Simon Fox

This is a work in progress but I have noticed a few funny organisations in scenarios so I thought I might post it for your information and interest: The organisation and employment of the British Infantry Battalion 1944/45 The battalion has a Bn HQ, an HQ company, a support company, and four rifle companies. HQ company has a company HQ and signals and admin platoons. Support company has a company HQ and a mortar platoon, carrier platoon, anti-tank platoon and pioneer platoon. Each rifle company has a company HQ and 3 rifle platoons. The HQ company has a company HQ and signals and admin platoons. The mortar platoon The mortar platoon has 6 medium mortars (3in). There is a Plt-HQ with carrier, three observation post teams and 6 mortar detachments consisting of a 3in mortar and a carrier. The carriers are modified to mount the mortars and I do not beleive they had Bren guns. The mortars are therefore able to be fired when mounted though typically they were emplaced. The mortar platoon also had 1 PIAT team. All assistant mortar and PIAT gunners were issued with rifles. The carrier platoon The carrier platoon has 13 Bren carriers and is more like a mini cavalry unit than a transport unit. It consists of a Pl HQ with 1 carrier and 4 carrier sections each with 3 carriers. Each carrier section (12 OR) is armed with 3 Bren LMG (1 per carrier) and 1 PIAT. The carrier platoon may fight mounted or dismounted and represents a light recce or rapidly deployable reserve for the battalion commander. The anti-tank platoon platoon The ATk platoon has 6 6pdr anti tank guns all towed by universal carriers (NOT trucks or anything else), 3 Bren guns and 3 2in mortars. The platoon is organised with a Plt HQ with carrier and 3 sections each with 2 6pdr, 2 carrier and 1 2in mortar. Note: By 1944 the ATk platoon was fairly standard though before that the number of ATk guns was known to vary between 4 and 8 depending in some cases on the theatre and army. I am uncertain as to when or if 17pdr ATk guns were issued to these units. Certainly the divisional ATk regiment would have those guns either towed or SP. The pioneer platoon The organisation and strength of the pioneer platoon varies somewhat depending on the source. The early war organisation (which corresponds to CM) has 1 Plt-HQ and 2 sections armed as infantry sections with the addition of satchel charges/flamethrowers and other specialised equipment. However, between 1943 and 1944 the battalion AAPlt seems to have been disbanded (no Luftwaffe ) and possibly these men were relocated partially into the pioneer platoons since some TOEs show 2 assault sections and 1 pioneer section or even 4 pioneer sections. The rifle company The rifle company consists of a Co-HQ and three infantry platoons. The Co-HQ consists of a HQ unit and 3 attached PIAT teams. The Co-HQ also can have an infantry section attached, the 'company security section'. The Co-HQ has a carrier and other vehicles. The rifle platoon consists of a Plt HQ with 2in mortar and 3 rifle sections. Each section was comprised of fire support (Bren gunner and 2 assistants with rifles, includes section 2i/c) and assault elements (SMG and 6rifles, includes section commander). Notes: Unfortunately CM divides the sections evenly so it is impossible to employ them precisely as they were. In addition in practice the section distribution of firearms varied considerably. The plethora of official German squad organisations provides considerable flexibility in CM but British units adopted a 'horses for courses' approach throughout the war. In close quarters fighting, city and night, SMGs were undoubtedly more prevalent, a typical variation I have seen suggested elswhere was 4SMG and 3 rifles in the assault element. In the desert war large numbers of Commonwealth sections would supplement their Bren with a captured Breda LMG (or even a captured 75mm Italian field gun, hehe) and SMGs would be common in night actions as logic dictates. Note the plethora of carriers, scenario designers take note, this vehicle gave a measure of tactical flexibility. Unfortunately the larger capacity Lloyd carrier is not in CM. Also there is no MMG platoon in a standard British infantry Bn. The motor battalions of some armoured divisions did have them but not all. On occasions a MMG platoon would be attached from the MMG Battalion which was a divisional asset. These would have their own carriers for transport, no-one lugs a Vickers around the battlefield, sometimes these units would mount their MMGs in the carrier (hence the MMG carrier). This practice was also followed by the Bn carrier platoon, if a Vickers fell off the back of some truck . Therefore if you are a scenario designer give your Vickers transport unless it's a defensive scenario, though even then there's a case for it since they were basically integral to the unit. The location of the Bren gun within infantry sections was not considered an inviolate structure: "The Bren gun should be made available, away from its section and the men of its section, if the Platoon or Company Commander has a definite use for it in some other way. To tie the Bren gun to its section on all occasions may be to lose its usefulness whilst, on the other hand, it is likely to slow up and disorganize the action of the attacking rifle sections." Lt-Col R.L. Sherbrook "The New Infantry Weapons; Their Organization and Tactical Employment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. LXXXIII, February to November, 1938 [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-12-2000).]

