Simon Fox

It is my objective opinion that what you request would lead to "unrealistic" and "gamey" tactics. Why? For reasons outlined here and obtainable by a quick search.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have always been told German plate was consistantly more resistant then US & UK plate with BHN examples & the above etc, to back it up.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is quite possible that German plate was superior to a certain extent and under certain circumstances but that might have nothing to do with FH or even BHN but just the quality of production. The degree of superiority is difficult to quantitate since it varied throughout the war. Furthermore the performance of projectiles seem to vary much more against FHA and are therefore less predictable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US & British reduced hardness in their armor & increased thickness to get a good resistance vs impacts of larger projectiles as ballistic tests had shown,(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are absolutely right it was a deliberate design decision since the Germans used capped AP projectiles and RHA is generally better against those than FH armour. Also it is much easier to work with and produce and therefore makes tank production more efficient. The dilemma for the germans was that by far the majority of their tank warfare was against the russians and FH armour was superior than RHA for russian projectiles. So they accepted a disadvantage vs the western allies for a great advantage against the russians. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have no degree in this(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well neither do I but those Material Science units are coming in handy for once. My point about the gradient is that you don't just have a thin super hard layer on top of a more ductile plate. The hardness gradient is also a brittleness gradient so when the plate fails it tends to break up into 'plugs' which fly around in the vehicle. Penetrating or partially penetrating hits on face hardened armour are likely to cause more internal damage to the vehicle because of the plugging failure of the armour. Furthermore it is possible for the projectile to fail to actually penetrate FH armour but still cause catastrophic damage inside the vehicle because of the plug. What is so confusing is that the difference between FH and RHA armour varies so much for different ammunition types <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British test data sugests that UK 17lb APCBC ammunition due to the superior performance of British APCBC vs FH treated plate should have had no problem defeating the Tiger & Panther's armor frontaly which wasn't the case in the feild,(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the data I gave don't actually show that. The Tiger yes and the field information (not just trials but actual combat performance) showed that the 17pdr was a reasonable antidote to this tank of course not every shot was head on so obliquity starts to come into it. Even the 6pdr could defeat parts of the Tiger armour as shown by trials and combat especially the side hull and turret as long as the angle of incidence was low. Even so with the 17pdr it wasn't certain, hence the need for a high velocity round (APDS). Against the Panther it is a different story. The British had intelligence data from Russia on the Panther and they knew that they would have problems against the frontal armour even with the 17pdr APC and APBC because of the angle. Of course it was easy meat to side shots from a whole host of guns as combat experience showed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From Report M6816A/4 No 1 30 October 1943 on Fireing Trial in Tunisia against Pz.Kpfw.VI "Tiger" from the Department of Tank design, armor branch. Their was also an earlier LF test on June 5th 1943 useing 75mm APCBC, 6lb AP, & 2lb AP all fired at 100yrds.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't sound like a British report? Were they using 6pdr AP or APC or APBC? Which 6pdr were they using, the MkIII(the most common in 1943) or the high velocity MkIV(just introduced). They sound like MkIII since that matches the data I have, the MKIV was better (substantially) against the Tiger. Did they use the 2pdr Longjohn at all? That actually had a chance against the Tiger going by the penetration data hehe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not even sure the Tiger armor was hardened as the BIOS report states(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know either but the nature of the failures you report (ie plugging) does suggest FH. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your data appears to be from the British March 1945 D.T.D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. The report was dated 1943 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also question why you believe APDS was superior to APCR..... 17lb APDS also had severe problems vs the Panthers glacis, because of the 55^ slope.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, generally APDS IS superior to APBC (is that what you mean) especially the superior British variety. Just about everything has a problem with the highly sloped Panther front. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now how can the 0^ data be so close in CM's formula @ 0^ & the 30^ data be so skewed in in the 76 - 90mm guns & sometimes by a wide margin,(Ie, 90mm T-33). Especialy vs the actual test data that provided the 'accurate' 0^ results vs CM's @30^ disputed results.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy. Normal angles of incidence are much easier to model. Obliquity is much more difficult. Some British documents actually refer to their knowledge of inaccurate angle modelling so I don't doubt that Charles was aware of the possibilities as Steve says. Also you are getting a bit carried away with the "so skewed" attitude. Some stuff is skewed most of it is not. In some instances you are citing data which is 5-10mm different from CMs and quite frankly that is peanuts and well within the substantial intra and inter-test variations we have seen cited here on this thread. As someone more expert than myself has perspicaciously said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>armour penetration is far from being a deterministic phenomenon, and giving penetrative performance in millimetres suggests a degree of precision that does not really exist. Performance in the field, of course, is subject to very much greater variation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All simplified tables showing the performance of anti-tank guns are misleading<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Simon if you Email me your address, I'll set up a little group discussion with Robert on this topic along with John and Lewis (Paul)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This sounds like a good idea though I think we are doing our bit to keep the cesspoolites in their place and if we leave the filthy little creatures might take over the board. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While we are at it, lets not forget about those German Zeiss gunnery optics for long range improved accuracy and a higher "chance to hit" percentage than is currently modeled for long distances in the game.(Tom)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now tom I have already chastised you for bringing up that optics crap on this thread. If you want to discuss it go and trawl up that 'gunnery range' thread. While you're about it go and do a bit of technical research on the subject (no first hand accounts please) since we are doing all you're dirty work here. All sides used a number of different sights during the war and while the original US sight was pretty poor not all allied vehicles had it you know. Dates of introduction on the US M10 and T122 sights? The Barr and Stroud x3 and x6 sights?

