Simon Fox

Why bother? It's just the bitter words of a loser unable to accept defeat. As for the story machineman relates, did that come from "Death traps" by Beldon Cooper? ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, you just know I had to comment on this (Lee)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes and as usual you are unable to resist making unnecessary and opinionated declarations which are guaranteed to sidetrack the thread into another off topic debate. You are quite welcome to comment on your own backyard but you know bugger all about anywhere else. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-26-2000).]

So?

Yes, this is the absolutely "Graphics Required" thread. Not the 'cool things I'd like to see' thread or the 'my suggestions' thread or even the 'how about this' thread. Steve and Charles stop everything else, this is required. Matt and Dan you better get on it too.

This seems familiar hehe. But slappy, you just don't 'understand' it's so much easier to be snide Anyway that's a pretty expensive collander the russians have there.

There is a simple answer to this dilemma: "British is best"

Although this topic pops up now and again this thread has been a really great example. I am especially pleased that Helge has related the abortive attack of later that day since it balances the ledger somewhat. Though always thought 4Tigers and 1 PzIV were lost in that attack. They were ambushed in the town by 1Firefly, 3 Cromwells from B squadron(4CLY?) and a 6pdr AT gun. The British had to withdraw that evening because they didn't have enough infantry to hold the town so they pulled out and blasted the living daylights out of the place. Another example of their armoured divisions not having enough infantry.

Dan maaaaaate! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and KD has moved from Fosters to Bud Light.(rune)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well mace preempted me a little bit but surely you guys don't think WE drink that crap (well maybe when it's free). That's just the dregs we sell to you lot. More like he's moved up from VB to Coopers,Cascade or Hahn Premium. -------------------------------------------- "It's a twirling date, a sparkle and a twinkle, now hello boys! crazy date, party date, flat bag, a gold medal performance HG"

The second from the last table is really interesting. I DEMAND nationality differences in morale be instituted. More US infantry sooking out in battle should be seen, their firepower should be reduced by 5% relative to British troops coz they are cowering in their foxholes crying for 'mommy'. Clearly this is a result of inadequate bayonet training which is unfortunately not modelled in CM since I would dearly love to give Bastables' SS babyboys a taste of steel in our current PBEM but can't grrr. 'At 'em boys' oops not allowed to do that, gotta just sit here and let them use all that closequarters firepower on us grrrrr. When your 15m from Jerry do you ping at him with your rifle or use the pointy bit on the end...rant-rave-rant.... *sigh* H2H for CM2 please

jpinard, Once again you have got the 'wrong end of the stick', we know what happened last time you got cranky ("you whiny morons" ring a bell?). All this stuff is old hat and known for ages when CMHQ was first setup. I am sure Matt spends a lot more than 20min on it per day. For a start editing Fionn's pompous prose into a readable form would take a lot more than that. Since you obviously don't know how the issue came up I can tell you that you won't be able too find out hehe. You have stated your opinions by carrying on you are acting like a drongo.

Good point Michael. SOP was crater the road with a big bang (surplus aircraft bombs were good) then mine the verges.

According to Reynolds (1997) an armoured reconnaissance regiment, June 1944 Consisted of: A HQ squadron and 3 squadrons. The HQ squadron has 11 Stuarts and 4 AA (Crusader) tanks. Each squadron has a HQ of 3 Cromwells and 4 troops of 4 Cromwells each. This applies to all armoured division recon regt. The 7th armoured also had cromwells in it's armoured regiments whereas the others had Shermans. Challengers were not very common as there were problems with production. As a stopgap units were issued with a proportion of 17pdr Fireflies, I know this occurred for the 7th armoured but I am unsure if it applied to all the armoured reconnaissance regiments. Basically by the time the Challenger production was fixed the Comet was available so the Challenger was scrapped. Very few seem to have actually seen service so at best you would see 1 per cromwell troop by the end of 1944.

Geez if everybody went off all sooky sooky after they got booted off Matt's chat or smacked with a damp trout then we would have a whole crop of cabbages. Instead we have just the occasional overcooked sour old specimen. Anyway that filthy cyborg has nothing to do with Matt.

