argie

Sorry, Jeff, you are saying Depuy for Dupuy for some reason that escape from me or just confusing the analist with the general?

Capt, I agree with you that the lack of knowledge on engineering is alarmant But, I think is usual to add some BIG explosives to obstacles from time to time to act as booby-traps. That is, you could find some use for that 250kgs air bomb that you scrapped from the recently abandoned Luftwaffe airfield I don't think that is very usual, and I don't have a clue if such devices were used in WWII, but using all that do BANG in defensive positions was (and is) common practice for Engineer units.

There is something I don't understand. If you take POWs in a strategical battle, those POWs could be more, and maybe a lot of them are from rear echelon, and the overall combat capability of the force is reduced (1 or 3 days later almost haven't importance in strategical context). If you take POWs in a tactical combat, seems like the POWs will likely be combat units, with a immediate affect on combat capability. In both cases, tactical and strategical, POWs seems relevant to me. And Tero gave as example of taking cooks as prisoners a deep penetration n the rear to seize a bridge: if combat positions are bypassed in force, those positions are forced to redeploy, which affacts immediatelly their combat effectiveness (loss of terrain advantages, moving without safe logistical chain, etc), so those POWs are also relevant in some sense

No problem, Panzer For knowing more on CMMC, and getting the last COCAT (COMES is not available for public, as is a GM's tool), and the last rules set, go to <A HREF="http://www.combatmission.com/CMMC/cmmcfront.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.combatmission.com/CMMC/cmmcfront.htm</A> Also the Forums used to communications in the CPX are at http://www.delphi.com/cmmcallied/start http://www.delphi.com/cmmcaxis/start Capt, for communications you could try the Forums. Are easy to configure in small scale communications system and you could give the players variable access according with the operational situation. I could give you a little document I wrote about setting communications for CMMC through Delphi's Forums if you like. [ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

Nope. And the system works for humans too. If you have less than the 15% of Global Moral and your opponent have four times that, you will suffer an autosurrender... The games ends on your face

Ummmhhh... That is interesting, as I started this program a few weeks ago... From where you took that info? Also, I will be really happy to work with Teach or any other with better skills in programming than me I'm doing this programming because all the programmers guys we recruited in CMMC are busy with programs with more visual oriented interfaces, like COCAT and COMES. I'm working in a program that uses the Rules developed for CMMC as engine. Right now I'm doing a Battle Manager, to help GMs to set up CM Battles or solve it without using CM (the ones too small or too biased). After that, I will move to a more complex system to help GMs to track Divisions' issues (Supply, Replacements, Vehicle recovery, etc.) There are a lot of rules to encode...

I'm already working in such utility for the CMMC I could be very happy in know something of your thinking on it as I'm an amateur programmer (I'm learning meanwhile I'm doing).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Wow. Not only is this a testament to the ridiculousness of learning history from television, but also tasteless, AND posted in the wrong place by someone who has been around long enough to know better. See you in the General Forum. I hear A and E is airing a show about Hitler's mountain retreat in Buenos Aries - it ought to make for some great discussions there. I understand his favourite bakery there was called "Admiral Donuts"...named after his successor as Führer....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mountains here in Buenos Aires? The Pampas means something to you? Anyway, I will look through the window, just in case

Wildman, I think you just give away your side

There is a lot of work going on in making CMMC. I think most of the combat roles are already filled, but you mailed the right person. If he don't answer is because the great amount of work he is doing I bet you are in a holding list now. I think the little coverage must be related to FOW issues, nobody wants to tell something to the enemy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Widowmaker: What is COCAT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go to http://www.combatmission.com/CMMC/cmmcfront.htm and from there to the COCAT page. [ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "I think the 77mm gun" Yes, that is another good example. Several guns were designated "77mm" in this country or that, when in fact no weapon of that caliber was used, by anyone. It was a quarter-master's designation. But one does not find such a practice, unless their is something to confuse the renamed shell size with, a different type of the same caliber. It is possible the 82mm was really the same size, since the original Brandt was 3.2 inches = 81.3mm. Maybe some rounded that down, and the Russians rounded it up. I've heard the story that they deliberately made them 1mm larger for the sake of the captured ammo difference, many times from many sources, but it is vaguely possible it could be a common but apocryphal story. [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm having an "anal" attack The correct figure for the original Brandt is 81.4mm... Today mortars in many countries still uses that caliber.

