Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Why the tank in your example did not blow them, I am not sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh but that one is easy - it was still on the vessel. I guess the last thing they would want is an AVRE shooting burning Fascine pieces all over a ship full of tanks, ammo, gasoline, that is under heavy fire by a German shore battery.

Here's another thought on the Fascines: If they were modelled, how would people think they should be reated in terms of inflammability? Reason I ask is Moulton's 'The battle for Antwerp', in which he describes the landing of the AVREs at Walcheren. The LTCs were badly shot up by the shore batteries, and one had to return with an AVRE with a burning Fascine set on board. Ouch. The account is of course proof of an attempt to use the Fascine in a CMBO type battle (the landing on Walcheren), but a failed one. So, question is how you treat that? If they are likely to start burning because of being fired at (presumably HE, maybe tracer MG), they may not be much use in an area where people fire at you - obviously. I promise I will go and look up more references later this week, when I have some more time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: It should be recognized, of course, that the British military in WWII felt in the position not to be very lenient to perceived "slackers" while engaged in a "war of survival." But the application of LMF (considering the earlier related BC survival rates) struck me as applied most ardently by RAF higher officers who themselves had virtually no prior experience or understanding of the hazards faced by BC crews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What really got me was that IIRC LMF was used as a stamp for those who had already done one tour. If it was applied only to someone who volunteered for BC but then did not make it through the first tour, it would be different. They were all volunteers after all, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: How about if you get rid of the star thingies since now troops will evacuate buildings when they think they are going to collapse? Then players can't take advantage of the intel of the building damage for "gamey" reasons? Another solution is to maybe only reveal building damage status to the player who is occupying the building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it depends on what is modeled here - but in my mind the building does not magically go from undamaged to collapse. If you fire at it, you will see it getting close to collapse, roof caving in (one star), some outer walls crumbling (second star)... In which case both players should get that info, since it would be very obvious. The problem Graves has is that he seems to believe the lack of a graphic representation of a gradual increase of damage in the building is relevant to what is happening in the engine. Buldings are death-traps. There is a reason that AFAIK German doctrine was to defend inside a town, and not really the outer buildings, while US doctrine was to defend outside a town, in the surroundings. I would be interested in an army that had a doctrine of defending the outer row of buildings that is in full view to the enemy, and was successful with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb]The result was, as you note that a great deal of the responsibility for actually leading the units in battle and ensuring momentum was maintained was down to the junior leaders, the SNCO's and Subaltans in particular, with the result that as they suffered disproportionately high casualty rates, their unit's morale and cohesion suffered as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another good example for this: in one of the 'new' divisions - 49th West Riding Infantry Division - 6th Battalion The Duke of Wellington Regiment was disbanded because it had an extremely high turn-over of officers, with the OC becoming casualties in quick succession during two or three days of combat in Normandy, pretty much the first battle after they landed. The men were so shaken that the assessment from the new OC was that the BN should either be disbanded or sent back to the UK for rebuilding. The men were sent back, the BN disbanded, and the Lieutenant-Colonel who wrote the assessment branded 'not a team-player' by Monty, IIRC. I would think his career was over.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Not necessarily to correct, tero, but instead to clarify in an off-topic way:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Middlebrook, at least in 'The Nuremberg Raid' has a treatment of the chances of survival, and the very shoddy way in which BC treated those who volunteered for another tour, but could not go through with it. IIRC - even those who did a first tour, but then could not complete a second were branded LMF (lack of moral fibre) - been a while that I read it. The book comes highly recommended by me. FWIW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Beyond the 7th AD, there were also the UK 50th & 51st ID's that had come up from earlier combat experience in the Desert/Med. (The 50th went ashore at Gold Beach on D-Day.) From those who've read up on these units, what are your impressions as to their own overall performances in the Normandy Campaign?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haven't read a lot on them - I seem to recall passing mention that it took 51st Highland a while to sort itself out. There were also 4th and 8th Armoured Brigades, which had served in Africa and Italy before.

