Andreas

Some of you sad bags of water owe me an update on how your respective battles are going. One way to justify your pityful existences is to send me movie files, so that I can weep at the sight of how you mutilate the beautiful ideas that underly my magnificent scenarios through your utter ineptness. Also, since I no doubt qualify as an elder (with a 4:1 win record over Berli, and a smashing presence on the board and of mind), I intend to cast my vote against Joe, unless significant bribing (cash or nubile young ladies accepted) is carried out immediately. Get on with it. [not edited because I am so much smarter than you lot]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AndrewTF: I think it's looking like...Daimler Time! <hr></blockquote> Hooorrrayyyy - three cheers for Daimler time!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Maybe the humber scout car as well? It's a nice simple one that needs a lot of work.<hr></blockquote> Cough cough - you obviously missed PawBroon's mod of that one?????

IRL - I would take two platoons of infantry over a Panther. So I don't really know what is wrong with that?

Yep, go Schrullenhaft, just don't become Schrullig.

Daimler, most certainly. The current paintjob looks like the average Limey's idea of a nice interior decoration *shudder*. Great work by the way Andrew, I have a number of your mods installed, and they really add a lot to the game for someone like me, who is using level 1 and 2 for playing. Keep going. Now that I have figured out how to release the needed space for the mods in the data file, I will install them all.

BTW - I can only very highly recommend 'Destruction of the 112th' it is a long time I had that much fun with armour.

I can only very highly recommend 'Destruction of the 112th' it is a long time I had that much fun with armour.

ciks, I emailed it to you. It is a Byte Battle™, and as such under that section. I'll amend the description on the Depot.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: Yes. Yes I can. In fact, I'm living it Check out the CMMC. It is always looking for new players. Regards JonS<hr></blockquote> You are out recruiting again then? Got the package today, no real time to look at it yet. Thanks a bunch! Lars, I am German, I don't know how to have fun. Ve don't do zis fun zing hier.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stoffel: I would rather see direct feedback to the author as well A review is fine but you cant complain or give tips whithout spoiling any surprises I know several people downloaded and played my scenario,though I never received any feedback <hr></blockquote> I think the AAR section should address this quite well. The AARs I have seen are quite good and informative. I must say that I think it is going beyond the call of duty though. To expect a lot of people to take the time to write up the battle is probably too much. Would be nice, and I like reading it, but realistically can not be expected.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Keith: I think the briefing is an ESSENTIAL part of the gaming experience. This IS an historical wargame after all - not Mortal Kombat. Getting rid of the briefing score is like getting rid of the swimsuit competition in the Miss Universe contest. Just because some authors can't be bothered to put in the 1/2 hour effort into writing a briefing doesn't mean that the briefing score should be eliminated. The briefing sets the tone of the battle and provides essential info on reinforcements, force allocation, intelligence, etc. As a reviewer, if you don't want to rate a category, just put a zero in. For myself, I always put a comment in my reviews on the briefing quality. The briefing might seem like window dressing to others but to history buffs like myself the briefing is an important part.<hr></blockquote> What he said, basically.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: 2nd edit: AAARRGHHHH! I think I've become a true grognard at last, making sure that Kilroy ballistics are properly modeled, and criticizing the best mod I've ever seen. Any minute now I'll be debating with JasonC. Somebody stop me<hr></blockquote> This is an announcement from your local Grog re-education centre. Mr. 109 Gustav has suffered a nervous breakdown, and will be cared for in our detention, err, rehabilitation centre for an unlimited time. He is still babbling something about 'Cromwell, turret slope...' We are sure that with the right bit of TLC and lots of drugs he will be alright in just a few months. If not, we will put Plan B into effect. Thank you for your attention. Please send any cards and donations to 101 Barb Wire Gardens, The Keep, Doncaster DO17 1YY Nice mod Andrew, and don't you just hate the file maxing out? Happened to me too, and I spent all Sunday afternoon rebuilding it from the ground up.