This topic is a fairly well known 'feature' of the game which as a number of people have pointed out relates to two slightly seperate issues LOS mechanics and also some limitations of the tacAI vis a vis infantry and the 'lay of the land'. For the moment we are just going to have to play within those limitations. I am absolutely sure Steve is aware of it since I was bleating about it in the beta demo. I was especially concerned that when seeking cover the tacAI makes little use of 'dead' ground and often seeks the best terrain type cover sometimes with unpleasant consequences. I understand it has been tweaked a little but it is likely to require some substantial changes to both the mechanics of the game and the tacAI so I wouldn't hold your breath. ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This has been another long going discussion concerning the poldi inconsistancies, thats never been settled, as no one can figure out exactly how 2 groups testing the same plate came up with difering Poldi results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But that's irrelevant to the data I presented which was from British testing of captured German tanks and their own. So it's the same group testing different armour not different groups testing the same armour. As long as the methods are internally consistent the comparison between the armour is valid. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As it was layered over top of the RHA adding aditional protection vs KE penetrators to the RHA even if an KE round defeats the FH 3 - 5mm outer layer its still has to defeat the inner layer of RHA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your view of FH is metallurgically simplistic. The Germans did try some armour which was laminated with high BHN armour applied over standard RHA (in fact some British reports record actual usage of this armour) but this is not FH. In fact the FH produces a gradient of hardness so that IIRC typically the top 10% is hardest with a subsequent gradient of hardness down to the basic hardness of the original plate. FH is good (as Paul says) for projectiles which are not so hard (old style AP) since they will shatter (with the exception for high angles of obliquity where it is poor). But for hard capped projectiles (with high quality caps ie not early US) it is not so good because it tends to undergo catastrophic failure. These are the only web sources I have found but they seem pretty authoritative. http://www.warships1.com/W-Nathan/ Helge gave this link earlier in this thread http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/background/armourtypes4.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans considered it ballisticly superior to untreated RHA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only against certain projectile types. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British test data sugests that UK 17lb APCBC ammunition due to the superior performance of British APCBC vs FH treated plate should have had no problem defeating the Tiger & Panther's armor frontaly which wasn't the case in the feild, Or in British or US live fire tests with APCBC rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ? Well British live fire tests in Tunisia don't agree with you. First which plates on the Tiger were FH (not all were)? Second the drivers visor plate was penetrated by 6pdr AP at 700yds (thats 102mm @ 10deg) and the front lower hull by 17pdr MkI AP at 1600yds (thats 102mm @ 25deg) [from WO 185/118]. I don't think that the British were massively concerned about the performance of the 17pdr or even the 6pdr (since it was being superceded) against the Tiger frontally (they knew not to aim at the turret, the live fire tests don't even bother). Of much more concern to them was the Panther with it's highly sloped front hull. Of course they had a reasonable (though variable) supply of APDS for both weapons and British APDS was better than US HVAP. Those tests were live, probably about 1943, other details will take some time to get.

