Simon Fox

Well Michael is correct that the MMG was typically mounted in the rear compartment, but in real life in NWE rather than in CMBO. Unfortunately the CMBO version is based on the Aussie version where the MMG was mounted in the commanders position. A MMG carrier in real life was no more than a Vickers MMG crew equipped with a carrier. I would think they would have had a few more crew than 3. The gun would have at least had a number two.

Dear BTS, I got three penetrating hits on a Tiger with a 17pdr, yes that's right THREE!, and nuffink happened. That's ridiculous! Your game is busted, pleaz fix or do somefink!. P.S. Got the swine with No.4, though P.P.S. Test? Whaddaya mean, test? Isn't general impressions and anecdotes good enough for you?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: they often and understandably have a slightly different angle on things in contrast to what I (and presumably most others expressing an opinion on this thread) was brought up on as a child. " This is very true. I gained this knowledge from reading a few books. One of them was a day by day account of the fighting from beginning to end. And it was obvious that with each passing day the German onsalught would continue with roughly the same amount of planes but the British resistance would lessen everyday. This was mainly from the loss of airfields and aircraft production. It is true that the German bombers were left alone on longer bombing routes but the stats just dont come out to favor the British in a long drawn out war where the Germans continue on with thier initial objectives. On average the Brits would not kill significantly more German planes than thier own losses. For instance between Sept 1st-6th the RAF lost 120 planes to the Germans 148. The ratios dont vary too much through the whole ordeal. At the end of August the Germans had knocked out the airfields of Biggin Hill,Manston,West Malling,Lympne, and Hawkings. This left the southeast of Britain almost void of any kind of protection. Gen<hr></blockquote> I am sorry, but a laughed my arse off at your post. You have totally misconceived the whole battle. As Michael points out the main problem for the Brits was the pilot shortage. The facts are that they failed to properly manage the pilots they had available. This was the main Brit mistake of the whole battle. They actually had plenty of pilots available, many of them experienced, they just didn't relocate them to fighter command. Their losses only exceeded production for a limited period, the main reason that to many it looked be a 'close run thing' was the inefficient manpower management practices of the Air Ministry. Thoughout the battle the British outproduced the Germans in fighters by 3:2. In any prolonged conflict it was inevitable that the British would win. The British aircraft industry was producing more aircraft than the German at the time and had far more residual capacity for expansion. In order to win the BoB the Germans had to acheive dominance quickly which they didn't and couldn't do. The Luftwaffe was totally unsuited both in organisation and equipment to that type of battle. From where did you get that data on knocked out airfields? As far as I know some were out of action for a few days but they can hardly be said to be "knocked out" of the battle. The Brits always had the luxury of withdrawing to airfields beyond German fighter reach. Which is not ideal but doesn't preclude them engaging the Germans over their targets anywhere in Britain. On the issue of the canal barges. I understand that because they were underpowered for use on the open sea, the German plan was to tow them with tugs...at a maximum speed of 3 knots. No wonder they gave up the idea.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: The Royal Navy also later trapped and sank a whole slough of German destroyers in Narvikfjord. These were ships the Germans absolutely could not afford to lose if they wanted to contemplate an invasion of England. Michael [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<hr></blockquote> Yes, I agree. The heavy German naval losses in the Norwegian campaign basically put paid to any possibility of Sealion. What is also overlooked is that the British targetted the concentration of shipping (ie barges) along the French coast very heavily with their own bomber force during the BoB and caused considerable damage.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: Happy Birthday.<hr></blockquote>Well I don't have the remotest inclination to respond similarily to slapdown's rather pitiable attempt to curry favour. You can rest assured that unlike him when the time comes I won't be trumpeting it about the place in a desperate last-ditch quest for acceptance. I note with interest that some of the more vacuous denizens of this place have responded with a distasteful bonhomie. I suggest they seek therapy to eliminate that last vestige of ugly conviviality from their characters. No doubt all are delighted to hear that Mace is 'rooting for' slapdown on his birthday. The concept of slapdown with a bunch of tubes rammed into his nasal cavity has a certain piquancy to it. I would be delighted to oblige and have 3 metres of 30mm PVC reticulation pipe around here somewhere which would be perfect for the job. It kinda brings new and appropriate meaning to the traditional Aussie greeting "Here, get another tube into you".