Well, here is something to chew on Eric. According to the Germans, the Katyusha became a lot less effective once the main lesson was learned, i.e. that they are not precision weapons, and that even a little digging in helps a lot to defeat them. They also lost a lot of their terror that way. This is from one of Glantz' books, IIRC. Regarding of whether you want to stand there or not, I think we can both agree that this is pretty irrelevant when it comes to discussing a particular weapon's effectiveness. I would not want to stand in a place which is fired at by two guys with rifles. A modern battlefield is a deadly place, regardless of weapons used. I would not have wanted to be in the barrage that I let loose in that small test. 150mm Nebelwerfers are not precision weapons. If used correctly (i.e. in mass, and against a concentrated target in the open), they are highly effective, in CMBO as they were in reality. If used against a dispersed, dug-in target (e.g. a defensive position), they are much less useful. This is what the 210mm and 320mm versions were used for, which according to Lucas had different characteristics in terms of detonation setting. They are no wonder weapon that delivers instant death to anyone in the target zone in CMBO, and I seriously doubt they were in reality. Otherwise, why bother with producing real field guns?

Maybe not to a Finnish force, but a 20% loss and the resulting confusion would stop any other formation coming off the startline. The account is in that Lucas book. It was a regiment that was supposed to be a follow-on force to an attack, and was hit in the concentration area. I can look it up tonight, but it was a rifleman telling it, so I doubt there are a lot of figures in there. I used one aim-point, and I realise this whole setup was highly unscientific. Not more unscientific than Cauldron's flat-out claim that the Nebelwerfer is undermodelled though. I'll repeat it with one battery tonight.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by BsChoy: I thought a tank hunter was classified as a tank itself, not an SP?? When I think of and SP I think of StuG 42's and Hummels just like I think of the American Priest or British Sexton with it's 88mm gun. To me anything with a gun over 75 mm's or so is an SP....is this incorrect or did it depend on the person who named only??<hr></blockquote> In the Commonwealth, anything not expressly a tank or Panzer was called SP gun - this would include all non-turreted German AFVs with guns. For their own vehicles, they referred to M10s as SP AT gun, AFAIK. In the British Army, specialised AT was a branch of the Royal Artillery, that may have something to do with it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: [QB]Looking at the figures at http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/loss.txt the writing should appear on the wall. There is one anomaly in the data I would like to point out: the North Africa data brings the SP kill average down considerably. Yet there were all sorts of SP guns present in Afrika Korps.[QB]<hr></blockquote> No Hetzers, no Jagdpanthers, no Panzer IV/70, presumably few if any of the Stug 75L48, and/or the 75L43 variety in North Africa. 0 maybe a bit of an underestimate, but I am not that surprised by it. The killer SP guns all date from a later date. Dan, while Lucas is talking only about Stugs in the chapter, I would believe the claims figure he quotes to include all German SP AT artillery. I have seen a lot of British accounts where the finer point of whether it was a Panzer IV/70 or a Stug IV that knocked out the Sherman was not seen as important enough to warrant mention - SP gun is the term used for anything without a turret.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by michael: The Cdn 4th Armoured in Normandy was equipped with the Crusader AA which was used often on the front lines. During the closing of the Falaise Gap, they were used as a muscular resupply vehicle as well as direct fire. <hr></blockquote> They were not the only ones - TO& strength was six of these to the regimental HQ of the armoured reconnaissance regiment in 4th Canadian (SAR), and I would assume that that was standard. Although the SAR seems to have had seven present, one overstrength. The reference from the St. Lambert battle is the only one I found for their use in ground combat though. Having said that, I have also not seen a lot of references for German SP AA in the ground role. Then again, I am reading more about the Commonwealth. If anyone has more references for Crusader AA tanks in ground combat, I'd be interested to know.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: play with green troops.<hr></blockquote> Even better - in that case the battalion would never make it off the startline

