Andreas

Instead of guessing, you could just ask me what I judge them on. Since I have not made any statement here on what I judge them on, you would be restricted to guessing otherwise, and that is a bit pointless, right? Los has quite correctly identified my anger management issue. IMO everyone is perfectly welcome to read Schmidt, believe anything or nothing that he writes, and be happy about it. If someone comes on a public forum in the way Keke did (which may well have been to pick a fight, who knows?) raising the issue again, then I reserve the right for me to point out in this public forum that there are issues with Schmidt/Carell that one should be aware of, and that he is by no means the gold standard of German military history in WW2. That is my point. Then readers of my post are perfectly at liberty to say 'oh my, Andreas is going of on another one of his crusades', or 'hey, gee, I did not know that, but I sure look out for this the next time I pick up a Schmidt/Carrell book', or 'Oh! A fluffy bunny. I like fluffy bunnies.' Whatever.

Yes indeed - for example show me where I say Schmidt's works are an insult to historians. For starters. As for the point about Glantz - Glantz is a specialist in Soviet history. He uses primary source material for that. He is not a specialist in German history, and does not use primary source material for that either. Neither does Schmidt, by the way. So Glantz is quoting what is at best 3rd level analysis. To then suppose that his use of Schmidt gives Schmidt any credence as a source, as you have done in your initial post, is a stretch that I am not prepared to make. But you go back to your minor bias works written by Obersturmbannfuehrer, NSDAP member and Chief nazi propagandist Schmidt, believing that they give you something useful. Sorry for disturbing your slumber. The point about me not publishing and only criticising is quite silly, and it goes to show your interest in serious discussion that you endorse it. Critical analysis of sources is the key to improving our understanding of historical events. If you think you can do without it, then I know what to make of your opinion on these events. I can't find the quote about me using my politics for wargaming that you attribute to PC. I think that is another silly statement, and not knowing where it came from, I won't respond to it.

And those are the same Finns who always lead in the PISA studies. Snigger.

Mike, minor point on your response to Romulus - German recce formations are included in the game. E.g. Jaeger Aufklaerungs Battalion 44 in CMAK, and a host of them in CMBB.

He invented incidents that would be used as a justification to round up the Hungarian Jews and send them on their way. I got your email, and will respond to it, but probably only next week - I am insanely busy this weel. Apart from that, he joined the NSDAP before Hitler came to power, IIRC. So the 'I only did it to keep my job' excuse does not apply. To answer Keke's persistent doubts about whether he was a Nazi or not. Apart from that I suggest you reread my post Keke, since you totally fail to understand it.

No it would not - different, much more powerful gun. As FK says, you need to use the ordinary Sherman. Nope, the Churchills were. Cromwells were in 7th Armoured (all of it, except for the 1 in 4 Sherman Fireflies), and in all the Reconnaissance Regiments of the British and Polish (but not Canadian 4th Armoured) divisions.

To answer the initial question: 'No'.

And then there is of course the dreaded OBE (Order of the British Empire), translated as 'Other Buggers' Effort' if none of the above will do it quite as it should, and the George Cross for heroic action not under fire, or by non-combat personnel (e.g. padres or stretcher-bearers).

What?! He wasn't the evil Nazi just distorting history, like I have read on this forum! :eek: </font>

Yes, and the point is that unless Zaloga has it from another source than 'Small Unit Actions', that is the only source.

The difference is that 3" mortars are battalion assets, i.e. the battalion commander has constant access to them. The 25-pdr, while normally directed by a, to all intents and porpoises, permanently assigned FOO team, would not be available if it was busy firing elsewhere as part of an UNCLE or VICTOR target or a fire plan supporting another battalion. I think you can argue that the 20% is too high, but not about the presence of a rarity factor. IMO.

Quick, call an ambulance, he is getting all blue in the face!

It's a myth I can smell it. </font>

BTW - 2nd Northants Yeo is the only regiment for which I have been able to find evidence that they used Challengers. Rumour has it that the Reconnaissance Regiment of Guards Armoured had them, but I don't think that could be verified.

The 29th AB was the AB of 11th Armoured Division under General 'Pip' Roberts, allegedly the most competent armour commander of the British Army in ww2. 29TH ARMOURED BRIGADE Brigade HQ 23RD Hussars 3RD Royal Tank Regiment 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry All Shermans, on the ratio of 1 Firefly per troop in the squadrons. Not sure what the British did for CS work in Sherman squadrons. The Reconnaissance Regiment was 2nd Northants Yeo, who were equipped with Cromwells and Challengers. Since they were a divisional unit, they were not with 29th AB.

You are grossly distorting the record. </font>

There are rumours that one of them saw combat. According to www.panzerlexikon.de, the other one's engine burned out and it was never finished. The rumours are qualified as 'unlikely' on the site. I do not think they have been corroborated by the Soviets either.

Divisional HQ defense. LWF Divisions had a habit of being overrun, so the ATGs would come in useful.

What version III and IV?

Cogust, you really need to compare CMBB and CMAK. There was a massive change in armour penetration values between CMBO and CMBB.

Jaegermeister Unfortunately I seem to have lost the power supply to my scanner (and it refuses to work under CP anyway), so it maybe a while until I can send you the scans. Sorry about that. Andreas

www.derkessel.org That should keep you busy

It would be cool if the site actually did load, even once. I tried since yesterday, and no luck. Twits.

I have read a lot of books on this level of combat, and I can assure you I am not confusing anything. Yes, and that is what medals were given out for, because it is not normal and expected. The essential principle in all this is to stay alive. Since you are unlikely to be a big help when your tank is semi-functional, at best, you are unlikely to stick around. But feel free to detail the accounts you have come across. Happened all the time. I am just reading a book on the Huertgen fighting (A dark and bloody ground), and the tankers did just that. Constantly. They did not really care if the infantry did not like them anymore, or were pissed off and showed their teeth. Gantter's 'Roll me over', a 1st person account by a GI in NWE tells the same story. The same for e.g. an assault by 101. Jaegerdivision during Fridericus, in 1942. Stugs that were detailed to help the assault encounter a minefield. Stug battery commander refuses to continue to advance, infantry has to go alone.

It is the same story that tar posted at the beginning of the thread. Research done was most likely zero, because the story is just based on what Gen-Oberst Raus wrote down for the Americans. Most likely he did not have access to any documentary evidence during his time writing these stories. As I outlined above, there is one story where it can be shown that he made things up for dramatic effect. There is only one way to find out if it is true. Go to the National Archives in Washington, get the KTB of 6.PD for that day, and hope that the incident is mentioned in there. Most regimental and below KTBs did not survive the war, they were destroyed in an air raid on Potsdam late in the war. They would not be as reliable anyway. [ January 18, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]