Andreas

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mensch: Sorry <hr></blockquote> Nothing to be sorry about - when the site was set up the German version was not even a twinkle in the eye, and most of the regulars are not even able to speak German. But somefink to fink aboot

In all fairness, apart from Tom's HQ, the mod sites are all in English, the scenario sites are too, and there simply is not that much that you can recommend to non- or poorly English speaking buyers of the game at this time, which makes it difficult for them to upgrade the game. There is also the bandwith issue - while Germany is not as much a 3rd World country as the UK WRT net connections, not everyone has ADSL or even ISDN, or a second phone-line. Access is also metered, so getting the mods (provided you can find the sites and read them) is a problem, and can be costly, both in terms of money and time. At Der Kessel we have had inquiries about why the site was not available in German, and I am contemplating to start writing bi-lingual scenario briefings quite seriously. Honestly, it went straight into the Top 20 there, and most of the games they have in there seem to be FPS and stuff like that, so I think it is a fair review.

Having studied organisations in quite some depth, and being acquainted through reading with some of the organisational chaos that governed German war production and research pre-Speer, I find it highly unlikely that the German bureaucracy - mind you, the same organisation that decided that the 50L42 was sufficient for upgunning the Panyer III in 1941(?) - would have reacted that quickly to the Bazooka. Looking at development time-lines and super-imposing threat development over it while assuming the usual bureacratic inertia makes it much more likely that the ATR was the threat that Schürzen were supposed to counter than any sort of mythical HC weapon encountered in Russia. FWIW

Hmm, not bad 80 out of 100, and almost all the drop coming from the graphics. I don't agree 100% with him on difficulty, but overall a pleasing review.

Don't know about the second question, but for the first one it is that they did not seem to feel the experts on the war that would be necessary to portray it correctly. This has led them to develop a long-term path for the CM machine, which does not include the Pacific. That's what I can recollect. I guess they also did not think that CM as a combined arms simulation lends itself very well to the tactical problems in the south-east/east-Asian theatre. If the search works, try it with Steve's member number, and 'pacific'.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: The tank was - how often must I repeat? - KNOCKET OUT and not ABANDONED. READ AND THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE.<hr></blockquote> Scipio, you have to learn some manners. You are a prat with no clue, and you did not read my post. Any discussion with you is pointless, because you already know the answer. So why do you ask in the first place. Shouting and abusing people is the lowest form of discussion, and you do not deserve any reasoned answers from anyone. Arschloch.

The way I understand it, a 'shot' by a 20mm AA gun, or a .50 is really a burst, with multiple rounds. So, if three 20mm AA rounds, or three-five .50 bullets penetrate, would you want to stay in the tank to wait for the next one? Discuss. If three rounds penetrate, what are the odds one is hitting something vital in the tank? Discuss. Note, this could also be an abstraction for a non-penetrating hit on the turret ring, which leads to the tank becoming inoperable; this was a way how the German 37mm AT gun could deal with heavy tanks. Gyrene, as to why the crews bail, I suggest you re-read Blackhorse's comment - he is a RL tanker.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99: Got to www.derkessel.de . Download the byte battles, there are several which are designed to be single player. Then give the eternal souls of at least 3 of your children to Germanboy so he can make more. WWB<hr></blockquote> I prefer the souls of any of the young nubile actresses in Buffy, I must say. Thanks

