Simon Fox

Whenever I come to the Forum and see a whole pile of new threads asking questions that have been answered a 'thousand times' before I get all twisted up and rage filled. Afflicted with inarticulate apoplexy. I am totally incapacitated with fury and incapable of applying even the most moderate heat to the unfortunate. This is because I am consumed with an overwhelming compunction to administer a viscious piscatorial beating to GUACHI! The capricious Mr Guachi: dilletante of the FAQ, purveyor of fanciful databases, industrious in all tasks until they are 80% complete and then stricken with indolence. Now I was sure I had a rock cod lying around here somewhere, nasty spines on those buggers......

All good stuff, at least I now know where I left that 'ken trout! hehe ------------------ "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."

For more info on this topic I put some in the Churchill/Cromwell thread. Also 1 Firefly per troop would only apply in June 1944 ie a ratio of 1:4. By late 1944 this would rise to 1:3 so each squadron would have a few extra Fireflys floating around.

The Churchill's were issued to the Tank Brigades not the armoured divisions. As of June 1944 they were issued with a mixture of 6pdr armed MkIII and IV and 75mm armed VI and VIII. Conversion sets to modify 6pdr tanks to 75mm were issued but these were performed by the tank maintennance units. Also issued were additional applique armour which was used to up armour older vehicles. Establishments of 21st Army group Churchills for June 1944 are given below: Total (not including 24 armoured OP tanks and ARVEs, crocs not specified but can only be MkVII, the close support 95mm versions are probably MkVI) III 150 IV 193 VI 56 VII 69 V/VIII 54 Therefore 66% of Churchills were 6pdr armed in Normandy. By unit 6th Guards Tank Brigade IV 156 V/VIII 18 31st Tank Brigade III 60 IV 12 VI 31 V/VIII 18 34th Tank Brigade III 90 IV 18 VI 24 VII 24 V/VIII 18 141st Regiment RAC (crocodile unit part of the 31st TB listed seperately) IV 7 VII 45 By the end of 1944 more Churchills were 75mm either through conversion or replacement. But a significant number of 6pdrs were retained (about 25% for most units and overall)this was because the 6pdr firing APDS ammunition gave a better anti-tank performance (and higher RoF) than the 75 despite the better HE shell of the latter. The Cromwells were the main tank used by the 7th AD, and were used by the Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments in the 11th, Guards and Polish AD. It would be fair to say that most would have had 75mm guns at the time of June 1944 these had been earmarked for replacement with the Challenger with the 17pdr but due to limited availability this was only partially completed. Interesting also is the distribution of Sherman variants in the British 21st Army Group. In general a particular unit would have one type (excepting Fireflys), so scenario designers don't mix them up! The armoured divisions had the Vs and the older variants were in the independant armoured brigades which I might add had about as many tanks as an AD. Essentially ALL Fireflys issued were the VC type only two of the IC type were issued to units fighting in North West Europe and that was to the Polish AD. The British did use the 76mm armed Shermans (they had too). For logistical reasons these were concentrated in the Polish AD which was quite potent since in late 1944 it had 41 Sherman 75mm, 40 Sherman 17pdr and 51 Sherman 76mm. What I'd like to see: (1) The Churchill with the 6pdr in the game- shouldn't be difficult since the model is basically done- just change the gun, though the armour is less of course. The availability of up armouring kits confuses this a bit as well. (2) All non-VC fireflys out- yes, I want a vehicle removed it's ahistorical to have them in. (3) Armoured OP vehicles in- very commonly used by British units, nice mobility for your FOO units [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 08-10-2000).]

Let me help MarkIV with his English since what he clearly means is not "style" but "tone" Skorzeny, Quite what your essay on the 150mm SiG has to do with your questions I do not know but as far as I can see the answers you have recieved should be enough. If you have placed the gun where it cannot possibly be seen and it is still targetted then FOW must be off. Otherwise in VoT the US has plenty of mortars for which only the spotters require LOS some off-board, some on-board. If you fiddle around with the FOW settings and the positioning of the unit I am sure that most of your problems will go away.

