulnerability is expressed as a fear of underbelly exposure. I would also expect that tanks with longer guns might have had to reverse the turret to cross such an obstacle in order to avoid impaling the ground (a pretty amusing spectacle I would think and I have at least one account of this happening to a Firefly) making them even more vulnerable. This might also explain why there are few German accounts of crossing such obstacles since they generally had longer guns?