Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: FOs came from the batteries... so the FO can only call fire for his battery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the Commonwealth, this may have been correct for mortars, but the field artillery (25-pdrs and up) was on a fire control system allowing each FOO to call for each gun in range, if he felt the target required this. There were three levels of bundling: MIKE - the Regiment (3 Batteries or 24 guns) UNCLE - the division (3 Regiments) VICTOR - all divisions in the Corps, plus attached AGRA guns. All this could be delivered extremely fast. MIKE targets were nothing unusual, as I understand it. UNCLE and VICTOR required either a desperate situation or a very juicy target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I sure hope BTS "officially" licensed that boxed product of their game. wondering.... -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes they did. A few of us native German speakers did the translations of the scenario briefings. Rodimzev, the licensing most likely has nothing to do with CMBB. It is just necessary to expand the market. Traffic on the German language CDV message board has increased a bit, and it looks like it is selling well. Many Germans either don't have credit cards, or don't trust an internet order. Few Germans speak English as well as I and some of the other Germans here on this board doo, so that is yet another barrier to ordering/participating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Feldgrau: If, based upon the pictures that I should be getting from Andreas (and they haven't arrived as of this morning...), I need to do an update I will follow up with a revision as quickly as possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Email me if you don't get them - I sent them last night, and the file was small (about 200k) - it has not bounced back to me - yet.

For the record, I have now discharged my duty and scanned and sent the pitchers. In the process I have also discovered a temporal distortion in my flat, between 'today' and 'today'...

I know that everything is bigger in the US, but 20m wide roadside ditches :eek: Really, in a lot of france to this day, and also in Germany, roads are alleys lined by trees. Also, most roads should not be metalled, but ordinary dirt roads.

Ethan - that made me smile. Thanks. I noticed you had to edit it. Too bad you are a pillock too then. I find the ****fight between OGSF and the other dork vaguely amusing. Some nice taunting, and the Scots brogue is just funny. Other than that, I could not give a flyin' monkey's about what you pisspoor taunters get up to. 2 out of 10 for effort. [not edited today because I am an Über-spelling German]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clubfoot: Hey! A kansas crack? Why I oughtta (mumble, mumble)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah I know, scraping the bottom of the barrel here, having to make cracks about Kansas...

Uh - yes. What Berli said. It is really extremely important that fields are broken up by little copses, hedges run irregularly, stonewalls criss-cross the countryside, roads turn and bend, orchards are surrounded by hedges/walls, wheat fields intersect with meadows, and what have you. I will post some pictures from Cornwall here later that give you a good impression as to what this looks like. Really, Europe has grown over 2,000 years. Cities are chaotic (with few exceptions, e.g. Mannheim), fields are not linear, everything is crooked. Avoid straight lines and vast open spaces, and you are alright. And Berli is spot on with the comment about 1:25,000 maps. By all means use them to do the elevations and place the copses/woods/villages/roads, but please please please use your imagination for everything else. If I see a scenario where 'historical' is a straight lift from a 1:25,000 map, it is a huge turn-off. BTW - the word historical is far overused when it comes to scenarios. I have had a look at a few now, and sometimes you really have to wonder... Remember, you are not in Kansas anymore.

Yeah, what Slappy said. Unless you have Swastikas and an Adolf poster on the wall, they will probably just think you are a nutcase. Try the ultimate joke on them, and that Monthy Python's episode with the nice Mr. Hilter in that B&B . If they think that was funny, you are safe. Then again, if they work in Luxembourg, they are probably financial types, who use pliers get into their trousers in the morning... (don't ask)

The two best websites are in my sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76: Yes, but this was several eye witness reports from German soldiers. Certainly the author MAY have replaced the type with just "SP gun" in the translation, but I think that is higly unlikly. These were quotes from diarys, interviews etc. Anyway, in the examples they used them to fight Russian armour (unknown which) and fire at infantery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Welcome to the wonderful world of translation My assumption would be that they are talking about Stugs and maybe Marders, depending on when this took place. Who did the translation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76: On the use of SP guns; I just read a book about Das Reich, and several times it was mention that they used SP guns (but not what type) on attack, this was in the early stages of the war on the Ostfront. Well, not of much use I guess since we don't know what this SP gun was...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the Commonwealth almost any non-turreted AFV with a gun was called an SP gun, and some with turrets too. Examples include but are not restricted to: M-10, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV, Sexton, Stug III, Archer, Bison, Grille. I have seen all of these referred to as SP guns.

The game is always biased against me when I lose. Even when I win I feel I have to make an extra effort to overcome the bias. And I am German, so your friend must be right I feel biased against. BTS has to fix it or somefink. Seriously though - does your friend play both sides or only Germans? Why does he feel it is biased, he could after all just be a crappy player?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I think the real difference is not who pays the bills, Andreas, I think its in what is meant to being achieved and how its achieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So the means are irrelevant? I can want to achieve a lot, but that does not mean that I have the means to achieve it. I am sure BTS would have loved to make the perfect game. As at least one of the simulation systems I mentioned was indeed developed on a shoestring by the CAF, I think your assuming all defence forces have oodles of money to burn. They don't.

They certainly come in faster.

Brian, what's the matter, can't handle someone questioning your opinions? I have not called your opinion arrogant, I have simply offered a bit of a different perspective. But you seem to have real problems with people questioning your views. Be that as it may. You do realise that funding availability is ever so slightly different for a company developing a product under contract with the military and two man in a garage? And that this may have a slight impact on the kind of project they can realistically undertake? And that maybe, just maybe, you are comparing Apples and Oranges? Just checking.

