Simon Fox

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought Tout was in 2nd Northants Yeo, 11th AD's Recce. He was in a Cromwell, IIRC, since he complained about the poor quality of it (the Sherman was seen as the Rolls-Royce of the Allied tanks). His unit was almost totally destroyed in GOODWOOD (lost 57 out of 64 tanks or somefink), and rebuilt by disbanding 1st Northants Yeo. All from memory, long time since I read it. This is all based on Tank!, haven't read any of his other books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. I think he was in the 1st NY which was in one of those independent armoured brigades. They had Shermans. The 2nd NY was disbanded and amalgamated into his unit. I have read 3 of his books: Tanks!, Tanks, Advance! From Normandy to the Netherlands 1944 also To hell with Tanks! All of them good first hand tank action, especially Tanks, Advance! which has an account of a battle in a Dutch town in which the action is more like a demolition derby and the Brit and German armour fight it out at ranges of just a few metres.

Well I am not clear on how you derive your mysterious 1.4 factor. It may well be that some of the blast ratings are "off", though I don't think that applies to the 3in mortar which by all accounts was substantially better than the 81mm, but your 1.4 "fudge" factor just confuses the issue IMO. It is possible that BTS used some of the Brit ordinance tests which used more than just blast to account for effectiveness but I am only speculating. From what I can gather most Brit 25pdr HE was TNT filled. The US did have non-TNT filled 105mm HE but I am not sure how common that was. The Brit choice of 25pdr (88mm) rather than the 105mm used by other nations in their field arty has a lot to do with their artillery doctrine which could be considered as a "more bangs" approach. Thus supposedly having more tubes in a battery firing at a faster rate put down more rounds in a short time period. Unfortunately with the current rate of fire it is hard to acheive. You may be right that the 25pdr blast is a little high and should be closer to the 75mm than the 105mm rating. If you could get 20rounds/min out of an FO instead of the current 12 I think it would be an acceptable trade off for a lower blast rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just going by burster weight<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which IIRC BTS did not.

I think I would be right in saying what Andreas is talking about is burning houses on the attack as a way of flushing out the defenders. Certainly the British of all the combatants made the most extensive use of flamethrowers and their infantry very much came to appreciate the support of the 'crocs'. I am not so sure that they would have used the same tactics when on the defense. As for terrain fires I am sure that in reality they don't burn the same way as in the game, having a nasty habit of getting out of control. Furthermore the most reasonable step of sitting back and letting them burnout is not available in CM.

Well obviously they got their figures from somewhere but they're not exactly consistent. One would expect a reasonable rate of fire for a round like the 25pdr to exceed that of the 105mm US and German guns which are 4/min and be less than the 75mm guns which are around 6/min. Instead they are down at 3/min which strangely is the same as the 4.2 inch gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Commonwealth forces had real troubles getting sufficient artillery support, regardless of how much was theoretically available "on call".Accept it or don't, but save your gutterspeak for your puddlian friends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I don't accept. As more than adequately addressed by Andreas there are quite conflicting viewpoints with considerable credibility. Neither do I accept that it has anything to do with 25pdrs as they are modelled in the game. Since I don't accept it it is hardly likely to make it more palatable is it? As for the rest, I find your pompous drawing room pronouncments exceedingly offensive. Kindly save your unworldly lectures for whatever finishing school for the genteel you are in the habit of addressing. I suggest you show some more sensitivity to foreign language speakers, not everyone can aspire to the refined dialect to which you are accustomed. JasonC, You are absolutely right that there are plenty of alternatives to the 25pdr which can do the job. I just find the rate of fire somewhat perplexing. A point to note is the different British artillery organisation. A battery was 8 guns and a regiment/battalion had 3 batteries. So as pointed out by Andreas it takes 2 CM FOOs to make up one 25pdr battery and 6 to make up a regiment/battalion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Combined arms doctrine was quite weak among the Commonwealth forces, in some cases (during attacks) forward units had no artillery support at all after the initial push-off, despite an abundance of ready reserves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really Babs I think such a sweeping statement is a load of bollocks. I will happily debate it with you but somewhere else if you don't mind. Just because you're a bitter and twisted little grog about the Stuart recce doesn't mean you have to sidetrack this thread with irrelevancies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you put the limitations of the 25 pdrs into that light, it's an easier pill to swallow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh thankyou. Now I understand. In real life the Commonwealth were pissweak so BTS crippled the British arty in the game to model this. Consider me to have had my medicine, when's the next dose?

