Simon Fox
-
Posts
1,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Simon Fox
-
-
Care to explain why George Forty and the battlion war diary of the 1st Bn, the Royal Berkshire regiment think that they did? </font>Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tero:
The British army did not have or use, for intents and purposes, any coherent small unit tactics.
-
"A single well-aimed rifle shot is to be regarded as more worthwhile than a badly placed burst of machine-gun fire."-German company co in Italy
So even the Jerries were learning that blazing away indiscriminantly in the general direction of the enemy while cowering in your foxhole is not only cowardly but also ineffectual.
-
So, as a consequence of your deep insecurity regarding all things Commonwealth can I expect to be regaled with endless google derived nonsense?Originally posted by dalem:How dare you mention Commonwealth soldiery! You are polluting this thread with your Commonwealth pollutive pollutionness!!
-
Bren gunners were specifically taught to use plunging fire against units in defilade too.
Another example of CW tactical superiority over hidebound sit in yer foxhole and blaze away with buckets of lead.
-
Quite. Tactical innovation was encouraged in the British infantry.Originally posted by Tero:Having said that, I think the first stop would be to ascertain what can be used as a source. I have Harrison-Place who says that basically the British infantry had no fixed small unit tactics.
-
In practice a Bren gun had no problem suppressing an MG42 (once it was located). Accuracy rather than weight of fire were more important in suppressing such a point target. Since the rest of the German squad were essentially ammunition carriers once the MG was suppressed they were largely ineffective.
A cumbersome belt-fed MG would be more of a hindrance in the bocage more than compensated for by a few Mike targets and cold steel for which the the Jerries had an aversion (they don't like it up 'em).
Anyway it's currently impossible to fight a CW platoon or section properly in CM, either by the book or any of the tactical variations employed at the time.
-
The acceptable method for making warty and his ilk depart does not generally involve engaging them in any form of conversation.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:No, it is being carried on in the US Infantry Company 1:1 thread, where we have gone to simply making stuff up out of thin air to agree with Wartgamer so he will shut up and go away.
-
No. It is very clear that for the first two years of the war, the Germans were fighting nations that were seriously unprepared for war. Also, many of them were significantly smaller nations that could not have been expected to resist indefinitely even if their armed forces been in tip-top condition and their populations united in hardened determination to fight. And those were the years when Germany's atacks were mostly succeeding with the drama that so enamours a certain kind of wargamer and history buff.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:
There is no doubt that the German army was evenly matched throughout the war.
Michael </font>
-
How dare you suggest the Slavic sub-humans were a patch on the Aryan super soldiers! Get with the starry-eyed Wehrmacht worship program you dolt!Originally posted by Andreas:I dimly recall that towards the end the Red Army and the Wehrmacht inflicted similar numbers of casualties on each other.
-
As mentioned above it seems likely only the Guards and 11th AD had Challengers in 1944.
The 7th AD appear to have acquired some in Febuary 1945. Similarly the Poles didn't get any until April 1945 which is about the time the 11th AD gave theirs up (to answer the question above).
Hope this helps.
-
Tut tut. The abstract is more than sufficient you know.Originally posted by John D Salt:My point stands, and indeed is reinforced: Read the bloody sources before passing remarks about them.
Sounds as if he would be right at home in this forum.Marshall had no use for the polite equivocations of scholarly discourse. His way of proving doubtful propositions was to state them more forcefully. Righteousness was always more important for Marshall than evidence.... -
LOST: Plot
Return to Seanachi c/o Peng Psychiatric Facility
-
The distinction between AIF and Militia can hardly be compared to that between Regular and Reserve. It was more like volunteer vs conscript and even that isn't entirely accurate.Originally posted by gibsonm:But to be fair most of full time units were either on their way back from the Middle East or already stuck in Changi and bound for a terrible fate.
-
I don't think they would do that as it's not true.Originally posted by average:Perhaps if the ADF did have a PNG version produced, it could ship with some sort of video presentation for the Regs pointing out the formations that stopped the Japanese were all comprised of reservists of one sort or another.
