Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kirill S.: another question: why did it have to be a churchill? couldn't it be cromwell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When they were first converted, they used surplus Churchill Mk.I. The Cromwell was considered too valuable for this kind of use, and probably also unsuitable, since they needed a lot of space inside to carry the extra guy and the engineering equipment. The round is actually a 40lb (26lb HE) HESH (?) round (I think) that was designed to destroy bunkers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: Let me explain why a lot of East Europeans see all german troops as NAZIS. The definition of Nazi Army unit would be any unit that executed/tortured civilians. In the East these atrocities were performed by most units not just SS. Thus most German WWII soldiers are viewed as Nazis. Even in germany about 2 years ago there was a exhibition of pictures showing atrocities performed by German Army units (Wermaht and not SS) (It was on the news because there were protesters claiming these photographs are falsified and atrocities were fault of just a couple of SS units) There are a lot of documented Polish village massacres and SS was not involved. I am not even going to mention Bialorussia or Ukraine. Compared to German troops Soviet troops are viewed in Poland much better. Sure they would eat a shoe polish or steal a watch but they would not kill or torture Polish civilians. In fact they were often helpfull. (This opinion is aglomeration of opinions of 10 Polish people who lived through WWII) Germans units showed more "restraint" in the West. Soon enough all eye witnesses will die and we will be able claim anything we want...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Killmore, you certainly don't get any argument on that from me. I understand that. That said, I also think that one should be careful throwing these words around - in Germany today calling someone a Nazi is a major insult. My grandfather was in Russia in WW2, as a soldier in Heeresgruppe Nord. He is not, and never was a Nazi. If left to himself, he would never have come up with the idea to go and invade Poland, France, and the Soviet-Union. Participating in these wars, not of his own volition (he was a conscripted soldier) does not make him a Nazi.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roksovkiy: So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run. A superb and accurate description of yourself, affix the word 'wanker' and 'biased' at the end and it would have been perfect. Try and read my original post first, then if you can, how it relates to your post. If you can manage that then there is nothing more to say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah well, resorting to personal insults, the ultimate refuge of the intellectually challenged. Oh well. By declining to put any sort of proof to your initial statement, I take it that: 1) You admit you were talking out of your ass. (no surprises there) 2) You do not even have the grace to publicly admit that. (no surprises there) 3) By implication, it is clear to me that you have no problem trampling on the memory of the German soldiers who fought hard for a lost cause (no surprises there, since to you they were all Nazis anyway) and on the memory of those soldiers who had to fight hard and give their lives to overcome them. Because that is what you really do. Well done Roksovsky. You may insult me as you want, that just runs off me. Your stupidity and lack of knowledge is plain for everyone to see, more so with every post you make to this thread. I am just amazed that you do not desist. Thanks Spook.

Some of my sources: The fighting Wessex Wyvern, Delaforce's unit history of 43rd Wessex. History of the DCLI, Major Godfrey, MC History of the British Army in the 20th century, FM Lord Carver AAR by German divisional commander A bridge too far, Ryan Overlord, Hastings Black Rat/Red Fox by P. Delaforce Those are just the ones I can come up with here, while at work.

Jeff, I have off the top of my head a list of these units, and I am happy to debate their quality. For the time being though, I would just like to give the good Mr. 'Dregs' Roksovsky the opportunity to make his case, i.e. why Sydney Jary's statements are based on fighting 'dregs' and an anti-Nazi bias. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. But since my reading was called in question by Roksovsky, I think it should be on to him to show me his sources and what they say. I am happy to learn. But we both know that won't happen. So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run.

Dobler.

Well, since this one is now up again, I am still waiting on the count of German units opposing 43rd Wessex, and an assessment of their quality by Mr. 'dregs'Roksovkiy, who not only has spelling troubles with the name of Marshal Rokosovski, but also with the distinction between 'German' and 'Nazi'. No doubt his erudite answer which he must be preparing now will lay to rest the common misconception that 4th Somerset Light Infantry fought any worthwhile opponents. I am sure many of you join me in anticipation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: That sounds suspiciously like a potion of the Harold Gordon excerpts I posted here in the past. I think the lanes were left open for infantry, but I dont see why armor couldn’t take advantage of the lanes as well. The idea was to keep German infantry in their dug-outs thinking they were still being subjected to a barrage. Red Infantry sneaks through the fire lanes and are into the trenches before the Germans are aware of their presence. Or so the legend goes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I check with Mellenthin and the Handbook later. As for not taking armour through them, a bunch of crawling soldiers is slightly less visible than your average T-34/85, so this might be an explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jwxspoon: I seem to remember also reading that during heavy artillery prep fires before an attack the Russians would also leave "lanes" 100-200 meters wide that were not hit with artillery. This supposedly would allow the armor to rush through the lane at the end of the artillery fire, with the intention of moving into the enemy's rear area and cutting off retreat as well as reinforcements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't think it was armour, but infantry detachments from what I have read. But yes, I have come across this reference in Mellenthin, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Naw, I am talking about the US Army here, they almost adopted the Ram also as a limited standard, and went so far as to give it a number in the M4 series. I have no idea what the Canadians planned to do with the things except ride around in victory parades. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look dashing in a home-made contraption?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Yes, it was the T7 / M7 but that tank was designed as a light tank with a 57mm gun, I was one off in my numbers. The Ram was not adopted, but was designated M4A5 by the US Army, and indeed was converted to APC for Commonwealth use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite - if there had been an invasion of Europe in 1943, the 4th Canadian Armoured at least would have gone to war in Ram IIs, IIRC. They only changed to Shermans relatively late.