Leaving aside all the other issues which cripple arty in CM with respect to real life it does seem that the workhorse of the the British Field Artillery regiments in WW2, the 25pdr, get's a bad deal in CM. When playing the Brits I generally try and grab some of the 25pdr observers because that's mainly what they had on tap. If it worked for them, then it should work for me, shouldn't it? But no, what follows is interminable twiddling of thumbs as you get the laziest barrage ever put out by a FA troop. How in the hell am I ever gonna suppress somefink with that useless desultry barrage. So I investigated, counted the rounds in other words: 12 rounds per minute. Sheesh, that's 3 per tube. Confused, I meandered on my merry way, maybe BTS knew somefink I didn't. Anyway I never bothered to complain, there seemed little point. Now however I read this little thread (many thanks to Peter for making the effort): http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000789 How much the 25pdr has been shafted is now clear. Let me draw your attention to the following: RoF US 105mm=16/turn RoF Ger 105mm=16/turn RoF Brit 25pdr(88mm)=12/turn Pig's arse! RoF Brit 25pdr=RoF Brit 4.5inch Excuse me, but I don't fink so! The morale of the story is that if you want to use Brit 25pdrs in CM then the closest thing to reality is the Brit 4.2in mortar. Otherwise unless you want an extremely long lived harrassing barrage, don't bother. The only other way to use them is to target two FOs at the same target, then you get about the proper density of fire you should get for one.

Obviously the "Stars" took the term rather too much to heart, rather like their "real world" counterparts. Perhaps if you'd called it the Tourney of Gits the participants may have performed in a stellar fashion rather than the reverse.

Really Spkr, just because you think that (and really who didn't) doesn't mean you have to proclaim it bluntly for all to read. After all Deadmarsh isn't one to take advantage of the goodwill and helpfullness of the board members is he? As for you Deadmarsh, what the hell is it with these asterix you people keep using, is this some sort of guessing game? Why can't you use a decent anglo-saxon insult like arsehole, really asshole just sounds so wussy.

Settle down there Stuka no need to get all righteous, it just doesn't go with the mullet and the furry dice. For godssake man go and do a few broggies or somefink, crack a tinnie. I don't think he was advocating genocide as your response seems to suggest. Mmmm, boganicide, now there's an idea, wouldn't really be a crime would it? More of a public service really. Drooling halfwits are best ignored especially those with the traditional massive kiwi shoulder chips. Ooops sorry, what I thought was furry dice was actually Mace's head.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Steve and Charles have presented some pretty good evidence that White Phos was uncommon or even very rare. In the US Army WP was fired by one of a few chemical companies (relatively) and used on divisional level to create smoke screens. It was rarely used in an antipersonal function since it obscured the target from view. Of the 18 Chemical battalions equipped with 4.2 mortars in Europe, most were attached at the corps or division level and they were not, despite there quality and power, usually used for artillery on demand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kindly cite your source for this view of the operational employment and attachment of the US chemical mortar battalions. Since Steve and Charles saw fit to include the US 4.2in mortar as an artillery weapon in the game and AFAIK no other units employed these weapons are you suggesting they were wrong to put it in the game? If not, perhaps you could explain how one rationalises the typical ratio given by these units of WP:HE rounds fired in toto of between 1:1 and 1:2.

I wasn't talking about you, git. A 6in naval FO was more than adequate antidote to those sIGs. I consider running full tilt through the woods to be laughable rather than gamey, I hope that's not standard kiwi jungle tactics. How's the footrot going? Nice and hilly up there eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: You lost that one huh?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, not so far. Remember what I wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Always assume your opponent is a gamey cheating cunning bastard and then you will never be disappointed or suprised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wuz ready!

