Simon Fox
-
Posts
1,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Simon Fox
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Ah, another "my country did more than your country" WW2 thread. If I had a nickle for every one...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thusfar this discussion has been a fairly mature one of differing perspectives. If you want to characterise it as something other than that then feel free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to give one iota of attention to anything of worth you might happen to secret in there admidst all the snarling and growling.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I already mea culpa d on my SPA comments above. But it still makes me laugh - here I am, a Yank, automatically assuming that surely someone must've needed to use a Sexton as an assault gun and done so regardless of doctrine, and here you are, a Commonwealth guy, automatically assuming that since it was contrary to doctrine no one would have dared do it. Fascinating to me that we each fell exactly into the slots alotted for each nation's WWII doctrinal archetype. Who'd've thought that such stereotypes and generalizations would still apply 55 years after the fact?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One should be wary of stereotypes and generalisations. Fascinating to me that you assumed that such WWII doctrinal archetypes existed especially in such a disparate grouping as the Commonwealth. You misinterpret Brian's comment. British doctrine may not necessarily say specifically that SP guns should not be used for direct fire. The doctrine was that artillery is most effective when it's firepower is employed en masse rather than dispersed. Therefore the use of SP artillery to directly support infantry is stupid and inefficient and only justifiable under extreme and desperate circumstances.
One could equally say that the inadequately educated US artillery officer was ignorant of the rationale behind his doctrine and more prone to misuse his weapons than the better informed Commonwealth artillery officer who understood his doctrine and it's rationale.
Or that US doctrine was flawed and failed to provide the weapons required for the task in hand leading to less than ideal expediency. In contrast Commonwealth doctrine provided suitable weapons.
Or that gungo US artillery arrogantly set up their batteries in locations where they might be overrun whereas the more cautious and sensible Commonwealth did not.
Or that the US frequently underestimated their opponents and often got caught with their 'pants down' and had to resort to desperate measures whereas the Commonwealth did not.
and so on....
See? I can stereotype with the best of them.
Brian is correct on the design of the 25pdr. AT application while not a primary role was always a consideration. Suitable ammunition was available and RA crews were trained in the AT role. The use of the 25pdr in this role in the desert was more an overuse than an ad hoc use.
An account of the history of it's development may also be found in:
"THE GUNNERS' FAVOURITE: The 25-pounder Gun: A Brief History"by Baldwin and Miller
and
'FIREPOWER: weapons and theories of war 1904 - 1945' by Bidwell and Graham
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
My grandfather has a picture of a downed IL-2 Shturmovik (sp?). On the back it says 'Downed Rata'. Why? Because to him any plane shooting at him and his comrades was a Rata. According to your logic and standards of evidence, the plane is indeed a Rata. According to the standards of evidence of serious people, my grandfather's first-hand statement (from the time, no less) is wrong, and the plane is an IL-2. Which it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your example might have some relevance if he was:
1) Russian
2) An IL-2 Pilot
3) Still misidentified the plane.
Since I know that he wasn't then it isn't. I also note with interest that you have previously raised as evidence for various things your conversations with your own grandfather in his area of expertise .
Healthy scepticism of first hand accounts should include some consideration of the context and the source. Not all information is of equal value or weight and one can hardly equate the views of a panzerjager veteran on the russian airforce with those of a Bren gunner on Bren gun usage. Can one?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:
Seriously though, I would be shocked to find that the Sextons were never (or close to never) pressed into direct fire support. Is this true?
-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, any Brit arty commander who allowed his SP 25pdr or 105mm to be employed in such a way would be in a lot of trouble. The only way it could have happened was in desperate circumstances. Operationally it would be a dumb thing to do anyway and dead against British artillery doctrine. Typically it was the field artillery regiments supporting armoured units (armoured divisions or independent brigades) which were equipped with SP guns. Therefore these units had plenty of tanks for direct fire support.
The Brits had other stuff like AVREs, Crocs and Fireflies for busting bunkers and fortifications so SP guns were not required.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Dalem - Priests and Sextons were NOT assault guns, they were used as indirect artillery. Can you name me one instance in which they were used, in British or Canadian service, to fire directly on enemy positions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, in my opinion the Sexton has no place in CM
. Though I do recall one single instance of direct fire use very early on in Normandy (can't recall the book though it might be one of Delaforces unit histories).The Priest in US hands is another matter.
-
John,
Leaving aside the fact that I don't entirely share your glowing opinion of Hasting's book I would venture to suggest that most people here pobably have read it. It is just that overlord is not within the scope of CMBO. That is why most of this discussion revolves around the post overlord uses of the funnies and other specialised engineering vehicles or techniques.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:
Would you be willing to provide us with a précis of what it says, Simon? If we ask nicely?
Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I don't have it to hand so it may take a while. Of the top of my head they were operating mixed armoured columns which included some AVREs and crocs which were used to clear defended roadblocks. I would imagine the AVREs blasted the roadblock while the crocs roasted any lurking faust users. I suspect a dozer or dozer tank was then used to clear the debri. The armoured regiments had these in their TO&E IIRC.
Concrete roadblocks were also broken up with 17pdr fire and the debri cleared by dozer.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Sorry, learned a long time ago not to respond to Simon's posts stirring the pot. He is still funny though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry Jacko, I caught it before you edited. So to answer your question he did state quite clearly that it didn't contradict it. I guess you must have missed that one, either that or it proved inconvenient for you. As for Dorosh I would think he was perfectly capable of speaking for himself so why don't you leave him to do so.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Instead, lets say this: Why doesn't this gang go back, read Mike Dorosh's discussion, and answer his questions, reply to his citations in a way that can really be discussed in an adult fashion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Instead, let's say this: Why doesn't Jacko go back and read "John Howards" post and explain how in any way it contradicts Dorosh's original treatise? Then perhaps Jacko might care to explain or excuse himself for assuming that it did.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
Petards were used to demolish roadblocks and blast holes in bocage, going from the 1945 history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup and "Black Rat Red Fox" by Delaforce also talks of it.
-
When Username (Lewis) was posting on this board then by and large I found a lot of what he had to say annoying, or at least the way he said it. However, I never once saw his name at the top of the post and immediately assumed that he what he had to say going to be a load of crap. Because on occasions I agreed with what he had to say. I certainly didn't immediately assume that that he was taking an opposite viewpoint to my own on every issue. I certainly didn't find it necessary to mentally characterise him into a convenient category like for example 'pain in the arse' or 'troll' so that I could automatically assume that any post he made fell into that category. That would have been presumptous of me wouldn't it?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlapJacko:
But heck, I have people lining up to flame me on the main board just for saying "prove it" a little to loudly for the sensitive ears of the gentle moron. No doubt this fear of my super human powers is what has caused this line up on the Peng Challenge Thread to denounce me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's really dissappointing about this is that from his perspective there's not an ounce of hyperbole in it.
If there is any explanation for SlapJacko's behaviour in here it can be found in his outerboard pronouncement equating the cesspool with a schoolyard. His smirking self amusment at his smutty little quips show that he is remarkably comfortable with the persona. One hardly needs to have a "three figure IQ" to follow that observation to it's logical conclusion.
There is a disturbing similarity between Shaw's behaviour in here and the antics of SlapJacko in the outerboard. I suggest you watch your back Shaw lest you be usurped. I note the title adopting behaviour has already commenced. Isn't there already a ronin squire in here?
-
Excuse me Panzer76 but kindly go and start your own Slapdragon bashing thread, this is my one.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jacko:
dang double post..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You complete and utter idjit!
tabpup is of course correct. The sneak command seems to do this at the moment especially if terminated with a hide. Much to my chagrin on occasions. Can't wait for that "move to contact" command.
-
You are entirely correct argie. The original point/question regarding fire discipline is readily answered within the game as you rightly point out it is possible through judicious use of the ambush and hide commands to both set ambushes and impose fire discipline. I think it was Brian who brought it up and maybe he wasn't aware of that capability within the game or at least how to use it properly. The answer is of course that yes ambushes can be set within the game and fire discipline imposed and the effectiveness depends upon the troop and leader quality.
The current brouhaha has little to do with that and more to do with Slappy using an entirely spurious line of reasoning. Now there are two possible explanations for this, either:
1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls
OR
2) he hasn't got a clue.
Personally I favour the first option.
Now Mulga Bill, pull your head in. I know of the famous ambush you cite and wasn't it a beauty, an entire elite force wiped out. But battalion size ambushes could hardly be said to be typical. Platoon or company size ambushes are perfectly doable at the moment.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely.
As for the automatons, you can believe a Battalion or Regimental commander (note that you are not in cahrge of the ambush, but more like the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the ambush as it were), while I must select the truth here.
In reality, your primary mistake is failing to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays. A commander at Regiment can do a lot to keep a company attack moving, but in almost every Army (perhaps this was not true with the Australian Army) the initiative and intelligence of the men was recquired to make plans work. It also resulted in human failings. In the US and all commonwealth Armies but seemingly the Australians, and in the German Army, localized commanders carried the tactical battle home. Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" but he could not remote control his men, so he usually relied on their training and initiative.
Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you're getting a bit out of your depth here Jacko. Ambush not likely in WWII? Is that what you mean? Then why is it in the game?
