Simon Fox

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Mike is bringing this up from an earlier proposal that Bailey bridges were common used at the front and well within the scope of the CM battle. Bailey Bridging, at least tactical use of it, has been pretty well discredited as part of the standard CM action, except that such a bridge could possible show up as a map peice or in an operation. It still crops its head up even though most times to build are 6 hours and up, and attempts to use it at Rapido resulted in several days of heavy casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Was that proposal made in the previous thread? I can't seem to find it in this one. In my opinion the SBG was is the only bridge which falls within the scope of CM both in terms of historical use and deployment time. I also think that 30 turns is not necessarily a 'typical' scenario length especially if one is considering a complex assault scenario. The scope of the game is the maximum length permissable not some arbitary intermediate time period based on personal preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now everyone has a right to be absent for a time, but Simon Fox hasn't shown up since the day he was frocked as CessPool Grog.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really Shaw, I'm touched that you miss me so. Though I'm somewhat suprised as I thought you, of all people, would welcome some respite from the demonstration of your manifest inadequacies. Come to think of it your yearning for such punishment may be something of a grimy window onto the nature of your seedy little character. It might explain your portentious filibuster as no more than the cravings of an anaemic ego to be bludgeoned down. It may also explain your twisted adoption of the cachet of loser. An aspiration no doubt to reflect the reality of your existence. There is a certain circularity to the entry of Jacko into the pool (I refuse to employ the nick of this blatant identity thief. I am in communication with the real Slapdragon and I am confident that Jacko's internet reign of terror will soon be terminated). It is inevitable given his self appointed lordship over the forum through hyperactive haragueing of the outerboards that he should move at last to the final 'backwater' which has thusfar escaped his 'attention'. Now the cesspool will enjoy the delights as their postings are interminably 'coached' and critiqued, mostly with little reference to what they actually wrote. While some may feel such misconception or misrepresentation deviates little from current cesspool practice it is the volume that is the crux of the matter. How fitting that he should be 'sponsored' by another bilious windbag whose posts are best ignored. How perceptive of the person who saw his propensity for solecism as rivaling Pawbroon, but unfortunately without the single redeeming feature of the idiosyncratic Frenchness. By all means usher him in. I am sure the 'outerboards' will eagerly anticipate the diversion of his attention elsewhere. The enemies of the pool who have been cowed by his viscious barbs in the past will have their flagging spirits revived by the hope that Jacko will kill this thread for good, like all the others.

Geez, isn't one enough for you? I dunno, never satisfied. Sheesh! Hi Matt!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Aside from the fact that that Simon feels the need to deride others as lecturers, sermonizers, or whatever description seems to come to him on a whim, his comments are quite accurate re: CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whim? I can assure you that they are based entirely upon careful analysis and meticulous collection of data. Occasionally the recipients are misidentified as being able to "take it". I am quite confident that Slappy/Jacko and Boof are able to do so. Non-deserving recipients of this kind of attention are generally quickly identified as such. Hehe

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the scourge of Jacko: I agree there isn't. Nor have I insisted there should be. I have noted that I think its rather unrealistic to expect a simulation which purports to portray WWII in NW Europe to not have those features included in it. If those features were included in the game, then obviously a means to overcome them would be required.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now look hear boofhead (as good a name as any, feel free to adopt it on your meanderings), as I pointed out about 20,000 pages back, of course there are limitations to the simulation. The 20x20 terrain tile imposes enormous problems for CM to simulate certain types of terrain and a whole bunch of other things besides. Computer capabilities imposed the 20x20 limitation on BTS and they had to fit their simulation into that as best they could. Down the track as things improve in the average customer base computer capabilities then there will be scope for this. But just look at their valiant attempts to simulate bocage, it just doesn't work too well in the current game engine. It is best to view CM as a work in progress. As a simulation it is akin to a pixellated image of the Mona Lisa. It its essence it resembles the real thing but closer examination reveals that resolution varies throughout the image. Some portions being all but indistinguishable from the original at 14,000 dpi and above whereas others are only at 100dpi. It would be well to consider that CM2 will not merely address a different theatre of the war and the addition of large numbers of new vehicles and units but will also improve upon CMBO in many other ways. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mr.Slapdragon, as Brian has noted, appears on the otherhand to treat CM and this BBS as his private property and woe betide anybody who questions his authority. I like unseating those who like to seat themselves on such high horses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes well Jacko does take a bit of getting used too. I have an affectionate and amused regard for his tendentious proselytizing. Akin to how one might regard a professor on the cusp of dementia who wanders between lucidity and babble . It would be best for all of us if you just responded to the worthy bits of what he has to say rather than stirring him up all the time (though that can be fun). It does get a little tiresome when every second thread turns into Jacko's Debating School