Well I sincerely hope 'slappy' makes a full recovery and that any memory loss he suffers regards that he ever came across such an inane individual so deficient in redeeming features as Lewis. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He is in for some frontal lobe readjustments and they are trying to do something about his evil sinister looks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, unlike yourself some people still have theirs. I would think evil sinister looks would be those you receive most regularly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or maybe he matched wits with me and went quite mad in the process.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is quite a stretch since it presupposes you actually possess any. Though I must say I am convinced you are a form of one. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>as for demo. gold demo is what is in the regular game. says so on the site, and until the writin on it is changed it stands the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes you are correct the demo does give you a reasonable look at the game. Since you seem unwilling or unable to accept the advice offered to you then probably CMBO is not the game for you. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

For what's its worth TeAcH, I disagree with you. I just wanted to publicly display my lack of support for your efforts to stir up more trouble in this discussion. Now that Lewis seems to be returning to an even keel it seems totally unnecessary. I am not saying that Slappy is totally without fault but your response is somewhat oversensitive since his comments generally seem to show a genuine interest in seeking a realistic basis for discussion. As for Jeff, as others have pointed out his intemperate debating style detracts from his ability to convince. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-06-2000).]

Back to the cesspool with you you miserable bananabender! This sounds like a good idea from 'post', maybe then we could have some aars that weren't Fionn's one sided humiliation of some poor victim. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Pssst! Slappy, I think it's against the zoo rules to bang on his cage with that stick. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Some good info in there from rune. Have you got the whole of WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks" as I only have bits of it and am still trying to obtain the whole thing. Some other good stuff may be found in WO 185/194 "Tank and anti-tank armament". In addition to the gyro documents rune cites there is also WO 291/90 "Firing on the move from tanks" which has basically the same conclusions but also addresses firing tank MGs on the move and low calibre guns. And just for Fatso: WO 291/2398, "The hit chance of WOMBAT against moving targets." ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Lewis, The quality of your contribution to this discussion comes as no suprise to those of us familiar with your previous failures. That a person so bereft of redeeming features as yourself so frequently resorts to personal invective is highly amusing. I am sure that Steve and Charles are mortified that such a 'valued' customer as yourself is dissatisfied. Your occasional recent adoption of the persona of 'elder statesman' of the forum and champion protector of nitpickers from the wrath of the 'CM mafia' (a paranoid delusion if ever there was one) is outstandingly comical. You are unable to maintain the pretence for long and soon return to form by descending to the familiar puerile prattle so redolent of your previous efforts.

I am sure they are extremely unlikely to ever be included. The reason is rarity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This weapon certainly was around in '44-'45<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you have any basis for this statement: like what units were equiped with them, at what level and what was the ammunition supply and production situation at that stage of the war? I would have thought they weren't used much after 1943 since the only accounts I have come across of 'needle-gun' use have been in that period (ie Sicily and Italy). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure it made many Sherman drivers grind their gears trying to back away!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just about any German AT weapon would have that effect hehe ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

