Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty's Double: I'm sure some fought in Italy, but I haven't got the reference to hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be interested to see the reference once you have dug it out. I have stuff on the 4th and 8th AB (one of which was in Italy), and 7th AD, and none of this mentions Valentines, IIRC. The tank brigades in the mixed divisions at that stage had Churchills, I thought. I go and dig tonight.

Bah German tanks cooking off, propaganda. Whatever next, you want to tell me Germany lost the war??? Here is another link to a book I just ordered. In German, and I bet you all wish we had won now, so you would be able to read it. So there. German language book dealing with GD Division

Check this out: Valentine Tank Profile

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George-III: I was reading the "Russian Battlefield" web site and came across this story about the lend lease Mk III Valentine: http://history.vif2.ru/library/lend/valentine.html Its a British tank that, according to the web site, was very common (6,855 were built). Its clasified as a Medium tank but it looks more like a Light tank to me, 40mm gun and 65mm armor. On the web site it says that the russians just loved this tank and compared it to the T-34/76!? This looks like a fairly cool tank and was surprised its not in CM (unless its name is different, but I cant find any unit that matches its stats) Anyway, I have some questions about this tank: 1. Why is this tank not in CMBO? Was it used in North Africa, and not Europe? 2. Will we see this tank in CMBB? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Because it was no longer used in NWE in 1944/5, since it was undergunned and underarmoured. It was used in the desert, and as lend-lease. The only use I read about post-invasion was as a bridge-layer in 79th AD, and maybe as FOO tank, hmm, also the basis for the Archer. Another one of a long list of failed UK tank designs. 2. I would be surprised if not, a few thousand of these were delivered to the Red Army, IIRC, and it would be a model BTS could reuse in the desert. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: I think you're being a little harsh on David here Brian. I thought he made it clear that he was talking about firing bursts, but that the Vickers allowed those bursts to be fired or longer - ie hours if need be. Regards JonS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The really big difference is of course that out of the two limitations under which MGs labour (ammo availability and temperature), the Vickers (and the Soviet Maxim?) only laboured under one, the ammo availability. If you ran out of water, you could run the Vickers on urine if need be (apparently done at the Somme - sure, on the parade ground you would get a rocket, but in battle...). Makes a big difference, compared to a German MG42 gunner, who not only needed spare ammo, but also spare barrels (what happened with overheated barrels BTW, could they be reused after cooling down?) Regarding detaching the guns from the carriers, I find that awkward when designing scenarios. If you give the Commonwealth forces a carrier, you always give them more FP than they historically had, since the carrier lMG would be detached to become the squad lMG, AFAIK. Also, I doubt that the carriers of mortar detachments had lMGs as standard, but if someone could enlighten me on that...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: [QB]Maybe I have missed something here, but I thought that just about every military today stresses massing of firepower over careful aiming. Of course, I've only really looked at the US and Soviet armed forces (The Soviets seemed obsessed amassing HUGE amounts of firepower on a given area). To me, stressing that rifle equiped soldiers take careful aim at visual targets is rather archaic (sp?). [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, just talked to my cousin on the weekend, who finished his basic training the week before. He signed up for a glorious 14 years to become a chopper pilot in the German army. He told me that they are being taught aimed shots on the G36, he was astonished when I talked to him about movement fire, massing FP and that, and the rifle has an integrated sighting device using a light spot bouncing on the target. Sounded archaic to me too, but it is what they teach them. Then again, apparently the food in the German army has become something to rave about, so the skills must have gone to the dogs... I will inquire when they teach him to lead a squad and a platoon during the next two years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: [QB] I went on a 20h boat cruise with the wife and we left the kids to my parents. I got laid.QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that before or after you became a master of game programming?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Not a very good subject title but couldn't think of a better one - So-so what? Anyway, I never really thought about it until the post about Archers came up couple days ago but am interested in knowing if anybody can answer why the army would develope or use or want to do either of these things with the 76MM when they could have came up with a larger caliber like the German's had. I mean it wasn't that much better then the 75MM or sure doesn't seem like it to me in CM. You can destroy something at a little further range but basically you still want to get up close to take on the enemy armor. Why not copy the 88MM for example? Or was it really maybe a lot better in real life the what is modelled in the game? I would appreciate any info anybody has or knows. Oh yeah one last question. Where there really that many Sherman tanks that acutally had the 76MM ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, you know that the Archer has a UK 17-pdr, and that that is different to the 76mm in the Sherman (except for the Firefly)? The 17-pdr was a fine gun, and from what I understand a lot better than the 76mm gun in the Sherman or M-10. It had a decent chance to penetrate German heavies at range. Apparently some guy called McNair turned it down for the US when it was offered by the British.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: If you're having trouble deploying you're archer that's an historically accurate dilemma. the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. never did see fighting in the desert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That really is not quite correct. The Archer was not only used until the end of the war (I have a picture of one in Bremen), but it also replaced a lot of the towed guns in the RA AT Rgts at least in the infantry divisions, to my knowledge. From what I have read a lot of that had taken place by Dec. 1944 No surprises it was classed as an SP gun. So were the M-10 and the Achilles in the Commonwealth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: BTW, how do you really feel Andreas?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, since you ask, I have a sore shoulder and it is too warm. The nice wine and the fact that I am on hols at home makes up for it though. What I forgot to add above (silly me), no doubt tero's game will also model all US squads going down at the sound of an MG42 for ages and a day, and please note that no Finns were hurt in writing this post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I would think the problem is not with coding as much as with personal biases. As I see it the horse units are basically no different from infantry units. They just can carry more stuff and they are a bit faster and a bit better at handling tiredness. In essence they are basically trucks with the ability to act like infantry units when it comes to panicking under fire and tiring over extreme excersise. What makes it SO difficult to model them using an infantry unit as a base and assigning it with a few altered specs like load carrying variables and new graphics ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We all look forward to your wargame. It will no doubt adress the glaring omissions of German mapping in France, covering every nook and cranny, the fact that the Finns just could not be beaten by anyone, and horses. Good luck, although I am sure you won't need it. With your superior Finnish knowledge of coding, it will be one hell of a game, making BTS weep at how they could ever attempt to peddle the clearly inferior product that CMBO is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Gimme some GERMAN titles please. I'm no English professor. I guess you can already read my accent <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your accent cannot be worse than mine... Try this, email me if the link does not work. German language book about 13th PD [ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goober: Ok then what about bicycles and motorcycles. Are we going to write off them as well?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. Since people did not fight from them, except for motor-cycles in probably rare circumstances, they are out from what I have read of BTS' statements. The same goes for horses BTW. It would be rare to find horses in the frontline.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: I believe the HG Division spent most of the latter part of the war in Italy. Certainly it was present in Sicily and through Salerno and Anzio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were also in the east, I don't think they ever fought in the west. Also, weren't they organised and equipped like a Panzer Division, not like a FJ Division?

