Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: I would also ask people to remember that things are not always what they seem on the internet. Other than the posters comments we have no way to be sure that he is indeed whom he claims to be (especially considering he has given us no email address), so lets not draw any conclusions on the books mentioned above too quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you mean to tell me that the guy who registered as the Ozzie PM might not be him? Shurely not! Who would do such a thing???

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cauldron: HOW do you have forces enter from different map edges?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? How about placing the reinforcement marker to where you want them to enter from? That's how I do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: An old joke: When the West Germans beat the English in a World Cup tie a German spectator turned to an English one and said "Ve haf beeten you at your own game !". The reply was a droll "That's all right old chap. We have beaten you at yours twice...."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yawn - old indeed. Funnily enough, that's what my English co-workers told me after the game last year, it is what they are going to tell me on Monday...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: The 70lb weight limit for man-packing has been around for a while. The Romans, IIRC, were the first to formalise it, and the practicality of that limit has been shown time and again in the 2 Millenia since. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You recall correctly. Not sure about formalise (AFAIK few documents from Roman military admin are extant - I know only of the fragments found in Corbridge, near Hexham on Hadrian's Wall), but when the specialised archeologists doing that kind of stuff started rebuilding Roman armour, weapons, and packing weights on backs and all that, they ended up with somewhere around 70lbs. I think I read that years and years ago in a book on the Imperial Roman Army, when I should have studied for a Japanese test - God, the kind of stuff you remember...

Michael, great post, although I don't agree with all in it. Really I think, that one way of 'knowing' the past is to study it. Use plenty of sources, and you eventually understand it better. In this particular case - how many tanker histories have you read where the tankers said they withdrew to laager at night? 9th RTR, I am sure Tout mentions it too, Keith Jones, and others. How many have you read where the infantry explicity says that they were grateful for the tanks from a particular regiment staying with them since the other regiments did not do that? What was SOP? All these questions can be answered to some degree, and I have answered them for myself. This does not mean that I have answered them correctly, or that we will ever get to the bottom of 'The Truth™' (you could argue that there is no such thing as truth anyway, if you feel so inclined), but we can develop a reasonable certainty (for want of a better expression) about an historical event. The best we can ever do. Research always includes drawing on what has been written before, and using it to arrive at either new questions, or new answers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Andrew - I am glad someone was able to grasp what I was talking about. Thanks very much for the clear and concise answer, I will have to look into that. I have enjoyed much of Keegan's stuff in the past, and have heard of the one you mention but never got around to tracking it down. Thanks again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, I did grasp what you are on about - I am just puzzled at you raising your point in relation to the regimental history of the South Albertas, which was only written in the late 1990s, unlike the other regimental histories you allude to. I found what you were saying quite correct e.g. WRT Stacey's 'History of the Canadian Army 1939-1945', and also for a lot of Patrick Delaforce's works on UK divisions (provocatively speaking: if the divisions all were that great, why did it take them 11 months to defeat the Germans, and why did they need the Red Army to do the bulk of the work?). There certainly is a tendency to gloss over failures in command and performance. I found the South Alberta history decidedly not tending to do so. On the contrary, it struck me as very frank, reasonably balanced in its assessment, and leaving you as the reader to make up your own mind. As the reader, you will always have to make a judgement on whether the portrayal of something as qualitative as the performance of a unit in war is 'correct' or not. That is something that different readers will have different opinions about. Looks like this is the case with our opinions on the SAR?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: Glad it got there. Yahoo! mail ain't what it used to be. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check your mailbox, some suggestions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I have also submitted one to mensch, but he has not yet got back to me. I am starting to think about tweaking it a bit more. . . WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sits right next to Clubhouse's battles.

Clubfoot - they are sitting on my HD. We did get them, and grego threw them about. Problem is this work-thing... My boss honestly seems to expect me to do stuff for my salary. Disgraceful. I will give them a spin on the weekend, right after celebrating Englands demise at Germany's hands (yet again).

Anything for a fellow Macuser There are a few that are undergoing final testing at the moment. I expect to have somefink early next week at the latest. One that is specifically designed for fighting the AI is ready (PBEM currently being tested), but Grego does not seem to want to put it up Problem is, we are really quite committed to the idea of testing our stuff well before releasing it. It is faster with the small ones, but still, getting through 20 turns or so via PBEM can take a while. I'll ask Grego to put the one up. Maybe he has one too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Feldgrau: P.S.- this should be completed this week some time, and then I will send it to Manx to be posted (if he so feels inclined). Also, it might also be at Michael Dorosh's site/s if he desires....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So where is it? (note: the preceding is a weak attempt to disguise a BUMP for this beauty)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: This scenario is great for PBEM! It's probably the best urban fight I've played so far. You can get it at Der Kessel. Don't waste it on the AI. Thanks, Germanboy!! Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks a lot for the accolades - the original map design was from Berli, BTW. I just fiddled around the edges and put the rubble and burning houses in. He deserves at least equal praise for coming up with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Yes, but the 1917 tripod was heavier than the MG42s (24 kg vs. 20.5 kg), so I guess it was the most stable of the bunch (along with the Vickers) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> err, according to the data he posted, the whole 1917 with tripod weighed 24kg. The lafette for the HMG42 alon weighed in at 20.5kg, and then you have to add the weight of the MG, 10.6kg. Total of 31.1kg, vs. 24kg. At least that's how I understand it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenfive2: Bring on the city fights!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shameless plug to follow: Try my 'To the last man' from Der Kessel - if you don't like scenario authors recommending their own stuff, try David Aitken's city-fight scenarios

