Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Interestingly, does anyone really believe that the rest of the world will start removing U's to Americanise words? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interestingly, during the last ten years or so (IIRC), translated books in Germany have begun to carry the notice 'Uebersetzt aus dem Amerikanischen' (translated from American) if the book is originating from the US. Created quite a stir in the feuilletons (cultural pages of German dailies). If the book orginates from the UK, I think it is still 'Uebersetzt aus dem Englischen' (Translated from English). Maybe someone still resident in Germany can comment on how wide-spread this is now. Oh, and there is no way I am going to drop the extra 'u' myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Michael, If you read any of his numerous works except this one he always is at pains to to explain that correct spelling for that which detonates a bomb, mine, shell, rocket or missile warhead is "fuze." I just checked his GRENADES & MORTARS on this point. The body text consistently uses the zed form, if you will. Regards, John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never read any of his books, but I can say for a fact that Cambridge Dictionary and the paper version of Chambers on my desk disagree with him on this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cambridge definition: fuse (DEVICE ON EXPLOSIVE) noun [C] a string or piece of paper connected to a firework or other explosive item by which it is lit, or a device inside a bomb which causes it to explode after a fixed length of time or when it hits or is near something He lit the fuse and ran. FIGURATIVE Anti-police feeling was high in the area and an incident in which a local youth died in custody just seemed to light the fuse (=suddenly start a dangerous situation). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was that about the UK and the US being two countries divided by a common language?

Definitely, please send it to: germanboy@derkessel.de Thanks for taking the time, very interesting and helpful.

Its abstracted. You maneuver any squad or HQ next to the AFV you intend to kill. Then watch 'High Noon' unfold. You will see the infantry throw handgrenades (or demo charges, if they have them) at the AFVs. the grenades are an abstraction for the close combat going on. This could be Finns shoving logs into tracks, or soldiers of other nations shooting the TC and throwing a grenade down the hatch, or holding a lighter to the petrol tank or whatever infantry does to kill tanks. More often than I would expect they succeed, but that is not difficult, since my expectations are pretty low. Open-topped AFVs die a lot faster. German AFVs sometimes use their Nahverteidigungswaffe too, to blow the infantry apart. Jolly good fun alround in those cases. Pioneers are not more capable, and even HQs can take out tanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: One should not confuse "rangefinders" which are a seperate piece of off mounting equipment with "ground sightng equipment" which would mean I suspect actual direct action sights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. One should also get a lot more sleep than I did last night, and not drink too much Blackbush. My bad. I just remembered reading that the LAA Rgt of 49th 'West Riding' UK ID received ground sights only around the time of Le Havre. Their guns turned more and more into a ground role after the landing, but it seemed to have taken a while to sink in back home. Any idea when they were issued to the heavies? Blackburn I seem to recall said something about the usefulness of having LAA and the 3.7" guns as part of preparatory barrages.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by leakyD: great thread gang- and peter, mucho thankos for the arty chart. been working on gettin my smoke skills dialed, and this has helped. I may be reaching here, but i believe the reason the Neb's don't have smoke is due to the theatre of operation. seems LARGE amounts would be needed on the eastern front, not the western (esp, since significant Counterattacks we're possible there). maybe it was an operational/supply issue (ie-use the ammo where it's most needed, esp for late war germany). case in point - why no sturm tigers for CMBO? operationally, made more sense to have them where they were needed most: eastern front. i'm playing the CMMC, and a guy was asking why the 88 Flak couldn't direct fire HE, as it did in real life (the area we are attacking in has some LONG open areas - man, i coulda use some long reaching HE!). my retort was that it was perhaps operational to the theatre, and the long, open steppes of Russia encouraged using the HE there, as opposed to the western front, where large open areas were not a common. can't wait to see what a couple of 300mm batteries of NW smoke would look like. got a funny feeling Jerry's gonna need it over in the east.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nebelwerfer was only a code-name for the rocket artillery. The heavier calibres were specialised bunker busters, different job from what the 150mm was intended for. The 150mm had chemical rounds produced for it, the others did not, AFAIK. 8,8cm FLAK used DF HE in north-west Europe. I am a bit surprised you can not do that in CMMC, are you sure about that? What you can not do in CMBO is indirect fire HE from the 8,8cm. I believe it ought to be possible, but it is not modelled. I don't think this has anything to do with more open spaces in Russia and the Ukraine vs. France. There are a number of spaces with long LOS possible in North-West Europe (Pas de Calais, Norddeutsche Tiefebene, large tracts of Belgium, the Netherlands). BTW, there were Sturmtigers on the Western Front. The fact that CMBO does not model them is due to a choice by BTS to focus on other vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: This thing, the Tortoise, was intended to mount the 3.7in / 32-pounder. Designed in 1942, prototype in 1947, never produced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the prototype still stands in Bovington (if I don't mess it up with the Black Prince now). It is quite ugly, probably would have scared any enemy away