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: The real point of my post is that vehicles like this are outside the scope of CM and belong in some other game that is more suited to their actual deployment. Presumably, that's why BTS didn't spend the coding time to put these engineering-type vehicles in the game in the first place. Look at CM as it is actually played and it is hard to imagine anyone purchasing these units. In a, say 1500 point QB, who's going to buy a bridging unit or a flail tank? Not many people, I would suspect. True, you could have a scenario with, say, a bridging unit (assuming, for the moment, that CM had terrain that could be bridged by these units). But it's hard to imagine that as a very interesting scenario, because if you destroy one key unit (the bridging vehicle), that side loses. If CM had a larger scale -- large enough that the attacker could pick a weakly defended sector of the front and use engineering vehicles to cross obstacles so as to force a breach in that part of the front, it would be a mistake not to include these vehicles. But that game isn't CM. CM is a tactical, squad level game depicting battles between approximately equally matched opponents. There's not a lot of room for much of the engineering battle at this scale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So we are supposed to ascertain the real point of your post through mental telepathy are we? Since we are not talking about a single vehicle then if you want to make a point you should address each vehicle individually and offer some sort of supporting argument or evidence that they in fact "belong in some other game". Whatever the real point of your post then unless you support it with irrefutable evidence it is merely opinion and should therefore be expressed as such. Your presumption as to why certain vehicles aren't in the game is just that. Many people do not play QBs at all. Are mines in the game? Your point regarding bridging units is largely moot since the appropriate minor obstacles are not present. If and when BTS elect to change the terrain model and include them there may be an argument for such vehicles. Typically for bridging type assaults over obstacles like AT ditches there would be multiple assault teams for exactly this reason. Some people would love to see a better representation of engineer supported assaults in CM. I would suggest that many more people would agree that this would add a new and interesting element to the game. This is evinced by the many threads on the subject pre-dating even the beta demo. The current treatment of it is largely cursory and it is currently outside the scope of CM. In my opinion the scale of the game has nothing to do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Oh Eumundi, not that I want to shatter your world of Kangaroos and Koalas, but you do know that Simon is Australian, do you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sssssh you git! You Germans were never very good at this intelligence stuff and no bloody wonder!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, for engaging targes of opportunity and dealing with counterattacks Blackburn seems to indicate that a number of rounds was called for - with no rate - and this was pelted out as fast as possible. Blackburn gives examples of 50 and 60 rounds FFE, and then repeats of the same. Note that this is exactly the part of the battle that CM does model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. Try this: Take 4 25pdr FOOs and give them 10 rounds each. Then target some German platoon and let them have it. That is the equivalent of Blackburns troop putting out 12 rounds per gun per minute. Now double that to 8 FOOs, that is 1 battery.

