Simon Fox

Maximass you are rapidly approaching the trolldom you attained in your previous guise on this board. As for your moronic prattle I will render it an answer at the appropriate level for your understanding: BOLLOCKS!!!!!

By the time I got around to reading the parent thread it had degenerated into a conglomeration of the illinformed venturing their unwanted opinions which amounted to little more than a bunch of misconceptions. Thankfully we are starting afresh here. I should add that though Steve seems to think I am some sort of apologist for the British, I am an Aussie and would never shirk from declaring the existence of a "Pommie bastard" when I come across one While I can cite a number of references, first person accounts abound and these are often the most useful. Unfortunately the web doesn't hold much promise for general texts but there are a number of personal accounts around. As a general observation it is important to note that the terrible losses of WW1 loomed large in British operational thinking and tactical doctrine. As a result there was an excessive emphasis on a combined arms doctrine which at times produced tactical rigidity. Though this does not necessarily impact upon the scale of CM. For all the criticisms of the massive tank losses in the battles around Caen one must remember that at the time the British would much rather lose tanks than men and in human terms the actual casualties were not that large in such battles. First of all british infantry is equipped a little differently to the US and germans and definitely do not posses the infantry firpower of the latter or to a lesser extent the former. Arguably however the British were equipped with the best all-round squad light automatic weapon of the war. Now before the MG42 lovers go off half cocked I am talking about flexibility, employment in all tactical situations and all theatres. As the Germans didn't have to fight in any jungles the question doesn't really arise. I do not know how it is modelled in CM but I sincerely hope that British squads are able to more quickly employ their squad automatic weapon than the German equivalent and furthermore that they have more effective firepower on the move since IIRC the MG42 wasn't fired from the hip too often. Though it is not modelled in CM anecdotally I would expect British troops to employ captured weapons more frequently and furthermore to more frequently vary from the official TOE in their weaponry. In defensive circumstances British troops frequently employed captured MG42s though they would not carry them around. Because of the relatively poor quality of the Sten (tendency to jam) wherever possible they were supplanted by the MP40, the Thompson and also the Beretta (which was much prized). Overall I think the British infantry employed SMGs more liberally than their TOE suggests. The British MG (the Vickers) is relatively immobile compared to the HMG42 (don't go there) but being water cooled should be capable of a better sustained rate of fire. When mounted on a Bren carrier with the cooling running off the vehicles radiator it was good for suppression. The Brits also widely used the .30 cal. The 2" mortar is quite weak but should be ok for suppressing an MG position. The 3" and the 4.2" were good. The British artillery is the preeminent arm with a high standard throughout the war only overshadowed slightly towards the end by the US. The 25pdr gun was very mobile and flexible and fired a pretty good round. It was considered by the Brits to be superior to the US 105mm in lethality, I'm not sure why, the arty gurus can answer that one. Unfortunately bayonets for close combat aren't modelled since as we all know "Jerry doesn't like cold steel". British AT guns are much better than their US counterparts and by Normandy all 6pdrs would commonly have the subcalibre rounds, also the 17pdr AT was common. I'm not an armour guru but British armour includes lots of neat toys in addition to their versions of US vehicles. Also the british tanks were a lot more survivable (when knocked out) than the Sherman. Though their guns aren't so good (vis a vis the Germans, apart from the 17pdr) some Brit tanks have really good armour. The 6pdr with the subcalibre round is much better vs armour than the US 75mm which also armed British tanks. The Brits also used infantry support tanks with 95mm guns. Basically with the British infantry you need to be a little more circumspect as to how you employ them than maybe US which had larger squads. As an example of how not to do it try the recent AAR, apologies to Bil 'the Somme' Hardenberger. A note of interest is that Fionn points out the poor HE capabilities of the Firefly...dead right. Only under extreme circumstances or long range was the Firefly to engage infantry. They were the British Tiger antidote, the HE ammo was stored down in the vacant co-drivers position and was quite hard to get too. They lurked to the rear of the troop and were only brought up to deal with German armour. In reality they would never be employed as Bil used his. I'll hunt out some currently available references and post them when I can. Unfortunately a lot of mine are out of print.

I am sure plenty of other people play as many PBEMs. They just don't beat their chests in the same distasteful way as this Beryllickinggarden character. Sounds like some sort of bizarre sexual practise when you say it doesn't it. PS don't mind me I've just had a very pleasant looong Friday lunch.

With respect John, the examples you raise are not new ones. As a protagonist in the WP debates and a supporter of it's inclusion those examples were alluded to by myself in that previous discussion. Having long been a visitor to that website I have often used the content to support my arguments here. But they remain personal accounts only. As such they are useful evidence but need to be either in considerable number or backed up by other evidence to convince Steve. Maybe one day we'll get enough straws to break that camel's back [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 05-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As you probably can see just by looking at them Steel Panthers and TOW are nothing like CM. You see, there is a difference between CM and those games, CM IS 3D!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, now KD. You are assuming too much: like the connection of a brain to those eyes. [This message has been edited in the interests of cross-cultural understanding by removal of the australianism "wanker" (edited 05-31-2000).] [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 05-31-2000).]

