Simon Fox

Andreas, That would be "5th Glosters go East". I take it you haven't managed to kill the carrier troop yet? That's recce troop to not "platoon", I suggest you correct your post.

Surely Zeiss is just one of a number of German optics manufacturers? I mean were most German tank optics even produced by Zeiss? What about Leitz?

I absolutely agree with Jason and well articulated if I might say so. The attacker does not always have the luxury of covered avenues of approach and anyway at the tactical scale any modestly competent defender would have such forming up points well covered in their defensive fire plan. There were numerous successful attacks by both sides in the western desert at far less than 10 or 5 to 1 odds. El Alamein comes to mind.

It might have been me although the recall is a little hazy. Certainly it's a subject of interest to me. Not only did the Bn have a carrier plt but the squadrons of the armoured car regiments also had carrier troops. Also a number of Brit armoured units seem to have formed ad hoc small "infantry" units in response to the tactical challenge of fighting in close country. Andreas is play testing a scenario of mine which has the carrier troop in it at the moment and I think one of his byte battles is built around a carrier platoon. Of course it is almost impossible to accurately model them since you can't dismount the Bren. I have experimented with using the Brit Glider troops to model dismounted recce units since I think that better reflects the weapon mix. You'll have to ask Andreas if he thinks it works.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Hey, I can tell this is going to be another slam on Slapdragon with Brian and Fox lining up for a fight, so to preserve board sanity I will bow out now. However, Gallipoli is a fascinating battle to study, and it has been interesting to hear that "open terrain" is view with so much variance by people.<hr></blockquote>I don't see anyone getting personal here, so far we're just trying to determine the antecedence of this "historian" you are quoting and clearing up some confusion as what people mean by "open ground". One can hardly have a discussion regarding the merits of attacking over open ground when there is confusion regarding what is meant by that term, can one?

So this Kivrikoglu is not the author, Erickson is, he's just the bloke who wrote the foreword. So is your quote from Kivrikoglu's foreword to Erickson's book or is it from the book? Is Kivrikoglu a historian or is he a general, or is he both?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually I never said that i could not discuss this subject, only that for historians it is a hot subject. You need to reread my comments a bit more carefully to see I was commenting on how divergent and even testy historians get on this one battle, making it very difficult to navigate through the quagmire of primary and secondary sources. Especially since Gallipoli was such a spectacular failure against an Army that had been dismissed by British General Kitchener only eight months before as "wheezy decrepits" and by Churchhill as "supported only by inertia". As for Vedun, Somme, and Gallipoli they clearly are directly related to the subject at hand for the very reason you dismiss them: they contained hundreds of CM sized battles. These hundreds of battles provide hundreds of examples of why advancing over open ground into modern weapons is a "bad idea". Having hundreds of examples is better than just one any day. As you no doubt read in my examples, I choose to pick for Gallipolli individual Battalion attacks to illustrate how the people who fought there felt about the copious amount of cover they found in their attacks. CMPLayers definition is a bit warped from a military stand point and from a CM stand point, since open ground in CM is a defined terrain feature and in most (I am not sure of all of course) military manuals in the west the terrain he describes is more often called "close terrain" when it is not further described, while open terrain would be terrain lacking cover . In fact, Vanir and his dictionary definition, although obviously very different from CMPlayer and the "others" you mentioned, is very close to the military definitions that I have available to me. I might also add that for those who think verticle ascents make terrain not open, it does, unless the enemy happens to be sitting at the top of those ascents with the ability to take you on, in which case the argument would swing the other way, they are worse than open. [ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<hr></blockquote>Well since I was unable to detect any irrational discussion of Gallipoli in anyone else's posts there was only one other explanation. Unless of course you were assuming that everyone else is incapable of rational discussion? I imagine CMplayer was talking about CM terrain in which case Gallipoli would comprise at least partially rough, brush and slope. You are right about hills, attacking up hills comprising rough, rough-slope, brush, brush-slope and slope would be much worse than just open. Which is why it's a poor example. I am not familiar with this Huseyin Kivrikoglu blokes work, perhaps you could give the source of your quote?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Gallipoli is one of those subjects that are nearly impossible for people to discuss rationally because it was a major defeat that had such high asperations and came to so little. Turkish and British Historians agree that it could have succeeded, then totally diverge on why it failed. And on the flip side, few people recognize how professional and effective the Turks where in their defense, bolstered by a few German officers.<hr></blockquote>Well if you don't feel you can discuss Gallipoli rationally then well and good, let's don't. Clearly your definition of open ground is somewhat different to CMplayer's and a few other people besides. Anyway your examples were pretty much irrelevant to the discussion since the Somme, Verdun and Gallipoli were major battles/campaigns which encompassed hundreds if not thousands of CM size engagements some of which were successful and some of which were not. In the main success or failure resided more in the proper application of sound military principles than in raw numerical odds or the openness of the terrain.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Simon Fox: [qb]Before this 'conversation' goes any further it might do well to define what people mean by "open ground". From a tactical point of view you can hardly lump all terrain which is denuded of vegetation into the same category regardless of topography. To me "open terrain" means any terrain not covered by dense woods, regardless of topography. In other words if you can not traverse the terrain diddy bobing upright without being spotted from several points over a 180º arc in front of you then the terrain is open.[/QB]<hr></blockquote> At what distance would the observer be?