It seems to me that some of the issue here is the definition of what is meant by "meeting engagement" as rightly pointed out by Kingfish. David seems to have adopted the position that the game starts at the time of contact between two forces. But as pointed out by Kingfish it is most likely that any commander would have some indication that the enemy were active in the vicinity of the objective and accordingly deploy his support weapons in overwatch postions. Thereby supporting the advance on the objective. As pointed out the setup zones permit one to do exactly this. Personally I think it is less a "gamey" issue and more a question of whether one is playing in the 'spirit' of the meeting engagement. My definition of which is rather wider than David's obviously. I would like to make a distinction between the two things being discussed which I think are quite seperate: -whether guns in meeting engagments should have appropriate transport -whether they should start limbered In my opinion the spirit of the meeting engagment dictates that they should have transport available. Typically the vehicle was attached to the gun crew (in fact probably driven by it) and wouldn't just dump the gun and drive off to do something else. Personally I find it rather useful to have transport for the guns although in the midst of battle halftracks and bren carriers are rather more useful than trucks etc. People should lighten up a bit and not get so vociferous. Always assume your opponent is a gamey cheating cunning bastard and then you will never be disappointed or suprised. I would not go so far as to expect them to be limbered at the start as my concept of a meeting engagment is more akin to Kingfish's. Indeed it seems to me that to play the "David's Rules" one should start with all support weapons mounted and with transport. You really think people marched with 81mm/3in mortars or Vickers MGs or even .50 HMGs? I don't fink so. In fact I get annoyed with scenario designers who give you them in a meeting engagment and don't give you any way to deploy them apart from plod plod plod. Funnily enough the only time I have encountered stinking cheating gamey deployment of guns which could only have got there by matter transport was a malingering kiwi so maybe 'disreputable' is some sort of national characteristic and not far off the mark

Now for the answer to the question. CMs treatment of MGs is fairly unsophisticated for a variety of reasons. But we won't go into that will we, because it's been done to death. In the MG thread currently running (at least until someone grabs a wooden stake [that's steak for maximus's benefit]) there is a bunch of useful links. Anyway fire lanes aren't really modelled at the moment in CM, ie no grazing fire. But the advantages being higher than the target are, ie less cover for the target. So there actually is some advantage to being on the top floor. I do not think CM tracks small arms fire until it leaves the map.

Dear Michael, Perhaps you might like to consider the outside of the cultural box in which you live. You might like to also consider that Maximarses's comments were part of a long running linguistic catfight he has going with Aitken. This is a bilingual forum after all. I suggest you consult an English dictionary for the original definitions and an Amglish dictionary for the let's have one word for everything definition. hehe

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Quit your moaning 'Rat, its in your <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No it ain't you git. Did you use the same methodology as before? Try the other address, you seem to be able to get that one right. JS please fix or somefink!

Good on ya Fernando. Give that dopey kiwi a serve. Divisional colour scheme Humph! Stop thinking up dumb ideas Jon and get that turn back to me. After all your whinging one would have thought you would get straight on it.

Denizens of the pool I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude for this great hon..... Damn no, I just can't go on. I thought a bit of reverse psychology might do the trick but the pretence just couldn't be maintained. Mouselike effusiveness cannot be sustained by the normal. Well I must say I am taken aback (deliberate omission of hackneyed aside) by this turn of events. I wonder what disservice I have rendered to Seanachi that he should attempt to belittle me with a title of such dubious worth, somewhat akin to the bestowal of an honorary doctorate from Enid Blyton University I would think. My vision of him as a rather inocuous windbag possessed of startling tactical incompetence is altered by this viscious and cowardly attack. It is not inconceivable, given his general erratic demeanour, that he actually means well by it but that MarkIV bloke has the rights of it. Though I don't recall having read one of his posts before, has he been around long? Anyway when he pointed out the overwhelming negative aspects of it from my point of view I knew things would take a turn for the worse. Predictably the quiescent fossils roused themselves from dormancy and in a spirit of pissing off both the newcomers and myself croaked their acquiescence. Even beryl's unsubtle mind managed to grasp the backhandedness of the concept when it was pointed out to him and seized upon it as furthering the ill-fitting malevolent persona he has adopted. How easy that was for him is clear when one considers how through the ages the retarded have been demonised. Thankfully shaw can always be relied upon to jealously defend the exclusivity of his botched life's solitary achievment. It was almost worth it just to imagine the woebegone expression on his hirsute visage as his precious hierachy was threatened by "queue jumpers". Almost, but not quite. The man is the very antithesis of well-adjusted, psychologists may talk of "overcompensation" but they will flock to see it personified in shaw. It has been suggested to me before that with my tendency to 'stir' I might enjoy visting the pool more often to torment the denizens, but I am morally adverse to brutality to the lower forms of life, even bogans like stuka. Certainly I participated in lambasting sspanzerleader whose sooking and irritating insistence on treating the trivial with extreme seriousness earned plenty of ridicule. Of course peng took that to an entirely different, but not higher, plane. But I did not participate in the original thread for two reasons: 1) In it's original guise it was principally for the taunting of opponents over their games. While I am not adverse to a good 'barney' that is entirely seperate from my modus operandi when playing CM which generally does not include beating my chest (that shandorf fellow really is distasteful isn't he?) nor crowing at their misfortune. It seems to me that that sort of thing was so american. 2) peng, the homo neanderthalus of wit was active in it Recently, I have come to reconsider reason 1 and it was that "stars" tourney thingy that did it. If one could administer a cruel and methodical dismemberment of an opponents psyche in the guise of a "critique" of their performance, well a whole new vista of possibilities would open up. One could remain entirely civilised, protesting ones beneficial intent, "I was merely trying to help you". All in the face of your opponents battered ego, desperate justification and general sooking. Damn, you could even come out of it as the wronged party, take the high morale ground so to speak. Oh yes! Your opponent would merely look like a sore loser. Just brilliant. Not only that but any kind of cheating gamey method you used when picking your force would be obscured, swept under the carpet so to speak. That's just the kind of absolute cunningness that appeals to me. Lorak, really is that name supposed to be some sort of joke upon yourself? A more unelfin visage could scarcely be imagined. For god sake man do somefink! official cesspool grog eh? Should I embolden it and place it in my sig? To trumpet its' hollowness around the forum? Should I put it above the hymn of the double reds currently residing there? A tribute to the men of the 2/2 Independant Company murdered by the Japanese in Feb 1942 and their comrades who wreaked a bitter revenge upon the Japanese. I think not. [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