He he, good one slappy, I'm usually a bit more malicious when reviewing publications. I don't think your 'peer review process' will be understood too well though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am a bit suprised at BTS' stance on this issue given all of the debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since when has the existence of a debate constituted sufficient rationale? For all the value which has come out of this thread it is ironic that it arose from sooking on your part about one single instance of tank loss at ranges where the proposed optics changes would have no effect or possibly a negative effect, lol. These sort of instances where dead set certainties are missed just demonstrate the realism of CM. The 6th RTR Sherman in Italy which was missed by two concealed German AT guns at 100yds which then destroyed both of them or the German SP gun which fired (and missed) 3 times at Ken Tout's tank which was completely stationary in a Normandy field are real. There may be a case for making allowance for optics but it sure isn't going to stop these things happening. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmm, I don't get the main premise here I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slumming it in the cesspool clearly turns your brain to jelly (or the cesspool equivalent ). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If not, what makes it fundamentally different?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just about everything actually. If the building is in imminent danger of collapse generally one would expect troops to abandon it since having a roof falling on your head has a high probability of casualty which might readily be escaped. In contrast the example you give suggests they might be better staying put or certainly could wait until the end of the turn since casualties will acrue gradually. That is unless you think getting up and running around when you are in the middle of a mortar barrage and taking fire from the rear is a good idea? ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Yes and the spelling is up to the usual standard. Do you mean wiping? ie wiping the moniter after Steve reads the 'optics gripe' thread or wiping up the cesspool overflow? ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

I like the suggestions re the TacAI abandoning collapsing houses though I acknowledge it might be difficult to implement. It is all tied in with the fairly simple way the TacAI currently views 'cover' since it seems to be concerned with terrain type rather than LoS blockage, hence the issue of walls as pointed out. As a stopgap measure I wonder if a collapsed building could be modelled as rubble encompassed by a low wall. This would enhance the value of rubble as cover and concealment as currently it is quite hard to hide in. It would also be nice if the 'dust cloud' hung in the air and obscured LoS. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Aieeeee! "I am really aghast" (to quote a VET) that I should be misunderstood. I would never denigrate Fatso the fat-arsed wombat, the battler's prince, by comparing him with Lewis, in which comparison the latter would surely suffer substantially. Alas the unfortunate juxtaposition of my last comment and the image in my sig gave this false impression. As for tom_w, call it "taunt" if you will but that seems a little confrontational, I prefer 'taking the piss' hehe. Now all I need to do is get Fatso to do his business and he is ready for the cesspool. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince" [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-03-2000).]

Some good discussion on the subject at last. If only John and Slappy would stop sniping at each other all would be OK. John, you need to understand that in science it's expected that you rip someone's arguments to shreds but it's not personal, so in the words of the immortal GAZ "chill out". I blame tom_w for this thread , I suggested ages ago he should go and do some real research on his pet subject. But no, he was just a "slackass posterboy" who kept niggling away, posting the same old anecdotes and links to previous discussions: 'tom the optics cheerleader' Anecdotal/subjective evidence has it's place in this discussion but it needs to be taken in it's context. When it comes from a document lobbying for better tanks for US units then it seems sensible to consider it with caution when compared with documentation without an axe to grind. Optics and the interaction with human visual acuity is a pretty precise science compared to armour penetration which sometimes is more akin to witchcraft. I am astounded that no one who really wants German optical superiority modelled has been able to obtain better defined evidence than a mishmash of feelings and generalised opinions. I am sure it is out there we just have to do something about the head:date juxtaposition. It seems that while some people take a particular interest in the field of armour penetration the same cannot be said about optics. Firstly, let's make it perfectly clear there was no inherent superiority in German optical technology. At the start of WWII Germany, France, Britain and USA were pretty much on a par in that regard. But, the capacity of the German optical industry was sufficient to supply their relatively small tank output. In contrast, Britain and the USA had to initially accept a quality deficiency because of the larger number of tanks they produced. In time as their industries expanded the gap closed and by 1943/44 they could pretty much match the Germans in this regard. The fact is that it is fairly pointless equipping a tank with a fairly low velocity 75mm gun with optics capable of extremely long engagment ranges because the gun itself is not that accurate at those ranges. Secondly, there is no such thing as the "US tank sight" or "German tank sight" or "Zeiss optics" for that matter. These simplistic notions merely lead to confusion, since generally speaking the capabilities of the gun were matched to those of the optics. If anything it needs to be broken down by vehicle for both sides. A blanket bonus to German tanks would be vehemently opposed by me since British optics were better than US and therefore should also get a bonus. Furthermore, 17pdr gun equipped vehicles had special optical sights different from 75mm vehicles. Finally, there is a considerable difference between theoretical optical performance and practical performance. Consider the example of coincidence vs stereoscopic rangefinders. The latter are clearly technically superior. Yet coincidence rangefinders persisted in use by some because difficulties in operation and training meant that under battle conditions there was little practical difference between the two. As already pointed out the more accurate instrument may be more complex, time consuming to operate, increase operator fatigue and be less robust. I see Lewis is reverting to his previous persona. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince" [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-03-2000).]