Before this 'conversation' goes any further it might do well to define what people mean by "open ground". From a tactical point of view you can hardly lump all terrain which is denuded of vegetation into the same category regardless of topography.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Commonwealth infantry platoons had 1 PIAT. In practice, this may have varied. The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada created Tank Hunting sections in Italy; Victoria Cross winner Smokey Smith was a member of such a unit when he performed the deeds for which he was given the supreme award. If you are interested I can try and dig up the details of these; I can't remember if it was a tank hunting Platoon, or just sections. In any event, the point is that sometimes strict adherence to order of battle was not followed as a matter of course. If you think you can use that as a justification for "gamey" purchases, go ahead! Let me know if anyone buys it. <hr></blockquote>I think that really the Commonwealth PIATs were disposed of by the company commander. So it would be 3 per Co rather than 1 per Plt for issue purposes. Of course there were many more than that available at the battalion level so I think extra PIATs (within reason) can be readily justified on a historical basis. Especially if any of the Bn supporting elements are present (ie 3in mortars, carriers, AT guns).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by KwazyDog: "Funnyman", part of our usage agreement states that we do not allow people to sign up under multiple names for the one IP address. We did this in an attmept to save people from the embarrasement of accidently becoming involved in a flame war with themselves. Thus, the IP for Outcast has been banned at this point... Dan<hr></blockquote>Cackle! BTW where's me turn!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: I am curious to know what happened to the commander of the allied column. Seems like he completely forgot about Recon.<hr></blockquote>Good point. Recon assets can get spread pretty thin sometimes, although missing that number of KTs does seem like a mega stuff up. Villers-Bocage is another example of a recon stuff up, although a few less Tigers were 'missed' there, critical recon assets of the units involved were still in the UK in that instance.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: Simon, Is this what happened to your cromwell in our game?<hr></blockquote>Yup. I hunted along the treeline plotted to pull up just short of los to your JgDPz (having infantry skulking in the woods I knew where los was) and then plotted a rotate order to face your armour so that if you moved it fwd I could ambush it. Unfortunately the boundary of the treeline was not even and as it reached the end of its hunt order it suddenly accelerated and charged out into the open with predictable results

Ron, What redwolf is talking about is a well known bug. In fact you don't even have to plot the move through the impassable terrain just too close to it and an end of move rotate order will turn into a move order. I understand that when the game sees your route goes too close or through impassable terrain it replots the route but in doing so it takes the end of the rotate order as the final way point. As Pak40 points out what Deadmarsh is talking about is not a bug but a feature. If you stuff up your route, the game will try to plot a new one which may or may not be a good one. Other than that if a vehicle is seriously overmatched the tacAI will try to get it out of trouble. Generally speaking I have been very happy with the results of that but expecting it to get it right all the time is unreasonable. There is no way realistically speaking that a vehicle crew would have the same situational awareness that the player has.