This is an interesting topic and some good points have been made all round. Fionn's points are relevant, especially the point about accuracy but I still think tungsten usage seems awfully low. Maybe the AI is just being a little too sensible Firstly, US (and German) subcalibre rounds were inferior to the British APDS which was less prone to shatter and also IIRC more accurate. Therefore British units may be more likely to use their APDS (which was more plentiful anyway). Secondly, HVAP and APDS are less accurate than conventional rounds. As RudeLover so rightly pointed out the flight/trajectory is quite different so 'getting the range' with APCBC is actually quite dumb at longer ranges. At least some of the alleged inaccuracy of APDS was due to the practice of bracketing with APCBC. British firing tests clearly demonstrated this. When APDS was used for bracketing the accuracy substantially improved. Not to the level of APCBC but out to a certain range it was very acceptable. Therefore British practice recommended that: (A)Identify target and range (B)Use appropriate ammo from the 1st round WO 291/762, "Accuracy of APCBC/HV shot and AP/DS when fired from the 6-Pounder Gun mounted in the Churchill IV."

The concept that the complexities of a massive military operation can't just be glibly encompassed in a couple of sentences. I also submit the the Arnhem reading list Peter Harclerodes(sp?) "Arnhem: a tragedy of errors"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But your point is valid. There is just no good way of making it work. In the next version of the CM engine (i.e. CM II and not CM 2) we do plan on having relative spotting. But it is such a huge undertaking it is not going to happen sooner than that.(Steve) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah yeah, I know all that and as you know I'm a proponent for relative spotting and more FoW. But what about a bit more delay at the moment it seems just about instantaneous which is only realistic if the thing explodes. Even with the Sherman this is some delay before it burns profusely or the crew bale out. Anyway I can cite plenty of instances of 'dead' tanks being engaged or rounds being pumped into them long after they are out of action. So people can bleat as much as they like about wasting a few rounds, I reckon it would be more fun that way.

Good on you IPA. It's a pity Flipper had to bring down the tone of the thread. It's ironic that a denizen of a nation that produced McArthur should be blathering on about 'idiot egomaniacs'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It can be extremely difficult to tell if an armored vehicle is destroyed after a hit or is shook up, immobilized (but the main gun still works, argh) or is just playing dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I absolutely agree with this. At the moment knowledge is too instantaneous allowing the tank/gun to instantly switch to a new target. I think some variable delay should occur unless of course the damage is catastrophic. The suggestion that allowance be made for crew experience in this is also a good one. The more FOW the better.

Well it may be a little cumbersome but I was going to try it out for my next PBEM. Basically if you have say two players each side, one is the infantry commander and the other commands the attached armour. This would be basically historically realistic though the infantry commander would generally have overall command and some of the vehicles would be under his direct command. Alternatively you could split the force up some other way. You would have to agree on a general strategy and confer each turn. Then one guy plots his moves saves the turn and sends it on to his 'teammate' who plots his moves and presses GO. I guess someone has probably already tried it, I wonder how it went if they did?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pity we cannot play multiplayer games - that would be sweet...oh well<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wannabet?

Maximus, It's an expression used by 16th century pirates, as in "arr, me hearties". Rob/1 must be extending his web site to cover naval wargames too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A simple solution, we Aussie CMers must lobby to make Australia the 53rd State of the USA (in time for CM2's release), then there'd be no problem!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your on your own there mate. Now that is akin to selling your soul. You might solve one problem but bring on about 5000 more. As for DOG he did 'get me there' I thought there was no way he could be an Aussie, with all that whinging I thought he was a Pom.

Well the British did have a x6 sight for their 17pdr equipped tanks at least.

Yes Lewis the APDS round was less accurate than APC or APCBC rounds and the Brits were aware of it. Some of it was to do with instability in flight (which couldn't be fixed) and some was to do with the differences in flight (which could be worked aroundby zeroing the gun for APDS). I don't know if these could be called "VERY inaccurate" however as otherwise they wouldn't have been introduced. To answer your point if we take the 6pdr as an example using the recommended maximum engagement range for APDS was 800yds and APCBC 1000yds. This was based on a 50% hit chance on a target 2ftx5ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Moon 3rd level english is better than my 2nd level english. Not such an accolade but still frigging superb work. The scary thing is I'm graduataing with BA in Social Anthropology next year they're just giving em away now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but your a dumb kiwi so that's your excuse. As for Deadmarsh the Borg found him a little indigestable so BTS sent him one of their 'special' manuals so he would always lose.