Simon Fox

Actually the search engine seems to work (in a manner of speaking) so the terminally lazy have one less excuse. So stick that in yer spokes Mike!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bah you foul pond scum who run around killing the useful aussie eater; dingo. I mean just when the little buggers became useful and started killing aussie trailer trash your moronic government starts culling em. Bah Humbug! Don't you remember that I've drawn the short straw for that little UN mission in Timor and am in the process of installing CM on every Army internet capable computer that I come in contact with. This means that our PBEM games are locked in the harddisk at home, which means you'll have to send another setup for me, ratty. Oh and you can only reach me through completebastardables@hotmail.com And get a dog up ya!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, well now we only have to get them to cull that other feral pest: the malingering kiwi bludger. I am aware of your impending introduction to tropical disease, though I am suprised to learn that CM will run on a 486. It is hardly suprising given the nation of retards from which you come that it is necessary for me to spell out the bleedin' obvious to you in a manner that even a complete nitwit could comprehend. How remiss of me not to have remembered this after your unlamented absence from the board. It is not necessary for you to have every turn played on the computer you are using, merely the current one (quite how you acquired such an idea is beyond my comprehension since I have no insight into the mental processes of mud crawlers). I will send you the last turn and we may proceed. And get a dingo up ya! to you too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike: Good to see you guys all taking a bit of time out of your busy gaming schedules to think about the subject and make interesting informed comment!! lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No worries Mike. You just carry on with your interesting discussion of the nuances of the CM numbering system and literary efforts dissecting the meaning of each others posts. We'll keep on barracking

So Bastables, think you can skulk in here hiding from me do you? Preparing for a bit of Scrub Typhus are you? hehe This is certainly the place to familiarise yourself with the effects of dysentry. Ewwww *notices an even more foul smell than usual emanating from a soiled nappy* You lot have been babysitting again I see. Anyhow you malingering kiwi, don't make me have to come in here again. Beating up on the dregs of the nation like "Merv Hughes" does not qualify you to preeminence in the eternal Aussie vs Kiwi struggle (admittedly you do have the tactical genius KiwiJoe in your camp). We have unfinished business Bastardables, hop to it!

Hey Mike, on yer bike! Trust a dopey kiwi

The British 4.2" mortar (107mm)is a basic heavy Stokes type mortar, a scaled up version of the 3" mortar and similar in design to the 81mm/82mm mortars floating around. http://www.riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/mortar/mort16.htm The US 4.2" is a different beasty all together, having a rifled barrel, a totally different round (larger) and a greater range. http://www.riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/mortar/mort17.htm

Dogface: "Hi, honey, how was your day" Neglected Wife: "OK, I guess, but I have bad news" Dogface: "What?" Neglected Wife: "The cat wrecked the CD of that game you're always playing" Dogface: "Damn cat, #@*#!" Dogface (looking at CD): "Gee, that cat sure has sharp claws." Mmmmm?

Absolutely and when you know the reasons it makes you that much more confident that Steve and Charles did a pretty good job on their research. Like the difference between the US and UK 4.2 in mortars.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Incidentally, CM gives the British 3" mortar a 26 blast rating. That may be a more accurate ballpark for medium mortars, and it is not in the least clear to me the 3" deserves a much better rating than the 81mm or the US and Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I take it that that is what you mean? Otherwise you are a presumer of Weissian proportions

Good stuff Mike. I was going to add in that other arty thread that the Brits used their 3.7in heavyAA on occasions in a ground role. But I see from that site that it was more common than I thought. I wonder if they used timed air burst with it? I suspect they did because this use of heavy AA they picked up in the desert from the Germans who often used it.