Lack of topographical lines=realism??? Huh? Sure I agree that getting down there in camera views 1-3 has no substitute but lets not get too extreme here. Proper maps have topographical lines so how are they unrealistic in a top down view? Personally I would really like to see topographical lines in the editor as an option. At the moment the elevations are shown as a whole pile of numbers which are quite distracting. ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

Generally green and conscript schrek teams are next to useless for killing tanks. But they will distract the tank away from other units especially the regular schrek teams, so pair them. Also the TacAI and your opponent don't know their quality so they can drive the tank off even if they don't kill it. Regular schrek teams I am starting to like very much, I just had one kill 3 Shermans with 3 shots all at 100m+

Gee argie, Very impatient aren't you. Ron seems to be playing a heck of a lot of PBEM and with the size limits on free email accounts and the larger size movie files in the new demo it's hardly suprising that his space can fill up quickly. I am sure if you privately and politely ask him instead shouting it out publically on 'Forum St' (metaphorically speaking) he might give you an alternative address. ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

I guess this falls into the category of super realism. Generally HQ units would not be expected to crawl around stalking tanks and weren't officially issued with such weapons. Of course it makes for a pretty frustrating experience when your conscript schrek team cowers from some desultory suppressive fire while a veteran HQ sits idly by twiddling it's thumbs while an oblivious Sherman trundles by. Bitter? Who me? But you have to draw the line somewhere and at the moment it's not possible for units to swap weapons/ammo etc. It may not be completely realistic but the alternative would seem quite complex to implement and was obviously placed in the to hard basket oops! I mean 'on the list' ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

I noticed this bug in the beta demo but assumed it had been fixed. I do find it useful to save during the orders phase especially at work...(or I would if you could) There's nothing like having to replot a whole turn when you only had a couple of orders to go and had to unexpectedly do something else for a while ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

Well I have taken out Shermans with fausts and also seen them fired at infantry even in the beta demo though I would agree it is more common now. You just have to put them in the right environment. As the US player I never get that close ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

I'm just waiting for Colin to post something ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

Unfortunately as most people can't even be bothered to do this for VoT I can't see them doing it for CE as well. ------------------ "Nah, I'm totally straight-laced. I just play a pervert on the net." - Fionn

let me spell it out for you grunto S-P-O-I-L-E-R you miserable #%$$#!

This thread is kind of ancient history now but as some people got perplexingly tetchy I thought I should just paraphrase a now defunct quote: "it's up when it's up" So how come you actually have time to post here now? 5Mb to go.... ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Gee Berli that's not like your usual bravado and bluster. Now my sig is even more topical. ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Hey stop posting to this thread, you might crash the server ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

I restrained myself on the 75mm HE thread since it seems to me that such a discussion would be more appropriate later re CM2 'cos it certainly isn't going in CM1. But I actually agree with Lewis (yikes!) and John Kettler that this technique was far more widely practiced than many beleive. I am not familiar with German accounts of this but I have come across a number of British accounts (including Wilson's Flamethrower, an excellent read BTW) most of which describe it in a context which suggests that it was well-recognized and often used. (Along with the practice of firing at the tree height in woods) Obviously the uncertainties involved make it an area weapon (gee, that's what HE is, isn't it?). The ground conditions and angle of impact, as Fionn rightly points out, will have a bearing but given a high velocity flat trajectory round it may be the physics of the situation are more analogous to the 'skipping' of a stone on the surface of water (the details of which I am currently hunting down). Martin is correct when he says time delay fuses (been around for ages) are designed for bunkers etc but this does not preclude their application in this way through ingenuity. I might also add that they are good for well dug in infantry in woods where air bursts are not very effective. It is difficult to determine it's relative effectiveness vis a vis conventional use, though I don't think that the sandbag analogy is quite the same situation Whatever the case it is definitely not one of those uber German things and therefore it's absence is unlikely to affect the balance of the game. Note: this is not the same as bouncing AP rounds since to be effective the AP round must maintain its aspect etc, also if the AP round fails to bounce perfectly it's wasted whereas the HE will still have some effect therefore they should be discussed entirely seperately [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 05-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We all know the Germans had heavier duty ones to handle all that sauerkraut and wurst<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> mmm...are you sure? IIRC it was heavy duty toilet bowls. Also towards the end of the war the shortage of materials meant that German Kitchen Sink factories had to reduce the round wall thickness and the use of slave labour resulted in a very high percentage of defects. Therefore the German Sinks are less effective than allied ones. There are also some ethical questions with regard to sink usage. If the sink is preused and fired with the trap still attached it may constitute biological warfare.

LOL Ron you are such a bitch! ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

The OBG quote of the day "If you can't annoy somebody with what you write I think there is little point in writing" Kingsley Amis Substitute "just about everybody" for "somebody" and you get the OBG credo. ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

There's a strong Kiwi presence here too, phew ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

For Goodness Sake Steve, go to bed, do you ever sleep?

Gazzumped by Foobar, exactly what I was about to post. It's not only Harold who hasn't been paying attention when reading this thread. The supine figure represents an eliminated unit which may not have suffered any fatal casualties and therefore it is unrealistic to refer to them as "dead bodies".

And after that KD wasn't wooing the customers he was beating them into submission