Andreas

The shorts and bare legs will be hard coded like the other 3D models, so it won't be possible to mod shorts into pants. </font>

Are you calling me a Tory, you Finnish swine? I demand satisfaction on the field of honour, not that you or a Tory would now what that is. Scenario, your choice but small - I play the Finns. I await your setup.

Soddy, I think some services in the UK simply do not allow hosting. Mine is an example - Homechoice.

There also weren't that many Panzer IV long, and absolutely no Tigers and Panthers in the desert. Tigers arrived in Tunisia in small numbers, while Panthers never made it to North Africa. [ November 09, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

ATGs as well at that stage. Maybe as much as one platoon per division. Also, you need to deduct numbers for training, in transit, in stores, etc. Ammo numbers in relation to number of guns always seem high to me, just look at the production number of rounds for the sPzB41, compared to the number of guns produced. (2,797 guns, 512,600 HE rounds and 1,602,800 AP rounds produced over the production run - I have my doubts that the average sPzB41 managed to squeeze out 750 rounds).

I agree, and I think one only needs to look at the Berlin battle to see another example of that problem of friendly fire. In this case it was the co-ordination between two Fronts (1st Belorussian and 1st Ukrainian) that took a bit of working out, when the planned advance time-schedules went out of the window at Seelow.

</font>

Yeah, that's the comment I found in the back of ZGD, but it is not very helpful when you don't know what the 'current' number by Krivosheev is. Which I could not find when browsing the Appendix. That's why I went with the neat listing in WTC. So, what is the current loss figure then? 335,000? Does 'current loss' include all losses, or just irrecoverable? I am away from my library now until Tuesday, so can't answer it myself.

Further to this, I just picked up Steven Newton's 'Retreat from Leningrad', which is an edited version of a study done under the Marshall project. In his introduction, he comments on the worth of the project, and I think that is the best treatment I have seen anywhere of the publications that come out of it. Also, it struck me after my previous post that maybe I am labouring under the misapprehension that the US Army was actually interested in some solid data. Maybe it was just interested in the primary source data from the German officers, to support further analysis elsewhere. In which case your line that 'they got what they paid for' would becompletely correct.

Nah, nothing to worry about. He is from Kent, which means he is unlikely to be able to tie his shoelaces - which makes walking over to my place rather difficult, wouldn't you say? </font>

Nah, nothing to worry about. He is from Kent, which means he is unlikely to be able to tie his shoelaces - which makes walking over to my place rather difficult, wouldn't you say?

Shurely the all-powerful air farce could have intervened? Or were the pilots too busy sipping Kool-Aid?

Well, checking both Glantz and D'Este, I think that the above numbers have a bit of "tilt" to them if one constrains to the same period of fighting. The standard sum of casualties to the Germans for Normandy and the later fall of France come in at 400,000, half of these as POW's. The German losses on the East Front in turn were about 550,000 in the same timeframe.[/QB]

I don't agree that the US Army got what they paid for. They got a biased and flawed view that very much underestimated the Red Army, and as far as documents from that time go, the TM30-430 Manual is far far better - also assembled by Germans (in this case Gehlen), and basically for free. But it is good to see we at least agree it is not history then, and I assume you would agree that BFC would be wrong to base the modelling of the game on this book? In 'When Titan's clashed' Glantz gives the losses in the Rhzev-Sychevka Offensive (Mars) as 260,000 killed. I would assume that this includes the operations at Belyi. Haven't been able to dig out the number from 'Zhukov's Greatest Defeat', because I am in a bit of rush. Lt.Gen. Popjel, Commissar/Political Officer of Katokov's 1st Guards Tank Army mentions it, correctly identifying its significance as intended to destroy 9th Army, and its total failure, in his memoirs. He fought with Katukov in the Luchesa valley. You are right about the historical analysis. Well, just to make that clear, it maybe a popular misconception, but that is not what I said. And? Does that in any way change the assessment of the German sources? I read a lot of primary Soviet sources - they are full of pitfalls, distortions, ideology and probably some downright lies. They are also full of good information inbetween that. Many primary sources written by individuals are like that. What seems to be forgotten is that the German officers in Marshall's project are no different - they had their own agenda, they had very much biased views, there was apparently a massive row between Halder and Guderian going on there, and in one case (Raus) it can be shown that he was not above making stuff up - probably to achieve what Tsouras so admired about him, the aforementioned cracking read. Edit to correct the TM number. [ November 06, 2003, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

"Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour."

Speed of sound is 331.4m/s in air (temperature dependent). MV for the 10,5cm lFH18 is given as ~450m/s. That would indicate that in direct fire, the round is supersonic, and you would not hear it before impact, if the distance is short enough for it to hit before it has slowed down sufficiently to become subsonic. Bolded parts are the basic assumptions for it to hold. From the Woensdrecht passage, we know that it was DF. Unfortunately the range is not clear. Or have I done my calculations wrong?

Bad news for Mac users. </font>

Ah, that is a different story then. Don't think I have come across that one. Can't answer it therefore.

Probably best. You could look at CDV's record with CMBB, on predicting a release date. Not sure how that was, since release dates are of marginal interest to me.

The ones where it says 'radio' in the unit list next to them, do have radios. Surprisingly.

And you are not? If you are in London, give me a shout.

Or you could look here, to get the correct information : CDV announcement and screenies

Ok, now where is that none too bright, poster child for peace, War? </font>

Kamerad Pickyhaube would like to strike again, and point out that if you (or indeed George P.) want to use the German denomination, you should do it correctly. The Germans had no truck with girly measurements like 'mm', only steel-chinned, manly 'cm' would do. 7,62 cm FK 296® (early) 7,62 cm Pak 36® L/51 My guess is, apart from that, that the distinction 'early' is not correct. I am quite sure that the FK 296® is the original gun with no modifications, used as captured, while the Pak 36® L/51 is the rechambered version. Both versions were in service with the Wehrmacht at the same time, one as a replacement divisional gun, the other as ATG.

Crikey. I think I am going to have to go postal if the illegally striking bastiches of the Royal Snail don't get the CMBB CD to me on the double. I really feel like some real war east front CMBB workout after all that desert stuff. Very nice work.