Beryl wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can only answer for myself... I never, given the choice, chose a British model force. I prefer to play heavy infantry forces, and British model infantry sucks. Trying the style tactics I favor with British model infantry will fail every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ???? (momentary puzzlement) Mmmm....now what was berli's military backround? Oh that's right! (dawning understanding). Using British infantry requires you to pace your attack. I like it because you must be more cunning. Unfortunately the German infantry's aversion to close combat cannot be exploited in the game There are many accounts of British attacks being pinned by the high firepower the German infantry could put out. Yet I have often seen the comment made that the profligate usage of ammunition engendered by the MG42 was a disadvantage in the long term. The german section/squad seems to exist mainly as ammo carriers for the MG42. Blackcat wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The standard ten man squad would have one man with a bren gun and the rest armed with the excellent long Lee Enfield<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would have to dispute this. An SMG of some description was standard TOE for the British section of the time. In issue this would have been a Sten but in practice this would have most likely been supplanted with a captured MP40 or Beretta at the earliest opportunity. In a night operation the proportion of SMGs may have risen. In my opinion the most accurate historical representation of a typical British platoon from late 1944 onwards would be a glider platoon, though I wouldn't say it was dead on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a fine point of interest the Austrailians produced their own version of the Sten called the Owen-Stanley which was a much better weapon and was still carried by some Royal Marine Commando units into the late '50s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Aussie version of the Sten was called the Austen and it had all the faults of the original. The Owen gun was a wholly original SMG and completely distinct and vastly superior to the sten as you point out. The history of the Owen gun is particularly interesting since the Army wanted to adopt the Sten but they were overridden by the politicians who insisted on the Owen. An example of political meddling in procurement decisions which had a positive outcome, one the average digger could be thankful for. http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/owen.htm http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/862.html Moving on I think there are a few things that disadvantage the Brit infantry and don't feel quite right: Vickers MMG: As pointed out before the capability for sustained fire of water cooled MGs seems undermodelled. Should be very effective in static situation. Should come as a cheap "unit" with a Bren-less carrier. The MMGs mounted on carriers were not generally permanently fixed nor fired from the Bren port. Grenades: I am unsure as to the relative lethality of hand grenades. I seem to recall some previous discussion on this but I am unsure of the outcome. Anyway, anecdotal evidence suggests German (and Italian) grenades are not as lethal as British. This is confirmed by British testing which IIRC suggested the 'Mills" bomb was more effective than the US grenades (and German stick). This is fairly important as the grenade should play an important role on the close range stuff. Rifle grenades: This is more of a question. I know the Brits had them, both HE and AP. I know they were used pretty extensively in the Far-East, certainly by the Aussies. But I am unsure of the use in NW Europe?. 2-in mortar: This applies to all on map mortars really but the inability to fire on board mortars out of los is quite annoying. Just because you can't see the ground directly behind that slight bump in the terrain doesn't mean you can't see the cloud of dust raised by your bombs or the tops of the trees either for that matter. If you bump into some nasties in the woods and want to mortar their mates you know are trailing along behind them or you know the enemy are lurking at the back of that copse of woods it would be nice to stir them up a bit. Splitting squads: It would be nice if the Brit squad split according to it's organisation instead of evenly. It would be nice if such a standard practice didn't result in a penalty. It is unfortunate that Bren teams aren't in as a seperate unit, after all that's what a Bren carrier crew is when dismounted. Pretty hard to represent the carrier platoon when they're not in. The battalion mortar and AT platoons would also have bren teams for local defence. Bren gun: I am not so sure if the advantages of more mobile LMGs (like the Bren or BAR [well it is sort of a LMG I suppose]) vs the MG42 when on the "move" are modelled in the game. My advice when playing the Brits. Keep the nasties at arms length, when they start running out of ammo give them a taste of cold steel or better still buy a Croc . Buy extra PIATs, use them in pairs, I figure if you get them in a good position even with their inaccuracy you should be able to knock off at least one armoured vehicle with 12 shots. Not only that but they are the only one out of the other infantry AT weapons which are not suicide weapons. Plus it is not unreasonable to kill a Tiger with a PIAT. I send plenty of PIAT teams back to the rear to fight another day. That must do somefink for their morale surely? BTS please fix

The British installed mesh type protection against infantry AT weapons on a number of their tanks in late 44/early 45. I don't know how common it was but for example I think most of the 8th armoured brigade had them. This was probably in response to the rise in the proportion of tank losses due to these weapons at around that time.