Tero, I don't know the answer to your question about what happened to battle-field commissioned NCOs. I do believe that they stayed with the unit in most cases, but would be open to correction - I know that the South Alberta Regiment had a policy of 'growing its own' officers from the ranks, so it certainly was done. Due to the regimental system, I would expect them to stay on in the unit though. Regarding how they looked on the 'green' troops. There is an English expression that you should 'do your bit' - the desert vets believed that they had done their 'bit', and that it was somebody else's turn. I think morale was quite low, and there even was something close to a mutiny in one of the armoured regiments of 7th AD - not sure about that though. A bit like 1st ID in the US, who were not exactly thrilled at the prospect of invading France in the first wave. About the relationship with other units - I have never read anything about e.g. tankers being unhappy because they had to go into battle with green infantry or vice versa. What seems to have mattered more was how well they knew each other and could co-operate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochen Schmidt: Hi again! Thanks a lot for your answers. This book is about the sPzAbt. 502, who was sometimes under command of several Divisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you have a title or ISBN? Thanks in advance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GravesRegistration: My Great Uncle Lester sat through Many a barrage in 44/45 ! Sure he was clinicaly deaf... but he sat them through and survived the battles. But in CM, do to flimsy structures and AI panic from the dreaded "**" they are all casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hats off to your uncle - the question than is whether he and his squad went out to immediately fight, or whether a unit surviving in a cellar did just go out and fight immediately after the rubble settled? Casualties in CMBO include those who have dropped out of the fight for various reasons, and this can IMO include loss of cohesion. Just a thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Quite. However, having not read the book it is hard to envision the Desert Rats going soft all of a sudden prior to D-day while the 21st Panzer remained at its peak even when it had been rebuilt around the remains of the old illustrious formation. Unless of course the formations remained the same but the veteran troops were reassigned to other units. Which in turn did not happen according to the synopsis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think 'going soft' is probably the wrong expression. There were a number of factors here, but amongst them are that 7th AD had been in 'it' from the start in the desert, while they knew that many divisions were in England training for the whole four years. Also, they had seen what a German AP round could do numerous times, and the vets in the division had come through - but if you believe you have a finite amount of luck to spend, they could probably see the bottom of the barrel for that one. Another factor was that they had nice diesel-powered Shermans in Africa, courtesy of the US Govt. They left them there, and were not only given slab-sided, crappy Cromwells that ran on gasoline, but also told that this tank was the best thing since sliced bread, an insult to their intelligence and battle experience (and before the proponents of the idea that British tanks rocked get all in a huff and fluster - this is directly from a divisional history of 7th AD, and based on the assessment by people like Tout). The division was also badly led during the initial phase, something that was born out when the Brigadiers (I think it was both of them) and the GOC were replaced. Villers-Bocage was a direct consequence of loss of nerves on the part of the command. A veteran unit will only be as good as its leadership - particularly its junior leadership. Since there will be a high turnover amongst these (high casualty rates, survivors being promoted up the CoC) that means that there will be an element of wastage even if the division does not take large casualties in numbers. 11th AD seems to have come perilously close to being disbanded after Goodwood (at least that was what the officers were told) due to the high number of losses in junior leaders, although overall losses had been small, compared to e.g. 15th Scots in Epsom.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Good point Michael - I meant to put a caveat in about Blackburn being a gunner, not a sapper. Something to think about though: We often find fascinating in others work what they find mundane. What I mean is that a gunner observing the engineers doing something might be more likely to pick out and comment on unusual (or even commonplace) details that the sappers wouldn't feel worth noting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is indeed correct - nice point about anthropological research there Jon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Andreas, Maybe I didn't put enough of the quote in place - the actions overnight were the arranging of all the assault units, prior to the attack beginning at around midday on the 14th (after an unfortunate short-bombing incident).