Simon Fox

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Just joking, Superted did not really write the stuff about Commisar, I made that up). <hr></blockquote> Commissar should just be grateful that you didn't tell the truth about him.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Elvis: Numbering turn files is for idiots. <hr></blockquote>Indeed. Why bother with a paltry number when you can date them, time them to a second and timezone them to boot. Why not go the whole hog Elvis style and assign each file a 6,000 character filename including a narrative of all that happened and a detailed OOB WITH casualty statistics?

Geez, most of the time we have people complaining about occasions when the game is unrealistic. Here we have it perfectly simulating historical reality and people still whine and whinge. Sheesh!

I agree with Jason on this one. Certainly the SS and FJ units were relatively common on the Western Front. However, there is considerable doubt that they were all equipped at the level shown in CMBO. Using the Heer standard organisation for many of these troops is probably closer to reality IMO.

I have read the Delaforce book as well and wondered about that passage and the picture just as you have. I would suggest that more information might be available from the respective regimantal diaries.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Completely unOriginally posted by Seanachai: blather, blather<hr></blockquote>Don't you have a turn to 'cook up' or somefink?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moriarty: Taken from page 2 of the "Cabbages" thread originally posted 22 April 2000 and authored by our own MrPeng...<hr></blockquote> That meandering original Peng posting style is rather reminiscent of recent efforts of that Iron Chef Sakai bloke. Mmmmm...

Based on your method of historical argument then Bren tripods have about a several thousand fold greater claim to historical legitimacy in the period in question than the 25pdr in direct fire mode. Soon no doubt we'll be seeing you lobbying for the inclusion of all sorts of historical oddities in CMBO on the basis that it happened once.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Seanachai: Come, Australia! I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow!<hr></blockquote>Do you like your Iron Crosses boiled or grilled. Perhaps you would prefer a traditional Aussie BBQ I'm just about to toss another StuG on right now.

This is getting pretty funny now. Glad to see John that you have worked out the exact phrasing of Jon's original post. How about taking the next step and considering the difference between his "shouldn't" and your interpretation of it as "never". Before you start rabbiting on about "erroneous information" and "historical error" you might want to crank down your presumption setting a few notches.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler: Simon Fox, Jon S's argument is that it never happened historically, therefore has no place on the CMBO battlefield. I have disproved his basic premise. He therefore has two rational choices: 1) accept the new fact and withdraw his statement OR 2) withdraw his historical argument but continue the discussion on the basis of strongly held personal preference.<hr></blockquote>Jon said nothing of the sort. He said shouldn't not didn't and I can't see any use of the phrase "never happened". So whatever you've disproved it isn't his premise. A couple of isolated instances does not a typical historical usage make.

John, I don't see anything in your post that contradicts what Jon had to say. The idea that artillery is more efficiently employed firing directly smacks of French pre-WW1 doctrine, since thoroughly discredited by that conflict. The same applies to the misuse of vulnerable AA guns. IMO neither the 25pdr or the Sexton have any place on the CMBO battlefield. Irrespective of whatever isolated instances can be dredged up.