I just read that Russians used the 82mm barrel to let him use another countries ammo (81mm) meanwhile avoiding the use of his captured ammo for the others... At least without machinery... I think the 77mm gun in the British Challenger was another case on naming a gun with a caliber different to his own (76mm). Also I remember something about 122mm Soviet ammo, but I'm not sure where I read it and what logistical nightmare was this preventing and in which timeframe Very scientific approach, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "the casing doesn't need to be so thick?" That is quite true. And it is not at all clear the CM figures are reasonable. The 75mm shells are much bigger objects. In pure weight terms, they are twice the size of the 81mm rounds, because they are longer and driven by a larger powder charge, etc. But the bursting charges of both are on the order of 1 lb (.5 kg plus or minus), because of the thicker shell walls needed for the 75mm. Incidentally, CM gives the British 3" mortar a 26 blast rating. That may be a more accurate ballpark for medium mortars, and it is not in the least clear the 3" deserves a much better rating than the 81mm or the US and Germany. There are arguments about that from tests and sharpnel type and the quality of steel used and what not. There is also considerable variation and dispute over the typical burst effects of 75mm, which may vary considerably with the types of shell involved. E.g. some German 75mm tank gun HE shells had 454 gram bursting charge. Another type seems to have had a 860 gram bursting charge. Some of the charges are amatol mix, some are more powerful pure TNT. That a 75mm artillery round is a much bigger thing that an 81mm mortar round is quite true and seems to be behind the CM figures. It is entirely possible a more realistic assessment based on all factors, would have the two types roughly comparable in blast effect. It is a vexed and disputed question, and you are right to challenge or be skeptical of the way it is in CM. But what the exact or right relation would be, is very much up in the air. And BTS seems to be reluctant to change something when the "to what?" question cannot be satisfactorily answered. Entirely reasonable, but not completely satisfying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Weight of the shell of USA 81mm: 3.12kg UK 3" = 4.54 Ger 81mm = 3.5 kg USA 4.2 = 14.5 kg UK 4.2 = 9.07 kg

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Londoner: Ah sorry mike i see what your saying. Still I'd be suprised if any of the Parachute battalions that went to the Falklands in 1982, were actually "issued" the rechambered Bren. You think so? My guess would be the para in the question either took it on his own initiative or captured it. [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting... Capturing from who? The Bren was never issued to Argentina's troops. We used the heavy barrel bipod mounted version of the FAL (called FAP) in such rol, and the MAG as Platoon MG. Previous to this, the LMG in use was the Madsen 1926, in combo with the Mauser 98... I'd rather believe the paras could get a Mauser than a Bren from the Argentina's soldiers

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I could have sworn that that was what I said. I did not mean to imply it was commonly issued, in fact, I pointed out that some special service units used them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL I was trying to suppport your post, but my poor English kick me back I know you are right as I saw the picture of the Para with a Bren in Malvinas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Londoner: Micheal, the Bren went out of service with the British Army long before 1982. The GPMG was standard issue at the time of the Falklands unless I am very much mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are right. GPMG is the MAG's British name. The L4s (Bren) were used for a few units in that timeframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: They might have been used as OP tanks; the Ram was used in such a fashion. I think the Valentine was also used as a bridgelayer, too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are right. The Valentine bridgelayer was a standard equipment in the Armored Divisions. [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The British used the SLR as main weapon for his infantry. They also used the M16 in some SBS and SAS troops. The account you saw must be from the combat in Top Malo House... I think were SAS against Argentine Commands... Some British regulars picked the FALs from the Argentines as they get full auto with it... The Argentines used also the FAP, a heavy barrel, bipod mounted version of the FAL, as Squad support weapon. I saw a picture of a British Parachutist with a Bren in the Malvina's war. Some Argentine Special Forces used the Steyr AUG 5.56mm as his weapon of choice. Both sides used the FN MAG as LMG, but I think as a Platoon Weapon in both sides.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The British used the SLR as main weapon for his infantry. They also used the M16 in some SBS and SAS troops. The account you saw must be from the combat in Top Malo House... I think were SAS against Argentine Commands... Some British regulars picked the FALs from the Argentines as they get full auto with it... The Argentines used also the FAP, a heavy barrel, bipod mounted version of the FAL, as Squad support weapon. I saw a picture of a British Parachutist with a Bren in the Malvina's war. Some Argentine Special Forces used the Steyr AUG 5.56mm as his weapon of choice. Both sides used the FN MAG as LMG, but I think as a Platoon Weapon in both sides.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man: argie, Fionn's status on this forum doesn't matter to me. I don't care if responds or not althought I do know that he still reads the forum. Peter, Apparently I care and undoubtedly other people do too. I'm "riled" up about this because I'm tired of seeing Fionn's name everywhere. I decided enough was enough when a new league starts up featuring Fionn's ego induced "rules" (which everyone seems to swear by as if Fionn were a god). I also find it interesting that people listen to a "cherry-picker" about what is "gamey". When he himself is "gamey".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then, what's the point? I'm not a Fionn's zombie, I play almost ever with historical forces, I use Fionn's rules ONLY if my opponent wants it. BUT you make an statement in a public forum accusing somebody of something. As this is Public, is not fair that Fionn can't reply to you. If you have an issue with Fionn, solve it in private. If you want a public fight, go to anywhere Fionn have access. If you are doing it only to vent your frustration, or making a point, make it in a more intelligent way than insulting somebody and calling everyone as zombies because they like some people you don't like. If you wants attention, you got it. Now be mature enough and go with your issues to a place where Fionn can answer to you.

As you probably knows, Fionn Kelly is banned in this Forum. Is a bit unpolite attack somebody in a place in which he can't defend himself.

I buy a Mac because the arcana of computer are easy in MacOS And the new ATA drives Mac compatible are really cheap. Is just a plug and play issue... Even is easy to make an Apple Script to do all it automatic

How many HDs have you in your Mac? Just left the OS 9 in one of the booteable HDs and reboot from there when you want to play CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: The BEF was trained to sustain a rate of 25 rounds by minute.