Actually Slappy, I have this little 'Black book of horrific slights done to me', and I make a note of someone not writing Kampfgruppe when they ought to each time. I also use this to differentiate between serious and not-up-to-snuff posters. Hah!

Brian, good point well made. Now, how about for one of those boring RL examples? 5th DCLI, first move into the line, Normandy July 1944. Battalion HQ is overrun by six Panthers without infantry support. The Panthers shoot up a moving 17-pdr troop, generally cause mayhem and havoc and are just behaving in a plain anti-social way. There were more than 40 infantrymen around for sure, but they were too busy getting out of the way of the Panthers to contemplate how to take them out with a combination of bad attitude, a nail-clipper and the scissors of the BN barber. Instead they picked up PIATs and manhandled a 6-pdr in place and disabled 5 out of 6 Panthers that way, afterwards chasing and killing most of the crews. The 6-pdr brewed one Panther frontally at 100 yards. The officer commanding 5th DCLI was killed in the engagement, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ogadai: Merely an observation. I can imagine someone would make the same observation if a gang of people started using British or German terminology to describe the US Army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err well. You know that is not particularly helpful, particularly since UK nomenclature is something you best wring your hands about anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ogadai: I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units. Note for Slapdragon - its merely an observation, not a criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What would that be, BTW?

Jason, the Canadian armoured Recce Rgt (SAR) did have the Firefly. Don't know why you think they did not. They (like the Poles) arrived in August, so unless you play the German invasion of Carshalton Beeches in July 1944, it is pointless to even talk about them. It is of course possible you know something their historian did not know, and the vets he quotes lied, and the pictures were all made up. In which case this will form a 'significant contribution to knowledge' and should get you a PhD. Really, what's your point Jason? Can you also please stop talking of '75mm' and start talking about the specifics? In the Commonwealth TO&E I see no 75mm equipped unit. Just accept that this is obviously not your area of specialty, and stop pronouncing on it. It is embarassing. From June 1944, if you play the Commonwealth and a Sherman Squadron, and if you buy a full troop, you buy a 1 in 4 mix and you play realistically. If you design a scenario with 7th Armoured (happy Brian?) you give them 3 Cromwells and 1 Firefly. If you buy Churchills, you don't buy Fireflies, but you can buy SP AT Guns (M-10/Achilles) because these were used to back the Churchills up. You have no point to your posts as it is. Just ripping numbers from the website you looked at (valuable as it is) will not give you any indication of realistic use of the Firefly. End of story.

Grrrr!!! It seems to be unpossible to find his email or any other contact details. If someone here has them (even the address in the book would help, since it was privately published), can you please email it to me? Ta.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: 4th Bn SLI I think. He is a man who has given a lot of thought to infantry tactics based on his experience and has both written about it fairly extensively and lectured too. Great to see he is still going strong. Going by his book he was a cut above your average Plt sub and I would suggest his views hold a little more weight than your average veterans account, though of course still only one man's viewpoint. He recalls coming across Horrocks at one stage who remembered his name. Pretty good for a corps commander to remember one of his Plt commanders names. Might have to ask him about captured MG42s and SMGs as he goes on about it a fair bit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the info Simon. Maybe what Horrocks said was 'Oh you must be the guy who is still a platoon commander after the campaign - so who did you piss off to not get promoted with all those officer casualties' But seriously, he must have been extremely lucky. Maybe I should contact him directly for a copy of his book... Good way to find out his attitude towards Germans too