The answer to your question is no, can't remember details. Do a search Well Steve said it, it wouldn't be the chromedome or the scurvydog 'cos I never pay attention to what they say about the game [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Actually, I think that the South Seas Detachment (the first one) by the time of the Kokoda trail operation was composed of two regiments and accompanying engineers and artillery (more of a reinforced Brigade than a Division). The troops were veterans, but, only of the war from 1941-1942. They came from the 55th, or 56th Divisions, which were garrison divisions from Japan, not formations that fought in China. Their troops were well trained, and experienced in the relatively bloodless occupation of North New Guinea, the Solomans and New Britain. They were probably as experienced as the troops from the Australian 7th Division. However, the troops from the 30th Brigade were green militia. All and all an interesting engagement with initiative going from one side to another and back again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well IJA organisations are pretty flexible so it's sometimes hard to nut out exactly what was there. Maybe you have better information than me but what I have read suggests at least some of the Japanese force were veterans of China in addition to having fought on Rabaul etc. Anyway after the initial landing of around 7000 troops (about 2600 combat) the eventual force rose to about 13,500 troops which is not far short of a division. I beleive in addition to the army troops there were about 1500 or more SNLF troops. This force was initially faced by one battalion (the 39th)who acquitted themselves fairly well considering they mainly had WW1 lewis guns as their section LMGs Later in their retreat they were joined gradually by the 3 battalions of the 20th Brigade.

I didn't notice that Aussies had cropped up in this thread until I noticed aussie's post on this page. Going back though I think it's funny (and typical) that the Aussies here weren't beating their chests (unlike those marines and sundry other types) but were quick to jump to the defence of the diggers when some ill informed and ignorant comments were made by that organ bloke. The militia issue is even more complicated than has been made out. Basically the AIF was an all volunteer force raised for overseas service, they were not the "regular" army. The AIF comprised men with no military backround, regulars and some from the militia (officially the CMF, Citizens Military Forces, pre war part time soldiers). For various reasons, those who did not want to go off and fight for the poms, or maybe required for home defence etc stayed in the militia. So the AIF was an expeditionary force and the 'militia' was the home defence force. It was possible to volunteer for the militia or the AIF and many did. When the threat to Australia became more direct then conscription was instituted and the conscripts went into the militia, but the militia was not a conscript force. The militia was not an ill led or poorly trained force in general. Many of the militia units had a proud heritage because their antecendants were the units which fought in WW1. The two forces were not completely distinct, especially the officers swapped back and forth. There was considerable disdain in the AIF for the militia units since they considered themselves the elite. But as the Pacific fighting wore on this generally diminished. On the subject of the Kokoda Trail both militia and AIF units fought in the fighting retreat over the Owen Stanley Range. The Japanese had overwhelming superiority both in numbers and firepower. General Horii's South Seas Force comprised veteran Japanese troops, at least a division was used in the campaign. The 39th battalion (militia) bore the brunt of the initial attacks and performed well, it was generally a well trained and led unit. The 53rd battalion (militia) was inadequately trained having been used mainly as dockworkers in Port Moresby prior to being sent up the Trail. Hardly suprisingly they performed poorly although later they became a very good unit (as is the case with troops of any nationality when well led and trained). The three battalions of 21st brigade were AIF units, veterans of the Syrian campaign. The epic retreat of these units across the Owen Stanley Ranges, all the while inflicting heavy casualties on the Japanese by aggressive action and giving sufficient time for fresh units to be brought into Port Moresby, ranks as one of the finest feats of Australian arms in WW2. Not the least of which is the outstanding leadership of Brigadier Potts who ignored the cretinous orders eminating from MacArthur's headquarters and fought the battle his own way. Later both militia (3rd Btn) and AIF units (25th brigade) took over and finished the job. My vote for best performing Aussie units in WW2 goes to the Independent Companies or Commando Squadrons. In addition to their patrolling and intelligence gathering activities they fought some outstanding offensive battles against superior Japanese forces completely routing them. The worst thing that happened to the Aussies in WW2: getting out from under the Brits and Churchill's crazy schemes only to be lumbered with that clown MacArthur