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sergei: "Brudermord"?<hr></blockquote> Literally, yes. In the military sense, no.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The same thing happened in 51st Highland Div in WW II; when returning soldiers from either North Africa or Sicily (men who had been wounded) came back to the div and put into another regiment, I seem to remember that there was a bit of a mutiny; details are sketchy and I don't have time to look it up; perhaps Germanboy or Simon can elaborate. <hr></blockquote> You called? Problem is - book in London, me in Berlin, debating whether I can be arsed to go to the museum of surrender in Karlshorst later (probably will). Case that comes to mind is after the destruction of 1st DCLI (all numbers - handle with care) south of Tobruk, the survivors (about 150 men, IIRC) were put together with the survivors of two other battalions to reform a KRRC battalion (the number of which I have forgotten) in Cyprus. Godfrey, the historian of the DCLI, dwells at length on the problems this caused. Later, he mentions that 5th DCLI benefitted a lot from having most of their losses at Cornwall Wood replaced by a draft from 4th DCLI that had just arrived in Normandy, and that this contributed to the quick and successful rebuild. There is a book called Queen Victoria's Little Wars, that has a nice treatment of the regimental system in the appendix. BTW, I did not think that Bidermann looked 'Badass' at all - more like he looked a bit lost to me, with his glasses and pipe.

The one in my sig.

I think Guards Armoured actually used a Panther, and I have read of at least two more cases where runners (one Tiger, one Panther) were collected (the Tiger had to be left behind due to bridging issues, and I don't know what became of the Panther). At Villers-Bocage, a German Major (IIRC) took one of the Cromwells for a spin - it was left with running engine by the crew who decided they had some prior engagement elsewhere. He put a corporal with a Swastika flag on top and drove right up to his regimental HQ. He had to stall it by driving up to a tree and revving it, since he could not find how to turn it off. I don't think he was impressed with it. (story from memory - details in question)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Germanboy, how do you say "fratricide" in deutsch? <hr></blockquote> I have no idea - "Kreuzfeuer" (cross firing), "eigenes Feuer" (own forces fire), or, in 'New German' "friendly fire" come to mind. Of course this never happened in the German Uberwehrmacht, so there was really no need to have a word for it. You should know that...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I am Canadian and use the terms "squad" and "section" interchangably (schizophrenically?), as well as other terms. It's a non starter.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, but what does that prove, since you are Canuckian, and also believe that the Beaver is indeed a true and noble animal...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Ok from what I have read, (at least in November 1944) a Canadian Troop (Platoon) had (at least the South Alberta Regiment) three M4A4 (Sherman V) and one M4A4C(Firefly). It was on paper at least. IIRC in January 1945 they changed to Two M4A4s and two M4A4Cs.<hr></blockquote> Good investment you made on that one. Always good to see someone buying good books, keeps their writers in business. Terence - the reason I have problems with that statement is because the Commonwealth (at least the UK) used both Battalion and Regiment when talking about a, well, battalion-size armoured unit. E.g. 9th BN RTR, and also I believe 2nd BN Northants Yeo, 4th Tank BN Scots Guards. I always thought that the Troop-Squadron relationship was exactly the opposite in the US Cavalry as it was in the UK Cavalry?