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jon, calling that an 'unfortunate short-bombing incident' is a great use of Commonwealth understatement... I dig out my sources on Tractable and 79th AD to see what I can find there when I have the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: My reading of this passage is that the fascines were (sometimes) placed side-by-side in order to span larger obstacles ("causeways").<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jon, I think the function was never in question. The employment on the CMBO battlefield was. Unfortunately when that was pointed out, instead of looking for evidence, the poster driven away decided to attack even me for being anti-British. *shrug* From the Blackburn quote, I would say it is pretty clear that it was not used under battle-conditions there - 'overnight' being the clue for me. As you say YMMV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty: Wind speed, humidity, presence or lack or fuel, etc., would be limiting or aggravating factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately there are very few controlled conditions in your typical NW-European forest. Since I have never been to a big North-American forest I can not really compare, but suffice to say that we don't get large forest fires here, at all. In cities, buildings have firewalls in between them when they are directly next to each other, or very often would be sufficiently far away from each other or have trees between them, that can delay spreading of fire. Due to the climatical situation, and the fact that NW-European forests are all managed, there is little fuel on the ground, and the ground itself is very moist. This is of course a bit different in Eastern Europe, depending on where you go.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Remember that fires in CM often start out VERY small (especially in CMBB). Oh... sometimes maybe 3mx3m. In a field or woods this could spread quite quickly if the weather was right. But like I said, the chance of fire spreading is rather small and it does take time in most cases. We can always tweak it to be slower if folks think it is too fast. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check with BH - he's a firefighter. But I would be really careful with this. Should depend on wind-speed (is that going to be modeled? Would be good re: smoke dispersion...) and general humidity. I don't know a first thing about the geography of the Soviet-Union, compared to NWE, but I would expect there to be differences between, say, Finland and the Steppe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I live in NWE (Germany). We have building standards? Have I missed something :confused: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Come and live in the UK if you think Germany is bad. The Building Regs here will reach the 1950s standard of Sweden next year. And that took a major fight with the house-builders, that was ultimately lost. But hey, they won the war and the latest footy game against Germany, so living in ****-accommodation won't matter

This maybe helpful: British Army Training book <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Synopsis from Amazon: Between 1940 and 1944, although large numbers of British troops battled around the littorals of the Mediterranean and Burma, most of the British Army bided its time at home. Between Dunkirk and D-Day, those troops lived in a grey area, neither fully at peace nor properly at war. While they trained under virtually peacetime conditions, their colleagues overseas were gaining up-to-date battle experience. The lessons from that experience should have made the troops who crossed the Channel in summer 1944 the most thoroughly prepared soldiers ever to go into their first battle. Sadly, the results in Normandy confounded any such expectations, as in battle after battle the combat effectiveness of British troops, particularly infantry and armour, proved weak. In this study, Timothy Harrison Place traces the reasons for the British Army's tactical weakness in Normandy to flaws in its training in Britain. The armour suffered from a failure fully to disseminate the lessons of experience in the Mediterranean theatres to troops training at home. Disagreements between General Montgomery and the War Office over basic doctrine for the employment of armour exacerbated matters. The infantry, meanwhile, failed to apply the lessons learned on the Western Front a generation before. They trained according to the habits of 1916, and, despite the efforts of some among their number, the British Army never fully recovered from that error. This book paints a picture of an untried British Army working hard to learn its trade. Oblivious to the fact that it was always one step behind the enemy, this was an army cruelly let down by poor direction from the top. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thermopylae: The primary complaint withlight stuff on fire as a barrier is the unrealistic result. The fire in real life would have a helluva good chance of spreading, especially in a crowded village with wooden buildings, untrimmed hedges and so forth...and by god you wouldn't want to be there when the fire spread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the course of a CMBO battle? I don't think so. Regardless of weather? Again, I don't think so. To do this right requires some sophisticated modelling - since it is 'Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord' and not 'Firefighter Mission - Beyond Backblast', I think that would be a bit much to expect. Since I can not see it from your profile - how many NWE towns and cities have you seen, and what do you know about building standards in these?