Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: As I said, I'm seeking is for me to tell my troops not to fire. I would be more than willing to accept a chance that my order will be disobeyed but I'd still like to tell them to not fire, if I so desire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you tried the ambush function Vanir talks about? That should work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: You may be the best CM player in history but you are absolutely deluding yourself if you believe you could actually command a Bn in Combat based on that fact alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *shred* (sound of application to be a BN commander in the Highland Light Infantry being torn up) Damn, and after the last PBEM I thought I would be able to...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Office calculations that assume no one shoots at over 2000m could also be far different from what tankers actually practiced, especially if the tank crew had good luck at long range shooting, felt confident and there was a real benefit to getting kills at that range compared to the expected ammo expenditure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is exactly my point about the usefulness of training material in this sort of debate. It is certainly not pointless to use it, but IMO on its own it makes for pretty weak evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: I'm south of the Watford Gap (Tunbridge Wells, Kent). But I'm also busy tonight - I have a full social life, you see (coff choke)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ewwww, Tunbridge... Ewwww, Kent... What kind of social 'life' is that? Meeting of the Conservative Club, trying to chat up 65-year old ladies with blue-rinsed hair and views on civil liberties that would make Stalin look like a model-democrat?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: Dammit. Don't you guys give us provincials any warning now, will you? Let me know next time there's a meeting please, cos I'll be there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look, just because you Provincials can not cope with 24 hour warnings does not mean that we have to make up for it by submitting an annual schedule beforehand - so there. If you are north of the Watford Gap, may I inquire how you get to a computer? Last time I checked they did not have electricity there. How's Dick Turpin? Now, this was a small socialite get-together where just some of us were to meet over a pint and make fun of Peter, as we usually do. By my grace and tolerance, the invitation was extended to more people, on short notice. A test of mental flexibility that you clearly failed. Anyways - I will make sure that the next one is properly arranged and that you get an invitation on hand-made paper, signed by HRH Brenda. How's that? [Health warning] The poster of the words above spend too much time in the Peng Thread. No smilies were harmed in the making of this post, although post-mortal mutilation of various smilies can not be ruled out.[/Health Warning]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: (How I became a Finn, I don't know!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To quote Garfield the cat: Osmosis is a wonderful thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tools4fools: Great! With the same accurancy and the same ROF? I will buy this 14" gun immediately <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it is Moulton who quotes British operational research of naval gun performance during Normandy that showed that 2.9% of 15" rounds landed in a 1 Acre (100mx100m?) area around the indicated targets. This was considered very good performance, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill: This is a problem caused more by his never having served in the military (by his own admission I believe in another thread) and his inability to counterance any other viewpoint but his own, based as it usually is upon viewing history through what appears to be in the case of those who have served, a distorted lense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bollocks. So only if you served are you allowed to think about this? Here's news for you - I have been commanded by men in the German military for whom breathing was a mental challenge, let alone think about how anything above section level operates. Having served does not give you a higher IQ or deeper understanding than that of someone who has studied the topics in question. You probably believe that Jack Ryan is a real person too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Justin5471: See all you chaps this evening. Andreas - will ring you early evening to confirm (apologies - gone to work and left your number at home. Still 20.30 this evening? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: It's a bit ironic that fire discipline is bantered around here, but "fire discipline" in terms of submitting posts is starting to fail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: Have you lds settled on place? If it's the Elbow room let me know so I can send a round or 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be next time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: Hey Louie, Seanachai, Dalem, Shandorf, and Deke Fenkle live in your area. Set up a meeting. It's fun. I also found there are lurkers who may join you. Jake<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ewww, lurkers... Yikes. Almost as bad as... Newbies... Yada! I feel all soiled now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: To Germanboy - I certainly mean #2, that the scale of differences actually present between WW II armor fleets did not have any significant strategic impact, and the few cases where it influenced operations that influence was minor and never decisive. Which certainly does not mean 1918 "Mothers" are as good a M-1 Abrams, or any other such straw man. It is a point about what mattered at the operational scale and up in WW II, and about why armor tech specs (in grog gun and armor terms) was not decisive in any operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, I think this has a lot going for as a thesis. The point about confidence in your weaponry as raised by Michael though is quite important. I am just reading another account in which it is claimed that the 2-pdr AT gun of the BEF was useless (source is a vet of the BEF). This is in fact not true. AFAIK the 2-pdr was perfectly capable of defeating anything the Germans could field in 1940. But the British soldiers did not trust the weapon to do that, and never did so in the desert as well, AFAIK. The same goes for the 7th AD being sent out in Cromwells. There could well be an unquantifiable element there. But on the whole I think I would agree with your thesis.

Since the other thread has degenerated completely now... Engineers really don't have the role you describe in CM now, because of the 20x20m tile system, the absence of trenches/AT ditches etc. A lot of the work of engineers was done once the battle moved on (removing road-blocks, mine-fields). They currently perform the following role: - removing minefields - use their inherent weaponry (demo charges) to assist bunker destruction Curiously enough, the only real obstacles in CMBO are minefields and bunkers. So you could argue (and I do) that there is a good match between the capabilities of the defender to establish obstacles and the attacker to defeat them. Adding e.g. Fascines or S.B.G. Bridges would be pointless, because they would have no role on the CMBO battlefield. Wire emplacements are different - every one can ove through them, albeit more slowly, and that is an abstraction of wire cutting. While IRL the specialised vehicles of 79th AD were used in a variety of roles to defeat a variety of defensive obstacles, again in CMBO the two vehicles that are still useful in the absence of real obstacles are the Crocodile and the GP-AVRE, and both are in fact modeled, although the Petard does not appear to be modeled correctly, but that is a different question. When asking for specialised modeling of anything, be it air-power, engineering, or beach landings, the question has to be whether the resources used to model this are well used, and whether they could not be more gainfully employed elsewhere. Economists know this as the problem of opportunity cost (Economics 101). Creating a realistic CMBO model of engineering combat has very high opportunity costs. Is it worth doing it anyway? BTS has answered this question a few times with a resounding 'No'. Maybe if you start a successful campaign of organising people to send in blank, undated cheques for the new version of engineering combat 'Fascine Mission: Beyond the Latrine Ditch', you will convince them that the engineering battle holds promise in the market place. I would not hold my breath.

Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? Battalion level ambushes, based on something the Aussies did in Malaya (once? in the 1950s?) - come on. There are accounts of Finns using logs to disable T-26s. Can BTS please bring out a patch that gives me at least one log on a platoon level to disable light tanks? The game must be broken. Disregarding the nationalistic slurs that have started flying here again, I would venture to guess that the failure to carry out an ambush in CM in a reasonably realistic fashion is due to a major PEBKAS interface failure (problem exists between keyboard and seat). IOW - the player is incompetent. Regardless of nationality. Jesus Christ on a crutch.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: <LI>Penetration statistics for both the 88L56 and 88L71 obviously do not drop to zero at 2000meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course not. The training drawings for the gunners that I have seen do though. You probably know the ones that have black for the vulnerable areas and indicate the distance to which the armour can be defeated for various types of shell. In Piekalkiewicz he has a print of these for T-34, KW-2, Churchill, Sherman etc. and they never go beyond 2,000m. I post this here tomorrow. I am perfectly aware that the Tigerfibel was an official document. I am however also perfectly aware of some of the comments I have read about training in the German army during the war and its relationship to reality. Just because it is in the Tigerfibel does not mean it is the Ultimate Truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: wow, this is starting to get real solipsistic. You all, this board and everyting are just an imagination, a projection of my mind. what a trip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If that is the case, shouldn't I be able to just wish away the nasty people? Sophistry, like Catholicism, has a lot going for it, you know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: FYI. I was at the Washington meeting the whole time, and I never saw a gentleman there. Good luck and have a great time! Jake<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tomorrow - no lawyers, solicitors, or other forms of loafers please.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holien: [QB]Hmmm I think I am going to regret this... Bugger... This weekend would be good if we can find a bar with a large TV and my G/F can come and watch the game while we talk small games. LOL She will enjoy that... Not. I have just checked kick off which is miday mark so I can make it down in the evening or afternoon depending on how I sell it to my beloved. :eek: H <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> England - Greece? Anyways - I see what/if I can arrange somefink.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holien: Come on guys do a Friday or a Saturday so us provincal lads can get in on the act. Banbury / Oxford is not far away and I would make the run on a night where I don't have to go to work the next day. Even if I had to drink Pop all night, that or pull a few strings with some of my Hounslow / Maidenhead friends. Anyway have a good night. H<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, try this weekend. I'll see what I can do to rouse the rabble. Only if we talk about the importance of replayability in small scenarios though

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Justin5471: But gentlemen, where is the George? Give me a street and I'll be there a little later, say 20.00 :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is off Borough High Street. When you come out of the Borough High Street East Exit, you turn left (opposite direction to Tower Bridge) and after about 150-200 Yards there is the george in a backyard to your left. I send you an email in a few minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: aaanyways, the Fibel in all the scetions on aiming, shooting, engaging enemy tanks seems to see 2000m as regular engagement range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it also suggests that you can not miss at 1,200m. Did Bobby Woll not set his sights to 800m? The manual on what the 8,8cm Flak 18/36 can actually achieve is frontal kills out to 1,500 (turret) and side armour out to 2,000m. It never goes beyond that, and 2,000 is not the regular but the maximum range that is indicated in the penetration drawings (or whatever you want to call them). Having said that, for AT guns it makes more sense to wait than for tanks, since then you have a chance to destroy the enemy, instead of just scaring him and inviting artillery on your position. A tank can relocate much easier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: Bah! I resent the idea that the stinky Yanks came up with this idea first. As far as I know the first CM meeting was me and the Germangirl when we watched the Brits loose to Portugal(?) in Euro2000. From there Chupacabra and others joined us in London drunking sessions. We are the first ok! PeterNZ ps. We already have pictures up<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While Peter is no doubt despiccable, and has a memory that would make a braindead monkey proud (it was Romania - who can ever forget that two-left-feet-moron Neville causing the English to lose), his presence should not keep anyone from attending. We feed him peanuts, and he is allowed to get us drinks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Justin5471: Inspired by the Washington DC gentleman's night out, are there sufficient CMBO players around in London, UK, for a similar event to take place? I'm only mooting the idea since there do seem to a few of us chaps around, although I don't know where we all live. Me, I'm in London so I'll happily buy a round if we can scrape together enough blokes. Let me know - I'll be the chap in the Bobby's Battle Bowler! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tomorrow night, 1900, The George pub near London Bridge. Email me for directions. There are a few of us going, and I was going to post this in about five minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Eep. 100 percent correct, of course. Hey, if I tell the girls at the hospital cafeteria that I am a scientist, think it will get me anywhere? It's a little more honest than wearing that stethoscope and hoping they think I'm a doctor...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean? Simply being in uniform doesn't get you laid these days? Good thing I did not sign up for longer then... Coming back to the topic though - I think tero is making some good arguments here. It is a bit unclear to me what you are trying to say Jason. What is the single thesis? It seems to be a mix of: 1. Armour specs don't matter. (Which I would disagree with) or 2. Armour specs in WW2 did not matter, and the battle was decided elsewhere. (Which as a thesis has a lot going for it) [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]