I think it might have something to do with errors and omissions being rectified at the behest of said "corporate customer" but not otherwise. Who knows I might actually give some consideration to buying the game if these corrections are incorporated into the commercial version.Dorsch, I'm not entirely sure why your so terribly upset a company you have conducted two or three transactions with won't provide you with cotent specifically developed for a large corporate customer. -
I am suprised that it has taken you this long to recognize that this is the current modus operandi and has been for some time. The only affirmation or acknowledgement you're likely to get is the appearance of your suggestion in the next patch, whenever and if ever that occurs. I am afraid that it is likely to be the only indication that it was considered well reasoned enough to be included.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I quite agree. A response to the "official" bug report thread might be nice. It was started as a courtesy to help simplify matters for them, based on what the community saw as problematic. While I wouldn't expect BFC to sit down and argue every one of Mark Gallear's points down to the last paragraph of source, a simple "thank you" would have done wonders for our collective morale.
I entirely understand that it could be quite frustrating trawling through endless sources and collecting evidence all the while ignorant of whether you're completely wasting your time. I guess it's just a question of weighing up what you prefer to spend your time on and what you hope or expect to get out of it.
-
-
Don't be so hard on yourself. Have a bash and I'll give you a mark out of 10.Originally posted by JonS:but I'm also sure I can't figure it out.
-
No.74, No.75, No.68 even No.82 consigned to impotency. Not to mention No.36 cup discharger
-
There was a discussion on this board (and a few others too) regarding it some time back. Insofar as I recall Jon and Tero at least had a copy at some stage. I have read it myself although I don't own a copy. It was Harrison-Place's PhD thesis I think.
-
John,
Just blithely stating your opinion as categorical fact is more than sufficient, thankyou very much.
You're just cluttering up the thread with all this 'evidence'.
-
Firstly let me assure you I am not in anyway "touchy" nor need to "cool off". In fact I view this whole exchange with whimsical astonishment. I have already read the whole thread, several times.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:Simon, go cool off and someday come back and read the whole thread when you aren't in such a touchy mood.
I voiced my opinion that I thought your post immediately preceding my first was "unfair". In contrast, you think you were "lenient". Unfortunately you've taken umbrage at my light hearted banter regarding forum ownership, whereas JonS correctly recognised the reference. The rest follows...
From my perspective it is you who seem "touchy" I find this whole miscommunication thing worthy of a good chuckle. Obviously I misconstrued your first reponse as light hearted, not realising you were spoiling for a fight, for that I apologise. I'll bear it in mind in future.
-
Well I got a good laugh out of that, Jon "got it", but clearly you didn't. Positively curmudgeonly you are Mr Emrys.
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what you think of my opinion. Since it's clearly at odds with your own I would hardly be expecting you to be welcoming it would I? My interpretation of this thread and what people are on about is clearly different from your own. I don't see any dramatic polarization going on, morelike a diversity of opinion. I don't necessarily agree with everything sand digger has said as he did have multiple points but you seem to be the only one lumping it all together and getting excessively exasperated.
I find myself in agreement with a lot of what Blah x3 has to say. CM is far from perfect and some of these 'deficiences' seem to actually encourage micromanagement. I like Jon's suggested 'advance to los' idea too.
-
Whether redwolf waffled or not is irrelevant. What's astonishing is that grogdoms answer to William Amos bagged him for it.Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:I think redwolf clearly waffled. But I can agree with a point he has without being a big poof like you need to be. Is there anything else you need to 'add'? We could get a nice milkbox for you to stand on... You can call me more names and impress yourself to death.
As for names a return to Enid Blyton for a new nom de plume might be in order: Dame Twaddle perhaps.
-
No need to be evasive. Variables? It's a simple question not a point. I'm not trying to trick you, we'll get to the point in due course. One step at a time.
Your the one who stuck your neck out by sliming this sand_digger bloke. Sheesh! Anyone would think you own the place.
MGs fire trajectory-grazing fire affecting multiple units
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
MG42
755m/s
Vickers
MkVII round
743m/s
MkVIIIz round
777m/s
Anyway the MG42 was a dud. Too heavy, cumbersome and ammunition hungry for a section weapon and with too high a cyclic rate and insufficiently reliable for sustained fire.