Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: To hit a man sized target at 200 yards, you have to fire at the correct angle to within 1/10th of 1 degree. And with a properly zeroed rifle - provided it is a rifle - anybody can do this consistently, after a small amount of practice. The amount you get in basic training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite - I went through basic training (Heckler&Koch G3), and I seriously doubt I would hit anything with a rifle at that distance, in combat or for a lark. I am just a crap shot, except with the P1. They did not throw me out of the army because of that, so I would assume that a lot of other crap shots served in various wars too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splash: Not being of military background I never understood how anyone could show up to a war armed with only a handgun. Seems insane to me but then you just wait for your partner to die and take his rifle!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have read quite a few references of WW 1 Commonwealth officers just bringing a walking stick and a whistle, not even a hand-gun. Not that it mattered then...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wittmann: Oops , sorry I was mis-informed please accept my humble grovellings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The other guy still got it worse than you - Michel at least is a German name

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wittmann: Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. If you're gonna use my name please spell it right ...thats MICHAEL....or more correctly, the German spelling is MICHEL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No it isn't - it is Michael, like my brother. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: It is very unrealistic to expect that a Volksstrum SMG squad should have the same fire power rating as an Allied Airborne squad of the same size. Airborne troops received far more training than the last line of defense VS troops, and yet both their firepowers are rated on the same potential of their weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, Gyrene, mefinks this is an issue for scenario designers. It is correct that they both get the same firepower rating. As the old saying goes, it is not the firepower that matters, it is what you do with it. Volkssturm - conscript to (max) green. US paras - regular to vet/crack. As you rightly point out, it is the experience level that counts, but if the potential of the weapons is the same, I would not like to see that fudged. Now I am 100% certain that a regular US para squad will have no trouble outperforming a conscript Volkssturm squad 24/7. Which is as it should be, despite the potential of the weapons to deliver the same firepower.

The quote at the end could go some way to explain where the Stens were <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This famous Winter War taught whole world to value of submachine guns as true instruments of warfare, not mere "emergency weapons for defense at close quarters for the personnel of specialist corps, such as motor transport drivers, spare numbers of machine-gun units, tank crews and head-quarter details." (Quotation from a British "Textbook of Automatic Pistols" by Robert Kenneth Wilson, written in 1935). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From the website dedicated to the Finnish Suomi SMG http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Martin was unconscious, and spent long weeks in hospital, if I recall correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did he wear the body armour provided to Commonwealth troops? Blackburn (IIRC) recounts a story of a Canadian officer rescued by the body armour (which he, unlike many others, did not discard on day 2 in Normandy) when he took an MP burst in the chest. Bullets apparently did not penetrate but only break his rips. Without the body armour though it would have been a shallow grave and a telegram to the recently bereaved...

Regarding Normandy and Bocage - the Bocage area was more to the centre and west of Normandy. The area around Calais was much more open, with woods and huge wheat-fields. Anyone having a look at a map of the area around Maltot can see that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Remotely related with this subject: Should the vehicles be allowed to advance some distance into the thicker forests and not just into the scattered tree forests ? I think they should. A WWII era army, which shall remain nameless to spare the innocent, deployed its armour in places their co-belligerent army hesitated to deploy. And this armys adversary started to deploy its armour in similar fashion in similar terrain later in the war and this change gave this unnamed army some nasty surprises. [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Churchills fought inside the Reichswald (opposite Nijmegen, Goch Kalkar area) in the battles in February 1945, when the west-bank of the Rhine was cleared (BLOCKBUSTER??). I have seen accounts of them knocking over 60cm diameter trees. I have also seen lots of accounts of them getting bogged. But the use of the tanks was critical in clearing the forest. The Reichswald certainly is not scattered trees (I have been there), but again, I think it comes down more to scenario design. Intersperse woods with clearings, rough, brush etc terrain, and logging roads, and you get somewhere realistic.