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars: I need some new mods and some new scenarios or I'm going to die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So - what you mean to say is 'I played all the great scenarios at Der Kessel and I never reviewed a single one at the Scenario Depot'? Well shame on you Sire! How are we supposed to know what you like and how to improve our work? Go and hang your head in shame, or better yet, go and review some scenarios. [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tread Head: What about burning empty buildings?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Based on reading about the employment of Crocodiles of 79th UK AD in NWE, it is perfectly alright to go around and burn houses down at your leisure. Or Petard them. Or do all sorts of stuff with them - the houses were French, the troops Brits, and the ambulance-chasing lawyer did not have a predecessor in the Churchill-chasing attorney, who would immediately sue Trooper Bill for destruction of property and punitive damages. They did it all the time IRL, and it is a nice tactic to use. The problem with terrain is that IRL the fire would die down reasonably quickly, while in CMBO it stays for the duration, so (ab)using that in the game is using a game limitation to achieve an ahistorical result. I would therefore say that flaming terrain is not allowed - YMMV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tread Head: My good German friend, I do realize all of what you so smartly wrote. I guess you fail to understand the reason for the post. Not everyone agrees on what is "gamey". I would like to avoid a MID-GAME conflict. EX: Turn 14.... I know he has a MG in a light building near the middle of the map. I ever so secretly sneak my Sdkfz 7/2 up to a spot a good ways away but with a clear view of the house. I open fire, and before ya know it I have one pissed of PBEM email in my inbox. "that was the most "gamey" move, yata yata yata!" IMO, that is fine, hey if I had a 7/1 in the area Heck yes I would use it, and I think it is not at all "gamey", but my partner quits the game and leave me with a wased couple of weeks in a PBEM. Ya understand? Do ya sprekekin me Deutch? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I fully understand what you are on about - the point Seanachai was making in his usual langorous, pompous, and laboured way was that it should not read 'Not everyone agrees on what is "gamey".' but 'Nobody agrees on what is "gamey". ' In examples like the one you use above, I would say good-bye and good riddance to the other player, and try and find myself a grown-up to play with. Makes it legal, too I.e. in your example someone was POed because he got his butt kicked. Now I get the same angry feeling when it happens to me, but I don't go around yelling 'gamey' if someone has outsmarted me. But that is because the people I play like to preserve some semblance of historical troop usage. Choice of PBEM opponents is a real problem if you care about your reputation and fun. Now how long was a piece of string again?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tread Head: I am not sure if that is a cut-down or a compliment.... Do you speak English? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is his post in Suaheli? If you are worried about gamey playing and being accused of the same, just lay down the groudn-rules before starting the PBEM. Otherwise, find yourself a group of people who are interested in the historical simulation aspect, and play them repeatedly. If you don't mind a gamey game then just go to the ladders where anything goes. Or so I think. Some non-gamey opponents can be found in the Peng thread, but you will have to endure incapacility to write coherently (e.g. Seanachai) and the mad ramblings of a certain Joe, who claims to be a Shaw. Never mind the lawyers, who are revelling in the MBT as an ambulance chaser does in an ER. Where was I, ah yes. Gamey, shmamey... How long is a piece of string?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I have a notion in CM a Coy commander can assume command of orphaned infantry units only if the units are from the same company the HQ is from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That notion is wrong. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Even if any Coy HQ can take command of any infantry unit out of CC there are times when there either is no Company HQ or it is too far away to be of any use in the tactical situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In which case it is right that the unit should suffer the penalty for being out of command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Germanboy wrote: Sits in his cave under the Kyffhäuser (a mountain in the Harz range in central Germany) until such a time as the German people need him. I'd guess that he sometimes gets out to spend a night out with the other heroes biding their time to return to save their countries. Together with King Arthur, Väinämöinen, and the one Dane whose name I always forget but whose beard is growing through the table, they can have a nice evening of Bridge and beer. - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably chitchat about the suckers who relied on them, too. Artus 'Can you believe it, this Harold-guy?' Frederick Barbarossa 'Ludendorff cracked me up, the look on his face when he realised he got shafted...'