I have emailed the map only to the Der Kessel webmasters, without zones, troops, and wet instead of snow ground. Also brushed up a bit. It is an 800x800 meter map, named Red Marley d'Abitot', like the place in Gloucestershire. should be up soon. Enjoy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: LOL I'm sorry but I just read that comment, looked at your user name (Germanboy) and exploded with laughter! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can state for the record that my grandfather never had the urge to do a battle on it. I can do all this without a trace of self-consciousness, too...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: As for the Der Kessel "Bulge" fight, I looked at it. The terrain is great, the best part of it. Not a large fight. I'd recommend playing it as the Germans vs. the AI. The Germans seem distinctly underpowered to me, for the time and place this sort of fight occurred, the defenders, and especially the terrain. You might consider putting some of the above force mixes on that map by editing the .cmb file, and also letting the Germans only come in from two map sides, known beforehand to the Americans. The German artillery will play a much bigger role, but the terrain is rather more defensible for a reinforced company strongpoint than a typical QB map is. For those who haven't seen it, it features a large, rugged "hogback" ridge, wooded, with clear low valleys on either side and a "skyline drive" road running along the crest. The US holds the ridge and tries to defend a small cluster of buildings in the center of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi, I should maybe say that this was really a case of me having walked through Gloucestershire one day, seeing this place, and having this urge to do a battle on it. The forces are just something you could have encountered in the Ardennes, and it is really a patrol action. If someone plays it, please email me or post a review at Adm. Keth's scenario depot. I am not 100% certain about the German strength there.

Game-transforming comes to mind. I would very much like to see other regions being treated in the same quality. Great stuff Magua.

3.7" gun Nice little article. No idea how correct it is. Following some technical data for the 8,8cm Flak 18 and 36 to compare (note, Flak 41 is even heavier, but seems to not have been used widely in 1944): Weight (unlimbered) 5,000kg (36: 5,000) (unlimbered w/shield): 5,400kg (limbered): 7,200kg (36: 7,200) (limbered w/shield and Sonderanhaenger 201): 7,400kg (900kg less than 3.7") (36: w/ Anhaenger 202 8,600kg) (limbered w/o shield and w/ Sonderanhaenger 202): 7,000kg (1,300kg less than 3.7") (36: w/ Anhaenger 202 8,200kg) ROF: 15-20 rds/min (3.7" 20) Fuse range: 10,600m Gun range: 14,960m (could do indirect fire, and did beyond 4,000m, the range is actually longer than that of many field guns) Muzzle velocity: 820-840m/sec (higher than 3.7") That is a lot less weight to carry around for the 18, and should make the gun more mobile. The doctrine was developed while the 18 was prevalent. The 8,8 could also be fired while limbered, not sure about the 3.7", I would presume it could though. On soc.sci.history.wwII someone claimed that there was no ground sighting equipment for the 3.7". I doubt that mattered very much, since the 8,8 gun commander seems to have used his aerial rangefinders in ground combat anyway. The 8,8cm had a ground-fire table though, for fire adjustment and fuse setting by the crew. I wonder if that even existed for the 3.7". According to the rules, the heavy Flak was used under control of the Army unit it was attached to. The only time I have heard of a Battery commander being reluctant to engage in combating ground targets is in von Luck's book; Piekalkiewicz mentions that this happened 'in rare occurences'. It should also be remembered that the guy in question was not attached to any ground combat unit. From 1944 there apparently was a special order by Hitler legalising behaviour like von Luck's. After the invasion of the SU, special Flakkampfgtruppswere created, consisting of two 8,8cm and one platoon of 2cm Flak. Piekalkiewicz claims they were the most widely used Falk unit at this time. In this situation, the 8,8cm seems to have made a lot of use of MT fuses in DF mode to defend positions. At the western front, the number of 8,8s had to be increased to 3-4, since the western Allies 'were more skilled in attacking'. I have an early picture of 8,8cm in ground combat during the Ebro battle in the Spanish Civil War, sporting shields. I think this probably was an important testing ground, since there seems to have been no hesitation to use the gun right from the start in Poland in a ground combat role. All this shows that the German army had a clear