Ok class, now Professor Slappy has abseiled down from his ivory tower and given you a timely lecture on the scientific paradigm. To paraphrase: science may be logical but logic ain't necessarily scientific. Now it's time to read some real sources not just those one might find on a gaming website, unsubstantiated and unreferenced. For your reading homework: WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks" German Military Technology: The Optical Equipment by Hans Seeger. Eyes of the Wehrmacht by Steve Rohan. Ordnance School. Foreign Materiel, volume 3. (fire control instruments & sighting equipment, German & Japanese, B.C. scopes, range & height finders) Published by The Ordnance School: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July 1943. (OS 9-61, vol. 3) A bit of wisdom from an optics guru: "If good optomechanical design dictates 8 parts, the Japanese will do it with 3, and the Germans (Zeiss in particular) will use 67." hehe ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Kerry Stokes bought him for $80,000 ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

"For Australians do love to party hard and deflate the pomposity of the self-righteous." (Reuters) That Combatboy (shakes head) he's almost an aussie Gee Steve you're getting confused the 88 thread is another thread, this is the Olympics discussion thread. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Funnily enough I had a Firefly open up without orders using AP against infantry in the open so what you are talking about is nothing fundamental. Are you using area fire or directly targetting the infantry? I find tanks very reluctant to area fire AP but they will fire it at clearly identifiable targets. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

So, to sum up your post: The Germans lost because they were too dumb to win. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

We don't begrudge you your MGs: you need them. Olympic shooting top 5: G/S/B China 2/2/2 Sweden 2/0/0 Bulgaria 2/0/0 Russia 1/3/2 Australia 1/1/1 ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

Yes, John is right the effect of slope on penetration cannot be modelled by simple geometry. Sure up to about 30 degrees slope it's not too bad. But that 55 degree slope on the Panther glacis is nasty and 68/55 is not equivalent to 130/0 at all. To further complicate matters the projectile shape also comes into it so a APCBC round may be slower than a APDS round but might 'bite' better in sloped armour. Then again if it is FH armour and the round shatters instead of ricocheting then the vehicle is more vulnerable....can of worms isn't it As for British APDS, Vorotyntsev has kindly provided me with the following data on standard gun loadouts dated May 1944. He got it from Claus Bonneson. 6pdr 75% APCBC, 6% APDS and 19% HE 17pdr 60% APCBC, 6% APDS and 34% HE The 6pdr APDS was available in quantity from prior to June '44. The 17pdr APDS was pretty sporadic until August '44 when it was too available in quantity ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

As if BTS don't get enough 'opinions' on this Forum and elsewhere they go and post a thread asking for more hehe I am against wholesale changes in points values as the method to address this problem. Though some points value changes to specific vehicles or units has proved necessary I don't think it is required here. Other modifications to 'firing on the move', 'spotting' and 'cross country performance' should hopefully alleviate the problem. The tactic of trying to draw fire with fast vehicles is not in itself 'gamey' since I can think of plenty of real world examples. For example in the Syrian campaign outside Quonetria (sp?) an Australian Col. drove his staff car round and round at high speed to draw the defenders fire of course they had good fire discipline and didn't. Anyway he wasn't expecting to spot anything it was the support weapons he had in overwatch that were doing that. Point changes would penalise proper use of these vehicles. British inf Bn. had bucketloads of carriers Bren and sometimes MMG. To use them in combat you need a few because like any other vehicle you need to use bounding overwatch and you need at least 4 to do it properly. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

First you say, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm surprised he wasnt shot at some point by his own men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you say, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that he was liked by his own men has little to do with how surprised I am that he wasnt booted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Consistent aren't you <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ever read any accounts of the American paratroopers dealing with the Brit Armor units on the road to Arnhem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aha now all is clear to me: that is the sum total of your reading on the subject. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as Montgomery is concerned, I'm surprised he wasnt shot at some point by his own men. But he got lucky at El Alamein and that bit of luck made him indispensable to the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your post made some sense up to this. Actually he was very popular with his own men. Good analytical history education they give you over there. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"