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r: Dunno much bout the "organic",but thats the explanation I've read of for why there is not much heavy artillery for the soviets during ww2. I've read that them ruskies only produced a handful of big arillery guns for ground troops becuase the red army got 'em sturmoviks. And I think the "flying tanks" was pretty much coordinated with ground troops to become replacements for heavy artillery. And I still have got to learn(I'm 14yrs old)but I think Germany could have won the war if Hitler didn't bomb London,instead opting to continue decimating the RAF in the Battle of Britain,giving the luftwaffe air supperiority and paving the way for England's invasion. That way, there's only 1 front, the eastern one,then there's not gonna be much need for an alliance with japan (which means America might not go into war with germany), as the Reich controls a lot of countries and only one front where all these resources would be used on.And there will be little disruption on German industry, as there will be no airfields from which allied heavy bombers could come from to bomb germany.and getting supplies to Russia would be a bit hard, as Germany would be able to harass, or utterly stop any convoy going to russia from the atlantic. So to me, if the Germans had won the battle of Britain, there is going to be a stronger germany, and weaker, if not non-existent allies. whew! =)<hr></blockquote>Sorry but the only chance the German's had to win the BoB was if the Brits completely stuffed up and they didn't. Though they made a few mistakes they still won handily and if they'd managed their manpower resources a bit more effectively the Luftwaffe would've been really walloped. As for the Me262 I imagine that some of the delay might have been due to the production line being bombed into the stone age in 1943. Surely Hitler didn't organise that?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lawyer: I don't want to lose the ability to play CM when I upgrade.<hr></blockquote> There is a fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning. In order to "lose" something one must first be in possession of it. Though I am sure the ability to claim "ownership" of that which doesn't belong to you figures strongly in your professional life.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: Michael, Simon: Interesting idea about Hitler's meddling being used as a convenient excuse by the German 'Brass' - I'm not sure I agree though. From the top of my head, Guderian (Panzer Leader)Cornelius Ryan (The Last Battle ref. Gen Heinrici) And Max Hastings (ref German high comand in Overlord) plus as mentioned, Galland in The First and the Last, are all singing from the same hymn sheet here. Most of these also mention his deteriorating mental and physical condition and his little circle of toadies, yes-men and sycophants who isolated him even further from reality. Iron Chef's contribution is much nearer the mark this time this time, although somewhat poorly articulated. What I think he really means is that if Cpl. Adolph had stood back and let the experts get on with it, it is likely that the Germans would have won. Debatable this may be, but I wouldn't really disagree. Oh, and Combined Arms, many thanks for the gen on Quesada. All the best, Richard.<hr></blockquote>I am not argueing in principle that Hitler often bollocksed things up. However, unsceptical adherence to the concept that he was entirely or even mostly responsible for every dud decision made by the Germans is wrong. My point was made specifically with regard to the Me262 as there is a strongly supported argument that the delays were principally due to technical difficulties with engine reliability rather than Hitlers interference. That is not to say that his interference may not have had some effect, but that many accounts overemphasise it's effect. It is a common thread running through post-war German memoirs. As you cite Guderian etc I can add Manstein and plenty more. Liddell Hart is one who failed miserable to give it the scepticism it was due. As for this Iron Chef bloke if he can't do us the courtesy of organise his arguments in such a coherent way that they can be readily comprehended, by the use of such conventions as sentences and paragraphs at the very least, then I don't see why anyone should do him the courtesy of reading them.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: [QB]Somewhere, I have Galland's book "The First and the Last" kicking around. This is a very interesting read. He really rated the ME262 BTW. What is really fascinating is the fact that in the latter part of the war, most of his fighting seemed to be not against the allies, but against good ol' messaniac meddling Hitler whose diktats seemed the product of fantasy and bore little relation to the exigencies of the war.<hr></blockquote> That may be fascinating but it is a common theme running through most post war memoirs from higher ranking Germans. Basically the: 'we wuz robbed by Hitler' excuse. The question then arises as to how much weight to give such essentially self-serving statements when they come from men whose reputations would most benefit if everyone beleived them. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As someone has just stated, he got it into his head that the ME262 should really be a fighter-bomber instead of a fighter/interceptor, and all the subsequent prannying around delayed production of a superb aircraft.<hr></blockquote> Yes and someone else just refuted it citing some definitive multi volume tome on the Me 262.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: Don't ya just love this game !!! Occasionally someone earns the Silver Star. This was that occasion. Now if players bought only HQ units for infantry--- that would be gamey. Sgt. Rock aka Toad<hr></blockquote>More proof of BTS's anti-British bias when the game hands out decorations British units get Silver Stars instead of MCs. BTS please fix or do somefink!

