Simon Fox

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However our bottom line problem with the Hull Down situation remains that many tanks are far more likely to be destroyed when Hull Down than when sat out in the open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the bottom line problem is with the sat out in the open situation that many tanks are far less likely to be destroyed when out in the open than when hull down. Think about it. When faced with a vehicular target CMBO does not credit gunners with the ability or knowledge to aim at a particular part of the target, which in fact they did on both sides (eg Ken Tout). When they are hull down the gunner is "forced" to aim at the vulnerable part of some vehicles. Until CM assumes that well trained crews are going to aim at known vulnerabilities, or undergunned vehicles trying for track/running gear hits, or infantry/MGs actually aiming for vision slits/blocks/periscopes then the discrepancy will be there for some vehicles and nothing can be done about it.

I should have known better than to ask a rhetorical question. As MarkIV and viceroy say context is everything.

What's a 'typical person'?

Are Japanese people offended by the term Jap? Are Finnish people offended by the term Finn? Are British people offended by the term Brit? Are American people offended by the term Ami? You septics only seem to shorten national names when you feel the need to insult people. Aussies 'shorten' every bloody name. Just like the Germans are 'Jerries' or 'Fritz', the Italians 'Ities', the English 'Poms' etc etc. If your cultural parlance is to only use such terms in a derogatory context then don't. If we want to insult them we'd use 'Nips' or somefink else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OGSF will be happy to know that he pointed out a nice little bug with bazookas hitting the back doors of bunkers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your sig is unAustralian, obviously you've been spending too much time cavorting with the septics and their 'backdoors' and have adopted their unpleasant selfcongratulatory style. A simple onyamate should be sufficient for you, but no you have to trumpet your infintessimally miniscule acheivement big noting yourself like you're the ant's pants. You are lower than a snakes armpit. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 12-11-2000).]

Look here Blundermus, If you are going to get stuck into someone at least get your facts straight <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He wants the "locked unit view" to be an automatic default view whenever you select a unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be precise he gave two alternatives <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"center on selected unit" was either the default or could be the right-click on the mouse<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not particularly fond of the first idea but I think the latter is a good one. As you should very well know (see page 15-16 of the manual) the TAB key "locks" the view to a unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "view levels" (ie camera positions 1-8). You seem to have confused the two.

Whatever happened to guachi? His unit database is very handy. His earnest searching was too. I hope the searchonaut is bearing up OK.

How delightful! Here we have Lewis putting his opinions in his usual inimitable way and Aitken responding in his characteristic acerbic fashion even Maximus blundering around in here too. Ah those were the days... That said, I absolutely concur with Lewis's suggestion. It seems to me that one of the most common keys I use is TAB and since the right button of the PC seems to be unused.... It may not be a high priority (for BTS that is, other agendas varying widely) but if it is easy to implement such an incremental improvement to the interface shouldn't be discounted even if for CM2. I wouldn't like to see it as the default for the left button though. As for Mac users (for the record I use both on a daily basis but play CM on a PC), well it would have no impact on them so

No, sadistic is Churchill AVREs and Crocodiles vs Volksturm in a town.

Nice sig there 'Rex'

What do you mean by one shot? If you mean one ammunition point then that is more than one shot in the game. A squad carries a fair wack more than 40 bullets you know ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Why am I getting that deja vu feeling... queue spine tingling music....

Bit indistinct http://www.magma.ca/~kimd/crab.jpg http://www.geocities.com/spoelstra.geo/cmp/stuart_vi_recce.html Note the MGs on these two http://www.geocities.com/spoelstra.geo/cmp/images/stuart_v_recce.jpg

We're not talking about how their crew is modelled in CM but historical usage. They were used widely as prime movers, supply, liason and recon. In at least some of these roles they were armed (especially the latter). Since the types encountered in CM are likely to be those operating in the 'armed' mode then there is a reasonable argument for at least 1MG. I can recall a picture of one with 3 (2 .30 and 1 .50), can't remember where though ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Yes, I agree, they should realistically have a MG though I would have thought a pintle mounted .30cal would be most common on the turretless stuarts.

Belay that BarnacleBabs!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for moderation: We need it because some people just can't handle unlimited freedom. So there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah and we also need to so that mental pigmies don't start new threads to answer questions in other threads. So there.