To condense and slightly modify Jacko?s criteria : 1)It must be directly supporting of the battle. 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). 3)It must have some effect on game play. 4)It must fall into the realm of the codeable within the capabilities of the current game engine. 5)It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game. 6)Priority, can it be done in time for the game and is it worth it. Just a few general comments. The 79th armoured used assault teams which typically operated in advance of the infantry in assaults. Typically they might comprise 1 troop of crabs (flails) and 2-4 AVRE either vanilla or with SBG or fascine (usually 1SBG and one fascine and 1-2 standard). These would be followed up by a croc troop or infantry. The main obstacles encountered would be AT ditches and craters (apart from mine fields). I have a picture of one of the assault teams at the FUP for phaseII of the Le Havre assault. There is a AVRE in front followed by two crabs, then possibly another crab (bit indistinct), then an AVRE with an SBG (easy to spot ), then another AVRE, then either an AVRE with fascine or a crab (pretty blurry), etc... Funnies Croc- already in AVRE-PETARD already in (although not fully modelled for reason 4 and 6) Sherman Crab (Flail) 1)Y 2)Y 3)Y 4)? possibly 5)Y 6)up to BTS AVRE-SBG 1)Y 2)Y 3)Y (only if appropriate obstacles present and they ain?t) 4)probably N 5)Y but limited to specific operations 6)obviously not AVRE-Fascine 1)Y 2)Y 3)Y but only if obstacles are in the game 4)probably N 5)Y but limited (mainly for craters, SBG seems to have been preferred for AT ditches) 6)obviously not AVRE-Bobbin, AVRE-Mine plough (not sure if this was a regular Churchill or AVRE) probably fail in most categories. ARK and other bridging devices- I would think the only tactical use at CMs level was confined to D-day. Might add flavour to a scenario if you could start it with your bridge in place. That is, modelled as a terrain feature rather than a vehicle. CDL- As I don?t think anyone is suggesting their inclusion so they seem a bit of a spurious example to use. Still their application is fairly clear from my reading. In the immediate aftermath of gaining a bridgehead over a water obstacle you need to defend the bridge against night attack especially sabotage. Searchlights attract a lot of fire, if they are amoured then the crew is safer. As far as I know only one CDL was lost to enemy fire by the 79th Div. They were operated, when required, by crews from the 49th APC regiment.

Don't worry Cauldron, it wasn't what you posted that amused me the most. Unfortunately no one bothered to answer your question. Which is a perfectly reasonable one which has puzzled me somewhat too.

Fluf, Good post. You seem to have misunderstood Blackburn on the rates of fire. IIRC he says the 'official' rates of fire were normal at 3 rounds per min (ie harrassing fire) or 5 per min for intense. My impression is that he then goes on to say that most of their crews would fire at well over that (10+ I think) in fact he cites one crew timed during a barrage as firing 17 in one minute (of course that is extraordinary). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The CM representation of the smallest divisible unit of guns delivering fire at the normal rate seems entirely correct to me. This gives the player the flexibility to represent the use of these guns at any level desired from troop to division by the use of game FOOs in increments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The implication of reading Blackburn's account is that calls for fire from FOOs for tactical support of the infantry would not be met using a sporadic fire rate (ie normal). I would suggest that the infantry might get a bit upset in real life if a lazy CM style barrage started landing on the objective Perhaps someone could quote the passage from Blackburn in context so that those who don't have it in hand can see. My impression was that he thought the "official" rates were amusingly low compared to reality. He makes similar comments about "official" ammunition consumption IIRC. As for FOOs and units of fire from my reading of Blackburn a fire mission for a single troop would be rare. In fact Mike targets seem amazingly common (wouldn't that be nice!). Early war you would see troops and batteries firing single missions but by 1944 I am not so sure, Shelford Bidwell probably has plenty to say on that. I thought it was 6 FOO teams and then the battery commander was with the Inf Bn HQ. Though I guess he could call fire I wouldn't have thought that normally he was roaming around with the forward companies. The FOOs would be with the two leading inf companies. Just to clarify, that's 6FOOs per regiment operating in support of a brigade. As Jon says 2 FOOs per battery. My understanding is that by 1944 the troop was more of an administrative unit rather that a tactical unit. [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

Yes! Let's stamp out these devious identity theives. BTS obviously don't need this cos Jacko says so and he knows. Lead on Jacko! The more you rave on about it, the more it will happen.