I fail to understand why the "Ami's" would need King Tigers. When any Pfc with a tin and a bit of string can call down a ToT from 2 battalions of heavies faster than a KT can rotate it's turret 360 degrees, who needs 'em.

On the subject of German memoirs I thoroughly recommend "To young to be a hero" by Rick Holz. He spent most of his time on the Eastern Front and was evacuated very late from Stalingrad. Mind you the picture he paints isn't exactly going to please the starry-eyed Heer worshipping crowd. A German battalion shooting their fire-eating commander after he opens up on them when they refuse a suicidal attack might not be glorious enough hehe.

Yeah, what is the title of the thread: "Firefly Use in British and Canadian Troops" not Regimental HQ, Sqn HQ, REME workshops or anyfink else. As for this ridiculous 22 "battalions" (incorrect terminology as usual) they are Sherman DDs, Crabs, other 79th div funnies, CDLs none of which are found in CMBO and units which were not even in Normandy in June (ie Poles). The only credible point is the armoured division recce regiment. The rest is a load of bollocks. When some gamey bastidge uses a Firefly in a Sherman Crab troop then Jason can cry foul.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: No offense, but I saw you spend 5 posts goading Micheal Dorosh with no reason except to get a response from him and it was not right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I don't recall precisely the instance to which you refer (though I have a fair inkling) and I certainly don't want to rake over ancient history. Anyway look at Dorosh now, he's coming along very nicely under my tutelage. The way he's dealt with this run off at the mouth use no punctuation bloke positively brings a tear to my eye. Why should I be offering an opinion. You should be justifying yours. Then I can critique it.

It's not. Just pointing out you're wrong, which you still are.

4th Bn SLI I think. He is a man who has given a lot of thought to infantry tactics based on his experience and has both written about it fairly extensively and lectured too. Great to see he is still going strong. Going by his book he was a cut above your average Plt sub and I would suggest his views hold a little more weight than your average veterans account, though of course still only one man's viewpoint. He recalls coming across Horrocks at one stage who remembered his name. Pretty good for a corps commander to remember one of his Plt commanders names. Might have to ask him about captured MG42s and SMGs as he goes on about it a fair bit