From Brigade HQ 214 Brigade, 43rd Wessex Infantry Division, Brigadier Essame commanding. Intelligence assessment Maltot: 'The village is lightly defended, no Panzers.' 9th July 1944. Anyone interested in what happened next can read it here: http://www.hill112.com/remember.htm

The people who post there presumably do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: [snip]I actually think some of the things mentioned by Terro sounded good. I've had no previous interactions with him, so I have no bias against him, and even if I did, I shouldn't let it get in the way of determining whether he has a valid point or not. I don't think any of us wish to have a tool that gives us exact knowledge of the battlefield. [snip]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pete, I know the search engine does not work as it should. Please note that I do not have a particularly strong opinion on a LOS tool from a unit. I pointed out at the start of this thread that BTS had made a design decision and that was that. I accept that, I don't have a problem with the way things are now, but I can see why some people may want to have more. Others play by Ironman rules. A matter of taste really. Then tero came on, claiming that a LOS tool from any point on the map would be realistic because (amongst other reasons) the Germans had been in France for four years, so they would know the lay of the land. He lost me then and there, and I refuse to take him or any further arguments from him pushing this line seriously. I may miss out on something big because of that, but to be honest, I don't think so. So there are really two issues here, LOS tool unit based, LOS tool anywhere. I can see your point of view regarding the first, and good luck debating it. I doubt BTS will change it, but hey, give it a try. But I can tell you now that if it comes down to Tribbs' 'hey, absolute spotting is so unrealistic, we can have this unrealistic feature as well' is not going to get you anywhere. I seem to remember somebody else trying that sometime ago. So, I think you are wrong in your assumption that nobody here wants a totally unrealistic tool. At least tero does. Enjoy the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: According to Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy," four Crocs from Squadron B, 141st Tank Regiment was in action with the 29th Infantry Division's 116th Infantry in the reduction of Fort Montbarey outside of Brest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah - had forgotten about them. Weren't they used in Metz as well? Or were that Sherman Crocs. Anyways, I stand corrected.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: A combination of extremely thick armour, very reliable and well sealed engine and fuel tanks and a large number of different means of egress meant it was a very survivable vehicle. Combined with its ability to climb mountains like a goat and its an excellent tank for supporting infantry with, which is of course exactly what it was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, I was a bit harsh sticking them in the same category as the Ronsons.

