Simon Fox

Don't worry Jon, the TCP/IP evangalists (aka Elvis) may be braying loudly at the moment because it's just come out but I am sure there are plenty of people who see the tweaks and bug fixes of the 1.1patch as significant and the TCP/IP feature as a bonus. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

A great post from Jeff there and when they did counterattack in the Normandy terrain as the 9th and 10th SS did after Epsom they suffered similar loss ratios to the allied attacks except of course for the Germans those losses were crippling. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Stone the flaming crows Mace, you bludging public service wankers are a bunch of galahs. Fair go it might be a little difficult to suss out when some bat's piss drinking seppo tries to insult you by calling you a pommie. Weak as piss I know, but this is an taunting thread, the chuckies aren't to educated about the rest of the planet and with the developmental effects of a lifetimes consumption of Maccas whaddayu expect? As for pommie, Mace is coming the raw prawn if he says its an insult in itself, any more than aussie is and it won't get any aussies chucking a spaz. A whinging pommie bastard is another thing however. Just like some drongo rubbernecking seppo whose about as easy to deal with as a blowie. Any rat**** seppo journo who styles themselves Beryl has gotta be suss especially when their best efforts are as insipid as the beer they drink. As for that sheep shagger from New CESland, annoying you are we? good Pig's arse Peng ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Don't worry Goanna mate, I'll be glad to show them Cottesloe Beach, gotta feed the native animals you know.

*sniff* *sniff* Almost tolerable in here at the moment. I should point out that now you've moved downunder cesspool is an inappropriate descriptor it should be the SepticTank thread. Which is very appropriate for all the 'septics' and where that Fosters crap should be poured. Oi! Oi! Oi!

Geez what a couple of dud employees Captain Madbutt (note the restraint) and the ScurvyDog, 50 lashes you lubbers. It was indicated to me some time ago by persons of greater knowledge than these two that the shot trap of the early Panther is modelled by increasing the chance of a weak point hit for that vehicle. For later vehicles the chance is reduced but it still exists, as it does for all tanks.

No problem Tom, but it will be next week before I get a chance. Spook, Maybe you should read what I wrote before you go off half-cocked. Whether they designed and manufactured any is a moot point if they didn't supply them. I am sure you are right to say they were not supplied on a large scale in any NWE army, even so it is quite ok to mod them if people want to since they were used. The US had a pretty woeful regard in supplying their guys with suitable clothing full stop. The appalling level of trenchfoot among US infantry can only be ascribed to the abysmal footwear they were issued with. Wearing a restrictive greatcoat in combat is probably not conducive to the survival of the wearer either. I understand that proper combat jackets were not widely issued to frontline US units until very late '44 though no doubt the rear echelons were well equipped with them (and the new boots) well before that

Wilful disrespect is within a hairsbreadth of mutiny Mace, and mutiny is a hanging offence on this ship. Rig the grating. Seize him up, master at arms. Two dozen lashes. Bosun's mate do your duty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could be wrong on this,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chup-a-Chup, you are. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but I don't think the Allies had official winter camo uniforms.....blather, blather quotes solely American sources<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The American part of the 'allies' might not have the planning wherewithall to contemplate the war extending into winter 1944 but the other bits did. In fact I'm looking at a picture right now of a British infantryman in a snow suit rounding up some German prisoners (not in snow suits), Canadian units had them too.

SHUZHUK 5 kg of horsemeat 5 kg of suet 350 g of salt 10 g of black ground pepper 50 g of garlic greens to taste. The prepared meat is rubbed with salt and kept for 1-2 days in a cool place at the temperature of 3-4_C. Guts are washed and kept for some time in salt water. Meat and fat are cut in small pieces and mixed. Garlic, pepper and salt are added and all this is mixed again. Then the guts are stuffed, its both ends are tied up with a string and they are hung out for 3-4 hours in a cool place. Shuzhuk is smoked during 12-18 hours over dense smoke at the temperature of 50-60_C, then dried up at 12_C for 2-3 days. Dried or smoked shuzhuk is boiled on slow fire during 2-2,5 hours. Before serving the table shuzhuk is cut in thin slices to 1 cm thick, layed out on a plate, decorated with rings of Onion and greens.

This topic must fall into the: "if it doesn't have a big steaming gun I'm not interested" category. It may come as a suprise to some but one of the strengths of the early war German mechanised forces was their close coordination of artillery and armour, especially coordinating many guns onto target. The British picked up on this pretty quick in the desert. Any British FO in NWE from an armoured division or brigade would have an FO tank, which to all intents would appear as a regular Sherman except the gun was a dummy. This would ensure good communications and give the FOs mobility and protection. This is not beyond the scope of CM. The benefits of FO mobility and protection should be clear to anyone who has handled the poor foot slogging variety in CMBO. Mounting them in light armour is OK for mobility but they can't call a fire mission while a passenger which detracts from the purpose somewhat.