Gee, oddly enough, they are! Looks like they got one thing right then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually, if you read the original thread preTrolling, the disucssion of issue was hijacked identity -- which when brought to the attention of the hijackee was very important. For example, what if I went onto a medical journal discussion group and started to post crap about your views of research, to the point that people started to refuse to buy books by you and your research was discounted or at least given a bad rap. This is a real issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your sense of perspective seems somewhat distorted. Pehaps in the first instance there may be some element of merit in what you have to say but continueing your inquisition seems to be worthy of wry amusement, at the least. One man's "real issue" is another man's "storm in a teacup". Feel free to carry on though you're producing more original comedy than any of the gits in the cesspool.

As Brian correctly points out ARVEs were conversions of Mk3 and 4 Churchills. The conversions were performed by the MG Car Co and included application of additional armour plate on a number of surfaces. This is not widely recorded in general texts. Which is why looking only at such texts can give one the wrong information. For precisely the same reason if I wanted information on US combat engineer practices in the ETO I wouldn't read a history of the British 79th armoured div. to get it As for the Churchills, the common availability of uparmouring kits for the Mk 3 and 4 meant that many were converted by REME workshops to almost the equivalence of the heavier Mks. Not only that but there were apparently excess numbers of the Mk8 turret available. Hence the confusion of types ie Mk9-11.

Personally I would think the 'real' Slapdragon would be absolutely furious to think that this bloke Jacko has used his name for a 'nick' and is furiously investigating other criminal exploiters of the terminally dim and credulous. In fact I have the sudden urge to wastefully spend my time locating the 'real' Slapdragon so that I can 'dob' on Jacko. After all we all know how Aussies love a dobber especially somefink really important like this.

OK where to start? Settle down Hofbauer! I have gleaned one pearl of wisdom amongst all your "ill-spent energy" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They have stated repeatedly that CMBO is *done*. No more patches, and surely no re-writing of code.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too true. Still it doesn't stop one from discussing them generally nor attempting a reasonable explanation as to why they are not in, does it? My impression is that because of the time and difficulty of including specialised engineering vehicles and the obstacles they were intended to deal with, they were not put in the game. It was purely and simply an issue of resource allocation I would think. As has been observed the game treats engineers in a fairly cursory fashion for this reason. Maybe sometime down the track it will be possible for BTS to put in the effort (which will be not inconsiderable I fancy) to include this interesting aspect in a future version of the game. As for the funnies I would suggest that most of the "in combat" uses that would appear in CMBO would utilise various capabilities of the ARVE (bridges and fascines etc) rather than the other vehicles based on the Churchill chassis (ie ARKs). Although these are not present currently neither are the terrain types they dealt with. Therefore the point is largely moot. Personally I think the ARVE is a bit of a waste of time in the game, I would have much rather seen some of those vehicles on Germanboy's list (Buffaloes would've been great!). I've encountered a few situations where I would've loved a few flails as well. Just a couple of specific points "Kim" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet they didn't make it the most common variant of the AVRE but rather the least - based on the Mk.VII Churchill - indeed, you have the Mk.VIII included in the game, perhaps the rarest of all Churchill variants to have ever been produced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you say that? Going by the stats, the ARVE is based on the Mk3/4. In the game it has the same armour as the Mk6 which is basically a Mk4 with a 75mm gun. In fact it's armour is undermodelled since the ARVEs were uparmoured at the time of conversion, but that's another story. As for the other marks it would be best to consider the Mk7 in the game as representing both itself and the Mk10. The same applies to the Mk8 and the Mk11. Most of the earlier Mk3-5 were uparmoured over time to a similar level to the Mk7 or converted to other vehicles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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>Yes, but to do that they would have had to put in narrow waterways/ditches. Which they didn't for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here because they are quite complex but do not include a conviction that such terrain features did not exist

