Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Nope. I think he was in the 1st NY which was in one of those independent armoured brigades. They had Shermans. The 2nd NY was disbanded and amalgamated into his unit. I have read 3 of his books: Tanks!, Tanks, Advance! From Normandy to the Netherlands 1944 also To hell with Tanks! All of them good first hand tank action, especially Tanks, Advance! which has an account of a battle in a Dutch town in which the action is more like a demolition derby and the Brit and German armour fight it out at ranges of just a few metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the correction. I must have mixed him with the guy wo wrote '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', was it Keith Jones?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The Stuarts rarely saw much front line fighting, as is easily shown. The 68th drew 2750 rounds of 37mm for the whole war. Well, that is one load for a single company of stuarts. 147 rounds apiece, 17 tanks, equals 2499 rounds. Not exactly a lot of fighting for ten months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they were used like in the UK armoured forces, their job would be pure Recce. Go somewhere, see something, make it back in the tank or on foot to tell the Sabre Squadrons what is going on, have a fag. You don't stick around to fight anything in a Stuart in 1944/5.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? That isn't even remotely what I said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, no making up. I must have misunderstood this one then: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Combined arms doctrine was quite weak among the Commonwealth forces, in some cases (during attacks) forward units had no artillery support at all after the initial push-off, despite an abundance of ready reserves. If you put the limitations of the 25 pdrs into that light, it's an easier pill to swallow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apologies if I misunderstood it, but to me that looked very much like 'Yeah, ROF maybe low, but hey, they couldn't do combined arms anyway, so see it as part of the simulation'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: Nope, never seen one in real life but I have seen many photos and some archive materials. You can fit about 15 guys on a T-34 definitely. It's definitely crowded and god forbid a good swift sweep of an MG42 or some tank round hits the tank. I'd imagine it would be like using human flesh for reactive armor. You'll notice the handles run almost the entire length of the turret. Fighting would be difficult if the T-34 is going fairly fast and/or over rough terrain. They probably would have a very tough time to impossible since they would still need to hold onto something from falling off. However, on a fairly level surface several of the tank riders could aim and fire. The guys riding on the sides probably couldn't though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I would have thought too. Then there is always the risk that you have fracticide, either on your own tank or on the tank moving next to yours. If you ever come to London, they have one in the IWM, and in Berlin they have a 76 and an 85 version at the surrender museum in Karlshorst (which is a great place to go to for every German and Russian speaker, BTW). They have a KV-1 and a BT-26(?) in Bovington, too. I was shocked at how small the T-34 was. Great design work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Germanboy, Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Waddaya know I had already written a response that it probably will only be Jeeps, but then I flicked through the book and saw two pictures with carriers, attributed to 12th Devons. So there. Seems they had carriers. Hmm, is it possible that these were for towing 17pdrs only? Could Jeeps pull 17-pdr AT guns? Anyone know? Anyway, I think the carriers should only come as prime movers for guns or mortars. So if you are asking because of a scenario, if you have a gun, give it a prime mover, either Jeep or carrier. Otherwise you can take a carrier, but very strictly speaking, it would have been unarmed IRL.