As for the rest, the player now has far more control of the minutae of what his units do than any regimental commander (though I suspect you mean Bn since I have yet to come across a brigade/regiment sized CM game). Since you keep harping on about regimental and battalion commanders then you obviously haven't comprehended my previous point. The player in CM wears many hats not merely that of the Bn commander. I would suggest that it is you who fail to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Charles wrote:
I call it that because, as a player, you wear many hats. You're the company commander. You're also the platoon commanders. And the sergeants. And even, to an extent, the corporals and privates!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve wrote:
So basically the player *is* the platoon, company, or battalion commander. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Very gamey of those troops, firing without waiting for orders from Battalion command. And completely unheard of in the annals of war for sergeants think they know the situation on the ground better than Majors and Colonels. Yes, lets make the men automatons that do not think for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Geez Jacko if your gonna do sarcasm at least make a better fist of it than that. In CM the player does not represent the battalion commander alone but in actuality a number of levels of command. Of course you knew that didn't you?
The correct answer is of course, as pointed out by a few others, the 'hide' command. With the new covered arcs and modifications to ambush in CMBB this should work even better.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
That's the one. The other I already had was the Delaforce book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet that was a hard one to get a hold of.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
Bloody hell! I thought that prohibition had been repealed. Not being able to drink in a publis place until 21 is a bit harsh.
Live in Australia. Here you get to drink publically once you turn 18 and can legally drive a car on the roads at 16. Mind you, don't ask about the road toll per head of population... the above two situations usually don't mix.
Regards
Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, it does seem a bit steep. No wonder they can't handle their grog over there and have to drink Budwusser. Not enough practice!
Wot's the voting age over there then?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
I just wanted to let you lot know that I despise you all because today I shelled out £45 for the original 1945 print history of the 79th AD, only because of this discussion (okay, it has pwetty pitchers too). I swear if I find anything about this discussion and the use of funnies in it whatsoever, I'll be damned if I tell you. So there.
Great day out at the Tank Museum, including a chat with a troop commander in East Riding Yeomanry! Yeah!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thought you already had that? Or was that the Delaforce book? Is that the one printed in Germany in 1945? With lots of maps and bulls head on the front cover? If so, that's the one I have.
Lots of flail action in that one
plus details of which organisations various 79th armoured units were attached to at various times. Do you think having your AVRE with SBG hit by a faust qualifies as "bridging under fire"? hehe I always like the story of a couple of Siegfreid line pillboxes being treated to 18 "dustbins" upon which the garrison surrendered much the the dismay of the waiting Croc troop who were next in line to do their thing.The "Crabs" were operated mainly by the Westminister Dragoons. They seem to have been parcelled out as squadron sized units to higher formations, how they were tactically allocated is difficult to say precisely and seemed to vary depending on whether assaults or more mobile operations were occuring. The US 9th Army frequently had support from various funnies including Crabs.
In a squadron, there were four troops, each of 5 Crabs. A troop was to be allotted to each of the usual three breaches on a battalion front, with one troop in reserve providing fire support. Of the five Crabs in each troop, three would fail a gap 24' wide through the minefields, while the other two were reserves or provided fire support.
Crab gunners were a cut above the norm in their gunnery skills being very highly trained expert marksmen who were expected to "post" their 75mm rounds through the slots of bunkers.
The purpose of Crabs were the clearance of minefields under fire. I very much doubt that they were used to clear other minefields out of action. More traditional methods were used for that. The Crabs did on occasions "miss" mines upon which they or some other vehicle might be blown up and using them for "routine " mine clearance would be a grossly inefficient way of doing it.
If there were any argument against the applicability of Crabs it would be a time related one. Although I would suggest that the Le Havre example is a rather extreme one because of the extent of those minefields. The Crabs were often included in mobile columns along with other funnies especially later in the war. On many occasions Crabs were used as gun tanks which suggests they were up there rather than languishing back waiting for a minefield.
The point made by Steve about various vehicles being "on call" has it's counterpoint. CM currently encompasses a range of tactical situations some of which include the use of various fortifications including pillboxes, bunkers, mines and wire. In reality when a commander encounters such obstacles and he has the technical means at his disposal to deal with them even if it means waiting a while then he would probably do so. Of course CMBO doesn't really reward you for being sensible in such circumstances since there is no "held up by minefield, consolidate and call for sappers/crab support"
I would welcome a "Crab" in my current pbem against a certain gamey swine BTS employee who has blocked the openings in a June '44 bocage map with minefields I should also note that said swine seems to have an intimate knowledge of the deficiencies of bocage as 'cover'. Now if only I could get my AVRE to blast a hole in said bocage then I would be OK -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JasonC wrote:
El Alamein
Who had the better tanks? The British, going by weight in the mix. The best tank on the field was certainly the Pz IV long, but only a few were present. The second best was the Sherman. The Brits had more Shermans, and they had more tanks overall - by about 2 to 1. Their force was certainly not all Shermans. The main factor that led to British victory, though, was simply superior numbers.
....etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What have tanks or their relative quality got to do with El Alamein or it's outcome?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Here you are grabbing information out of context Simon in order to be obstructionist. Average length of QB -- 30 minutes, maximum length, 60 minutes, average length of scenario -- 40 something minute (depends though, as it is shorter -- 30 something minutes on the disk), maximum length of scenario -- 120 minutes. Take the average game. Assume that a device needs to be in place in time for use in that game. Divide in half (that is arbitrary, but you have not presented a better idea) the length of the scenario. Object must be done with its work in that time or it will not effect the game.
Now to keep the Simon Fox style misunderstandings down to a minimum, why should we care? Well, because designing in any engineering tasks will be a lengthy and complex programming routine. If the function is only useful inside of the 1 in 100 scenarios that exceed 100 minutes, and it takes a month of research and coding to get a realistic abstraction of the movement in and construction of a device, plus AI to assure that the engine knows how to behave in various circumstances, then is it still agood feature?
As for wasted time and effort, your baiting of Micheal Dorosh and comments designed just to throw a wrench into the conversation seem like quite a waste of time and effort, but I do not always run around after you pointing that out. Basically, if you or someone else wants a bailey bridge in the action, I think you need to show BTS that it could be built within the parameters of the game.
In other words, present some evidence or refute some evidence, don't just try and increase the dissonance for fun. It may be funny at first, but it is not all that funny for all that long.[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Spook and Michael that the time issue is largely a minor one. However, in the interests of Jacko's education some clarification is in order
Johnny Howard referred to CM being "built about "quick assaults" factoring up to about 30 mins". I then stated that I didn't think that 30 turns was the average scenario length (the principal question in said post remaining unanswered of course) and that IMO the choice of 30 turns for scenario length was arbitary. Jacko then asked where did we get the 30 turn figure from. The answer is of course in the "Slapdragon Criteria" posted in the previous funnies thread which clearly states: "the average scenario is 30 turns". Asked and answered. Obstructionist? I think not.Now clearly Jacko seized upon "arbitary" as referring to his 50% of average scenario length deployment criteria for game inclusion. He misunderstood. I had not even begun to start on that issue
The paragraph referred to scenario length as stated in the first sentence. I would have been happy to clarify my point if I had been asked. Which only goes to show that I learnt everything I know about grabbing things out of context from the master himself, hehe.If you or Dorosh think that my pointing out the nature of the Jacko-Hofbauer relationship is baiting him then that is your perogative. You can rest assured that my intent was merely to inform. I make it a point never to bait Dorosh. I prefer to have one of those big Jackofish on my hook as they leap out of the pond, pick their own hook out of the tacklebox, put it on the line, bait it, impale themselves on it, hand you the rod, then jump back in the water and fight like crazy. All while you're not even fishing
I am glad to see you have revised your original mean scenario length on the basis of further research. If you intend to specify some parameter or limit for the inclusion of a particular item then surely it is necessary to establish some consensus baseline scenario length?
Perhaps I missed it but I have yet to see where either myself or anyone else supported the building of bailey bridges within the time of a single scenario. As the "discrediting" of bailey bridge inclusion proceeds apace it would certainly be interesting to know where the idea that it might be placed in the game originated.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
I am not sure where you are getting the 30 from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From you of course.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
2) It must be able to be used within the confines of the battle (the average scenario is 30 turns, so say 15 turns, or 15 minutes).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that arbitrary limits are not good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I didn't. I must say I find it somewhat perplexing that you are frequently misconceiving what people say. Jon didn't seem to have any trouble with it. You would save yourself a lot of wasted time and effort in the long run if you made the initial effort to understand what people were writing rather than going off half-cocked.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
So, and item that takes 120 minutes to set up is ok for inclusion in CM for example, since it could be used in the time limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this a question or a statement?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
This was a complete waste of everyone's time. Tell us about the "stormbridge" and try and avoid the ad hominem stuff that everyone keeps railing about, eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jacko and Hofbauer seem to have a long standing banter going on. It would be best to assume that this is a continuation of it rather than jumping to conclusions. I am sure that Jacko will be devastated to be referred to as a "Killer Flamingo"
Yes Hof, let's hear more on this German uberbridge.
The flavour of history
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
Indeed this is a useless thread, but not maybe for the reason you are thinking.....etc etc....
So this conversation is worthless because there is no chance of getting intellectual conversation out of bigotry. Ideas entrenchged into bigotry, by there nature, do not and cannot be supported by fact, and thus are not capable of being discussed in a knowledgeable forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So I take it that now you've had your little diatribe Michael, Brian and anyone else who wants to participate in this thread can do so in the expectation that you won't continue to sully yourself with it's uselessness.