Well since he seems to have partially conformed to the requests regarding style without getting his back up or accusing anybody of childishness then your point is largely moot I for one was unable to discern what proportion of his posts I disagreed with since I wasn't prepared to wade through them in their previous form. BTW, thanks Chef! redwolf, I think the point to note is not one merely of doctrine but of flexibility of employment. The 95mm HEAT round may have had good anti-armour performance under a limited range of circumstances . But overall other weapons proved better all round anti-armour performers. Remember the development of this weapon was probably coincidental with that of the 17pdr. The question of accuracy is an important one, even in CMBO being 30% less accurate is pretty significant. Consider the historical circumstance of Cromwells vs MkIVs or SP guns or StuGs or even AT guns, then the benefits are a little less clear cut. There is also the issue of the number of rounds a vehicle may carry. Many other factors (including manufacturing and supply issues) have to be considered.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm sorry, I just can't let this go by. Why the picking on the Iron Chef? So, he can't type or format a damn. Perhaps English isn't is his first language but it appears he's not going to be cut any slack for his unwillingness to conform to how we all like to read a message. I'm ashamed of some of the way you have seen fit to respond to him. How old are you lot? You're acting like kiddies in the schoolyard, picking on the kid whose different 'cause he's different. Ny all means, refute what he says, attack him for silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence and even if you so desire, ignore him. However, don't pick on him 'cause he types differently or badly. Looks to me like the sort thing my kids do, rather than what adults should be doing.<hr></blockquote> Errr, excuse me but no ones picking on him. We're just rendering positive criticism of his presentation style so as to enable him to better get his "silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence" out to a wider audience.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: A fascinating source of information Jeff but I just noticed one thing that seems to have been missed, that scanned report states that the primary role of the 95mm round is for smoke screening and high explosive. In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS? Just to make it clear however, I'm not trying to say this is a huge problem which impeaches the whole game or anything as the limited amount of ammo able to be carried of 95mm calibre means that I'm happy to have as many H.E. & "c" rounds as possible! But still a possible error all the same.<hr></blockquote>This has always puzzled me too. Certainly this was one of the 'traditional' roles of the CS tanks. In the early desert stuff they were the only tanks with main gun smoke ammo. Though of course it would have been a 3in howitzer.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: My Enter key is symmetrical - what kind of Aussie board are you using? Time to upgrade. In other news - underneath so mentioned "enter" or "return" key is one called "shift". Depressing it simultaneously with a letter key will cause it to display as a capital letter. They are the funny ones we start sentences and proper nouns with.<hr></blockquote>By golly you're right! I should have realised that this Chef bloke had to be a Mac user. As for the rest, let's break this one acheivable step (or key) at a time. We don't want to overwhelm the poor chap.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chef: ...i think that my english is fine, if your going to make fun of something, you should start with my typing....<hr></blockquote>Thanks for the invitation, I will. Now if you look at your keyboard you will note on the right hand side there is a large asymmetrically shaped key (somewhat like a reversed L) which is generally marked "Return" or "Enter". So every time your mind starts to wander and go flying off on a tangent just wack that key a couple of times and you'll be amazed at how much more positive attention you get.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Seanachai: After that, plans can be made for crushing them all.<hr></blockquote>A plan is only as good as it's execution and in your case all the plans in the world aren't going to help you change your crushee status. I'm here in Perth.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Simon Fox: [qb]The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me. When is it going to be published in paperback ? I just looked it up and the price is a bit exorbitant. Well, it is time to start writing Santa soon anyway so I might add that one to the end of the list my sons are going to draw up. [/QB]<hr></blockquote> There is little point in you buying it. Right in the final chapter (Conclusions) it clearly states:"Despite the ubiquitous use of horse drawn transport by the German Army in WWII there is absolutely no evidence to support the fallacious concept that they played any role in combat at the level portrayed in games like Combat Mission" (or somefink like that) See there you go, straight from the 'horses mouth' so to speak.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Hey Kingfish - I personally find most Operations, and most battles with large numbers of units boring as heck too. You know how I handle it? Get ready for it -- I don't play them! You should try this simple solution if BTS comes up with something as boring as a partisan ambush of a supply column, German advances across the Steppes, or the retreat of the German armies before Warsaw, or (heaven forbid) Operation Uranus. Then you won't have to worry about those boring old bicycle/motorcycle/horses, right?<hr></blockquote>Let's face it MrSpkr only wants horses in CM because he's watched Gladiator one too many times and wants to stage panje (sp?) races with firearms instead of chariots and spears. Did the Germans typically attach those big scythes to the wheels of their military carts? As for tero's obsession with Finnish BMX bandits one can only speculate as to what the hell they used them in combat for. Jamming the tracks of Russian tanks when they ran out of logs perhaps? BTW Stuka it's do somefink (or sumfink)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ...Chief pisser offer of Simon Fox...<hr></blockquote> Consider your "offer" disrespectfully declined. Suggest you give more attention to clause VIII of Bilbo's opening diatribe.

I do beleive the first post on this thread said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Speedbump: I just finished Ken Touts, Tank! I enjoyed the read and am looking for similar fare. Any suggestions?<hr></blockquote>Which just happens to be a well written first person account (though I understand the author interviewed a number of his fellow veterans to fill out his own account). I would suggest that most of the responses have attempted to answer this question. If Mr bump wanted dry historical analysis based on archival documentation then I suspect he would have said so.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The subject just came up over at feldgrau.com - I asked there, and will ask here - was complete mechanization ever actually a goal in the German Army (not just artillery, but everything)? People tend to point out the fact that they relied on horses as a drawback or evidence of some kind of inferiority, and perhaps it was, but again - was this a case of the Allies imposing their will (via aerial bombing) or was it a case of the Germans simply not putting a priority on building trucks to replace their draft animals?<hr></blockquote> The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: The key words here are in addition. AFAIK Officers were only issued with pistols (certainly in the CW anyway), so are starting from a low base - the only way they could go is up in terms of fire power. Unless they decided to ditch the pistol and rely on their compass and map Also, carrying the same type of weapon (and the same dress) as the baggies makes them less of a target. Regards Jon<hr></blockquote>The critical point is the last. British officers would generally carry a rifle or smg so that they were not so readily distinguished from the rest of the unit. For example Sidney Jary says he was the exception because he didn't (short sighted and couldn't see far enough to hit anything, hehe). AIF platoon and Coy officers seemed to have frequently carried rifles.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars: The Bren on a Bren Carrier IRL is located in the rear compartment.<hr></blockquote>Actually that is incorrect. Generally speaking the Bren was operated by the vehicle commander from his postion firing through the port. Of course there were plenty of modifications and in the desert at least they were festooned with all sorts of things. I have seen a picture of one with 3 MGs on it.