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Simon, I know you are just trying to stir the pot and get the arguments rolling again when they seem to be tappering off, but taking this off the list is a far better idea. You are welcome to join or not, as you see fit. You missed (unintentionally I am sure) where I invited adult participation in this off list discussion to anyone who wanted to get in on it. I however did include JonS in my mailing just to annoy the poor bugger. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't seem to understand. I don't agree with this off forum concept of yours. There are probably plenty more that might follow the discussion and contribute when and if they feel they can do so without the need to indulge in a flurry of emails. Can't you see that the Forum Directing Centre (FDC) is a far more efficient method of communication. If you don't want to be "dragged into the mud" then don't. You're the one who constantly responds to these relatively innocuous "insults". I would suggest if we apply your own insult detection criteria (which has a very low threshold by the look of things) the numbers might be a wee bit more than a few dozen. I am not trying to the stir the pot. I am trying to get an answer out of you while still maintaining a sense of humour.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Now, Simon and Brian are just trying to get the flames burning here and short circuit any intellectual discussion, but for Berl and Andreas and other who do want a to discuss this, here is the reason why the US system worked better. People. The US system devoted nearly twice the number of people to communications than the commonwealth system, one of the reasons why the US had a larger tail than other countries (the other was supply). This allowed relatively junior members of their force structure to call in artillery. In the CW system, no FO meant no arty generally (I know of exceptions though), while each platoon leader in the US system could call down a barrage with excellent accuracy, kind of useful when the battery FO is 5 km away and has never even seen or heard of your platoon. It was not a disadvantage to have junior officers control artillery assets, but an advantage -- assuming you had the communications infrastucture and training to back that up. In practical terms, since the above is not simulated in CM, the US and its oversized communication network made artillery direction and redirection faster. Note that I can make this arguments without using insults Brian, perhaps you can attempt the same in your reply. And JonS, I really do want to hear what you have to say, just post it here and I will be happy to respond, I really did not get any e-mails from you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is hardly a convincing argument to support the idea that the "US system" was superior to that of all other countries. More specifically it does not support the idea that it should be "faster" than all other countries. The concept that the larger an organisation is the more rapidly and efficiently it operates runs somewhat contrary to my own experience Your points regarding US platoon leaders access to arty seems to be contradicted somewhat by what other people have said in this thread. Even so it has little to do with the speed with which the mission was fired, that is a different issue. The CW system was designed so that the FO was never 5km away. Since the Battery commander was colocated with the infantry Bn commander fire requests could be routed in that way if the troop FOOs weren't available. The CW FO system was designed to minimise the possibility that infantry should call fire but did not exclude the possibility. The guiding principles were speed and massed firepower. Thusfar you have fallen far short of the standards of proof to which you hold others, hopefully you can rectify this. I note that you have withdrawn your contention that my comments were "flame bait", a term which you seem all too fond of bandying about. I hardly think this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I too would like to see Slappy justify that comment. One could almost believe he was putting forward a *GASP* "nationalist agenda" or even proclaiming an "uberAmerican" position. Of course that can't be right. Afterall, he has proclaimed he has a "superior intellect" and is above "all that" sort of thing. I suspect you'll find he's scurrying for his books, Simon. It will be interested how he goes up against Bidwell... :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is flinging insults around. I took it as a wry comment on the irony of you of all people espousing nation specific modifiers. Considering that you frequently leap into threads and gleefully cast aspersions about uberthis, uberthat and "nationalistic bias" etc etc I am sure that the irony of the present situation is not lost upon everyone. I can't help wondering that your overreaction is governed more by whatever 'baggage' you are carrying around vis a vis Brian rather than what he had to say. hehe <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As I said, I am not willing to get down in the mud with you Brian. Bastable e-mailed me offline, he is a known calm and rational poster, and I am following up with him in an alternate forum. If you had handled the discussion in an adult manner I would have been perfectly willing to answer with the same information that I am sending bastables. But your only purpose here is to devolve this discussion into a mud throwing contest and not to discuss historical fact and theory in a rational manner using recognized means of discourse, and thus not worth wasting time composing a three thousand word 50 cite attempt to qualify