system, and experience in using the gun in a ground combat role. It had also established guidelines on co-ordinating the work between two arms of the Wehrmacht, and resolving command boundary issues. I would think that for these institutional reasons the gun was used widely in ground combat. Because of the absence of this institutional framework in the Comonwealth armies, the 3.7" was not. The US Army published a manual on the use of the 8,8cm on 29. June 1943. I also have pictures of British gunners working 8,8cm around Maastricht and Cuxhaven. Scipio, if you read this, the ISBN for the book is 3-87943-423-9 for the German version. Very good stuff. An English version is available I believe. [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Really Styxx? Hmm email me and I can see what is going on. Calstann@hotmail.com is the address if you are still interested. AFAIK there are at the very least reserve spots open (gets more action than you would think BTW) and possibly full time slots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lots of reserve slots. I know at least two vacancies in one particular unit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: [QB][qb]To me that sounds like you thought terrain reconnaisance was hogwash.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, to me it sounds like you are still grasping for straws. But you will read into my words what you want to, as you always do, and that is your prerogative. Enjoy. But that is also why I am not debating you. I never discounted terrain reconnaissance as it was historically done.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I stumbeled over this data when looking for something else. I post it here for the benefit of Germanboy and other who were of the opinion that it is hogwash to think there ever was such a thing as pre-battle terrain reconnaisance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please refrain from misquoting me. I never said that. As I said, I am through debating anything with you, and if you think that deliberately misrepresenting me is getting you that, you are mistaken. How is your game going? Programmed the horses in yet?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: If you have any usful info to add to this debate then now might be a really good time to start saying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you seem to be too dense to get it: The Valentine was another failed UK tank design. Why (I feel like in Kindergarten now)? Because it could not be upgraded to compete with other tanks of its generation (KV-1, T-34/76 and PzKpfWg. IV 75L24, all of which played a role in 1945, upgunned and upgraded). Who the moron is I leave up to others, but when I talk about design, I talk about the design. Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary. The T-34 and the Panzer IV allowed for upgunning and uparmouring in the design. The Valentine did not. Hence failed. Like the Matilda. Like the Cromwell/Comet. The Churchill failed a bit less (still failed, if you have ever stood in front of the Black Prince, you know why). And the offer to play a duel is withdrawn. If you can not handle adult disagreement, may I suggest this is not the right place for you, Kindergarten seems more appropriate. I noticed that before with you though. Some people are just socially inadequate. Since you have to resort to insults, I assume your stock of arguments is used up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: It's so easy to look back and kick up a fuss about how bad British tanks were during the war, but at the time things were, and never are, so clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David, I did not kick up a fuss. Simple statement. There is nothing political about it. I also know there is an element of 20/20 hindsight (although there was a Labour MP in 1944 trying to get the tank issue on the agenda). So please try and keep this on the technical level. I did not even remotely intend to criticise the political decision-making in the UK then. Still wouldn't buy a Rover today, so maybe I am just prejudiced

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Do yuo really expect us to believe that he Comet was a failed tank? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it was, I don't really care what you or anyone else believes. If you think the Valentine was great, hey fine. I've got a used car to sell, interested? Good runner. Once CMBB comes out, we can have a duel. Date is 1944. You take Valentines 6-pdrs, I take Panzer IV 75L48 or captured T-34/85 or KV-1s. All four are 1930s designs, so that should be fair, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: This kinda bangs up against your statement that having only the chassis being used post-1944 versus other designs being used today renders the Valentine a useless tank. Those designs used today are using only the chassis too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I take all the other points (having said that, IF the Valentine was that great, why did it need to reduce the crew to upgun), my point about the 35(t) that was the basis for the Hetzer still stands then, even when it comes to chassis use - outclassed I totally agree that compared to other British tanks it looks like it was a decent design. That says more about British tank design than anything else though... IMO there was not a single decent (in the sense of homegrown, up-to-date, ready for combat before 8 May 45) design amongst them. The best of them (Valentine, Churchill, Matilda, Comet) still laboured under the fundamentally flawed Infantry/Cruiser divide. End of story. You can stand on your heads and try to convince me that compared to the Convenanter the Valentine was a good tank. That is like saying that compared to the Austin Allegro the Rover Van Den Plas is a decent design. I know which one I would choose between them, but I'd take a Mercedes W123 over either of them at any day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: but 'catastrophic' on the large scale? No. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are fully correct in that assessment, as evidenced by who won the war. But I think you could say it was catastrophic on the small scale. 'The South Albertas' has a very poignant reminder of this. Whenever the author relates the death of a member of the regiment during the war, he gives info on when he entered the regiment, his age, previous job, his family circumstances and where he hailed from. Makes you stop and think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: It was quite a feat installing a 75mm gun in that little turret!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought it was 57mm (6-pdr) and it was only possible by removing the co-axial and reverting to a two-man turret, a concept outdated by 1940. As I said - it may have been a great achievement for the British, but that does not mean it was not a failed design.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: In reality, far from being "another failed UK tank design", the Valentine was one of the better success stories - essentially the same chassis was in use still into the 1950's by the British Army and into the early 1960's by several client Arab states in the form of the Archer SPAT - not bad for a 1930's design IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, I somehow suspected this would happen. Well, if it was so great as a tank, why was only the chassis being used post 1944? The T-34 was still used as a tank last week somewhere, another 1930s design. The Panther was used as a tank until the 1950s in the French Army. Shermans and Stuarts are still being used by 3rd rate dictatorships everywhere. Does that prove they were good tanks? If chassis longevity is the question, surely the Czech 38T (or was it the 35?) has to get the crown of achievement - with the Hetzer being in use until the early 1970s, another 1930s design. If the tank was so great, why did the UK switch to Cromwells (who weren't without their problems) and Shermans? Sorry, but the UK built and designed some crap stuff, there is no way around it. The Commonwealth WW2 tankers thought so, and there is no use glorifying the achievements of the designers. Let's face it, the crowning achievement of UK tank design that saw battle in WW2 was the marriage of the 17pdr with the Sherman to create the Firefly. Maybe the Comet, and that says something. Postwar is a whole different story though. So, IMO the Valentine was another failed British tank design, even though it might have been good for what the UK put out at the time. Amongst the blind, the one-eyed man is king, as they say.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: 'catastrophic'? For whom? Whoever made this remark needs to look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the guys who got killed in the Shermans because of that decision? If your job is to scrape their remains out of the tank, I think you ought to be forgiven a bit of 'hyperbole', if that is what it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I might have been a bit harsh but he did say, "holding the trigger and not letting go". This implies continious, automatic fire which is not how an MG is used. Even in WWI, when extremely long machine gun "barrages" were fired, they were fired in bursts, not continiously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, you should really read what he wrote. I have noticed you scolding people for not reading your posts closely, I think it would behove you to read others' posts closely, especially if you fly off the handle because of not reading closely enough. Just to quote directly from David's unedited post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Orginally posted by David:This would not mean you hold the trigger and don't let go, but it does mean that you can fire longer and more often. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (emphasis by me) What was your point again? Maybe you just need to cool down a bit, and read more closely. And Marlow beat me to it, damn you Marlow, damn you to hell. Can't I be the only gloater on this board?! [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: No, I think the more central reason for the abandonment of bolt-action rifles was their relative loss of effectiveness on battlefields as an standard infantry side arm, not due to constraints on training time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I was trained on the G3 in 1988, and my cousin is now being trained on the G36. Neither of us was trained in suppression firing, but both of us were trained in aimed fire, and that is what was pushed, through awards etc (Schuetzenschnur). On a semi/full auto weapon. Same on the MG3 BTW. You were trained to engage point targets. Granted, I was in the Luftwaffe (so only did basic infantry qualification), and my cousin still has a way to go. I find it hard to credit that the switch from bolt-action to semi-auto has anything to do with training times in the light of my experience.