Now I'm a little confused because John says the Germans tested against FH armour plate whereas Paul says it was RHA plate though you both agree generally about the hardness. Who is correct? You are right John I don't think you can reasonably compare allied and german tests as a basis for deciding on the effect of face hardening. As Paul points out there is too much variability including the difference between 'test' quality ammo as used by the germans and 'captured' quality ammo as used by the allies (if testing captured weapons). From what Paul says there seems to be substantial variation in armour hardness. So saying the Germans used 300BHN whereas the Allies (can you actually lump them together?) used 245BHN is confusing. For example British testing of captured german vehicles shows this variability. WO 185/118 "A survey of the plates on the Pz.Kw.VI with the portable hardness tester had shown that all the plates were of machineable quality. The hardness of the 26mm plates was in the range 298-343 Brinell which was harder than British plates of the same thickness namely 262-311 Brinell. The hardness of the plates in the range 60-102mm was 257-310 Brinell which was essentially the same as that of British plates of the same thickness." Also WO 185/171 gives BHN data collected to June 1944 German 40mm 280-335 60mm 270-320 80mm 250-300 100mm 220-290 >100mm 215-250 British 40mm 262-302 60mm 255-293 80mm 248-277 100mm 240-269 >100mm 240-269 John, you seem to suggest that FH armour (ie German) is universally superior to RHA (ie Allied) but this is not the case. It was a deliberate design decision by the allies to use RHA because they felt it superior. Whether the Germans persisted with FH because they beleived the trade off in vulnerability to capped projectiles was worth it or bloody minded tradition is a moot point. Looking at the available data where both FH and RHA armour were tested in the same test it seems pretty clear that FH is inferior vs ballistically capped projectiles and superior vs older type AP. This also seems to be the consensus from what I have read. So from WO 185/178 penetration in mm 6pdr APCBC at 30deg vs MQ(RHA) 500yd 72 1000yd 64 1500yd 49 FH 500yd 97 1000yd 82 1500yd 64 17pdr APC at 30deg vs MQ(RHA) 500yd 118 1000yd 110 1500yd 89 FH 500yd 135 1000yd 118 1500yd 91 Interestingly the data from US guns seems to suggest that their capped projectiles were substantially poorer quality than the British since there is little variation between RHA and FH.

Here we go again: from Pillar to poll.

Before I go on too much I need some clarifications. By flame hardened do you mean face hardened (FH) which I beleive was flame and or later induction hardened? I am pretty sure the results were for standard 300BHN RHA plate (ie not face hardened), I only wrote down the stuff for 245 and 300 BHN but IIRC a range of BHN values were tested. Are all german test data for 300BHN FH plate? If so you are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to examine the effect of hardness on resistance to penetration for a variety of projectile calibres then you must reduce the variables to one. Therefore you must use either FH or RHA armour at all BHN not a mixture. Otherwise you are introducing the effects of the face hardening process. Isn't it the case that FH armour is less resistant to penetration than RHA against capped projectiles? And that the converse is true for uncapped projectiles?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>German test plate at 300 BHN was around 10% more resistant to overmatching projectiles then US, UK plate @ 240 - 250 BHN, US & UK plate used in their AFVs matched their test plate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is interesting John because I always understood precisely the opposite for normal impacts. BTW I am not sure that you can use different allied and german test figures to prove your point. You need to have data from the same test with the same gun against different BHN plates. Overmatching projectiles are those for which the ratio of calibre to armour thickness is greater than one. Accordingly I have always understood that for overmatching projectiles the resistance to normal impact decreases as the hardness of the armour increases (ie BHN increases). Furthermore this relationship is non-linear and resistance declines quite rapidly as hardness increases. Therefore German 300BHN plate should actually be less resistant to an overmatched projectile than US/UK 245BHN plate. For example the US 57mm APC round defeats a 38mm 300BHN plate at 378m/s whereas it defeats an equivalent thickness 245BHN plate at 393m/s (overmatching ratio of about 1.5:1) (this was from a US source will have to dig it out when I can remember where from!).