Slapdragon is right. Personally I use my Shermans against infantry and use Stuarts or Daimlers to deal with the MkIVs.

I have no intention of addressing Lorak's twitterings directly. But as a professional agitator and disdainer of the overweening (Shaw being a prime example of an overweening buzzing gnat) I offer these thoughts. Take for example Loraks statement: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway we didn't treat him any diffrent than we treat a small piece of wyrm ****e like you Simon. If you can't take the ribbing, and realize that it is all in good fun. Then leave. But to blame us for your lack of humor is just in bad taste. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a perfect example of why people have to tighten up their prose. If you read it in one light it appears that Lorak is making a general statement about the dangers of entering the cesspool if you are a sook. Yet in another light it can be read as implying that I am a tasteless and humourless sook, clearly designed to belittle and insult, but of course not having the desired effect either way. Clearly this message can be interpreted in a variety of manners, yet with a little more care the message could have been phrased in a manner to remove any doubt that I was the recipient of the insult. Edited to remove any possible ambiguity. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

Is the file especially large (ie a movie file from a large battle)? Maybe his email client is splitting the file for some reason. He could try archiving the file as a zip file or something similar. Whenever I have had file reading problems with funny clients that has solved the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: As for your comment that Tiger was cast out, a bit of truth-stretching there....Tiger left of his own accord! Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Semantics Mace, mere semantics, subtlety not being your forte. Just seizing upon the general tone of paranoia and taking some creative liberties with it for dramatic effect. Would "driven out" be more to your liking. Anyway that priest bloke said it was the fault of you filthy demented lot, so there. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

You gits in here are entirely responsible for this Tiger flamefest thing. If that demented dwarf Shaw hadn't persecuted Seanachi this would never have happened. Having been made unwelcome in here he had to find some other outlet for his longwinded ramblings. It stands to reason that such obscure and obtuse prose should be interpreted as a subtle and viscious campaign of insult by those not endowed with skin with warthog pretentions ie Tiger and his attractive cheerleader Rommel 22. Now our CM "community" (asylum being a more appropriate designation IMO) has cast out one of it's favoured sons Furthermore this juvenile Knights thingy you have going in here has clearly backfired. Rather than constraining Aitken's viscious demeanour he has taken upon himself to form a knightly order, the Missionaries of the Sacred and Inviolable Combat, riding forth at every opportunity to "do battle" with the "demented", the "questioners" and the "disbelievers". As with all religous fanatics, his interpretation of the "holy word" has it's own idiosyncratic bent, any deviation bringing a viscious assault; bereft of reason and without concern for the reputation of the victim. Shame upon you all. This Peng thread thing is really a mistake. It is the proper place for the unsubtle, the crude and the puerile (ie Stalin's Organ- the archetypal kiwi git). The irony is that there are far more worthy recipients for the subtle assasin and the viscious parody outside. Now our CM "community" (asylum being a more appropriate designation IMO) has cast out one of it's favoured sons. "Tiger, we love you, please come back" is the cry heard across the forum far and wide, with few variations apart from the occasional: "Meanies out!". As thread after thread spawn endlessly with the same plaintive cry I say: you people have a lot to answer.