Andreas

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pt: Here in Germany I have seen CMBO in Mediamarkt and Karlstadt, i.e. the major computer store outlets and department store chains. Yet to read anything about in the gaming press though.<hr></blockquote> Well, there was an article in some rag - marched straight into the Top20 in it (all the rest real-time or FPS), and the only drawback was the graphics. Not bad for an 18 month old game. CDV (the German distributor) say that it is their No.1 seller at the moment. Also not bad for an 18 month old game. From both of these I would expect to be doing just fine. Don't know the story in France and Japan though, where there are also boxed localised versions on sale, AFAIK.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: If I am making my claims up, prove it.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: We have a reference that suggests that at least one regiment was modified, if not more. The picture and the implication is that this was done in an organised manner in field workshops.<hr></blockquote> Delaforce's book does not suggest 'if not more', and nowhere does it say or imply or even mention 'organised manner' and 'field workshops'. QED - happy to oblige. As I said, you are making the stuff up, because it suits your agenda. You are jumping to the conclusion that 'most' means the regiment. Even so, one regiment out of three in the Brigade. So less than one third of the Shermans in the Brigade. Shurely this important field mod had an immeasurable impact on the campaign in Europe from the time of the Rhine crossings, when it was implemented on up to 2% of the Commonwealth tank force. You have also declined to address my point that Delaforce mentions several tank kills from 'Bazookas' after this magical modification was introduced, and not a single case of it defeating a round. He explicitly mentions one Panzerfaust round being defeated by extra (welded) armour plate though. Delaforce also fails to give a source for his claim that 'most tanks were fitted'. The whole sentence does not fit into the para at all, and seems like an editing oversight to me The quotation from Captain Stirling ends in the para before. So basically your case is resting on one picture (we have been there before) and an unattributed statement in a Patrick Delaforce book, those tomes of learning about the 21st Army Group. Somehow that fails to impress me, and your tendency to compare apples and oranges, as well as jumping to conclusions, or claiming for a book to say things it does not, does not do your argument any good, to put it mildly. Just jumping to conclusions, immediately complaining about a pro-German bias, and basically withholding the part of the evidence that does not support your argument, or dismissing it if brought up by somebody else, is poor debating. Try harder. You may start to convince someone if you get the war diary from 4/7th Dragoons and start quoting the no doubt numerous occasions the diarist mentions the superb performance of bits of wire against German shaped charges in March and April 1945. Until then, you can as well leave it, as far as I or anyone serious about this is concerned.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: We have a reference that suggests that at least one regiment was modified, if not more. The picture and the implication is that this was done in an organised manner in field workshops. Hardly what I'd call "piece meal", Iron Chef.<hr></blockquote> We have no evidence that suggests anything beyond the 'one regiment' -we don't even have that 'most of the tanks', not 'all the tanks in 4/7th Dragoons. You are making the rest of your claims up Brian. There is nothing like what you claim in Delaforce's book. Piece meal is exactly what I would call it. We have evidence that it was tried in Italy, and totally useless. Why don't you address that I wonder?

Thanks Dan. Learn something new every day. Jeff, you're welcome. I generally find the works that involve talking to people, as opposed to Delaforce's desktop approach, a lot more interesting and relevant.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: Now, it may be that it was only an 8th Brigade modification or it might be that the 4th didn't note their application to their vehicles.<hr></blockquote> You are right, you were not just talking about the 8th Armoured Brigade, you were making immediate assumptions about 4th Armoured Brigade as well. The rest of your comments is turning out to be the usual ramble. What difference it makes whether it is heavy or light wire is a mystery to me - it will still be ripped apart when you drive through an orchard. You should also stop going on about Sturmtigers - it is pathetic. German Schürzen were a factory accessoire to probably hundreds if not more German AFVs. Your wire cage is a field mod that may have been in place with between 32 and 64 British tanks in the last two months of the war. If you can not see the difference, I am afraid it is beyond me to explain it to you. Maybe you should address Jeff's post? Ps. How is that ultimate wargame of yours coming along?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: No some Stugs carried a 6 inch thick piece of concreat on their lower hull. Concrete has a resistance of about 0.15 steel vs KE and 0.35 verses HEAT. KE 2.2cm CE 5.33cm SO its not much use aggainst 76mm guns but it would be stoppping 75mm rounds and Bazookas when added to the original plate.<hr></blockquote> Ah thanks - I seem to have a dim recollection of reading this. Age is quickly catching up with me, obviously. Would that concrete not shatter on the impact of a round, and be pretty useless against a follow-on shot? Also, what are the weight implications? Was it seen as useful?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I don't have any of Delaforce's work, although I have been curious as to how you folks might rate his unit histories. Are they worth the effort in obtaining;bear in mind they are a wee bit more expensive in the United States than they are in the UK? (When I say a wee bit more I mean a lot more expensive). <hr></blockquote> Hmm, not sure to be honest. I have almost all of them, but only because I managed to pick them up for £5 in bargain basement sales. He cribs a lot from other people's memoirs. Some of them have indexes, most don't. They are alright if you want to have the service history of a whole division. If you are after quality, you are probably better off getting the original works he is quoting from. He has definitely found a winning formula for writing this stuff. They are not high on my list of recommended books. If they are expensive, get something else for the money. If you can get them cheap, get them. Probably more appropriate for a newcomer to the subject than for you Jeff. YMMV.