Ok Andreas, I thought you were lumping all the independant tank/armoured brigades together in your comments. Of course the "Army Tank Brigades" had a different organisation to the other armoured brigades. Even so I still question your comments on parcelling out battalions at the corps level. This seems contrary to what I have read regarding British practice and doctrine. Also I imagine a tank battalion would be insufficient to support a division. My understanding is that the entire brigade would support a divisional attack. Furthermore the armoured brigades didn't really have enough infantry to operate independantly and seem to have been mainly attached to other units so I don't think the distinction between the usage of the tank and armoured brigades is quite as clear cut as you suggest, especially in the NWE theatre. Have you read "Black Rat and Red Fox" ? They seem to be mainly attached to infantry divisions in NWE from that account. British practice in NWE seems to have always been to support infantry with copious armour when attacking. Typically from my reading you would have each tank regiment/battalion (confusing eh?) supporting an infantry brigade. Which gives you a squadron each for the attacking battalions (ie 15-20 tanks) which is a fair wack. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>not unexpected? boring story? that's cause out of all the thousands of engagements in cm world, we only hear about the weird events, like that above. "the rains only when i wash the car syndrome."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But russell what would the board be without another opportunity for aka_tom_whinger (surely that's what the 'w' is for) cheerleader for Zeiss optics (as if every other german optics manufacturers didn't exist) and other things ubergerman to snipety, snipety, snipe.... ..and no tom that grin is not for you, you'll take your curry and enjoy it. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

While most of the information given here is correct, some is incorrect. It is correct that Churchill equipped units would not have Fireflys, sorry if I omitted to make this clear as I was really referring mainly those which had Fireflys. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From what I understand, the tank brigades fielded infantry tanks (Churchills in 1944).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is incorrect. There were a number of independent armoured brigades. Most had Shermans (including Fireflys), some (2-3 I think off the top of my head) had Churchills. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These tank brigades were assigned to work with the corps in 21st Army group and were parceled out one batallion to a division, I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is incorrect. The tank brigades generally fought as units in support of a single division, usually in an attacking role. They had their own tank, artillery and infantry components, sometimes they fought independently but often they were used to "beef up" a larger unit. They definitely weren't "parcelled out" unless it was an ad hoc emergency measure. I agree with Chup-a-chup the 7thAD definitely had Fireflies eg Villers-Bocage. The Polish armoured had Shermans (and Fireflies) and also by late 1944 had 76mm Shermans since the British concentrated them in this unit (though I don't think the Brits get those in CM?). The British definitely used the 105mm Sherman variant in Italy though I am not sure if they had it in NWE. Units which had access to the 95mm tanks (ie those with Churchills and Cromwells) can be expected to have about 10% as these. As Olle says those units which have CS tanks would have them in the squadron HQ troop, though in NWE I would expect 2 per squadron. The recce regiments would have Cromwells (and Stuarts) but I don't think they had Fireflys (officially), they just had to make do until the Challenger (or later Comet) showed up. Typically the British used regiment-squadron-troop though confusingly battalion is sometimes substituted for regiment and the 6th Bn RTR would be called a tank regiment. Troops would be 3 or 4 tanks but seldom 5. A squadron might have 4 troops of 4 and a HQ troop of 3-4 or 5 troops of 3 and a HQ troop of 3-4.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whenever possible, the US tried to model their platoons after the British method of one "hitter" leading the 4 standard shorter gunned tanks. At least this is what I have read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well you don't lead with your so-called 'hitter'. You overwatch with it. Therefore you have to make the distinction between the 75mm Jumbo which you might lead with and a 76mm tank which you might overwatch with. As for the British their ideal tank mix was about 25% 17pdr armed. Impossible in mid 1944 (when it was about 20%)due to availability but more common in late 44 and 45. There was lots of variation between units however and 17pdr tanks may be deployed flexibly so that the HQ troop might have a few extras, or even all Firefly's concentrated in the HQ troop, also the squadrons which were 'up' might be loaned a few Firefly's from that in reserve. Also the British had a lot more of the 95/105mm support tanks (about 10% I think). ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And some Aussies set to Veteran.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Veteran? Sheesh, that's just the ones out of basic training, elite is more like it. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Er, spook might have used ASL but I didn't The Desert Rats at War George Forty

5fer52, kenoath!, who needs warnie. Mace, Perhaps Waxx's entry visa could be recinded and he should be sent to that Woomera camp where they seem fond of juveniles. Johnnycomelately self appointed arbiters of form and function in this thread like Croda and Marlow et al should go the same way. That's it boys just chuck a right at Adelaide they'll welcome you with open..... As for hatred? I don't think so. Disdain seems so much more appropriate ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Spook is right. The motor battalions of the British (and Canadian?) armoured divisions and independant armoured brigades were mounted in M5/M5A1/M9 halftracks from D-day on and Kangaroos are less likely to be used by these units. If the capacity of the only halftrack type available to the British is to be reduced then properly the vehicle availability needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the M5 capable of carrying a squad were used by these units. Especially since these vehicles were principally manufactured for lend-lease anyway. Otherwise scenarios like Villers-Bocage would be impossible to attempt to recreate. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot