Simon Fox

I dare say you've a fair way to go before you can rival the likes of Croda in that respect. Interestingly I don't feel particularly triumphant that such a Pavlovian creature has taken the bait. Such conditioned reflexes have an inevitability about them that removes all possibility of suspensful anticipation.

Croda is so unsubtle that surely no one could possibly have been taken in by his inane patter, could they? Just be grateful he hasn't sullied this thread with those inane nested quotes. Surely the most counterproductive 'feature' ever incorporated into UBB.

Actually, I heard a rumour that BTS were so impressed with the depth and extent of ICS's knowledge of all aspects of WW2 that they were thinking of adding ICS to the CMBB beta test team. In fact as I understand it the intent was that ICS would entirely replace the current crop of dullards since he knows everything they would be superfluous.

sigh I shall have to turn in my amateur detective badge (it's much nicer than Slapdragon's real badge), as I'm just no good at it. Apologies, Matt, the new IronChef4, and, our very own (and apparently unique) Iron Chef Sakai. Slapdragon, you toad, you still owe me a Taunt.</font>

What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward</font>

Feh!

Interestingly this point seems to have paralells in British operational research of the time. As has been alluded to in this thread a number of factors contribute to the effectiveness of a particular shell/rocket/round type in addition to merely the weight of explosive including explosive type, fusing, metallurgy of the casing, etc, etc.

Goodness me surely you don't think that it will be a close run thing do you? That a single vote will tip the balance? Let's have some backbone here Slappy, you ought to romp it in. I have every confidence in you. I am sure you will rise far far above your previous levels of performance to entirely new heights.

This should be interesting, Oooh! That's some damn fine taunting there from Slappy, I think Seanachai could be in a little trouble here (of some sort anyhow). Idjits, wankers, sodomy AND buttocks! Where does he come up with this stuff?

Absolutely, humor must go, hopefully to be wholly supplanted by humour. Then we could have some really high quality Cesspool taunting like this:

So Puff's "example" has become a banning jihad now has it? Business as usual around here I see, all these flights of imagination are positively invigorating.

Hey, I read this thread was all about banning the words "sod" and "idjit" from the forum. So where do I sign my name to the petition? Just in case your wondering what the hell (oops is that allowed?) I am talking about: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023386;p=2

Timid German performance in night combat has been widely commented upon in both British and Commonwealth sources and is related in accounts stretching from early 1941 (Greece and North Africa) to 1944/45 (NWE).

According to Martin Rapier (pers. corr.) 2-pdr HE was issued to the British Armoured units in France 1940. He also suggest that limited quantities were available to armoured units but not to AT gun units.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=018203

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: How would the MG Company of an armoured Division be organized, Simon - or are these the MMG platoons you refer to - parcelled out to the Motor battalion?<hr></blockquote>Oh yeah, forgot about that one. That's another non-MG Bn Vickers armed unit. There was an independant MG Company as part of the Infantry Brigade in the armoured divisions. I imagine they were organised pretty much similar to a MG company from a MG Bn, ie 3 MG platoons and later a heavy mortar platoon, but with additional cross attachments. Possibly it wouldn't have been much bigger than a standard MG Co since that already had plenty of "fat" in it for independant operation (independant meaning away from the Bn HQ not on it's own ). Anyway the MG platoons in the Motor Bn were entirely seperate from the MG Co. The motor Bn was part of the armoured brigade having it's own Vickers and the MG Co part of the Inf Brigade. The Motor Bn was the most powerful infantry unit fielded by the Commonwealth forces in terms of organic support and of course is impossible to simulate in CMBO

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John D Salt: One particular place where small-arms should certainly be included as crew weapons is for the Vickers MMG in British service. I have never heard of this weapon being issued on any basis other than to MG battalions (one per division, which of shared around evenly gives an MMG coy per brigade, and, fairly obviously, a platoon per battalion). A Vickers MMG platoon consists of four sections, each of 10 men. This section is really just like an ordinary rifle section, except that the Bren is replaced by a Vickers. Most men in the section are armed with rifles. All the best, John.<hr></blockquote>Firstly, in addition to the MMG Bn the Vickers was issued to the MMG platoons of the British motor battalion as well to the MG Bn and they only had 1 Ofr and 28 ORs on the books so the 10 man "section" goes out the window there. Secondly, in North Africa a number of divisions retained or reverted to the prewar Inf Bn organisation which included a MMG platoon in the support company. Finally, it would be wrong to view the Commonwealth MMG section as a infantry section with a Vickers swapped in because it wasn't. For a start the numbers don't add up to 4 sections of 10 blokes. A MMG Platoon in an MMG Bn comprised 1 Ofr and 39 OR organised into 2 sections each with 2 MMGs. Usually commanded by an Lt with a Plt Sgt as his 2i/c and 2 section commanders. In WWII a Vickers MMG was served by 5 gun numbers, that's a crew of 5 which is about the minimum required to lug it and a reasonable amount of ammunition around. So what about all those other bods? Well it's hard to be precise but the MMG platoon was a fully motorised/mechanized unit with it's own allotment of carriers and other M/T which was often expected to operate semi-independantly attached to other formations so I would suggest that those other blokes would have plenty to keep them occupied. Certainly a number of them may have been around the Vickers crews when in action but AFAIK the number specifically assigned to each gun in WW2 was 5 and certainly not 10.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Goanna: Quit changing the subject Simon, you groggish boob. We all know you are just trying to muddy the waters since CMBB will make it to Perth about the same time it arrives in Kamchatka.<hr></blockquote>Well we all know that a whole lot of Poms are also working over in the Gulf cos some of that whingeing has rubbed off on ya.

Really Goanna you should watch yourself. If you keep this bleating up Mace is going to begin to take an unnatural interest in you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stuka: Whats this? A *gasp* GROG term? What says the Justicarate to this, this affront to the ethics and standards of 'pool tradition?<hr></blockquote> Oh, so "phenotypic" has become a "grog" term in the bogan vernacular has it? More likely anything other than monosyllabic neanderthal grunting would be termed so by a knuckle-dragging banana-bending mullet-head. I suggest Bazza (I prefer to use your real name rather than the traitorous appellation you affect for a nick) that you spend a little less time hooning around perforating your eardrums with Barnsey and pay a little more attention to what 'Shazza' is up to with Bazza, Bazza, Bazza and a bottle of Bundy. Then you won't have to be concerned about the paternity of all the sprogs that 'Shazza' keeps popping out. Edited in remembrance of absent pedants [ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stuka: *Checking closely* Nope, no webbed toes........8,9,10 all fingers are accounted for and the thumbs are opposed...... *studies fine facial features and athletic builds* (very Un-Crodaristic), nope, doesn't look too good for your paternity case mate.<hr></blockquote>So now that this examination of phenotypic characteristics has ruled out both yourself and Croda as the genetic father it looks like DNA testing is the next step.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Third Canadian Division did just that during Charnwood - attacking the 12th SS Division (whether or not they were panzer, or panzergrenadier, they still had a goodly number of tanks). The Third Division did have armoured support from the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade for that one, as well as self propelled guns of at least one British artillery regiment. You go with what you've got. What gave the commonwealth infantry divisions their "punch" was the fact that they commited to set-piece battles with complex artillery fire plans that were designed to shoot them onto their objectives. There were also many independent tank and armoured brigades on which they relied increasingly for support, in essence creating divisional battle groups that would have been organized not unlike an armoured division. IIRC US "infantry" divisions also had organic armour. CW and US "armoured" divisions also had organic infantry, so it was never a case of one or the other - but in how the two arms were mixed. A Canadian or British Armoured Division had one brigade of armour (three tank regiments (battalions)) and an armoured recce regiment (battalion) which in action usually was equipped like a standard armoured regiment. They also had one brigade of regular infantry (three battalions of 810 men each) plus a Motor battalion mounted in trucks, halftracks and universal carriers. A standard Canadian or British infantry division had an armoured recce regiment equipped with scout cars (not tanks as in an armoured division), and three infantry brigades (dismounted) supported by a machinegun battalion (which also had mortars). As stated, these divisions were often supported by independent armoured formations, of which there were several in the British and Canadian forces. So basically, that is that - and the fact that German tanks were not present in great numbers all along the front.<hr></blockquote> Don't forget that British/Commonwealth divisions also had an AT regiment in their organisations. In the case of the infantry regiment this comprised 4 batteries each of 12 guns organised into troops of 4. At least two of these batteries would be self-propelled guns ie M10, Achilles or Archer. As Mike has pointed out the Commonwealth had a considerable number of independant armoured brigades which were attached to infantry formations for specfic operations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Amongst everything else tero wrote: Actually I think the terminology of the Allied firepower doctrine(firepower for lives) was deviced to give the right impression to the troops and the folks back home much like the daylight bombing rethorics.<hr></blockquote> The facts are that the Allies developed vastly superior, more efficient and flexible systems for the application of firepower than the Germans did. I am not familiar with the "Allied" "firepower for lives" doctrine. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the military manuals of the time which lay it out. I am sure that German doctrine too emphasised the benefits to attacking of a combination of all arms. Unfortunately they were just never able to get it right.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf hates artillery: BTW, your shift key is broken.<hr></blockquote>LOL

Thanks Moon, the main point being that calling german tank optics "Zeiss optics" is probably a misnomer since the designs and sights themselves may have originated from any number of other companies. For example one company you list OCULUS manufactured tank gunsights in WW2.