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Of course, having such an excellent regimental history written for them doesn't hurt either, eh? Perhaps if other regiments had books as good as SOUTH ALBERTAS AT WAR written about them, amateur historians like us might be more sympathetic towards them? The more you know someone, the harder it is to hate them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well yes - then again, the point about not withdrawing was apparently made by an infantry man in direct comparison to the tankers from the other regiments in 4th Armoured. So maybe they just were a lot better. Tank tracks is another good history, by the OC 9th RTR about his regiment, IIRC. But even so it did not leave me with the same feeling about the quality of the unit. Maybe it is not written as well (okay, that is certain), but it could also just be that they weren't as good in cooperating with the infantry? Difficult to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Which is the difference between 2 out of 3 of your branches being defeated and the overall attack failing in consequence, and using just the right tool on every tactical obstacle in front of you and so succeeding. Did every captain, major, colonel, and brigadier in the UK forces understand that distinction in June of 1944? I rather think not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The impression I get is that the junior officers understood it much better than the senior commanders - the old 'Lions led by donkeys' comes to mind. If the tankers and the infantry got to practice co-operation, they did wonders. E.g. South Alberta Regiment and 10 Brigade in 4th Canadian Armoured, or (later in the war) 8th Armoured Brigade and 43rd Wessex. The South Albertas were respected by their 'flatfooted friends' because they stayed with them at night, not withdrawing to laager, and they were upfront with them all the time. They also had a good ratio, of one Squadron (company) tanks to one infantry battalion. The fact that the South Albertas were a fully trained infantry battalion helped, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: I am well aware the Brits sometimes led with the infantry, as they did for instance in Epsom. The failure there, as I thought I explained rather clearly, was due to the armor odds they faced after the German reaction. I still can detect what I'd call "cavalry thinking" in their usual employment of armor, and I am hardly the only one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure if it was Cavalry thinking, or plain incompetence. It is also a TO&E issue, since British armoured divisions were tank heavy formations - there just was not a lot of infantry in them, compared to a German Panzerdivision. 260 medium tanks and four battalions of infantry. In the German division, it was about 120 tanks IIRC, and five battalions of infantry (including the Pioneer battalion). It is interesting to read the comments on the battle, by von Luck, Dempsey and the OC A Squadron 3rd RTR, Bill Close (all in Delaforce's history of 11th AD). The German defender and the British low-ranking commander agree that it really was lacking (Bill Close calls it a 'shambles'). Dempsey comes up with the story that losses were avoided, and he has a point too. 11th AD lost 191 tanks. Total KIA in the division were 210, total casualties 735. An example how 'cheap' it was to use armour - 2nd Northants Yeo was to all intents and purposes destroyed. It lost 53 out of 64 or so tanks. It had 25 KIA. An infantry battalion in that situation might have had 100 or more KIA. Tank losses were also not as bad as one might imagine, since the British held the battlefield, they recovered their tanks, except for brew-ups. But yes, the British command did not exactly put in a stellar performance there.

Nice one. This will remove the current mod from my HD in no time at all. Feldgrau, let me know if you need pictures of markings, I have a history of 9th RTR with some good pictures. Great work.

The only thing I would add is that if you look at it along a time-line, it seems as if (in very general terms) the Germans threw all their tanks at the Commonwealth when they were strong (up to mid-July, say), and all their tanks at the US when they were desperate. Which changes the picture quite a bit. Also, the ground over which the attack for GOODWOOD went was good for tanks and AT alike, and during the two day offensive, only one UK armoured division (11th) got decisively involved (and clobbered, with the loss of 191 of its 264 tanks, losses so bad in terms of leaders that it was close to being disbanded immediately afterwards, according to Delaforce), while Guards came a bit late to the party, and 7th AD managed to never arrive at all somehow. Traffic jam like a London rush hour. Don't know what the situation was for COBRA. Having said all that, some of the Commonwealth leadership was appalling, as can be seen by the number of commanding officers relieved of their duty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YK2: I suddenly got a bad taste in my mouth, this could have been the start of a really great thread, but some people just wont let things go........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Emma, don't be bitter, Stuka just does not know any better. No need to get upset with him. I am sure if someone bothered to explain to him the error of his ways, even he would understand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YK2: So that was why we had to wait all bloody afternoon for the next PENG CHALLENGE thread, Hakko was busy planning his entrance, and to top that, Germanboy is the first to follow him in, Welcome Home to both of you, What took you so bloody long? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's called a 'Flying Visit' though. Once the low-life shows up (I estimate appr. 5 mins) I am gone - only took the opportunity to be the first one in (I am sure it will keep some people busy for 300 posts to make jokes about that). Bye bye.

You had to edit this twice, and still there is no Amsterdam Leather Press stuff. You are just not the Ethan you used to be... How sad.

Wespe Here are some of them with markings, some without.

Well, since nobody else says somefink Makjager, I sort of like No.4. Dirty, maybe a bit of shrapnel markings from CB fire, and markings would be great. I am expecting a history of Panzerartilleryregiment 13, I hope there will be pictures, and could supply you with the correct markings for that division. Look forward to that - what is the new system you are getting?

Great stuff! BTW, does anyone here know where I can find the US M8 and Stuart w/air recognition panels? I thought there was a mod for that somewhere, but it could just be age playing tricks on me.