ª???$riginally posted by olandt: First off, you come off sounding pompous when you come in and say "This has been dicussed before, don't waste your time". Well, there are obviously plenty of people who have not discussed it before. If you don't want to discuss it, go read another thread. Being part of an active discussion can often be more beneficial than simply reading the results of somebody elses, and who's to say we won't come upon something new? I'm not saying we would, be your coments imply that we won't, which is insulting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: A few random thoughts. Doesn't CM model every spotter directing fire from 4 gun battery? If british 25pdr battery did have 8 guns, the speed of firing should be doubled. But then it'd be necessary to also adjust every other gun/mortar that didn't have 4/bat. (If there were any, I dont know.) Would that be worth the trouble? Maybe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Commonwealth 3" mortars came in batteries of 6/battalion, don't know if they were fired as a group though. I suspect they were.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Two examples: (from my standard stock) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What we all want to know Tommi - if that is your standard stock, what is in your non-standard stock?!?!?!?! Commissar, that was funny.

I strongly suggest a search with Steve's member number and the key-word LOS or somefink. All the hot air expended in this thread on the matter will then be shown to be superfluous. In the meantime, it is vaguely amusing to see arguments along the line of 'it was in another game and nobody complained' or 'we have one unrealistic feature, so what is the problem with another one'. Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in another game and nobody complained (hey, if you don't like them, don't use them) and since we have unrealistic absolute spotting, what does it matter if the Germans have rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks! You people are funny.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Now you're at least close. Your previous statement that one was a 'simulation' of the other was just tripe. And I didn't say they "couldn't do combined arms". They clearly could. I said it was weak, and then only on attacks. You came back citing many GERMAN attacks being broken up by said arty. If you diagree with something, at least know what you're disagreeing with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Babra, this is getting silly. If you have a problem making yourself clear, don't blame me for it. I don't want a fight with you, but my reading of your sentence is: Statement a: Commonwealth practice was weak Statement b: in some cases during attacks FOOs weren't where they supposed to be, and that proves the general point. conclusion: put the limitations (incorrect ROF, because that is what we have been talking about here) in that context and you should not have a problem Err, so should BTS then have two ROFs, one for attack and one for defense? What was the point of your initial statement if not to say that low ROF could be a simulation of weak practice? If that was not the point, what was it? I think I know quite well what I disagreed with, and that is statement A. And I addressed that, and for the benefit of Michael, I can even bring some sources.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Just found this at the Britwar website: Airborne armoured recce regiment, August 1944 [Forty 98] The regiment has an RHQ, an HQ squadron, a support squadron and 2 recce squadrons. RHQ has 2 scout cars and 3 jeeps. HQ squadron has an intercom troop, an admin troop and a seaborne party. The seaborne party includes 8 cruiser tanks. The support squadron has a mortar troop, an infantry support troop, and two carrier troops. The mortar troop has 4 4.2-in mortars carried in jeeps. The infantry support troop has 18 motorcycles and a jeep. Each carrier troop has 3 carriers. Each recce squadron has a heavy troop and three recce troops. Each heavy troop has 4 light tanks. Each recce troop has 2 universal carriers and 2 jeeps. The cruisers in the "seaborne party" might be the cruisers you mentioned. Also, it looks like they had a number of carriers for recon use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah yes, John Salt, our hero . This got me going. So, according to the Divisional history, the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Rgt had a B Squadron with carriers and Dingo SCs (use Humber?) (BTW, one troop is normally four vehicles), and A Squadron with Tetrachs, but the latter was converted in the beginning of August to receive twelve Cromwell Mark IV, which were employed from about mid-August around Troarn, where at least one was lost to a handheld AT weapon. They also captured and employed an Sdkfz 7/2 (single-barrel anyway, who cares about the designation of German vehicles?) claiming a Me109 and a FW190. Hmmm, paras with tanks, whoaaaaa (does Homer Simpson impression) They also used bicycles (what, no horses????!!!) and foot patrols.