and quantify my statement -- which is what bast will be getting. I wont duck out of this conversation just because a flamer is hijacking it, but I also wont waste the breath composing a complex discourse on a subject that said flamer will be unwilling to follow in an adult manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, I do beleive that Brian isn't the only one in this discussion ScottB, argie, spook and others have all made pertinent comments. Since you made your original comment on a public forum and were questioned about it on a public forum then it seems appropriate that you defend it publically rather than skulking about in some backroom conversation with hand picked cronies like Bastardables and Jon. I completely disagree with your characterisation of Bastardables as a "known calm and rational poster". I mean really! Do you think we are all completely ingenuous? Numbers, times, names, dates and places if you please Jacko. A thorough well referenced discourse and just to let you know in advance that pictures of a whole bunch of blokes on the phone won't cut it and neither will a bunch of first hand accounts extolling the virtues of US artillery.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: To Simon Fox - I am well aware of the TOE. But only 6 out of 16 British armor formations available before the invasion had 36 Fireflies apiece. 4 others had 22-29 (e.g. Canadian 2nd AB, Polish AD, 8th British AB) and 6 others had none (some were "tank" rather than "armor" units, with Churchills, yada yada). Overall, they had 318 Fireflies on hand, compared to 1914 75mm Shermans and 375 75mm Cromwells. (Not counting hundreds each of Churchills and Stuarts). Which is 1 in 8.2, not 1 in 4. The armor brigades that were at doctrinal TOE also had not 108 75mm Shermans (from just 3 per FF), but 157 75mm apiece. Knowing TOEs is not the same as knowing force strengths. It can inform ones judgement about how they operated, because it tells you what they shot for. It is not a substitute for knowing what was really on hand. If the 8th Armor Brigade had 22 Sherman Fireflies and 171 75mm Shermans, then they didn't use a uniform 1 to 3 mix of the first with the second, no matter how many times you scan the TOE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps before you get your back up you should pay attention to what I wrote. The smallest tactical tank unit for the British was the troop. Which consisted of 1 firefly and 3 regular shermans (or cromwells). There are 36 troops in an armoured brigade, there are 36 fireflys in the unit establishment (TO&E in your parlance) for the brigade. Unless I am mistaken that makes 1 per troop. Now since I know where you cherry picked your data from I of course checked it. What's that at the bottom of the column there? It says Total (fireflys)=316 and unit establishment (what they should have)=312. Gee, I wonder why that is? Also note that there are an additional 42 in reserve or replacement stocks. http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/21agt-1.htm When the question arises as to what ratio of fireflys to shermans one could reasonably expect to meet in a British Sherman or Cromwell equipped unit in June 1944 then the answer is 1 in 4 not the spuriously derived 1 in 8.2. For your information certain units wern't supposed to have fireflys for various reasons. Factor that into your calculations did you? Obviously not. Obviously scanning the TO&E of the 8th armoured brigade doesn't tell you that for the invasion the 4th/7th Dragoons and the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry were equipped with DD Shermans and that 22 fireflys is actually over the unit establishment. Geddit?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: I can offer some data pulled off the web about UK tank breakdowns at various times......etc etc.... For what it is worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it just goes to show that pulling a bunch of numbers off the web is no substitute for in depth knowledge. I applaud your efforts but your have misinterpreted the data. You need to fit your numbers into the brigade organisation. The 36 fireflys for a Brit armoured brigade break down like this: for each of the brigades 3 regiments there are 12 fireflys. For each regiments 3 squadrons there are 4 fireflys. For each of the squadrons 4 troops there is 1 firefly. Each troop has one firefly and 3 75mm Shermans. Therefore unless it had been knocked out most british tank troop would have had a firefly in June 1944 not half. Your point about the misuse of CS tanks is correct. They were typically available at about 2 per squadron and found in the sqn leaders troop. Andreas, The 3rd CLY in the 4th armoured brigade organised their fireflys into troops. To answer rexfords question yes I typically try to operate my fireflys as part of a standard 3 plus 1 troop. But not always.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: well i just love it when mouthbreathing semiretards post here in one big long sentence not bothering to break it into paragraphs and then showing complete ignorance as to what historical discussions are really all about and oh yeah they don't use punctuation or capitalization or other standard conventions of communicating in the english language in its written form either and their speling is ussuall atroshious to boot making their posts unreadable even looking past their embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding both historical matters and the process of historical research itself but at least they have cutesy forum handles so i guess that makes it all ok<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bloody hell Dorosh! Those nasty lessons are starting to pay dividends