But tom, the greater accuracy of a high velocity gun is modelled in the game IIRC, please see page 66 of the manual. I am not sure if the relationship between ToF, RoF and accuracy is modelled but it is alluded to in a round about way so it may be. It would be nice if we could keep discussions of gun accuracy/optics etc seperate from this discussion of armour penetration. This thread is confusing enough as it is without going off on a tangent, though thanks to John for his 'summing up' which was most appreciated. I have some comments and questions, his post is on page 8. I think it is important to put the discussion in its context. Generally, as I see it a multitude of factors determine armour penetration. These factors have varying quantitative significance to the final outcome. On top of this is an overall statistical uncertainty. As currently implemented CM accounts for by far the most significant factors involved but not all. How significant overall are the deviations and how significant for specific instances are the deviations? Can the extent of the most significant deviations be accounted for by known ballistic effects? Can these deviations be modelled readily? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1). The US & Brit LF test plate was 240 - 250BHN which was the same BHN of the plate used on their tanks, which would have BOOSTED actual penetration results for all German ammunition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doesn't it actually decline if the projectile 'overmatches' the plate? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The formula can't distinguish between rounds with different nose shapes, or different hardness, and materials, nor does it predict the angle-dependant performance of armour piercing caps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are extrapolating a little too much there. The formula may be the 'basis' for CMs calculations but at least some of the factors you cite are accounted for in some way. I may be wrong but the manual indicates so, as do previous discussions here. IIRC the differences in projectile quality are in some way incorporated.

The 'cesspool' thread is actually the sheltered workshop of wit, the kindergarten of invective. It's denizens lurk therein since their preferred methods are more akin to neanderthal bludgeoning than the rapier. Their crude deposits in this thread attest to this. In the 'cesspool' thread you are under no illusions as to the treatment you receive. Out here it may be hours later that you notice your blood has ebbed out from where you have been run through a dozen times.

No Elijah I think that was some guy from Canada.

Well there's nothing wrong with it but posting under another user name to defend yourself in the third person is pretty frigging funny. Then vehemently denying it when it's brought up is even funnier.

"In one forum, he stood next to an elderly man and a ten-year-old boy. As the extremely picky individuals rumbled on the boy said, 'iggi is more picky'. The old man looked down at him and asked,'If iggi is more picky, why isn't he here?' oops he is