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cauldron: At the risk of making this sound all too simple........ Rockets in CM are BOTH too inacurate and MOST DEFINATLY too "weak" on impact zone. Rockets in many ways were a terror weapon - you see whole trees fly over your head and most people think bad thoughts. NONE of this is indicated in CM. end of story eric<hr></blockquote> I happen to disagree. I just tried something - 1 regular British Rifle BN with MG Platoon, fairly concentrated (assumed to get ready for an attack), a force of 2,613 points. In the opposite corner, one TRP (in the concentration area, which was partially wooded terrain), and four elite (for speed of testing) 150mm ricket FOOs, a force of less than 400 points. These guys simulate a four launcher battery firing four salvoes before PUFOing to avoid CBF. 2 turns into the game the Germans surrender because I order them to. 100 rickets have gone in. The game ends a draw, the Brits hold the only VL. Score is 45 for the British 55 for the Germans. British casualties: 102 (30 KIA) 2 Mortars 5 Vehicles (carriers) 1 gun 534 men okay IRL, I believe that this battalion would not have made it off the startline, due to the very heavy casualties. Bit arbitrary test, but it seems alright to me - based on the account of a Soviet infantryman in Lucas' 'War on the Eastern Front'. I think the Nebelwerfer works almost exactly like it says on the tin.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Andreas, it refered to Sturmgeschutz & self propeled Panzerjager only IIRC. Regards, John Waters<hr></blockquote> Thanks John. How was the rest of the kills distributed, does the report say?

Don't know what this has to do with SP guns, but AFAIK the French Army used the Panther after the war for some years. Could be wrong though. The Swiss army used the Hetzer until the 1970s, IIRC. I guess a big problem would have been spares and servicing. The Germans had to switch their armament factories to civilian products, and the factories in the east were taken to the Soviet Union, lock stock and barrel. Also, most of the surviving Panthers were on the eastern front, and would not have been available to any western nation.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stoffel: these were not all vehicles but I also found the totals! in 1942/43 a total of 5.722 tanks were manufactured in 1943/44 a total of 5.568 most were mark IV (3800)and 1700 panthers in 1944/45 a total of 4.227 tanks were made mostly Panthers(3.740) rest were tiger II 487 Now SP guns in 1942/43 a total of 10.968 in 1943/44 a total of 3.951 in 1944/45 a total of 756!<hr></blockquote> Stoffel, I think the 1944/5 number seems very low. FWIW - Lexikon der Wehrmacht has: 1942 7.5 L24 33 7.5 L43 330 7.5 L48 365 10.5 leFH18 12 1943 7.5 L48 3011 10.5 leFH18 204 1944 7.5 L48 3849 10.5 leFH18 903 additional conversions from Panzer III 173 vehicles to Stug 7.5L48. 1945 7.5 L48 1038 10.5 leFH18 98 Still operational in April 1945 707 Stug, 132 StuH Other Panzerjaeger: Nashorn/Hornisse 1943 345 1944 133 1945 16 Jagdpanther 1943 1 1944 226 1945 198 Left on 10.4.1945 were 16. Panzer IV/70 1944 766 1945 505 Compare that to Panzer IV 1942 117 (L24) 1943 2425 (L48) & 877 (L43) 1944 3225 (L48 & 598 (L43) 1945 538 (L48) Left on 10.4 about 1700 of all types (mostly L48). Panther 1943 1848 1944 3777 1945 507 Left on 10.4.45 were 627 of all types, most in the east (564). Can't believe I typed all this. Hope the figures are semi-correct

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: Yes. They were given the usual airborne mix of 6 lb and 17 lb guns. I'm presently preparing a website on British airborne for CM. It will be in there.<hr></blockquote> Thanks, something to look forward to. Regarding the effectiveness of late-war German AA. The ones in fixed sites were 'manned' by woman, and 16-year olds to quite some extent. I am not surprised about experiences of them not having the stomach to fight it out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: As to the effectiveness of the Sturmgeschutz, , SP guns etc, an example is that from, August thru Nov 1944 Sturmgeschutz, & Panzerjager were credited in an German report, with causing 22 - 32% of the the OPFOR tank losses, compared to German tanks which were credited with 22 - 26% of the OPFOR tank losses. Regards, John Waters [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<hr></blockquote> John, I presume that would include towed guns?