Simon Fox
-
Posts
1,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Simon Fox
-
-
I quite like my home.
Most of the time I like the people who live in it.
Occasionally the five year olds behave like 5 year olds and that annoys me.
But it doesn't prompt me to leave.
Nor make hasty and possibly illconsidered threats to do so.
-
Really Jeff, why are you skulking inside modding like some troglodyte when the weather is so fantastic?
I imagine you are starting to look fairly pale packish yourself
Good work btw
-
By all accounts the petard was very effective against houses (and was also used to blast holes in bocage) which is not the case in CM because of the way the blast is modelled.
I have read that strictly speaking the petard round was not hollow charge; that it was in fact similar to HESH. This would explain why the in flight tumble was not so critical and also it's reported blast performance being substantially greater than that modelled in CM.
The exposure to the loader was not very great. Basically the weapon broke downwards for loading which was done through the co-drivers hatch. Only the loaders arm would be exposed.
The guy who is the full bottle on the AVRE is ossie osbourn over at the AFV news forum. He posted a lot of his information over there recently and I note that Andreas has been picking his brains too.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
Thank you for your pointlessness Simon.
Perhaps you could actually provide some information to enlighten me if you have the answer, instead of bull**** to entertain me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I decline to state the bleedin' obvious. Work it out yourself, read what CMplayer has to say or on yer bike Mike!
-
s'OK I got it on the second address I sent
Which is a bit weird since they are the same server. Maybe it is just adverse to NZ, which is perfectly understandable, because I only just got a bunch of other stuff no probs.
Whaddaya mean you can't geddit? Is that java or IRC?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
You should have it b'now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Go to CMHQ chat and we'll sort it out.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
Sounds more like a description of Pak 40 and Pak 38 AT guns than a tank!! What tank comes up to your waist??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As usual Organ like a kiwi git is wont to do, your twitchy little fingers start pinging away at a reply before your brain has bothered to comprehend what you have read. I suggest you reread the post while committing more than one neuron to the task. This is not the Peng thread you know, though I am sure they appreciate your "clutter".
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
are you going to be around for a while? I have some time to kill ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just send the turn boyo. I'm still at work so I will be around for a while. Normally I would feel a little guilty cluttering up the forum with this crap but reading it over it is probably the best on the first page.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
Then he can carry on with the arty overkill :mad:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stoic demeanour slipping a bit, eh?
It's called recon by fire. My Poles can smell your lot in those woods. Though I fink it's suddenly become somewhat more smelly.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
so, Einstein, where's your email address then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check your mailbox Egor.
You fink I'm gonna advertise my email round here so all the fawning groupies of my "uberness" (thanks to John for that) can annoy me? Sheesh
-
Dumb kiwi git!
Better a dodgy dingo than a sheep shagger!
Ubique!
-
You've done it now Steve. As pointed out by Mace this topic has been discussed before as I can recall advocating it too. Now I know it slipped through the BTS net last time I'm gonna have to dig out that great long dissertation of ideas I had that I thought you knew all about but now I'm not so sure. Look out!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The chief recipient of sycophantish behaviour wrote:
Sure, but you didn't even care to figure out why they were acting like a bunch of "6 year olds". Some didn't appreciate Jason's tone, not what he was proposing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tone, sheesh! Geez people shoulda been eternally grateful that his comment was concise even if sensitive souls could characterise it as terse. What would you rather read Jason being terse or Jason being Jason. I think you should be thankful for small mercies.
Personally I was glad he didn't embark on a interminable dissection of slappy's test. Just reading one of slappy's test posts is bad enough!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rarity, new move orders, and better MG simulation takes care of that quite nicely <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know about you, but "I'm excited!" (TM Big Kev)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:
And in an aside, I learned a long time ago not to argue with Slappie here, he is an academic whose job it is to win logical arguments we have in places like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not only that but he is a punctilious pain in the arse once he gets his teeth into somefink. Didn't someone start a Portuguese or Spanish thread which was distracting him and keeping him out of trouble very nicely for a while. Will someone please start it up again. No his job is not to win logical arguments. He's a proffesor of the sociology of basket weaving or somesuch and his job is to make arguments full stop because obviously your not going to generate real data with that sort of psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo. Also of course to lecture students and any other poor sucker he can practise on. And just in case you think I'm flaming him he can just be grateful I haven't mentioned his friends in Tasmania (oops).