It must be those Regimental Sergeant Majors...

Well Brian, let's assume it was the regiment - which is far less than your immediate jump to it being the Brigade. So then the questions are how effective was it, and when was it invented. There is another picture of 4/7th Dragoon Shermans without that modification in Feb. 1945. As for effectiveness, there is no mention I could find saying that a bomb bounced off the wire. There is one mention of a 4/7th Dragoon Sherman being hit by a handheld AT weapon, penetrated, and a Sergeant (presumably the TC) killed. There is another mention of a round being stopped by extra armour welded on. Not an awful lot of data to go by - and that's why I think that your immediate reaction that the Commonwealth got shafted again is hilarious. Regarding the concrete on Stugs - you don't mean Zimmerit, do you? Regarding 'many' - well the most we could agree on here would be 45. Out of how many in 21st Army Group in Spring 1945? 2,000? Comparing this to the Sturmtiger is a bit of a stretch, since one is a vehicle, and the other is a flimsy bit of chickenwire on a vehicle. BTW - what is the likelyhood of the stuff coming off if your Sherman drives through some trees?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Patton had a heart?<hr></blockquote> Yeah you're right, let's call it a pump then, shall we?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: hmm, well that Rheinland action wasn't really fought all along OOB and TO&E, and was far from what the german command had in mind for their Fallsch.-Jäger ( ) ... it was not very representative to extrapolate it onto the whole FJ branch and label it as an arm with gratuitous artillery by default and during the whole war. IIRC, not sure, but wasn't one reason for the widespread use of inherent 120mm mortars within the FJ the notoric lack of artillery support?<hr></blockquote> Martin - you are right, it was not what was intended for them and it was not fought along TO&E. But fought it was. Jason said that they mostly fought with limited artillery support. Well for the Rhineland battles (there were a number of FJ Divisions there, not just one regiment), need overrode TO&E considerations. These battles were a major operation, on a scale with the Ardennes offensive, and probably equally if not more devastating to the Germans in terms of losses and consequences. It could just be the transatlantic divide showing again, since the battle was fought by the Commonwealth. It certainly has had much less press than the Ardennes. I am much less informed about the artillery support that Students 1. FJ Armee could call on, but would be interested in numbers for that.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: On P.217-8, I found the following passage: "Most of the tanks had by now unweildy wire netting cages welded on the sides to deflect bazooka bombs."<hr></blockquote> As for this passage - most of the tanks in his troop? Squadron? Regiment? Brigade? 21st Army Group? The world? Answers on a postcard please. Hint - the answer is not in the book.

We could also go down the road of 'do we have more than one picture?' For all we know the TC could have been a loony. There is this story of the Commonwealth company commander walking around with an umbrella instead of a gun. Do you want that modeled too? All UK company HQs get an umbrella instead of a sixth weapon. Or maybe a Cricket bat? I have seen a lot of pictures of Shermans, but this is the first I see of this contraption. The real question is not 'Is that something that only 8th Armoured Brigade did?', but 'is this something that anyone else in 4/7th Dragoons, never mind 8th Armoured Brigade did?' I just love it how some people here jump to conclusions. So, let's answer the real question. If Brian were to pick up the book, he would notice other pictures of tanks in it (no surprises there), including SRY, 13/18th Hussars (the other two regiments in 8th Armoured Brigade), and even two more of the 4/7th Dragoons that have no chickenwire netting on them. But it is of course easier to just jump on BTS instead of engaging the brain into thinking gear, or indeed going back a few pages in the book.

'Were expected to', sure. 'Did' - well not during the Rhineland battles, they did not. There was such a load of guns and mortars available to the German army that they could even spare somefink for the poor paras. They were not told that they had to make do without it because once upon a time 'they were expected to fight light'.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Most of the time they fought as leg infantry, with limited artillery support to boot<hr></blockquote> This statement will be news to the Canadian veterans of Blockbuster, and the British vets of Veritable. During the Rhineland battles, the Germans (including a number of FJ formations) were extremely well supported by IIRC about 1,000 guns and 700 mortars.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tuomas: YM 'fake' HTH. HAND -TNT-<hr></blockquote> What on earth are you talking about? Also, do you really think that a Finn should give a German lessons about how to spell a German word (ignoring for the moment that I do that all the time with English native speakers)? Just asking. Fallschirmjaeger is a noun, hence capital letter at the start. Fallschirmjaegersturmgeschuetzabteilung (yes, that is one word) is also a noun, hence also capital letter at the start. Fallschirm is written with two 'l'. 'Falsch' can mean 'wrong' or something along the lines of 'devious slimeball', but not 'fake' - that is usually 'gefaelscht', because it implies an action.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tuomas: I agree on your statements above, only execpt one doesn't spell falsch with capital F or with double-l.<hr></blockquote> One does. Correct abbreviation would be FJ, IIRC. Your spelling is the German word for 'wrong'.