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And in the end, it is easy to see it only took one man to defeat Germany. And his name is Adolf Hitler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yes and why exactly were they in the war? By the way I suggest you read a book on the Battle of Britain if you hold to the myth that switching targets was Hitler's idea. Germanys strategic conduct was not solely the work of one man you know. This Hitler's fault excuse is just rehashing the self-serving memoirs perpetuated post war by German generals and swallowed lock, stock and barrel by those who follow the Liddel-Hart school of Wehrmacht envy.

Well US chemical mortar battalions may have been corps level assets but I don't think they were employed like corps artillery per se. Evidence suggests that they were generally attached as companies to lower formations: generally divisional or regimental. I would say the latter was more common going by the unit histories. The British 4.2 was a different kettle of fish being available at a number of different levels of organisation with some brigade size units having organic 4.2s.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the Fallschirmjäger after they lost their airborne missions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But why? Because they got their arses kicked on Crete that's why

Michael, I'm not talking about the regimental cadre that were back in their home county, training replacements, raising new battalions etc. This is the cadre that were actually serving with the battalion and were left out at the start of the battle. They could be stepping in the next day to maintain the combat effectiveness of the unit.

Well I included the "skills" category, though I did qualify it because I wasn't sure if it was common. I have read of it on occasions referring to those with specific skills which were duplicated within the unit, also I cast the net a bit wider than just the infantry battalion. For example signallers, even Bren gunners (if they had an extra ), mortarmen etc. In tank units they maintained a pool of experienced commanders/gunners/drivers etc.

Commonwealth forces in WWII adhered to a practice they called "left out of battle". Before an engagement (generally attack I think) a cadre of officers, NCOs and sometimes those with specific skills were left out of the battle. I think the list was usually compiled at battalion level, though maybe someone else can enlighten me further on that. Thus if the unit sustained heavy casualties there was a cadre of leadership ready to take over and keep things functioning. I would be interested in knowing if other nations had a formal "left out of battle" type system?

Dear Mike, The answer to your question is a resounding yes. They have considered it and I beleive that they will try to implement it in some future incarnation of CM.

bump!

I agree with Aitken. PIATS are not so bad and if you look at a Brit battalion TOE there are lots of extras above the one per platoon number. I always buy more and I really like the sneaky aspect. You can fire off three shots and if the target is buttoned they are often none the wiser. As for the 2" mortar they were found very handy in the pacific jungles and I have found them good in woods terrain. They're not for killing units, just for laying down a bit of suppression on that MG position while you assault it. The Vickers modelling is a bit annoying because they seem far less potent than they should be. It should be less firepower per burst but more bursts per turn for the Vickers. They shouldn't be moving more than a short distance on foot. That's why the Brits invariably used carriers to move them around. Dopey scenario designers (like Rune!) persist in giving every Brit platoon a Vickers with no transport for the thing They're just a waste of time in an attacking or meeting engagment without something to move them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>yes, Simon, I know I'm sermonizing, shut up about it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look here Dorosh, there's no need to get all serious about this. I have seen the error of my ways. It's exactly like this malteser bloke says. Any criticism of what he has written, irrespective of how silly it might be, must be a personal attack upon him and therefore can only be characterised as a "stupid remark", the product of uneducated interpretation or both. Any pointing out of the possible implications, however unintended, should be rightly met with disdain. By the way Dorosh, I have instructed you before to address me with due respect, highness or master will do just fine. "shut up" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.