I notice these 6pdr armed tanks are not in the game. A bit dissappointing as the British APDS 6pdr round was relatively plentiful in this period and had a better anti armour performance than the woeful US 75mm AP. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere but it would be wrong to assume that no 6pdr equiped tanks fought in Normandy and beyond. In fact there was considerable resistance to the replacement of the 6pdr with the 75mm in British tank regiments only the diminishment of the German tank threat and the increasing danger of infantry AT weapons allowed this to proceed without outright refusal in some units. On a similar subject I notice that the 7.9mm Besa MGs are 'modelled' by the .30cal. I guess this is OK but it would be nice to "besa the buggers" occasionally.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are a SHAME and a NUISANCE to every German on this board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't think you're getting out of it that easily. You've got him now and we definitely don't want him after this lot. ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

Nah, I reckon he goes for Bayern Munich or Hamburg SV or something like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure this has been done before<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no **** ken oath Phil you really are a dill! ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war." [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 08-07-2000).]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003832.html easy ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

This one made me chuckle as if they tried they probably wouldn't have succeeded. "Darwin police say a dummy missile has fallen off a Royal Australian Air Force jet, crushing a car in a Darwin suburb. The jet was involved in the Pitch Black joint military exercises between Australian, Singaporean and British troops. The missile landed on a four-wheel-drive parked in a panel beaters in the industrial suburb of Berrima, destroying the front of the vehicle and damaging two others. No-one was injured in the incident. A police spokesman says it was a "captive missile", not explosive but instead carrying recording equipment. He says the RAAF has been to the scene to remove the missile."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So you have a case of poorly trained troops who were told their Uber tanks cannot lose<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point taken. So are these poorly trained troops anything like the poorly trained CM players who think their Uber tanks can't lose? ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

I think it was a mistake to include the Villers-Bocage scenario in the game release since it raises unrealistic expectations. Kverdon is right, the historical event was a massive fluke, a juxtaposition of circumstances and terrain that is almost impossible to recreate. He happened upon the column at just the most fortuitious point at the RHQ troop (no Fireflies) and was able to attack the leading squadron from the rear in the kind of country that made it almost impossible for them to redeploy. His tank got a real battering and was lucky to survive etc etc What seldom gets mentioned is that he returned later the same day (in a different Tiger) with three Tigers and a MkIV and had to walk out. IIRC 4 Churchills, a Firefly, and a 6pdr AT gun from the B squadron accounted for the lot while I think only the Firefly was knocked out. ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having a dedicated battery or two is swell, but uncommon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not if it's your own battalion or regimental organic mortars it's not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Luftwaffe lost the BoB not because of lack of a heavy bomber, but because they shifted targets to bombing of cities just when they were on the brink of defeating fighter command. One shouldn't swallow the version of history written by the strategic airpower advocates without having a large grain of salt handy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One shouldn't swallow the version of history written by apologists for the basic and fundamental failings of the Luftwaffe and it's aircraft without having a large grain of salt handy. The only reason the BoB was a relatively close run thing was that the Air Ministry almost matched the Luftwaffe for planning incompetence. Thankfully the operational planning and management of Fighter Command was much superior. ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

Doh! Sorry Tony, I guess your post didn't drip with the right kind of sarcastic vitriol and it was a bit subtle for me after I had read through the rest of the thread up to that. From Sept 19-22 1944 combat command A of the US 4th Armour fought a series of defensive and counterattacking engagements south and east of Arracourt France. CCA consisted of two companies of Shermans (almost exclusively the M4A1 type) and a company of light tanks (37 tank battalion), a battalion of armoured infantry, a battalion of engineers, a company of tank destroyers (C co. 704 TD Bn. with M18s) and 3 battalions of arty. The tank units were not at full strength. They were attacked by the 111 and 113 Panzer Brigades with supporting infantry. The 113th at least was at full strength with 42 Panthers. In the four days of fighting the 37th lost 14 of its own tanks while destroying 55 Panthers. The M18s of the 704 TD also played a part in the initial defensive battle. In one engagement which lasted the most of 19th Sept one platoon of M18s knocked out 15 panthers for the loss of 3 of their own TD. One M18 was responsible for 6 of these kills. I guess they must have used their inferior mobility, armour, and guns pretty well. ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Uhm..realy nice reading..and why didnt implement BIG-Time those features? i couldn say *B* and my Panthers and Tiger1 r destroyed by super M4 and other Monster US Tanks.. ...every shoot they made..they hit.. No wonder...CM is made from US-guys for the US Market...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Uh-oh, with all this new information BTS will have to go back and redesign everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course! Steve and Charles must be morons, how could they have missed this vital piece of research. In fact why bother doing any at all when they could rely totally on this single source which is clearly correct because it coincides with all your preconceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess the question here now is who has dug himself into the bigger hole, Simon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hehe, my phraseology was carefully chosen to ensure I did not dig myself into a hole. My recollection is pretty much the same as the Fionn quote you gave but I definitely wouldn't "bet my house on it"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm way off the mark here,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How perspicacious of you.