What can I say? I would like to thank my dad, my grand-dad, and all you wonderful people out there *sniff* (goes on for 25 minutes).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: I wonder if TRP really existed for Rockets...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It appears they did. Blackburn relates a case where a Nebelwerfer battery was found by the advancing Canadians, fully loaded and ready to fire. So the gunners who found them turned them around and fired them at the German lines. Almost immediately, the position was hit by a rocket barrage, killing about 20 and wounding a number more. The Germans had expected this to happen, had dialed in their old position and just waited for the curious Canadian gunners to pull the trigger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb] Where did I say that, Andreas? I have suggested that there are perhaps more than one way to skin a cat, thats all. BTS has demonstrated one way, thats all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If that is not what you meant, what is the point of outlining all the 'I would have this, I would have that' on the previous page? To me it is obvious that you assume that this would result in an improved game, i.e. would be a better approach than the one they took. Which is what you seem to say too, when you go on about CMBO being an 'advanced beta'. I also don't believe your approach is practical and would ever have resulted in any game, but I am sure you will disagree on that. The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating though. You may well believe that there are more ways to skin a cat than one - fact is that so far we have only seen one. BTS'. To me that suggests that maybe there are not as many ways to skin this particular cat as you may believe. From a project management point, I am certain your way as outlined on the previous page would never result in a finished product.

Well, I see with interest that you are convinced you can do a better job than BTS. Since that is so, why not develop the business plan, go to a bank, get yourself some funding, and do it? After all, that is what they did. You can always use the success of CMBO as an argument. I would certainly buy the game you describe, if it is well-researched, and even features a correctly modeled 25-pdr. Until you publish a working demo however, I am prepared to take BTS' approach of how to do things more serious than yours, simply on the back of them having brought out a product. As for ranks - the German ranks are also incorrect. This is because the game supports only one set of ranks, assuming that they are not that important for combat resolution.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Serious question. In the documented instances when the Germans used their Wespes or Hummels for direct fire support, were the circumstances always one of their rear areas being overrun and therefore these valuable arty assets were utilised as a last ditch defence? Or did the Germans have a more agressive doctrine with their self propelled arrtillery and allow then to be used from time to time in the direct fire support role? Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I don't know of documented cases (note - this is really all outside the desert), but I don't know much about the German doctrine either. I would be surprised if this was not frowned upon - certainly for the Flakartillerie there was an explicit statement against the use of heavy Flak (8,8cm) in the assault artillery role. Also, the only divisions with armoured SPA would be the panzer divisions. They would have an organic compliment of assault guns, which are better protected. The German TO&E included fully armoured SP 10,5cm (StuH42), partly armoured SP 15cm (Bison, Grille), so what would be the point of risking the Howitzers that were intended to be used as indirect artillery? How many examples are there?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: I have a question for those who know about organization of Western Allied forces: Were there any independent companies in either US or Commonwealth armies? By independent I mean here a company that doesn't belong to any batallion but is directly attached to a higher level HQ, either regimental or divisional. An example could be a regimental recon company. I would guess that a commander of such a company (or batallion) would be generally more independent than one commanding a regular company. However, even his independence would be limited and I've read of a case where a divisional HQ meddled with affairs of an independent batallion to the level of assigning attack directions to individual platoons. - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know about the US. In the Commonwealth infantry divisions, there was a Recce Rgt (battalion size) of armoured cars, some infantry, 6-pdr AT guns and 3" mortars. This would screen the advance, and perform flank guard duty in static situations. During the advance, it would be up to the initiative of the commander on the ground to decide how to proceed in the face of resistance. The Recce Corps was seen as an elite formation. Infantry battalions would normally have an independent carrier and recce platoon (Michael will no doubt correct me on this), and these were used more flexibly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Your example might have some relevance if he was: 1) Russian 2) An IL-2 Pilot 3) Still misidentified the plane. Since I know that he wasn't then it isn't. I also note with interest that you have previously raised as evidence for various things your conversations with your own grandfather in his area of expertise . Healthy scepticism of first hand accounts should include some consideration of the context and the source. Not all information is of equal value or weight and one can hardly equate the views of a panzerjager veteran on the russian airforce with those of a Bren gunner on Bren gun usage. Can one?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. You are totally right of course. The problem with Mulga whatsits is that he is going around the forum proclaiming that some people don't believe any vet account. While all a lot of people here say is that vet accounts by themselves are not really the bee's knees and just part of the evidence. Even more so when it is not the vet's area of expertise. In the case of me bringing my grandfather's experiences, I have always stated the source, to enable others to judge whether they give it credit or not. Vet accounts are an important and extremely valuable source of information. Having been trained as a qualitative researcher, I do know however how easy it is to cock things up in interviewing, and how high the standards for an oral account to become scientific evidence are. That is why the info from Ben's father is so important, and Mulga's trolling with regard to it so inappropriate. Clearly Ben's father knows what he was talking about, did that job himself, and could place it into context. Great stuff, and exactly what someone like Mulga will never be able to provide.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill: What "circular gun platform"? I can't see one on the graphic representation of the 25 Pdr in the game. Funny, it looks remarkably like the M101 105mm gun to me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shh - let me tell you something. It is a game. No really. The real gun had a circular gun platform. Honest.

Regarding the Sexton/25-pdr in DF mode - I can off the top of my head remember one case in NWE where this happened. That was after the rout of 7th AD following Villers-Bocage. I think it is the same one Simon mentioned. A field gun and its crew are far too valuable to be used as assault guns, and especially the crew is irreplacable. It would be a foolish commander who squanders his most important asset in that way. Normally, when you got the enemy's guns, you knew you had routed him. During the Marne battle 1914, the German general staff knew they had a problem because they did not capture enough guns, indicating to them that the French were conducting an orderly (sort of) withdrawal, and were not as beaten as the field commanders thought they were. (based on Tuchman, from memory)