Peng, Kindly return to the Cesspool where your intellect finds it's true zenith. On the 14th July 2000 an individual under the name GAZ_NZ registered with this forum. After several posts (samples below) that user name was not used again after 14th July. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> U will figure it out soon enough but the cold war was a hoax as is all this. The anti missle system is actually an anti ufo system. One day u will understand but in the mean time forget ya troubles and enjoy ya games. This might sound weird but im in touch with the right people here in NZ who are in touch with.....Ill leave u withb this though as well...... Take care all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> WHATS THE POINT IN PLAYING SOMEFINK IF IT DOESNT CHALLANGE U.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Cheers for the reply, was hoping somefink would be made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Im good at art and have many wwii camo books. Was wanting to contribute. Any info appreciated. Cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the 15th July 2000 an individual under the name CPT STRANSKY registered with this forum. The last posts by that username were about 30th August 2000. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I prefer playing German but i can be axis i love big games if any one else is keen that reads this mail me. cheers e-mail gazzer@wave.co.nz cheers Cpt. Stransky Prussian Aristocrat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To me tanks just dont seem to have the impact they should. Its like hey theres a tank kill it, ok wheres the next. Tanks were feared. Especially Tigers. German Armour calculations i think may need a top up. Maybe even allied tanks need it to vs Panzerfausts. i dont play allies so comment people. Make this game balanced. Im a veteran war gamer and i like games to progress im not trashing cm by the way. BASICALLY HOW EFFECTIVE WHERE INFANTRY AT IN WWII? AND IS IT BEING TRETED THE SAME IN CM? ITS EITHER MY BAD LUCK ETC OR AGAME MISCALCULATION.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for playing PBM for humilty i have been PBMing for years, and i have played CM PBM with 2 of me mates here in NZ. Yes im an NZer!!! The patches and resulting PBM muck ups made me give up as well as the hassles in playing this game PBM. As for icq thats a security risk and i dont use it, i have friends high up in computer security etc ms engineers etc and i have been warned not to use it. I know people who have been hacked and becasue of my new job im starting soon i cant have me pc hacked. Big security risk!! Also BTS u have not updated your news page, u put 1.03 patch but have missed 1.04 and now 1.05. I know of some people who only just got 1.05 because they never saw it posted on the news page. PLease fix. Not everyone reads the board. thanks ps never trash people who are interested in making a game better. ive been wargamming for 20 years and i have yet to find a good War game. Cm is good still needs some work but. My classic war game is War in Russia by Gary Grigsby cheers all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the 30th August 2000 an individual under the name GAZ_NZ registered with this forum. The posting style of this individual may be seen in this thread. CPT STRANSKY's email is gaz nz@zfree.co.nz GAZ NZ's email is gazzer@wave.co.nz On the 20th of July CPT STRANSKY (should be CAP) posted the following: "if any one else is keen that reads this mail me. cheers e-mail gazzer@wave.co.nz cheers" . A while back Andreas posted. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>GazNZ, I think what Steve meant was that amongst Kiwis there is a higher proportion of people who use a more phonetic style to post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think so bud, I think Steve was having a private joke. ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms." [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-04-2000).] [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-04-2000).]

Actually he kinda improved my day. There is nothing quite like seeing someone for whom you have little regard blow their own foot off. I am sure you will have your wish.

"Please explain." "I don't like it"

Boy, I am finding all these pictures are very testing. At least we know what he has on his bedroom wall I guess.... ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms." [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-03-2000).]

Just testing MY new sig ------------------ "In October I tried once more to win Hitler over to the idea of light tanks: on the southwestern front (Italy) reports on the cross-country mobility of the Sherman have been very favorable. The Sherman climbs mountains which our tank experts consider inaccessible to tanks. One great advantage is that the Sherman has a very powerful motor in proportion to its weight. Its cross country mobility on level ground (in the Po Valley) is, as the Twenty-sixth Armored Division reports, definitely superior to that of our tanks. Everyone involved in tank warfare is impatiently waiting for lighter and therefore more maneuverable tanks which, simply by having superior guns, will assure the necessary fighting power."-Albert Speer

In the same vein in a PBEM I guessed that my opponent might be forming up for an assault in a small copse of woods even though I had not seen any troops in it. I targetted my last few 80mm mortar rounds (probably a turns worth) at the front of it just in case. The assault did not eventuate next turn but I forgot to cancel the mission as I intended. Curses all my ammo gone! I was furious with myself. A few turns later the game petered out in a draw. When I checked out the final map there was a whole platoon hiding in the woods with a few casualties and suppression. My stupid 'mistake' had foiled my opponents last chance for victory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In world war II, night fighting was an extreme rarity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not true, though it was not common by todays standards. Though not exactly within CMs scope night marches to attacking positions followed by very early morning suprise attacks were pretty common. It is well known of course that Germans were generally afraid of the dark and adverse to night operations hehe "Unlike us, they rarely fought at night, when they were excessively nervous and unsure of themselves. Where we patrolled extensively, they avoided it. I can remember only one successful German patrol and not one successful night action."