Ogadai, I think he is talking about the Panzerfaust, not the Panzerschreck. Graf Spee - if you have a look at 'The South Albertas', you will see numerous pictures of ugly-looking tanks with sh*tloads of track welded to them (I'll post one here tonight). Patton's heart would have stopped...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie: Oh! And also was the airborne operation in the Ardennes ofensive, an absolute fiasco, with paratroopers who never jumped before, pilots that never worked with paratroopers, navigators that never found those f***g bridges, etc. As an interesting trivia, one of the leaders of the operations jumped with a Russian parachute, and he said that was much better than the German ones. Also, he jumped with a broken arm, so he used only one hand to control the Russian parachute. I have the reference in another computer. Is one of those post war essays German officers wrote for US Army.<hr></blockquote> Broken arm? That must have been Freiherr von der Heydte. The man and his regiment were a seriously antisocial menace to the Canadian 1st Army during the Scheldt battles, and later during Veritable.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by David Stone: Germanboy Thanks. Since our University Library has Essame's book checked in, I guess I am gonna have to go get it. Thanks Stone PS-- this also probably means redesigning my fictional scenario to historical<hr></blockquote> It is just a small note on page 121 or thereabouts. Look for Venlo in the index. Well-written book though, and lots of inspirations for scenarios. He really did not think much of Crerar.

Based on a short passage in Essame, 'The Battle for Germany', this operation was undertaken by XII Corps and VIII Corps in 2nd Army. Final clearance of the last German bridgehead opposite Venlo fell to 15th Scottish Division, with 50 casualties on the last day in early December. I would take this as an indication of low-quality defenders, so not Fallschirmjaeger. Organisation according to British Forces.com was: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Primary Units: 44th (Lowland) Brigade Brigadier H.D.K Money, J.C. Cockburn (29/7/44), Hon.H.C. Havell-Thurlow-Cumming-Bruce (27/11/44) (8th Battalion Royal Scots, 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers and 6th Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers) 46th (Highland) Brigade Brigadiers C.M. Barber, R.M. Villers (2/8/44) (9th Battalion Cameronians, 2nd Battalion Glasgow Highlanders and 7th Battalion Seaforth Highlanders) 227th (Highland) Brigade Brigaders J.R. Mackintosh-Walker (killed 16/7/44), E.C. Colville (16/7/44) (10th Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders and 2nd Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders) <hr></blockquote> No info on German defenders, except for intensive use of fortifications of all type. Both Corps were supported by the specialist armour of 79th Armoured (Crocodiles and AVREs). Essame describes it as '[...] a large number of minor actions with unspectacular but eventually satisfactory results.' Brigadier (later Major-General) Essame commanded 214 Brigade in 43rd Wessex throughout the campaign. His book is stronger on XXX Corps operations. I have a dig around tonight what else I can find. Let's see who picks up on the edit [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moon: Chad, try running a tank over an enemy AT in CMBO and let me know what you find. Martin<hr></blockquote> The gun is knocked out. The crew runs or surrenders. Don't try this with a 17-pdr AT gun.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by chrisl: That ought to read Byzantine.<hr></blockquote> I do not make mistakes, I set new styles. Now, if that is the best you can do, it shows quite clearly all that is wrong with this place. I go around insulting you bunch of lackadaisical nitwits with the intellectual depth of a Venetian canal barge at will, and all you can come up with is point out a typo. Well done, have a biscuit. What is this? The UBB version of the 'I'm so cute tickle my belly' response to being called to task for immense stupidity? I have seen chopped off decaying trees with more interesting life in them than this thread contains, me excepted. Jesus Christ on a feckin' crutch!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Buckeye: Hey Andreas, whaddaya mean, review? What's a review? Isn't that some sort of burlesque show? <hr></blockquote> A review is what you are going to write on those scenarios you play, or else. How about that for a definition?

You know, some of you sorry and bedraggled lot make the later Byzanine Empire appear to be a model of vitality. Peng comes along and says something righteous for a change, and some of you delve into semantics ('It's not your thread' 'T'is too') on Kindergarten level, while others start debating the next thread title. So much for creativity - what was that about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? If ever there was proof needed that the laws of thermodynamics apply in the social sphere, you would be it. Dragging the lot of you out in the courtyard and having you shot together with a bunch of Railtrack shareholders would be cruel on the Railtrack shareholders. You are beyond pitiable. Shame you are beyond taunting as well - since, oh well, since about 9 months give or take. Which should give you something to think about, if you were only capable of doing so. In the time it takes a woman to produce one of these little bundles of poo and vomit, or was that joy, you have not managed a single decent post. Drag this Peng thread idea out into the garden, and bury it in a shallow grave. Do yourselves a favour. Alternatively - have a look at my last ten posts here in this thread. Should give you an idea of what venom could be. And then bury the thread in a shallow grave. Not edited to show off my brilliance.