I think that sometimes that CM Borg gets indigestion Oops, sorry teacher, I know you said "no jokes". I feel contrite, this is really serious stuff, this GAME we are discussing. Ok, Ok, I know, 1hr detention. ------------------ "Pink Floyd, a load of old twaddle"-John Lydon

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If every single allied AFV was able to stomp through bocage at will,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, They can't, IIRC all allied tanks are only assumed to have rhinos after a certain date, when they were widely available and the bocage did become a far less daunting proposition for the attacker. I agree with your basic point that the bocage terrain and the nature of the fighting in it could be more accurately modelled. However it seems to me that this is a particularly difficult task the details of which you have not gone to the trouble to ascertain. Certainly it would be nice if the rhino equipped tanks left a gap in the bocage, perhaps you might ask why they don't. Of course perhaps Steve and Charles wanted CM to be so 'gamey' that they couldn't be bothered? That hardly seems consistent with the realism inherent in most of the rest of the game does it? I am sure from reading your posts that you do have something to contribute to discussions here from your knowledge and personal experience. But you have completely misinterpreted peoples attitude to your posts about the "flaws" you perceive in the game. CM is not considered to be set upon some pedestal free from imperfection and I and many others would be happy to discuss your concerns about various aspects of the game and how they might relate to historical and practical evidence. What does seem to annoy people is tha tactless and opinionated way you express those concerns. As a consequence you get a variety of responses. No one expects the humble obsequiousness of the supplicant, though I note with amusement that some 'newbies' have adopted this approach recently. You may think you are being polite but perhaps you may like to consider that the response you are getting is not merely due to arrogance on the part of others.

Well actually I am quite impressed by Mr PXXI. For all his silly statements he has demonstrated a hide of rhinocerous thickness. Considering the **** piled upon him in every thread he starts he just keeps on plugging away in the same inimitable fashion. hehe Jon, just what the hell has PXXI's money got to do with his nose? ------------------ "Pink Floyd, a load of old twaddle"-John Lydon

Yes, this is a bloody disgrace you never had to insert the ASL manual in your rectum to play that game so why should it be required for CM. Quite uncomfortable too. What was that? Oh, oops redfaced

There you go, Jeff's right: 60% isn't even "remotely" like "ALL". Of course in areas of heavy bocage they wouldn't have almost exclusively used rhino equipped tanks would they? No, they would have correctly sampled the total tank numbers so that in a bocage type battle there would have been a 60/40 mix and in a more open area they would have used a 60/40 mix too. ------------------ "Pink Floyd, a load of old twaddle"-John Lydon

Yes, this is an interesting question. I have noticed that during the bulge scenarios or when it is snowing or raining my troops exposure seems to rise throughout the game. Of course when they are in houses or foxholes their exposure seems to be a lot less than in the open. I don't think the game gives you enough information to properly manage your troops exposure. For a start the ambient temperature is not given so that you can keep your guys in good cover if it's really cold. Also wind speed and direction are not properly modelled since exposure seems to be the same irrespective of what side of the building you shelter your troops. Finally to be completely realistic if I run my guys who have a lot of exposure into a building it should gradually reduce the longer they are in there as they warm up instead it just goes straight down, this is silly.