First, Someone has already posted on another thread all that anecdotal stuff tom posted , while it represents some valuable info it is just that and needs to be taken in context. Second, I accept that there was some superiority in german tank optics over the US and certainly the Russian. But there seems to be considerable misconception here along the lines of uber german gunnery. This is crap. I can rattle off a whole list of examples of allied gunners taking out german vehicles at extreme ranges, including a JSII taking out a StuG with his first shot at 2km, but these sort of isolated instances abound in war. I am not an expert in long range tank gunnery but we need input from someone who is. From what I have read crew training and experience have the most impact in this respect and most WWII tank gunners were not experts in this area. The israeli experience in this area is very very interesting I will try and dig up some references. I would hate the impact of optics to be overemphasised. I suspect that just about every other aspect (ie experience/training, gun, ammo etc) is of more importance. If the difference is small/slight I hardly think if implemented it will placate those who think German tank gunners should routinely taking out allied tanks at ranges from 1000-2000m. If we are to model differences in optics how about the difference in firing uphill vs downhill too, which is substantial ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."

Yes absolutely right Blindicide. I meant V not VI meaning most of the CS version in June 1944 were probably Vs. To clarify a bit: MkIII welded turret- 6pdr MkIV cast turret - 6pdr Mk V 95mm Mk VI 75mm british gun (basically a field kit modification of the Mk IV) Mk VII new version- 75mm and more armour Mk VIII as for VII except 95mm Crocodiles are VII This is confused somewhat by the retrograde fitting of applique armour to the MkIII-IV so that you would see a gradual increase in the numbers of uparmoured 6pdrs but there are no actual figures for the implementation. Though there is evidence that the kits were plentiful. I am not sure whether this made the armour equivalent to the VII or still less. If you look at the figures for June 1944 I give above you will see that hardly any straight MkVII Churchills (the type in CM) were used initially in Normandy since there were 45/69 with the 141st RTR which was a crocodile unit. Blindicide is correct that it makes it impossible to design historically accurate scenarios with the Churchill equipped tank brigades. I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to rectify to include at least some of the other marks, the models themselves shouldn't be massively different as long as no-one wants to get super picky and groggy (fat chance!). Of course the armour issue could be confusing unless you assumed they were all uparmoured or a distinction was made. It is possible to get the impression that the Churchill is a lumbering behemoth in CM. In reality it was quite different if you make the distinction between speed and mobility. The Churchill could go places that others couldn't. In its' first action in north africa a German force was routed and they complained of a British super tank which could climb mountains On the subject of other vehicles, the Valentine bridgelayers are largely irrelevant since you can't use them anyway at the moment. On the other hand the Crusader AA was plentiful and often used in a ground support role. ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area." [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 09-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>His journalism is good, but his pro-German bias is so silly that it almost undermines the book, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is definitely a book worth reading but I absolutely agree with you there. Sometimes Hastings completely contradicts himself. Like he is rabbiting on about the failure of some British attack then in almost the next page he says that German counterattacks in Normandy were predominantly "crude" and ill co-ordinated. I mean what gives with that? When they are on the defensive they are "professional" and "masterful" but on the attack they are "crude". The facts are that when either side attacked in Normandy they had real trouble making headway and exploiting local successes because of the nature of the terrain. No doubt the allies had some learning to do which they did, especially at the operational level. But I seriously doubt that they could have made much more rapid progress than they did though I suspect they could have done it with less casualties. ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."

thomasj, Your post has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. What has your comment at the operational level of the war in North Africa got to do with my tactical question? Great to see you trot out that old "airpower" excuse for German failure again too. My point/question was that since the Brits had done quite a lot of fighting in terrain where long engagments were possible what was their experience vis a vis the German optics. Most of the stuff around here cites the US experience. While I have often come across British accounts of how ineffectual some of their tank guns were against some German tanks I have not come across any comments about optics. Though they definitely nabbed the German binoculars whenever they could. ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."

The earnest little guachi strikes again. He always manages to find the microscopic mote of worth in every cesspool of ranting drivel. ------------------ "But on the 1st of July (D+25) the Regiment had its field day with the Tyneside Scottish in Rauray village. 'C' Sqn bore the brunt of the day-long battle when the Germans launched a massive counter attack on the Polar Bear positions. Throughout the day the Panzers launched savage attacks anf threatened to overrun the infantry. By close of play, from defensive positions an astonishing 34 Panthers had been destroyed, 31 in the Rauray area."