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: the problem with these threads are that people find one biased source, aka a lone british soldiers assumptions and base it as fact, i was also refering to late war german infantry effectiveness. ok this will make it simple for you. overlord commenced on june 6th 1944, they landed in france, the combined might of the british, american,and canadian armies, with divisions of french and polish, they were in france, all they had to do was march to berlin, now if late war german infantry was like this british soldier said it was, they would have been able to do it, wich they did not come close to berlin, now the germans were simultaneously fighting the worlds largest army on the eastern front, the war lasted until 1945, find me another country who could withstand that assualt for a quarter of that time undermanned under fuled and under equpiped, and without an airforce, i would also like ot add that if germany turned its eastern forces to the west in a moment of insanity, france would have been re occupied in a hurry, my point is that it took that combined world to defeat germany, from begining to end, none of the 3 major powers of the allies would have been able ot do it on thier own or simply missing one of the allies, it had to take all 3, so if the wolrds largest army needed 2 major powers to survive and finaly beat germany, i think that says alot for their late war infantry, it is a fact that begining to end the germans had by far the best infantry of the entire war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You seem to have mistaken this thread for the Peng thread. They're not particularly fond of serious historical discussion in there so you should fit in pretty well.

My impression is that by 1944 the most common Commonwealth fire mission by far would be a Mike target (ie 24guns). This is supported by data presented by Blackburn in which for one period of about 2 weeks in August 1944 (my recall may be a little imprecise on the dates there) they fired only Mike targets or above, as well as by the contents of his narrative for his entire period in action. I recall Blackburn mentioning a typical Mike target time from call as 90secs? Maybe Andreas can confirm that? The great strength of the Commonwealth artillery system was the attachment system whereby regiments were attached to brigades, batteries to battalions etc. The result was that the most senior artillery officers were up with the infantry, either in their brigade and Bn HQ or as FOOs with the forward companies. It would be a grave mistake however if this was seen as restricting access to the guns. If anything it enhanced flexibility. Having every man and his dog able to call in arty isn't necessarily a good thing. This business of uberamerican artillery is given widespread credence but I have yet to see any realistic assessment or analysis from someone who actually understands how the different armies systems really worked rather than just being an expert in one. Berli, As pointed out by Andreas you are incorrect in your statment regarding FOOs and batteries, at least for commonwealth arty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The only exception to this was the so called "US System" which placed artillery responsibility not on FOs (although batteries had FOs for larger shoots) but on platoon and company commanders. Read Gantner's "Roll me Over" where he had access at one point to a preplotted 8" battery, 105s, and mortars all by field radio to the main regimental artillery director. The difficulty with the "US System" was, although it tried to offer the officer in the trench access to every gun in range, there just was not that much artillery available to assure that each platoon leader had several batteries of various sized cannon on call. The US certianly did artillery well, better than any other country in fact (mostly because they placed more people into Regimental and Divisional plotting and communications that other countries, paying for it by having less infantry out front) but in practice the game convention of a single FO for one sort of artillery is not too unrealtistic, and the communication chain advantages enjoyed by throwing people at the problem of com switching and plotting, plus the use of the preprogrammed tables started in 1943 and progressively improved during the war, is well simulated by giving US assets a little faster reaction time for calling arty than other nationalities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like you to justify your contention that the "US system" was "better than any other country". I have seen you make it before and I would like to know why for example you consider it better than the British system.

I love Sydney Jary. 18 Platoon is a must read. His points are an interesting extension of the comments he made in 18 Platoon. What is of interest to me (and has been a long time) is that in CMBO battles seldom pan out the way he describes. In CM the German player seems to hold fire and use their close quarters firepower to good effect rather than exploiting the squad LMG. In contrast the Brit or Commonwealth player needs to hang back and would never want to get to close quarters. Maybe when MGs are fixed up a bit German players may be more prone to use historical defensive tactics of pinning an attack with MGs and calling down a mortar concentration. Jary's unit fought all types including SS, regulars and FJs so his comments do not pertain only to standard German infantry. Not sure how BTS model German fear of the bayonet, please fix or do somefink! His comments on the difficulty of locating MGs in country with good cover confirm my own impression that it is a little too easy to spot what is firing at you in CM. I have just read an account of some aussies in the jungle where they couldn't locate a MG (at night) even though they were close enough to be burnt by sparks from the muzzle. Back in yer box Hofbauer and take your tripod envy with you.