Andreas

I think they only got them from August, and it would be one per troop of four at that stage (same arrangement as with Fireflies). Also, I think that the original Recce Rgt (2nd Northants Yeo) of 11th AD was disbanded after GOODWOOD and replaced by another unit, 15/17 KRH IIRC, and these may well have come with different tanks, since almost all Recce tanks got lost during GOODWOOD. Edit: I check when I get home tonight. Email me to remind me. There is also a good discussion on UK armour strengths in the Tips & Tricks forum. [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Date of arrival of divs Guards Armoured Division 28 June 7th Armoured Division 8 June 11th Armoured Division 13 June 79th Armoured Division(Specialized armour) D-Day 4th Canadian Armoured - August<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1st Polish AD - August South Alberta Regiment (4th Canadian Recce) had their first tank kill roundabout the 15th or so when entering St. Lambert AFAIK, so tey can't have been there for long before. Do you have that for the independent Brigades as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: Like we all know, features that slow some systems can simply be turned off, right? I hate to have something left out if most players can take advantage of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, Gunnergoz I don't know what kind of system you have, but you could do me a favour, and DL the scenario 'To the last man' from Der Kessel, and check whether it slows down your machine when you go for high or even low quality smoke on. My guess is that it will. It slowed down a G4 noticeably. Now imagine a larger map, and larger dust-clouds.

D'uh - I almost did a Jason here... The figures for June are of course total numbers in the Commonwealth Armies, not just the tanks active in the bridgehead. I guess they would be almost correct for late July/early August (allowing for 27th AB and 33rd TB (?) which were broken up and ceased to exist, reducing the number of active Churchills by 150 and that of active Shermans by about 160) when all UK armoured and tank units had landed. The last ones to land were 4th Canadian Armoured and 1st Polish Armoured. Please note - this is really just guidance for scenario designers, I would not use these figures to judge QB purchases.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Actually, most aircraft autocannons have the shells fused to explode after traveling some set range limit, to detonate them even if they miss their intended target. And prevent them from falling wherever. I know the 20mm in Brit aircraft did, and I've read combat reports that talk about the little white puffs in the air in dogfights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The modern Rheinmetall 20mm twin AA gun had the fuse set to 1,600m. This is to avoid having shells that missed drop down on the ground and explode amongst friendlies. The mechanism (as was explained to yours truly by our instructor) is that the reduction in shell rotation is setting the fuse off at 1,600m. The rounds are loaded with a mix incendiary/HE for maximum damage. No idea about the fuse settings in the old one, but I have a booklet at home that may have the answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Oh bollocks! (and that IS disparaging, and directed personally at you!) I suppose you never tell someone that they are contradicting themselves? Or that they are wrong? Maybe I didn't understand what he posted, but asking for a clarification (even if couched in challenging terms) is not calling someone a liar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have a lovely evening, Kiddo. Remember to bring the toys in when you finished playing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty: My post was intended as a general guide for QB selections and not meant to encompass historical OOBs. I should have made that clear. That said, many thanks to Germanboy, Simon Fox and Vanir for the truly historical perspective. I found it interesting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is actually quite an important point - the excellent tables on Tracks&Armour (the website that brought you Cromwells for the Poles, hehe) give after a rough calculation for June 1944: 2,000 Shermans (318 out of these are Firefly) 500 Churchills (54 out of these are 95mm IS model) 500 Cromwells (42 95mm IS model) 550 Stuarts So you can see that if you want to go for realistic OOBs in a semi-historical scenario you design, you don't go much wrong with Shermans. The famous command tank of General Maczek, GOC 1st Polish AD was a Cromwell BTW, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: I said nothing insulting, called no-one names and did not swear or use any disparaging language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You insinuated he was a liar, goes down as name-calling in my book.

Hi, I had to do some minor changes to the scenario, and it should be updated soon. Please be advised that these won't effect playability, so if you started the first version, just continue, they are really minor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Germanboy unveils a masterful scenario To The Last Man I consider this to be one of the finest scenarios ever created for Combat Mission. Don't waste this one against the AI, grab your favorite victim and have at it. Get it at Der Kessel[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just sent an updated version to Der Kessel, there were some minor flaws.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Make up your mind please!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Someone needs to take a chill-pill. How about you stop abusing and name-calling one of the most respected and knowledgeable posters on this forum now and start arguing like an adult for a change. Otherwise I am sure the moderators might get interested in this thread quite soon. It is behaviour like yours that drives off the people who can really contribute to the discussions here.