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by l3w53r: Thing is, this is a game, and somewhat hurriedly done at that.(I read somewhere that Big time was on a deadline)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What an astonishing insight! Why don't you enlighten us about the nature of your relationship with BTS, or your other qualification for making that statement are?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: [QBWhy is this controversial, anyway?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is not, except for you. Your numbers are not worth anything unless you look at the TO&E of the Commonwealth tank squadron. Every source I have goes with the 1 in 4. We are not talking Churchills and Cromwells here, but only Shermans. Unless you look at 7th Armoured, you will not find Cromwell/Firefly mixes. The Recce Rgts did not have Fireflies at first, AFAIK. The Tank Rgts never had Fireflies and never acquired them. Your numbers are meaningless, and you are wrong. You have to substract the tanks in Squadron, Battalion, and Brigade/Division HQ. You can not count Cromwells (except for those in the Armoured Brigade of 7th Armoured). You can not count Churchills.

tero - I think the comparison falls down when you argue that the German system was better, because it probably was not. Pre-war it was creaking due to the much too rapid expansion of the army (Masson, amongst others, in 'Die deutsche Armee' makes this point quite well). I doubt that my grandfather (conscript 1937-39) did get very good training, but I check with him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wisbech_lad: It got worse after you left Germanboy. Snow Milk managed to poison thousands by not bothering to clean anything. Not bright. Think I remember the Sakai school food case when I was there (95-97) Think they traced it to not washing salad that was watered with sewage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's what I remembered. Also, not bright to prepare salad at 5am in the Japanese summer and leave it unrefrigerated until it is served at 12.30pm... Were you on JET?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner: Hi Michael et al Yes I thought so too especially the 'spotting' issues raised. As a footnote S.Jary is still alive and kicking he was in fact on TV here in UK in a programme about Arnhem on BBC (part of Battlefields series with Dr Richard Holmes) I believe he still attends Normandy battlefield tours with Sandhurst cadets etc. Just no keeping a good man down Cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sgt. Steiner, good to hear the man is still around. Do you know which battalion he was in? Unfortunately I missed the Tuesday Battlefield programme.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wisbech_lad: Sakai? As in the town south of Osaka where they make some of the best kitchen knives in the world? Also some interesting imperial burial mounds?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also had one of the worst food poisoning incidents (e coli in school food due to criminal negligence - it was slightly amusing to watch the authorities trying to blame it on anyone but them) in recent Japanese history (unless it got worse after I left). Ryori no tetsujin the Japanese TV programme was atrocious, but this particular ryori no tetsujin is really a waste of space.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Germanboy:I am aware of their existence. But what was the ratio between territorials and totally untrained materiel in the British war time army ? They did make up a reserve but how long before the general populace was needed to be involved ? And how much of the pre-war trained materiel in the formations were lost early on ? Were there other than cadre and territorials in BEF 1939-40 for example ? What about the not-so-well performing units ? You are correct of course. I may have been a bit unclear with the terminology. The previously exempt in VG had still received basic training but they had been exmpted because of war economy needs or ill-health. As for the territorials: can you provide any numbers ? Were there enough of them to replace the losses in the standing army or could they be used to swell up the numbers alongside the standing army at the time of crisis ? And for how long before the untraine d materiel turned up at the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> tero - to be honest, I don't have a lot of answers to your questions. Just a few points. The territorial army was expanded in 1938/9, but that would not have been enough time to give them decent training. E.g. in the DCLI, there were 4 active battalions. One professional was wiped out in the desert, not due to its own fault. It was replaced by a territorial, one territorial was a security BN in the mediterranean, and one territorial entered Normandy with 43rd Wessex, 5th DCLI. Another BN did training of new men in the UK. East Riding Yeomanry (the Yeomanry was the auxiliary cavalry/tank/artillery force) on the other hand lost its first BN at Cassel, guarding the retreat from Dunkirk, and only ever had one more battalion, AFAIK. In general, I think most regiments had two active battalions, and these would provide the cadre to get the territorial battalions up to strength and training quickly. So the question you are asking is a bit like 'how long is a piece of string'? Menpower was not much of an issue, since a lot of men were rescued at Dunkirk. It really only became a problem about half-way through Normandy, and would stay a problem since. The whole issue is a bit more complex, because what the active/territorial/conscript system did was to ensure that there would be training cadres for conscripts. The problem may well have been more with the quality of the training than with the quantity of the instructors. AFAIK all soldiers went through the full training circle before going to the continent. What that was worth is anyone's guess. BTW - can someone shut down this iron buzz moron please? The noise to signla ration in here is deafening. Did you order that book on British Army Training? I got it yesterday, very interesting, and it seems to reinforce Anthony's point that the UK went into Normandy with no doctrine. Well worth reading. Regarding the VG divisions - a lot of these men were really specialised workers, in reasonably good condition (industrial/skilled workers would get extra rations, AFAIK).