It's gamey.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Originally posted by the 'orrible nick chameleon Andreas: I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that this is a gem of a post. It is full of unbridled arrogance, it is a glorious putdown for someone who clearly is deserving and needy of it. It speaks of a self-assuredness so vast and noble, that if it were an altar, I would not be worth worshipping at, maybe not even worth being on the same planet as it. Ethan clearly has the sun shining out of his arse, and it shows us The Light?. There is in this not just an ember, but a roaring fire of what the Peng Thread once was. I wept. All this despite it being edited. There is a message in there.<hr></blockquote> What's this then? Has the new nick prompted you to emulate your idol Jacko? Are we to expect an interminable procession of evangelical "I'm here to teach you" posts? Isn't it enough that the rest of the Forum is subjected to the Sloppy School of Historical Research, the Sloppy College for Delinquent Debaters and the Sloppy 10 Step Program on How to Win Friends and Influence BTS? Are we now to be subjected to the Biermann School of MBT Post Composition? I suppose we should be grateful that thus far you haven't been able to reach the same mind bogglingly amaranthine monotony. I sincerely hope that despite the recent trumpeting of your attainment of 'manhood' you won't be following in a similar vein and inflicting upon us the news of every minor inconsequential milestone in your paltry existence. Mind you I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you won't. Blathering on about and big-noting oneself is such a seppoesque activity and aren't they good at it? If we tried the same it would just seem a parody.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by the 'orrible nick chameleon © Andreas: I am using the correct German spelling. You should have caught me on that other mistake, before it was too late (as it now is). No licence fee either. If you want any money, I am going to pay you between Christmas and New Year, in person, at the main exit of Waterloo Station. Why don't you go and edit some of your posts? Would employ you more gainfully.<hr></blockquote>Too late you say? Not too late to go back and edit your last several hundred posts for that nasty flaw. Their imperfection must be really grating on you. You were planning on doing that weren't you? While your about it you might like to fix up that "constirpated rethoric" (sic) of yours. No doubt some editing of my own posts wouldn't go astray but not having proclaimed their perfection, I don't see the need. I take it that this new nick indicates that you are no longer a 'boy' and have at long last persuaded (via 10 pints of lager most likely) some cockney bint to bonk you in a dreary London alleyway. I guess 'Germanman' just didn't have the same ring to it?

