Andreas

What do you mean? It's not real? Say it isn't so!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: In particular I would like to see the devises used by the US army. M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry mate - can be of no help there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: On a related note... Where are the smoke grenade launchers mounted on the US Shermans? I looked through my books and in the 40-50 shots I could only see one vehicle (British) mounting visible launchers. Most shots in the hardware books are factory vehicles of course but not even on the combat shots are the launchers readily discernible, if they are indeed there. I don't know to what extent they where actually mounted, my main argument against the representation in CM is still one based on feeling and the reasoning presented above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll post a picture of some South Alberta Rgt. Shermans with clearly visible launcher tonight. It was mounted above the main gun, at the mantlet. There are about 8 or 10 rounds in the mortar, at least. There is also a para on how they were used. I will have a dig through my other books looking for them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: I had to close in to just above 600 meters to get the first shot hits that the incessant (and definitely unrealistic) smoke throwing of the Shermans require.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why do you think that is unrealistic?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: German Boy My father was in armoured cars. I suppose that makes me lucky to have had that particular dad, or come to that, lucky to be who I am :confused: He hardly said anything about the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just found the passage in the 7th AD history stating the losses of the AC drivers of 11th Hussars (the AC Rgt. of 7th AD) - 54 KIA drivers from Normandy to the Elbe. My grandfather only talks about the war now, and only to me. He never talked to his sons about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This was a suggestion I made earlier, and I think it is a good one. One question I have about mine rollers and flails was were they ever attached to smaller echelon sunits for use if and when small minefields were encountered, the way Avre could be attached to a company or battalion of infantry as a support asset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the smallest unit they were parcelled into was the troop, which I think was either three or four flails and one flail command tank (I'll check that). By comparison, Crocodiles had the half-troop as smallest unit, IIRC, because anything more than two of them might border on over-kill for many engagements, and because a lot of them were desired all over the front to roast those pesky Germans. I also think that flails were really only used in the set-piece battle, and to clear rear-areas. I would have to check, but I would be surprised if there were many (any?) cases of them just trundling along on the off-chance that there would be a mine-field. There were still the flat-feet sappers to deal with those minefields. They were really not the best tank for movement, since they were not only overweight/underpowered, but also very front-heavy (there's a surprise). Another ingenious mine-clearing device was the Conger, which I think was just a flexible pipe filled with Nitroglycerine, laid across the suspected minefield and detonated. There was an accident when refilling a container once that wiped out an AVRE troop, IIRC. (working from memory here, because I am too lazy to go and dig out the extremely badly referenced books I have dealing with this)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: Just to add my one pennyworth, My Father, who served in recce, (4th County of London Yeomanry) in Normandy told me the that the house (bingo) call at that time for the number 88 was: "88 driver reverse" :eek: :eek: :eek: He had an absolute dread of the bloody things!!! Regards, Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Smart father you have. Stuart or AC? 4th CLY was in the 7th AD, right? Has he ever mentioned anything about the 'reputational' challenge the division faced in Normandy? I have a picture here of a Stuart of the South Alberta's that was just bowled over by an 8,8. Poor sods.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: About the spotting - nice idea, but unavailable in QBs, and Tigers are a little bit more expensive then a gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't give a flying monkey's about QBs. Scenarios are the way to go

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Germanboy, do you know how a computer or a program works? ALL comes down to math as long as we are talking about computers. Don't believe any longer that there are little electronic people like in the movie 'Tron' .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is, of course, a boundary issue. Regarding spotting of guns, it is down to the Borg problem. If you have a scenario where you need the German guns to survive for reasons of historical simulation, use dug-in Tigers and padlock them.

The Bailey bridge appeared because of convoluted thinking on the part of the late member calling himself Kim B. or Steve N.J. Some of his comments made me think he had gone off the track completely, because instead of furthering his case for fascines he started rambling about bridges in battle, yada yada, without ever making clear what he was talking about. Never mind that, and forget about Bailey bridges. Nobody who has not been banned already even thinks they should be included as deploy in-battle equipment. Right? Right! Now, should we return to the issue of Fascines, mine-rollers, congers and various other stuff that the pyromanically challenged otherwise known as the Royal Engineers came up with and seem to have used in the scope of what we know as a CM battle? So, let's take mine-rollers. Some of my reading makes me think that really they were used a bit differently than some people may imagine. In Totalize they flailed ahead, alright, but only on the march, not in the actual battle, IIRC. But in Astonia (Le Havre) they flailed on their own, with infantry and tanks waiting in the rear until the lanes were clear. Since they flail at 1.6 mph, it is again doubtful if that is in the CM battle. One way to simulate this without having to wait 25 mins to see whether your mine-rollers actually managed to clear would be to use some points at the purchasing stage for the engineer battle. Say you have an assault - so for, say, 250 points, you can buy four lanes through the minefields that will be 'taped' somehow. I know, not as exciting as watching paint dry, or flails flail, but might be workable, and sort of realistic (oh no! - the 'r' word again ) Seems BTS is going that way with the pre-battle barrage. Why not with some aspects of the engineering battle? Thoughts, refutations, sea-stories?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Hence, hiding and foxholes were avoided and both sides put into the open, to ensure that both had the same chances to see each other, so that only pure accuracy would count. Again, the issue raised here in this thread is accuracy as far as I am concerned, not hiding the AT guns etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it is very difficult to divide the issue of deployment in the field from the isue of accuracy. In a good defensive position, the Germans would have checked ranges on the field, fixed the gun to the ground and what have you, all affecting first-hit probability. But then they would also have the great equipment on the gun, e.g. really 'upper-class' dials, compared to the Pak40, and that is an inherent feature regardless of deployment - these dials are effective even when firing from the Sonderanhaenger. But on balance I would think that when it comes to vets talking about it, you can not take their quotes about how the gun was used in the field and divorce it from the field environment of digging in, pre-ranging etc.pp. So the question is, what does Cory base his assumption of the great accuracy on? BTW - great sig.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty: Ah, so NWE is out of control? I thought so. So the grass that is the predominant terrain tile never dries out? Then perhaps BTS should have modeled a "mud" terrain tile. The leaves never fall in the deciduous woods? And all the trees in between buildings in the towns are coniferous? Since I never have been to NWE, I will take your word for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What on earth are you going on about?