Since I did not see anyone recommending it: 'The South Albertas' http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1896941060/qid%3D993809967/103-2948915-6509437 is the best unit history of WW II I have ever seen. Expensive, but well worth it. It has about ten pages about the fight at St. Lambert (August 18th -22nd), and another good bit about the battle for the Hochwald Gap, described as the equivalent of 'The charge of the light brigade'. I highly recommend it. Also, 'The guns of war' by George Blackburn, the longest-serving FOO in the north-west European theatre (with 2nd Canadian Infantry Division). If you want to know how Commonwealth arty worked, this is your book. Any other recommendations, I would be most interested in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: On the Western Front, btw, the Germans often built AT pillboxes into the bottoms of what appeared to be houses. The gun would stick out of what looked from afar to be a grille or something similar near the ground on the wall. Too bad that's not modeled in CM. It would make assaulting towns quite an endeavour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a scenario designer, you can put guns and bunkers/pillboxes into houses, by placing them on the map first, and then putting the house on top of them. I have done that in scenarios for guns, not for fortifications yet though. I have no idea how that would impact on chances to spot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: How far did the original Peng thread go before imploding? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Over 3,000.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: But I am doubting by the number of smilies he includes in his posts that he is under the impression anyone is slaming the Finns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aren't finns the stuff being cut off sharks to give the Chinese an aphrodisiac? They don't seem so powerful there, now do they? What is this thread about again? John, you seem to have an awful lot of trouble with people understanding you lately...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: Read it again, BlindBoy: UP! UP, Fool! UP! Not 'speak for'! Speak up for! Jeez. I thought you Peng people could read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't Kent the Zoo where the last extant Tories are being kept on display?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: Rex, you seriously live in Tonbridge? You're about 3 miles from me! LOL! I speak up for the English Boys and Girls when I say - Tunbridge Wells Kent United Kingdom. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> err no you don't The Socialist Republic of Lewisham London, UK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Anyway, sorry if I over-reacted Andreas. My bad. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No worries Steve, the nice thing about this board is (or was) that people got turned into Grogs (run!run!you're doomed!!). Regarding campaigns, the only thing I would be interested in is grafting CMMC onto the game for easier integration of combat resolution and whatnot. That would be realistic, fun and really add to the game. Terence - thanks. Real-life intervened, and I should not really be here now, but instead try to save the world from climate change (dons blue cape and red pants and disappears into the sunset)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goknub: Not sure if this has been said before or not, but does any one know if CM2 will be available in stores. I need to know because I live in Australia and ordering isn't really an option. Our dollar is half the US so CM cost $90.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, it would probably not be less than Aus$90 once it is in the shops down there. Cut of the merchant, wholesaler, import duty, packaging...

?|T???iginally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I had PC in paperback several years back, and I'm nearly postive that the paperback edition had a few maps in it. In particular, I remember some for his battles in Normandy in July of '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Warning! Shameless plug coming up!====> Try http:\\www.gamesofwar.de/battlemaps Martin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the Mace is on Map 1714O 'Trun' of the modern Série Bleue IGN map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: If that is the case, then they were able to be there and the AAR may be correct. I love how history is so grey instead of black and white. The 11th Armored should of known I would create evil scenarios out fo their battles. Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rune, what is the date of the battle you do? Also, I am 100% certain that 11th Armoured Recce took Challengers into Germany in 1945. I have pictures of a Challenger of 15/19 KRH post-VARSITY. Edit: Try this: http://www.panser.dk/profiler/chall/challa30.htm [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

The Commonwealth and the Germans had dedicated FOOs, this was not done on platoon HQ level in their armies. AFAIK the British army still has dedicated FOOs. Oh, and they had the most effective artillery in the war, the Commonwealth did. But it is correct that the one bty/FOO is an abstraction, but you can look at it to symbolise is the amount of support your HQ has allocated to you. Simply because you could call on more support did not mean you get it. There were 9 other battalions fighting, and only so many guns to go round.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Hmmm. Using this logic, perhaps regular scenarios should be 1440 turns long and go something like this:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, I am not using any logic, or propose anything, I am just portraying how the war of 101st Airborne looked like post June 1944, and whether it could be done like an operation, since Terence used it as an example. My guess is that Ambrose focuses his book more on the few weeks (days more like it) of action, and not on the many months of rebuilding and barrack life (haven't read it, maybe I am wrong), thus giving a false impression. Now if you want to go and clamour for your campaigns, go right ahead. I have my opinion, but I am not going to share that with you. Bit touchy, are we?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: The first Challengers issued were sent to the 4th CLY, 7th Armoured division in Normandy. They were most likely issued on 24 July 1944. The reconnaissance regiment of the 11th Armoured Division, the 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry, had Challengers in August 1944. This unit was withdrawn the same month because of high casualties, and replaced with the 15th/19th Royal Hussars who operated Challengers until the unit reequipped with Comets in early 1945. Now, having them in August doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have them in July, but in any event they definitely didn't have them before July 24th, and probably later. What was the date of that AAR? [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the info Babra - not easy to do it from memory, with all the funny names of the British Army. I would suspect the date to be July 18th or 19th.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: If it did, is there some reason why a game that strives in all things to be realistic would not be capable of simulating a series of battles centered around a particular unit if, in fact, other units had similar analogous experices as E Company, 506th Regiment 101st Airborne Division?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haven't read it, but would assume a campaign would look like this: June 44 - jump in Normandy July - do nothing (rebuilding) August - do nothing (rebuilding) September (mid) - jump in Holland October - do nothing (rebuilding) November - do nothing December (end) - Bastogne January - do nothing (rebuilding) February - do nothing (rebuilding) March - jump around Wesel April - operations in Rhineland Not exactly riveting most of the time, and the other time could be covered by operations. Sorry if I forgot something, but I think that was about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: I think my first CM2 scenarios will be called: -Faffing About in the Mud -Freezing Cold and Starving -6 Bullets and 20,000 Screaming Russians -My Tank is Broke -We're Out of Gas -Lets Die Here Now (PBEM/TCPIP only) -Drang Nach Osten, My Ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 'Cynicism has a humour all of its own' Lachmalnow, famous WW2 troop entertainer and stand-up comedian. Nice one Terence