Now Scipio most of your "problems" seem to arise from misconceptions about the comprimises which BTS had to make when creating CM and also sometimes the rationale behind them. What slappy didn't point out that may be confusing you is that in CM a miss is a miss. The closeness of the miss to the target is determined in somekind or semirandom fashion. So you can't use the fall of shot to know how close you missed by. CM tracks the shot to see if it hits but if it doesn't it sorta forgets about it. So in the game you don't really see the bracketing process although chance to hit will definitely rise with each subsequent shot at the same target. I hope I have explained it clearly. Basically it means that if you have a hit and the next shot seems to go very wide then that doesn't mean your gun crew has lost the range. It is a little misleading until you are aware of it but I guess it was a compromise to reduce processing demands.
-
OK. Well at least go over to the general forum and agree with me that "Panzer" Meyer was a bumbling fool and the 12th SS were nancy boys.
As for the cricket, who knows. I'm an Aussie you know not a septic. We only crow after we've won not before. Quietly confident though, the boys are in good form.
-
Well now we've had a jolly old time slagging off Mace you can send me a turn cos no one has bothered today and I'm sitting here playing the AI while a bunch of women are jabbering away in the kitchen. Help!
-
Mace,
You seem to have hold of the wrong end of the stick (suprise, suprise). Trust a public servant to sow confusion and misunderstanding.
The question is not the ability to dig in during an scenario but before which makes perfect sense for scenarios where the attacker may have been in place for some time before launching their attack. The principle being that you would dig in your support weapons (eg mortars, MGs etc) if you had time. Geddit?
-
Well John sarcasm begets sarcasm and hyperbole begets hyperbole so you are obviously adverse to your own medicine. That is despite your protestations of "I could care less". How easy for you to dismiss those who question the absolutism of your opinion or reliance on a particular vein of evidence as lacking understanding ("what part of the German tests results is so hard for ppl to understand?") or prone to unreasoning "National pride".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm here to share & learn & I have an opinion, if you dont like my posting here etc then don't read it, or post data that contradicts the tests , or explain to me why these test results are incorrect etc, if my post was a 'hyberbole' why answer it with another one?, I have more then qualified my comments here IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So in future I am to assume that if I don't like something you write I should restrain myself from responding and immediately assume that I will never agree with anything you write? So far no one has disputed the data you cite, just their relevance to the conclusions you draw.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now your sarcasm aside, the figure of 150m is recited in FJ diaries from men whom made the jump, so I'm, not ignoreing first hand accounts Ie, Adolf Strauch's diary for entry for 20 May says jump height was 500ft (150m).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I merely wanted clarification. Where did he jump by the way? Personally I think jump height is largely irrelevant since they're all heading downwards. Excepting of course that it puts the JU52s close enough for small arms fire to hit them.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If your interested in how many died in chutes compared to out of harness etc,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not really interested at all. I am interested in how you come by such blanket statements as: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>from the posts here you would think Aussie, & NZ Inf were dropping 9 outa 10 Paras in the air in 10 shots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Australlian tales of killing German paras in the air, are just that tales. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since neither of them are supported by the evidence. Nor do you cite which of these mysterious Australian or Kiwi "tales" or "anecdotes" you are arguing against. Unless you are suggesting that no FJs were hit in the air (killed or wounded)?
Perhaps a more useful exercise would be to attempt to explain logically the dichotomy between the many anecdotal stories and the other evidence rather than just blindly dismiss one lot of evidence as incredible. I will leave that up to you since you wish to "share" and can "learn" best by doing. I suggest you start by questioning the very existence of the dichotomy.
You can rest assured John that I never edit my posts to reduce the sarcasm or irony content. After all it's good clean fun and any sooking is entirely the responsibility of the recipient.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Australian tales of killing German paras in the air, are just that tales.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this is enough to jolt me out of lurk mode. Everytime this subject comes up, John, you trot out this test result as some sort of myth destroying finality. Well you can take your test in isolation but I prefer to look at the entire body of evidence. I can think of a few blokes around here who are about 80 who would be interested in a conversation with you about your characterisation of them as liars.