Jason, your figure of 300 German AFVs lost at Nancy seems quite excessive, what is it based on, if I may ask? von Mellenthin does not seem to remember 300 AFVs in the German force (although he is hazy on the numbers - he does not remember a second PzGr Division for that matter too. Which one was that?), and I am pretty sure that von Luck (copy waylaid at the moment) does not remember a lot of AFVs (if any) in 21st Panzer there. Like Jeff, I would like to see the reasoning behind your statement that being on the retreat does not affect AFV write-offs, since it does not square with what I have read.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Just to add that I still think Andreas is a pillock.<hr></blockquote> Well you could at least edit your post like the Kiwi redleg does, to amuse me. You are a Pikey anyway. So, I see JasonC has moved on to claim that being on the retreat does not affect loss numbers for AFVs, and that Nancy cost the Germans 300 AFVs. Very interesting, must be the same science he used here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: Yes, but we aren't talking about nitro, are we. We are talking about military ammo, handled by trail apes, throw about during ammo resupply, transported in military trucks over rough roads, etc. This stuff just isn't that fragile or volatile. [ edited because I made a typo. I hope The Anglophile doesn't see this one He might go into an edit-inspired-rage or something ] [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<hr></blockquote> I have seen and noted it in my 'Little Black Book of People who Edit Their Posts'™. Scipio - you should listen to Jon - he knows his stuff. Anyway, if you can't handle disagreement without Schmollen in the corner, why ask the question in the first place? Since you obviously believe you know the answer. Tank ammo cooks off in most cases because of the fire in the tank, AFAIK, but I am no expert, so I may not have got this right.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: The gamey bastards!<hr></blockquote> Indeed. At the beginning of the war, the Germans still used balloons. Later they decided that was a bit of a waste and got rid of that battery. German Beobachtungsabteilungen were Corps level assets I believe, and included a balloon, a sound, and a light ranging battery, as well as something you could call an FDC. To establish a position they needed at least three pieces of range data. They would then fire a spotting round, which would be observed for its fall, and then correct and FFE. Time was between 1min to 15mins to work it out. Observation posts were often shared between sound and light, and would be wired in. Standard equipment would be the SF14z, and a phone. A crew for such a post would be five guys, led by an NCO (Unteroffizier). The Abteilung was fully motorised. The posts were often built into roof-tops, or special towers would be erected - my grandfather was on one when he was a attacked by a 'Rata' (generic term for Soviet planes shooting at the ground). He says it was the fastest 20m descent he ever made. The observers also served as mobile FOOs during advance and retreat. They would also be used for rear-area partisan sweeps. All this based on the experience of one man, so a big caveat applies. If anyone has better info, I would love to hear more about it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: My knowledge of Soviet aviation is slim, so take this with a grain of salt, but my recollection is that one command of the Soviet airforce was called, not coincidentally, Frontal Aviation and its regiments were more or less permanently assigned to the various fronts to do with as they saw fit. That organic enough? Michael<hr></blockquote> Michael, thanks. That's what I thought. Regarding 'organic enough?', depends. The way I understand the Red Army Air Force air-ground liaison system, it was at a fairly high level. There also seems to have been concentration of effort (as with everything else). So I would think that his point 2 ('where they were needed, when they were needed') would only really hold in planned assaults, e.g. the initial breakthrough operations. Thereafter, in a more fluid situation, I somehow doubt that the system could support the allocation of air support 'on the hoof'. Having said that, I think there is merit in making some changes to air support too, but that would be more of a universal matter, not one of 'this nation did this, the other did that' and modelling that explicitly.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: [QB] Flammenwerfer, Scharfschützen, Maschine Pistole (MPi), Leichte Maschinegewehr (lMG). Not sure about Panzerfaust. How do you say "voulez vous couchez avec moi" in Mandarin, btw? (This has less to do with CM than with a girl at work...)<hr></blockquote> Some subtle corrections: Maschinenpistole (MPi), Leichtes Maschinengewehr (lMG) Singular is 'Scharfschütze'. Panzerfaust is indeed Panzerfaust (lit. tank fist - let's not go there) Regarding the Mandarin - has anyone seen the South Park episode where Cartman thinks he is a Vietnamese prostitute 'Eh soldierboy, sucky sucky, 10 bucks' or somefink. Still makes me laugh.

What Jon said. The Canadians also set up a radar CB observation battery after Normandy, in 1944, AFAIK.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Andreas is merely trolling for a response. Slappy believes that Brens are machines guns but rather automatic rifles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you been smoking that weedy stuff again? I have not even posted to this thread, Eumundi.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: [edited because its a habit now. And for The Anglophile. He expects it ] [ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How nice of you to think of me. Very kind, old chap.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by l3w53r: (2)I know this has been somewhat asked before, but how will airpower change in CMBB? Russian's had "organic" ground-support aircraft as far as I know.Meaning- unlike in cmbo,where the aircraft just go around looking for targets of opportunity,the soviet aircraft act like artillery,bombing and strafing when they're needed, when they're needeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting, does not chime with my reading at all - organic at what level, and how were they controlled? How flexible were they, and do you have any specific battles where they came in 'when they're needed'?