Kingfish

Check your link. I believe it is missing the 'l' on the end of /html.

If you aren't looking to recreate a historical engagement, as you say, then you're probably better off relying on the purchase screen OOB but with units at less than full strength. The 12th SS absorbed a hell of a lot of punishment during its time on the line, and as with every formation on the defensive the infantry suffers the most.

OOB-o-rama

Open the scenario the editor, preview the map, click alt-4 for large craters, then click where on the map where you want the craters to go. Craters and foxholes are basically the same thing,

This may be of use

You could make the same argument with regards to the 20mm flak and 81mm mortar, yet both were very useful when mounted on light AFV. One advantage to mounting a RR on a vehicle is to overcome a disadvantage inherent to RR, that being the backblast. Its like a huge "Hey, here we are!" neon sign flashing over the crew when they fire. Having a vehicle mounted RR at least gives the crew a chance to shoot and scoot before they cop a salvo of 75mm HE.

Speaking of recoilless rifles, did the Germans ever mount these on vehicle platforms, such as the 251/1?

Came across this while searching for info on German recoilless rifles. Dora and her cousins

The crew has to actually appear on the map for it to count as VP points if they are eliminated.

If I understand your question correctly it is based on unit values. IOW, destroying a veteran tank will fetch more VPs than say a green or reg.

I thought it had more to do with the allied supply problems, and Ike's decision to give Monty a larger share of that scarce resource ahead of Patton, even though the latter was 100 miles nearer to the Rhine and in far better terrain.

Not really so interesting when you consider a good 75% of that concentration was deployed opposite the Commonwealth armies for most of the campaign in Normandy.

Talking of guns vs. armour, how do you feel about the safety of Iraq post-Saddam? </font>

Lower the elevation of the tile the bridge actually sits on instead of trying to raise the ground around it. A small bridge is usually 2 elevations lower than the surrounding terrain, so if the road is a 7 make the bridge a 5. The tall stone bridges are 3 elevations I think.

I did a while back for CMBO, but back then I didn't have access to the data and map resource I have now. Of course, doing a scenario on the 915th's counterattack would delay Platamon, and that one is already 2 years on back order.

The Baksan bridgehead

During the campaign in Brittany the Americans employed several TD battalions, which due to the lack of German AFVs were used mostly as bunker busters.

This may help Good luck on the bocage

Which I don't think he's is actually arguing this point. Note the bolded word. He's not saying they have the same armor protection. My understanding is that they were designed and fielded as a result of the established doctrine at the time, that of TDs will fight enemy armor and med tanks to be used as infantry support and breakthrough vehicles. Having said that, I don't believe that the US TD design was governed strictly on the basis of speed and agility over armor protection. Consider that the M18, a good example of the "speed" design philosophy, came after the M10, and the M36 came after the M18. So if anything it appears that the trend was more for a hard hitting gun and decent armor, and accept the compromise of slower speed, than the other way around.

Jason did acknowledge that the US TDs were open topped, so I don't see a contradiction there. As for thin armor, which TD is Hunnicutt referring to? As I pointed out, both the M10 and M36 had comparable armor protection as the most common Sherman variant of the time.

Wrong. Why believe me when you can 'hear' what Hunnicutt had to say about the TD experiment. " The first M36s arrived in Europe in August 1944 and were immediately committed to action in France. Battle experience brought out the need for additional changes. Because of its heavy firepower, the M36 was frequently used as a tank rather than in its original role as a tank destroyer or self-propelled gun. Under these conditions, it was vulnerable with its thin armor and open top turret. Because of the latter, artillery air bursts and small arms fire often caused casualties to the crew. In August, the Army Ground Forces directed the development of an overhead cover kit to provide protection for the turret crew. These covers were folding armor tops designed to protect against small arms fire and shell fragments without completely sacrificing the all round vision of the open top turret. Another problem arose from the new waterproof steel containers being developed for the 90mm rounds. Since they were too large to fit in the sponsons, new ammunition racks were designed to permit stowage of the bare rounds. The new racks were released to production along with the armored turret tops for all vehicles produced during 1945. The continuing demand for 90mm gun motor carriages resulted in additional production starting in May 1945. Montreal Locomotive converted 200 MIOAls to M36s during the remainder of the year. This exhausted the supply of MIOAls requiring the use of the diesel powered M10. Originally designated as the T71E1, it was classified as the Substitute Standard 90mm gun motor carriage M36B2 in March 1945. Starting in May, American Locomotive produced 672 M36B2s by the end of 1945. An additional 52 were converted at the Montreal Locomotive Works by the end of the year. This brought the total production of the M36 series to 2324. In April of 1945 the development of fording equipment was completed for the M36 and in June standardization was approved for the new M83 direct sight telescope. Battle reports from Europe indicated that the M36 was being employed more and more in the role of a tank, a task for which it was not properly designed. Requests were received for both a coaxial and a bow machine gun. The latter was already provided in the M36B1 since it used the standard tank hull. Complaints about the high ground pressure resulted in the application of the M4E9 spaced out suspension and extended end connectors to the late production vehicles. All of these factors foreshadowed the demise of the tank destroyer in the postwar army. It was too much to expect a vehicle originally designed as a highly mobile self-propelled gun to perform the role of a tank. All of the modifications such as the auxiliary armor and folding turret top only served to underline its deficiencies when compared to a properly designed tank. Nevertheless, the M36s continued to serve during the postwar period and were furnished as foreign aid to a number of Allied nations. They were still in service in Korea during the mid 1950s. The passage is from Hunnicutt's legendary work on the Sherman. </font>

Jon, Thanks for the info on the counterattack John, Here is PEB a few years after D-day.

Jon, I tried to respond to your e-mail but had it bounced back. Thanks for the spreadsheet, very nice. Your creation? If so, I need to take you out for a couple of beers, if only to drag you away from the computer. BTW, check out the scenario discussion forum for the link to the topo site Andreas found. It's the bomb. Also, what is a 'porpoise' and 'MC Airborne'? Both are listed under type.

I may have to now that Andres dropped the bomb in the form of an excellent French topo map website. Got anything on 352nd Div's counterattack on the left flank of Gold beach? Zet shows the Fusilier, StuGs and part of 915th Regt. Brits may be 69th brigade and 4/7 Dragoons.

The problem with your analogy, Mike, is that the prosecutor decided that stating the facts of the case wasn't enough, but instead chose to add totally unwarrented insults and personal attacks to his closing arguments.