Cabbage borschit (Serves: 8 people) Ingredients 10 cups broth, from powder is okay 2 pounds cabbage, shredded 2 beets, grated 2 onions, grated 6 tomatoes, diced 1 tablespoon salt Dash pepper Dash celery salt 2 tablespoons lemon juice 2 tablespoons sugar Directions Add veggies, salt and pepper to broth. Cook till soft (25 minutes). Add lemon juice and sugar. Cook 5 minuts. Serve hot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is one story told somewhere about a 2 pdr AT gunner hitting a German armored car in the desert, at some ungodly long range which was beyond his sight reticle, like 2400 yards or more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On 23rd March 1941 British/Australian recon force operating west of El Agheila encountered a mixed German force of armoured cars, light tanks and trucks. In the ensuing engagment a 2pdr AT gun from the 16th Australian infantry anti-tank company under the command of a Cpl Kennedy knocked out at first two vehicles at 1000yds and finally 1 vehicle at 2,500yds. The 2pdr was only calibrated to 1,800 yds. Clearly for CM3 Australian AT gunners should have some positive modifier <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Robert makes the comment about ± 25% accuracy on range estimations for the Brits Vs ± 10% for the germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the comment specifically referred to german Tiger gunners. Were Tiger gunners indicative of the 'average' german gunner? In addition to the x3 sight posted for the 17pdr earlier I understand there was also a x6 sight as well. Any info on that? On the subject of binoculars/spotting: you can rest assured that if allied tankers felt their binos were inadequate vis a vis the germans they would have rapidly acquired a pair. Try modelling that!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HEAT penetration is determined by warhead diameter, liner material , cone angle, and warhead standoff. All these factors can dramatically change any warhead penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and IIRC angle of incidence does have a significant effect especially with WW2 era HEAT rounds.

This topic brings a tear to my eye hehe. In answer to your question I should say that there have been some extensive discussions on this issue in the past which are difficult to distill into something concise. Basically, what you are seeing is really two different issues. The first is the limitations of the TacAI with regard to cover which has already been addressed. It seems that it seeks to hide in cover rather than behind it. I guess this may be addressed in future iterations of CM although I can see it being difficult. The second is that bocage is 'inaccurately' modelled in that it is modelled as homogeneous. At the moment it seems best to treat bocage for cover purposes as a wall surmounted by a hedge. Thus if you are behind it (but not in it) you get the cover/concealment of the 'wall' and the hedge. Whereas if you are in it you are on the wall and only get the cover provided by the hedge. Now we just need some searchonauts to track down some threads. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Many tactical innovations were instigated and employed in WW1 and before anybody lays claim to the Germans as the originators of modern infantry tactics with their so-called stormtroops let me just say: bollocks! The British, French and Germans all developed similar infantry tactics at around the same time (1917). 'Battle Tactics on the Western Front 1916-18' Paddy Griffith ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say its the superior armour, not the inferior quality of the round that could be at issue here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sheesh tom you've completely got the 'wrong end of the stick'. Armour quality is modelled seperately, which you should know. Penetration figures given in the game as a rough guide are against standard quality armour for all projectiles. It has to be that way because armour quality varies from vehicle to vehicle. The effects of armour quality can therefore only come into play when the target of the projectile is known. The issue is with the gun/projectile combination, armour quality has nothing to do with what kip is on about since the data is generated based on the same standard armour. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is probably everyone's favourite theatre of battle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a bit presumptuous don't you think? There seems to be quite a variety of 'favourites' around here. I for one wouldn't want to see anything else hold up CM3, I can't wait to take on PzII and III with 2pdrs and Boyes AT rifles ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Ummm. It would be unfortunate if the atmosphere which pervades some other request threads should take over this one. I for one am suprised this one has grown as it has, since the proposal was so modest. I haven't noticed any declaration by BTS in this thread that they are deeply attached the the current QB setup in any way. Indeed I am fairly sure they are aware of a number of possible tweaks which may improve it. I think you can take it for granted that they have read the suggestion and will consider it. I personally consider it quite reasonable. Suggestion threads should be viewed in isolation. I hope that the views of pathological suggestors aren't automatically disagreed with because of that and I don't think it is the case. It is unfortunate that sometimes there is an element of paranoia creeping into these threads. We need to doze a few firebreaks around here. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

machineman has given us a great example of "How not to prove your point" That's the insulting diatribe followed by the request to "knock it off" technique. Bravo! ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Sheesh slappy you're a glutton for punishment. Good points, though I wouldn't want to see things get too sterile and boring (not much chance of that ). Peng would definitely agree with you on the overuse of smilies as I seem to recall some long winded diatribe of his on the subject in the distant past. I hope that not to many misconceive your post as pontificating. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

I didn't quite catch that? Did he say moving vehicle? Ever heard of a OP tank? ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Yup, those carriers aren't for lugging infantry around. Great for giving your slower /immobile units (MGs, mortars, PIATs, AT guns etc) some mobility. Also good for beefing up the British infantry with a little extra firepower. I've lost count of the number of Brit. battle reports which have: "X platoon counterattacked with support from the carrier platoon" or "the carrier platoon restored the situation" or "the enemy MG position was taken with the assistance of a carrier section"..... Now if I could only could get the things to fire in CM ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

3 concrete ways U.K. is under-modeled in CM 1. No bayonets 2. No bayonets 3. No bully-beef ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

You are most likely correct though I have read of them being fired when mounted it was quite likely a field modification which I assumed applied to all the inf Bn 'mortar carriers'. Kind of like the field modified MMG carriers which had the Vickers and the Bren as opposed to the more conventional Vickers alone... I will edit my post to reflect your suggestion. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-12-2000).]