Simon, thanks for the info on 27th AB. Now regarding AT Rgts. I am not absolutely certain. My understanding is that the infantry started with towed and slowly converted to Archers. But this is a topic that is not very well covered in the sources I have access to. I have seen pictures of Archers in action dated 05/45. In all the books I own, I have not seen a Wolverine in support of an infantry unit, but I have seen a few in support of armoured division infantry units. I tried to look high and far for this, so if you have any sources, maybe we can discuss this via email. I would be quite interested in shedding some light on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Mace I should have a turn out to you by next month. Hello John ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Bastables - so the jungle did not want to keep you. Well at least you have been put in your place here right on your return

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The only thing I could add to Germanboy's excellent description is that there was also a Canadian independent armoured brigade - the 2nd - which was equipped with Shermans as well. There was also a recent discussion where I gave figures for the number of 3 inch and 18 pounder M10 SPs; the Canadians seem to have used a lot for the assault, but moved back to towed 17 pdr AT guns. As Germanboy pointed out, these were artillery units that manned them (Royal Canadian Artillery in the case of the Canucks).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Michael - there was also a Czech Armoured Brigade, equipped with 116 Cromwells and probably 24 Challengers. Again, this Brigade would have almost as many tanks (if not more) on the establishment than a standard German Panzerdivision. And next to no infantry to go with it. The same for the 8th and 4th ABs. So for the UK at least, you can probably claim historical correctness when selecting an armour-heavy force. And has anyone ever heard of 27th Armoured Brigade? Never heard of them anywhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B: Actually, that's very helpful. Thanks. Were the Wolverines/Achilles TD squadrons organized in the same manner as tank squadrons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, since they were Royal Artillery they were organised in batteries. Within a regiment two batteries would have three troops of four (towed) AT Guns each and the other two batteries would have three troops of four (SP) AT Guns each. These would be either Archer or M-10 (the Commonwealth nomenclature was to call the M-10 an AT Gun (SP)). So I would expect them to be employed in troops of four, or half-troops of two. So the total number of AT and AT (SP) guns in a battery is much lower than the number of tanks in a squadron, and I am quite uncertain on whether they would have organic ARVs etc. [ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Oh but I am afraid I will have to get you started up, pal. It just doesnt seem reasonable to me that a perfectly good tank, with a slightly damaged interior would be abandoned and thrown away, so to speak. So go ahead, enlighten me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am afraid it is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. While I would like to hear something about Soviet tank recovery too, there are some things to be kept in mind: 1. Tank recovery necessitates an established system providing the logistics, e.g. tank transporters, ARVs, workshops, space on the railways to take seriously damaged tanks back to factories etc.pp. 2. Distance is a major problem. I have a picture of a park of disabled Shermans in Normandy (in 'The South Albertas'), where the caption says these tanks were used for cannibalising, and were to remain a feature of the landscape of Normandy for years after the war - i.e. they were NOT melted down, which does not make sense if you think about it anyway, since the amount of work and money in getting the scrap metal from the battlefield to the foundry is making this uneconomical. This condemning of the tanks may have depended on the extent of damage though, since I have heard of a lady whose job it was to clean out disabled tanks (get rid of the human remains in them) for rebuilding, and she lived in the Northeast of the UK, IIRC. 3. Distance and location. A seriously damaged T-34 on the outskirts of Leningrad was most likely recovered and rebuilt. A T-34 with a missing sprocket wheel in the middle of 'Nowhere, Belorussia (Population 0)' is likely to just stay there, since it may not be possible to get an ARV to it etc. pp. It is just not worth the bother. So, while it does not seem reasonable on the face of it to leave the tanks, thinking about the logistics of recovery for about 1.5mins should make it clear that tank recovery it is not a straighforward proposition. It is a complex business, and you could start by asking whether there were dedicated ARVs on the establishment of Soviet tank units and at which level they were. E.g. every Commonwealth tank squadron had an ARV, and every battalion had a workshop. How many tank transporters were there? How far from the front to the factories for rebuilding (this problem would get worse post 1943 for the Red Army)? What about the state of the transport system (most likely totally destroyed in the areas of heavy operations, where most tank losses would occur)? Also, once you have the damaged tank recovered, it may still be faster and more economical to just build a new one on the assembly line, instead of putting a lot of handicraft type work into rebuilding the damaged one. Depends on the extent of damage too, of course. So the key question is, given all the other variables, how many Soviet tanks were damaged to a degree that they constituted a 'kill' but could still be rebuilt within the parameters of the recovery system. My guess is that this is a really difficult question to answer, but I would not be surprised to see John or Kip coming back and telling me the number. Anyway, most of this could be alleviated to some degree if you have a dedicated organisation and really good procedures for tank recovery. This is an investment worth making if you produce relatively few tanks. It may well not make sense if you produce lots of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Here is another fantastic Tiger shot. I would only note at this point that all these really long range shots are being done by the Tiger, and not by ordinary German tanks. Perhaps there is something different about the Tiger tank’s accuracy or optics that give it an edge? Anyway, here it is: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The way I read the German quote is that the Tiger did not actually observe the shots, but that somebody else did for it. The request for equipment installation to enable FOOs to do the observation for this kind of shooting indicates as much. I have just read a story about an 88 engaging a T-34 in the Caucasus at about 7,000m, and brewing it with the first shot ('fired as a lark'), by using the stereoscopic range-finders. Tough luck for the T-34 crew, victims of a freak occurence.

Thos BUMPY rides

The point Skipper makes is quite valid - if you have ever seen a Panther and a T-34 IRL, you notice the serious difference in size between them. IIRC the Panther is a good bit bigger than the KV-1 too. They just weren't in the same ballpark. The T-34 was developed in the late 1930s from a theoretical idea of what would be a good tank (I think they first entered service in late '39 or early '40) and the Panther had a good two or more years of actual combat experience that went into its design. The correct comparison would be the Panzer IV, or maybe even the Panzer III, IMO.

Regarding the correct number of tanks for a Coy of infantry in the Commonwealth, I have seen it all in the accounts I read. 1 Sqdr (16-19 tanks) per Battalion, sometimes 1 Sqdr per Company, really depending on the task, and whether it was an infantry or an armoured division (the latter being tank heavy). Moriarty made a slight mistake - the Polish 1st AD Recce Rgt was equipped with Cromwells. Only the Canadians had all Sherman ADs. The following from my readings, my well have mistakes in it. 7th AD - all Cromwell, except for 36 Fireflies (or thereabouts) 11th AD - Cromwell (Recce) Shermans (main), converted to Cromwell (Recce) and Comets (main) in March 1945 (conversion planned for Dec 1944, but the Bulge got in the way) Guards AD - Cromwell Recce, Shermans (main) Polish 1st AD- Cromwell Recce, Shermans (main) with IC or VC Fireflies (I think) Canadian 4th AD - all Sherman, with Sherman IC or VC Fireflies 79th AD - various specialist armour, Crocodiles, Flails, bridgelayers, Kangaroo APCs etc. 4th AB - all Sherman 8th AB - all Sherman 6th Guards TB - all Churchill 31st TB - all Churchill 33rd TB - all Churchill These were 21st Army Group level assets, assigned to operations by 2nd British and 1st Canadian Army as needed. The recce troops (as opposed to Recce Rgts) in the battalions had a lot of Stuarts, but these were not really used offensively, but for patrolling, scouting and other non-combat duties, if this could be avoided (of course they fought when they had to, but they were not really thought of as tanks anymore). the Tank Brigades had 33 Stuarts each, and about 60 Churchills. It is unclear who had the Challengers. It is probably not correct to make a blanket statement like 1 Challenger to 3 Cromwells from August (when they were introduced). It is certain that they were in 11th AD, but the other ADs may have had none at all. In a Churchill Squadron, you would have two CS 95mm tanks, in Sqdr. HQ. The same organisation in Cromwell and presumably Sherman Sqdrs. It is really important to understand the basic flaw in the OOB of the Commonwealth AD. It had 256 medium tanks on the establishment, but very little infantry compared to this large number of tanks. With the losses in infantry once the campaign wore on this problem was exacerbated. The tank destroyer units in all divisions (armoured and infantry) were manned by the Royal Artillery. Armoured divisions had M-10 Wolverine and Achilles (once these became available), while the infantry had towed 17pdrs and later Archers. Fireflies were usually grouped in the 1 per troop scheme, but 8th AB grouped them in one Firefly Troop per squadron. I think (but am not certain and too lazy to go upstairs and look it up) that either 8th or 4th AB actually had Diesel Shermans. I realise this is not very helpful for your original question, but it may help people wanting to design scenarios or to buy units for a QB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asschen: 'Into the East' is a great scenario. It has a very good map, unusual units, some nasty surprises, ... I'm currently playing it PBEM and I'm enjoying every turn. Keep up the good work Germanboy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Asschen, hmm, what was that again... Flattery will get you new scenarios or somefink

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: And then you of course climbed into the T-34 and.... what was your impression on the viewing prisms on it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not allowed to climb into it, unfortunately.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Now forgive my middle-aged mental density, but why was it cited?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was cited because somebody else was incapable of grasping that it is not a math but a statistics problem for BTS. But quoting random equations makes you appear smart I heard. Serves the same purpose as half a Mammoth did for the Neandertals, enhances datability... Wait a sec...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rupert_2: I personally don't think there are enough Polish scenarios to play...I'd rather play them than the French and even sometimes the Americans..... Would love to see some large Polish scenarios Pleaseeeee !!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 'Into the East' at Der Kessel. Edit: that is actually one of the few scenarios I got uninvited feedback on (to quote: 'it rocks', was played PBEM), and that feedback made me go back and finish one more and continue work on some others. So there's a moral in there. If you want quality scenarios, give the designers feedback, even just dropping a line by email is enough, and let them know what you like to see, and maybe, just maybe you get it. Otherwise scenario design can be about as rewarding as feeding pearls to hogs, to acquaint you with another old German proverb. [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I think there is a difficulty in translating the term here. What is being referred to are the viewing prisms of the TC and other crew members along with other viewing devices, not the forked artillery range finder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK the Sfz14 could be used from inside the Stug. Are you 100% proof-positive that he is not talking about it? I have looked through the prisms of a Panzer IIIN in Bovington and was not impressed.