Andrew, Good post. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with a tank destroyer. All sides used them it's just that most of them saw them realistically as more mobile AT guns (SP guns). It always strikes me as weird when a US publication refers to towed AT guns as "tank destroyers". A designation that could only have been dreamed up by some marketing git who was press ganged for the duration. Not wanting to detract in anyway but strictly speaking there was a HE round for the 2-pdr. It just wasn't widely issued ("The Gunners" David Horner).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One Allied gun that did benefit from lengthening was the 6 pounder (57mm). The U.S. gun is notably longer than the original-design Brit gun, possibly done to match the 75mm M3 gun tube's barrel length so they could share the same machinery (my speculation).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beleive this is incorrect. There were at least 2 marks (actually seems like there were possibly 9+) of the 6pdr, the earlier 57L43 and the later higher velocity 57L50 (not sure when this change occured, possibly Mk3-Mk5?). It seems that there were two US 57mm guns. The first was the 57mm M1 which seems to have a similar performance to earlier 6pdr types and the later 57mm M43 (seen in CMBO) was probably a copy of the later version. My understanding is that the Brit equivalent of the US 75mm gun (75mm QF) was actually a rebored 6pdr. Interestingly some publications say there was a composite round (HVAP) for the US 57mmM43 which had intermediate performance between APBCHE and APDS. Wonder if it was ever issued? {edited for additional info) [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Besides, everyone knows Simon is the one with all the answers, anyhow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. Glad to see you've come to your senses at last Dorosh. Though your acknowledgement of my uberness is a little tardy. Now all I need to do is get slappy educated....

"An answer to Simon Fox" has got to be the most annoying pathetic title ever contrived. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the contents. It should be :"The MG according to slappy" or "Slappy pontificates" or somefink. BTS PLEASE fix or do somefink!

Free to air here. hehe

The score so far: half brains- 1 no brains- 3

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In view of the tactical pluralism tolerated in tank-infantry cooperation before Montgomery took over 21 Army Group, the flaws in the doctrine he imposed when he assumed command and the negligible attention to the subject within the armoured divisions, such evidence of interarm misunderstanding is no surprise. The varying approaches to the problem attempted within the 27th Armoured Brigade in Normandy reflect the failure to achieve a well-founded consensus on the matter before D-Day. Criticism of poor tank-infantry co-operation within armoured divisions, while not invalid, is unfair. The Normandy battles were not what the British armoured divisions had trained for because such battles were not the task assigned to them in doctrine. It was all very well for Montgomery to reject that doctrine, but the consequence was that the armoured divisions were set to do work for which they were neither trained nor organised. Whether one blames the War Office for the inflexibility inherent in doctrine, or Montgomery for failing to grasp the limitations the training and organisation of his armoured divisions placed upon the tasks they could reasonably be expected to accomplish, is a matter of personal taste. The armoured divisions themselves were not to blame. -Timothy Harrison Place in Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JasonC wrote: What stands out far more than the 105-75 question is the poor performance of the 25-lber compared to the 105, with equal numbers of shells fired. Not entirely surprising since the 105 carries 2 1/2 times the HE burster, but a useful corrective to sometimes inflated claims made for the 25-lber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all. Lorrin's comments are directed at the part of the study related to ricochet fire vs timed airburst which he has selected for presentation here. These and other studies presented at the same site give data for other fusing systems including VT. As far as I can see John Salt does not present the conclusions of the study with regard to relative performance so I assume rexford has provided his own. As you point out it is a little difficult to discern exactly how they collected the data. By reducing the effectiveness of a round to the single determinant of burster charge weight you are ignoring the effect of fuse type and effectiveness which is dramatically shown by this study. It seems that at the time of the study the 25pdr fuse types relevant to timed airburst and ricochet fire were hopeless.