D'uh. Forgot that I have the 'History of the 6th Airborne', so I went and checked... Battle of the Bulge - 6th Airborne supported by C Squadron Fife & Forfar Yeomanry with Shermans. Normandy - there is a reference to Cromwells being employed in 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Rgt. late in the campaign. Ealier, during the battle around Breville, 5th Parachute Brigade was supported by B Squadron 13/18th Hussars (Shermans), presumably from 27th AB. All I can find now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Yes, you are correct. Let me clarify that I am only refering to American Airborne/Armor mixes, and not mixed Axis types. I know that British Airborne troops spent some time in the line as regular infantry, but I have no information on any attached armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> British Paras had no tank support during MARKET GARDEN (the Poles were relieved by 43rd Wessex ID before armour came up, IIRC). After VARSITY (Rhine crossing), 6th Airborne crossed the northern plain of Germany to end the wr in Wismar on the Baltic Sea, on e of the eastern-most outposts of the western Allies. They raced the 11th AD all the way, and were supported by 6th Guards Tank Brigade with Churchills. So any scenario involving UK paras post Varsity (March 45) can legitimately field these. In Normandy, 6th Airborne was supported by organic armour, Tetrarch air-landing tanks in their Recce Rgt (not modeled in CMBO. can be modeled by a Stuart (same gun, equally paper-thin armour). They were at some point or other supported by one of the Armoured Brigades, but I can't find my reference now, and I may remember that incorrectly. Hope that helps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: I'm thinking that though gamey, forest fires in CM are very effective becasue they do not spread, thus making them even more unrealistic in dry - very dry conditions. A forest fire here in the Western US is a very serious thing, they are dangerous, spread faster than you can run. Never read about any wild fires in Europe, and don't know if the forests are much different, less debris on the ground and so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Glad you asked Forests in Europe are very different. IN NWE, they are usually not dry, which is why you don't get large fires. The only major fire problems I can think of involved drained moors. In Southern France the story is different. Also, nearly all forests in NWE (well, make that ALL forests) are managed, i.e. they are an economic resource. There is very little stuff lying around drying out (drying being hard in the first place, since it is perennially wet), because it is removed. So I would suspect that your average US forest and your average European forest are very different beasts. In a lot of forests in NWE, you get ferns as ground shrubs. These keep the ground moist, thereby preventing spread of fires.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: During the American's advance across NW Europe, they had to request support from British Crocodile flamethrower tanks to reduce German fortifications. Of course mixing forces like that was considered gamey by the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would think that the only Americans with access to Churchill Crocs were 9th US Army, who were part of 21st Army Group. 79th AD (who held all the Crocs) were an Army Group asset. As such, their Crocs were parcelled out according to need to units within the constituent armies, 1st Canadian, 2nd British, 9th US (I think it was 9th US). So it would be correct to have a scenario showing 9th US doing somefink in Holland with Crocodiles, but it would not be correct to have a scenario showing 7th US Army attacking in the Vosges with Churchill Crocodiles. Wasps were organic on division level, AFAIK, and therefore quite common. TO&E was (I think) six per infantry division. In the attack across the Leopold Kanaal, two BNs of 7th Canadian Brigade were supported by 27 Wasps, but that was extraordinary. Crocodiles were parcelled out in units starting with half-troops, 2 tanks. This would indicate a very wide distribution of the active tanks, and a decent likelyhood to actually see them as part of a Commonwealth attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: I agree with Germanboy (don't hear me say that often ) .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My God, what happened, what did I do wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Do you have the exact title?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This thread is about the English translation. They have another book that looks interesting. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000949 In general, the sort of memoirs and detailed unit histories that are available for the Allies are either non-existent, or very hard to come by for German units. The same goes for web presence of units. [ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

Lest anyone misunderstands my intent. I don't care what rules are being played to by players. Des Menschen Wille ist sein Himmelreich, as they say. I am concerned when someone is totally bereft of or making up history to go along with those rules though, and I am quite certain that is the case here.

Spook, I agree about the connectivity - it was Babra who came up with the idea that the low ROF somehow simulated bad UK practice, so there is actually zero connectivity there. The breakthroughs I talked about were German initial breakthroughs that died in a rain of shells. It was different when the Commonwealth attacked, especially in Normandy. Then artillery did not play such an important role, since it is much less useful against dug-in defense. Later this changed, according to my reading, with the introduction of the Pepperpots, that sometimes helped crush defenses, and at other times seem to have been much less successful.

<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> I would assume that the book by Guderian (the son) about 116th Panzer should be available in German. I tried to find it the other day. Alternatively, check in on www.feldgrau.com and ask for German language sources. Not really my area, I focus more on the Pommies

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: They were extremely rare, especially beyond the invasion beaches. And flame itself is not, IMO, particularly well modelled for the situation which it was designed for -- assaulting bunkers..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is all incorrect - what are your sources? They were certainly not any rarer then King Tigers, probably not even than ordinary Tigers, certainly not than Pumas, or any other 8-wheeler.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: How do you learn to deal with Croc's and Wasps, etc. if you never face them? How do you learn to use them if you never have them? IMHO, too much worry over gamey tactics is self defeating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Snake Eyes here, although he is wrong in his statement on scorched earth - that was not a tactical, but a strategic denial of infrastructure to an advancing enemy. Banning all flame vehicles is grossly unfair to the Commonwealth players, and has no basis in reality at all. Anyone who thinks that deliberate setting alight of buildings did not occur should read a history of 79th AD or any of the Croc regiments. Setting ground alight, as I stated is different. But to make that a reason for an outright ban is crippling to the Commonwealth player. One of the tournament participants should maybe direct Mike to this thread, so that he can re-evaluate his position on flaming buildings if he wishes.