Another great service from you. Thanks a lot Big Dog!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: With warm mushy regards, I remain, MAD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed you do. Now here is a good one - the German Military Secret Service (a hopeless bunch of wastes of space) is called Militaerischer Abschirmdienst - abbreviated MAD. Mushy peas - looks like it was eaten before by somebody else. Yikes. I had forgotten about 'sewer trout', but it is an apt name for it. The funny thing is that the English soldiers complained about the quality of German food they captured. Makes you wonder how bad that must have been. What was this thread about? Ah yes, ****ty Allied tanks. Well, add ****ty Allied breakfasts, and you wonder how they ever won the war. I am certain the German Sonderbreakfast 1299 was far superior to any breakfast the Allies could field.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: Even in Evil America where we heap scorn on all things Commonwealth (from bolt action rifles to bridge building tanks) there are a few among us who wolf down kippers. Yea verily. And mightily do we soak them in HP sauce as well. Did you get my email, Andreas???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kippers, Spotted Dick, now the only thing we need are Bangers and Mash and that cabbage/potato concoction whose name escapes me, and we are firmly in the centre of the desaster zone that is English Cuisine. Got the mail Terence, just been busy. Will reply tomorrow.

It does not really all come down to math. There is a difference between the 8,8cm gun in a tank and as an AA gun. The difference is the training of the crew, and the spotting, which AFAIK would be done through stereoscopic range-finders on the AA gun, while the tanks did not have that particular equipment. Regarding whether the tank should hit first shot at 1,000m - IIRC there was an excerpt from German gunnery school posted here that called for 1 hit out of three shots @ 1,200m, which makes this rather unlikely to me. Regarding hitting when close - it is my understanding that there is such a thing as too close, when your optics (which often were set a a certain distance, I have heard 800m as something of a 'standard') are becoming a problem. I do not however know when 'close' becomes 'too close'. So really it is quite important to be clear about what is being discussed here. For the tanks, there have been lengthy discussions, and to my recollection there was no consensus at the end. For the AA gun, this was not really discussed at all so far. Still holding out for DF airbursts from the 8,8cm. A man can hope

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Yom Kipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why did Yom make war on Kippers? Did he not believe in a hearty breakfast? They are good for you! He must be an evil agent of the Kellogs Foundation... Hmmm, Caster Kippers...

Grego, all that Mace said, and then the question of what an ATR can do to your tracks, and how useful is an Elefant when it has a broken track? My initial thought would be - not very...

Great stuff ciks! The Bidermann book is well worth the money, and even better if you can borrow it from Peter_NZer. The regiments in his division were IR 436 and 437 in the Festung Kurland.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager: I am looking forward to all those threads thatchange from "How was my Panther was knocked out at 300m" to "How come my T-34s blow up at 3500m when hit by an 88mm armed Ferdinand" Regards Måkjager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I am not looking forward to those going 'How come my Ferdinand was knocked out at 500m by an AT Rifle - fix or do somefink!'

Bump baby, bump...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: no it is not irrelevant since it makes your explanation questionable some guy who went elsewhere to pick Gänseblümchen might be incap for game purposes, but he is *not* a casualty after the battle, neither wounded nor dead, to the contrary, he shows up healthy&happy, smiling and with a bouquet of daisies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nonono - but it is irrelevant, because otherwise my explanation won't make sense But really - from what I understand the end-of-game screen is an abstraction, and there should probably be a fourth category of MIA (the guys von Mellenthin talks about as showing up at the Field Kitchen sometime later).

Okay, I have finally retrieved my copy of 'Churchill's secret weapons', which in fairness is not the be-all and end-all to the 79th History by any means. There are references (casual flicking brought two to light) of fascines and bridges being deployed under fire, but it is never clear what kind of fire that was. In one of the excerpts it is clear that the site was previously surveyed, but was still under fire. In another, an SPG (Stug?) roamed the opposite side of the obstacle. So, another step on bringing the evidence to light - regarding significance though, I would still say that flails are the most important addition in terms of the missing pioneer/engineer additions. By a considerable margin. Astonia BTW does not seem to have been an operation where fascines were deployed under fire. The picture you talked about - does it have some flatfeet prone in the left foreground, and a row of three or four tanks, one an AVRE w/bridge in the background?

Scipio, I think what Doug is trying to say is that currently you get exactly what you are asking for when the counter says '5 men okay - 4 men casualties'. That could break down in one KIA, one WIA, one lying prone praying the Vater Unser, and the last one off to pick some of those nice yellow flowers yonder. When the whole squad breaks (which can happen with no or almost no casualties) it just means they all decide together that they have an urgent appointment elsewhere. So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: LOL...oh yes, you won't have that problem of gun hits with an PzIV... But then again, you will have the problem of immediately losing your Pz IV when exposing it to fresh air or direct sunlight <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not if you use new Vickers non-bio 2pdr AT tablets you won't.