*Sigh* Really Shaw you may be comfortable in the guise of a drooling halfwit but the least you could do is occasionally attempt a pretence of capability. Clearly your original and correct supposition that the nick chameleon had changed his nick and retained the same member number was arrived at purely by chance rather than by the logical deduction you are patently incapable of. The harping on of the dim and distant one about some ancient username of Andreas is merely the use of a "strawman" since it is irrelevant.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Really hate to burst your bubble Joe (well actually, that isn't true... I do enjoy bursting your bubble), but Germanboy/Andreas has had both user names since the dim and distant past. Certainly longer than the existance of the Mutha Beautiful Thread<hr></blockquote>No doubt at some time in the dim and distant past you managed to muster two neurons to rub together and generate some spark of sentience. But alas, no longer. Even most cursory trawl through recent threads will reveal the handiwork of the nick chameleon ©. Find any posts quoting a mythical "Germanboy" whose nick is now Andreas. You are wrong and the consequence of that is something I cannot bring myself to say.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Err, all this writing names in bold, is that not just some sort of mental Peng-Thread masturbation/ego-stroking for the witless wastes of space who are currently populating the wastelands of humour and inspiration that this thread has become? Something like 'uh, Joe mentioned my name in bold, I must be important...' Well, I guess it has some merit, because it allows you to discard 99.9% of the drivel written here. No need to answer that question by the way, it was a rethorical question. If you don't understand what that is (make that 'since'), best look it up in a dictionary. You know, these books with words in them, explaining other words. You lot should try it one day, you might just learn something new. The Anglophile Nick Chameleon<hr></blockquote>It's always good to let a man build himself up to giddy heights before bringing him low. Given your propensity for posturing and preening yourself over your grasp of the English language it wouldn't go astray if you took the time to look up the word "rethorical" in a dictionary to see if your suggestion is at all possible. Bleating on about editing or lack thereof is hardly credible if your sig cries out for the attention of a bit of editing. By the way your license fees are due.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I disagree (strongly) with Simon Steve<hr></blockquote>Oh well there goes my sycophant status. No more stories for you, mate!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas the nick chameleon and master of hypebole: Steve, I think you are going a bit harsh here on poor Brian. He has after all caused the history of WW2 to be rewritten as we speak. His amazing discoveries include the following: 1. the utter incapability of Rommel as a general (only good because of his intel - of course Allied generals were all geniuses, to whom ULTRA was but a nuisance, and who despised intel because it got in the way of doing the job well and is unsporting). 2. German Sturmtruppen of 1918 were the equivalent of your local footy team, and just let into the British defenses out of kindness. 3. Australia's army liberated the Pacific by itself. It repeatedly had to bail out the hapless Americans though. 4. The Bren Tripod, marvel of weapons development, envy of the Wehrmacht. There is a quote by Keitel, snapped up during the Champagne reception when he surrendered to the Australian ambassador in Karlshorst - 'Vizout ze Bren Tripod, zer vould haf been no Australian Wiktorie in Normandy, mein Herr.' 5. Finally, his master-piece, the discovery of the groundbreaking role of chickenwire on the Australian tanks crossing the Rhine in 1945. With the keen sense of the outbacker, the Aussies had that itching feeling that the east bank would be crawling with Hitlerjungen wielding Panzerfaeuste. They therefore liberated lots of hens for supper (and other things, sheep being a scarce commodity in the Rhineland), and then used the now superfluous wire of their (the hens', not the Aussies') cages to make their tanks immune to the shaped charge. Thus equipped, the Australian Army broke out into the North German plain, destroying the German army on the Vistula, and liberating Berlin. Being a generous people by nature, they invited the Red Army to join the parade. But then Sergej, the driver of Zhukov, started the Cold War by nicking a Castlemaine XXX from Private Bruce. All this and more deduced from a random quote and a single picture in a second rate book. Spengler would bow to Brian, as would Tuchman. Marshall pales next to him.<hr></blockquote>Let's not forget the nick chameleon's own fantastic contributions to historical research. 1) Absolute irrefutable proof (with photos!) that the sun did shine out of Rommels arse. Of course we won't go into why the nick chameleon had pictures of a naked Rommel plastered all over his place. 2) The British were stunned by the brilliance of German Sturmtruppen tactics in 1918 not themselves having learnt anything from 4 years of war. The only thing that stopped the Sturmtruppen in 1918 was they got a bit tired. The Germans were betrayed in 1918, the Hindenburg line was sabotaged and they just let the British march in, the '100 days' never happened. 3) Douglas MacArthur single handedly saved the cowardly aussies in the Pacific when he brought the crack jungle experts of the 32nd Inf Div to show them the way. 4) His amazing discovery that the British Army without rhyme nor reason purchased and issued large quantities of equipment for which there was no tactical use. Read his forthcoming book "The Great Tripod Scandal" for more on this disgraceful British mismanagement. 5) Let's not forget his masterpiece: the discovery that all wire type anti-heat attachments in WW2 were in fact constructed from domestic chicken wire. This stunning insight, which is contrary to all other sources, was gleaned from a single phrase from a single post in a second rate thread. 6) Finally his most important and telling contribution to this forum: "Look Mum, no editing!" Edited because we wouldn't want to stir up the nick chameleon any more by doing so, would we? You bet we would! [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]</p>

We don't really need an extended analysis of what's going on here, it's perfectly straight forward. Brian was a bit of a git in his originally post (doing a bit fishing I fancy) and the 'orrible nasty little nick chameleon hadn't had 'is weeties or somefink and leapt in boots 'n all. The predictable happened with the usual crowd of sycophants and hyperbolists clambering aboard the bandwagon and a jolly good time was had by all.

I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously! Lost in all this brouhaha is the really interesting questions of when, who and how frequently. In reality of course the best answer to 'bazooka' toting Jerries is to Besa the buggers and every hedge, copse, wall, house, hole they could be hiding in. Unfortunately you area fire is really point fire at the moment which somewhat restricts this really useful prophylactic technique.