While there are areas of the former Soviet Union where this long-range battling is possible, I think there maybe a misperception involved. Large parts of the front (e.g AG North, Finland, the wooded and swampy parts of AG Centre, parts of Crimea etc.) are really not long-range fighting territory, and you would get the same engagement ranges as in NWE. Citys, towns and villages are again the same. If you go to the Russian Battlefield site, you see a lot of interviews with vets and AARs that show that combat occured at lower ranges than many people seem to believe. The 3,500m duels between heavy tanks were probably the exception, and not the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rvalle: I can see setting a patch of woods on fire for the same reason of setting a row of houses on fire... denying their use to the other side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I should explain where I am coming from. I have read an awful lot of Commonwealth stuff, not quite as much as some people here, but I am sure I am in the upper quintile. I have read a lot of references of crocs going around burning houses on general principle. I have never read anything about them burning woods on general principle. I can not consciously recall them burning a wheat field, and I somehow doubt that happened, but yesterday I saw a US Marine throw a WP grenade into a sugar cane field to flush out a sniper on Okinawa. Not quite the same, but close. That is where I come from - burning houses, yep. Read about it, happened quite frequently, good in my book. Burning woods/fields - if someone can point me to references, fine, otherwise I would think it is based on an exploitation of the limitation of the game engine's treatment of area fires, hence by definition gamey. I have an open mind about it, but if in doubt I am thinking it is gamey. YMMV.

Setting houses on fire - not gamey, I have a number of references of Crocodiles doing just that. Setting landscape on fire, that is different, I can see how that would be seen as gamey. Never encountered it though.

A new Historical Battle from Dan «Berlichtingen» Brown called Firefight at Weinbourg Pass! Another bring your parka and motor warmers battle, =). And the long awaited sequel to Fatherland, "Ambush of Shadows" [mensch] So head on over. We have a number of Byte-Size battles in the pipeline, probably four or six or somefink. All out soon, like the English Cricket team.

A new Historical Battle from Dan «Berlichtingen» Brown called Firefight at Weinbourg Pass! Another bring your parka and motor warmers battle, =). And the long awaited sequel to Fatherland, "Ambush of Shadows" [mensch] So head on over. We have a number of Byte-Size battles in the pipeline, probably four or six or somefink. All out soon, like the English Cricket team.

A new Historical Battle from Dan «Berlichtingen» Brown called Firefight at Weinbourg Pass! Another bring your parka and motor warmers battle, =). And the long awaited sequel to Fatherland, "Ambush of Shadows" [mensch] So head on over. We have a number of Byte-Size battles in the pipeline, probably four or six or somefink. All out soon, like the English Cricket team.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ron: "Please note that the 25-pdr ROF in the game is 3/turn" Sorry Germanboy, I hadn't counted. Just trying to stick up for the BTS boys in their absence. "1) Harassing - low ROF 2) standard - official ROF 3) Intense - official ROF + 50% 4) Super-intense - official ROF + 100%" Damn fine idea! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks - the counting I left to sad gits like Simon, who obviously have no life, yet still don't manage to return turns. I trust him to count to three though, although even that maybe a mistake... The village is mine Simon, mine!!!! Za Polska or somefink.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: Just a link: http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent site - thanks Argie.

Tero, you are grasping for straws. Resistance, Germans knowing the place, yadda yadda recce planes, yadda topo maps. How about the US Major who went on holiday in the place 15 years ago? You forgot him. I have learned better than to debate with you. Your idea is unrealistic, no matter how hard you try to make something up to make it appear less so. That does not mean that you can not legitimately want it. Everyone has a right to ask for changes to the game. But portraying it as 'realistic' when you have to come up with all sorts of fancy stories to make it appear so is laughable, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Get real. That said, just go on indulging your flights of fancy, but as I said, I won't debate you on anything.