It may well be that a number of descriptions overestimate the numbers of FJs who were hit in the air but their are a number of well researched and balanced books on the battle which give credence to the description of the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses. Most generally these accounts describe decimation of FJ units during the landing phase which includes rifle, machine gun, and AA fire against troops exiting planes, while in the air, immediately after landing, in gliders while airborne and just after landing.
Turning to this test. Can you cite your source for the standard jump height at Crete being 150m? My understanding is that FJ SOP at the time was 120m, though I may be wrong. Do you have data which shows that the mean distance of engagment for a rifleman against an airborne FJ was 150m? Can you confirm that jumping FJ hung suspended in the air at this height thereby maintaining a "safe" distance from the enemy? Of course if they descended towards the ground the range would close and that wouldn't make this test particularly relevant would it? Did the test include MGs or SMGs?
Would it be a confirmed hit in your opinion if some bloke was descending towards you and you fired a couple of shots at him and some how or other (well you obviously couldn't of hit him as the test won't allow that) the grenades he was carrying were set of and bits of him rained down around you? Or would that just be a tale (or nightmare maybe)?
Would the after battle examination of bodies by the German be of the same ilk as that performed by their medical teams who upon finding numbers of FJ corpses with bayonet wound in their backs concluded that the allied troops had committed atrocities. Of course it is the men who made these bayonet wounds who should be pitied since sticking a bayonet in a corpse that has been swelling in the Cretan sun for 3-4 days to let the gas out is not exactly pleasant.
As pointed out by mike more accounts of shooting FJs in the air come from Heraklion and Rethymon where Aussie and other troops were deployed on hills and in some cases the drop zones. In these areas the FJs failed to take their objectives and were thoroughly defeated so there was some time to clear up the battlefield a bit.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>yet from the posts here you would think Aussie, & NZ Inf were dropping 9 outa 10 Paras in the air in 10 shots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yeah and what posts would those be? I searched high and low. Even read the thread three times and the only hyperbole (excepting your own) was the first post and even he qualified his comments later.
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I take it that when Simon gets this way, he realizes he's been proven wrong?
Perhaps we should let him win this one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh? Positively undoroshlike!
-
But Gyrene, since Slappy doesn't have any pictures of that in his mega collection then it can't have happened.
I have this picture of Slappy sitting at his computer with a huge mountain of photos piled on the desk. He reads something on his screen, then frantically shuffles through the mountain until finally muttering to himself "Nope, couldn't have happened! No evidence! Against the rules! Patton wouldn't have liked that! Not one bit!". Then he types away.....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is Simon is done being smarmy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Simon has made a lot of unsubstantiated generalities in this thread that I don't agree with on instinct but am in no position to disprove.
I think perhaps he has lost any semblance of credibility with his new "ANZAC" rating for CM troops....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stinking sermoniser!
Just stick to whether the somfink or other division wore their shiny little patches on their left or right buttocks you horrible little uniform grog. I addition to unsubstantiated generalities I've got a mountain of statistics on my side (aka JasonC) and all you've got is "instincts". I fink I'd rather go with my generalities than the instincts of some bloke who spends half his time dressing soldier dolls.
As for slappy, "cricket paddles", sheesh!
-
Maaaate. Really this thread reads like half the participants get their history from Brittanica.
Brittanica is wrong. Their numbers are wrong and their account of the battle is wrong both in detail and emphasis. Geez what source did they use the 'Rommel Papers'.
WHY ARE WARGAMERS SO FRIGGIN' PISSY?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slipupdragon:
This has certainly happened between us from time to time. Andreas and I have a love / hate relationship, and John Waters and I never agree, but for some reason no matter how heated the debates get, John comes back the next thread, maybe he agrees with me, maybe he does not, and Germanboy is sometimes confident of my facts, or thinks I am a loon, and we never seem to have problems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's it slipshod, you've gone too far this time. Leaving me off your people you love to hate list is the deepest insult I've ever received on this forum.
I'm going AND DON"T EXPECT ME BACK!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For at least 5 min