Kanonier Reichmann

Off the top of my head the German AFV's in CMBO that have it are Tiger I, King Tiger, Panther (?), JgPz IV (both models?), JagdPanther & JagdTiger. I think that's the lot but I'm sure someone will correct me if I've missed any out. Regards Jim R.

An example Dandelion of how they stuffed up the design of the M60 in terms of complexity was the introduction of a hollow gas piston with holes in its side to allow the gas in. It apparently was designed this way to ensure a "constant energy" gas regulator in the gas system rather than most MG's of similar design requiring the operator to simply adjust the gas port to allow more gas in when say it gets dirty & needs more power to operate it. The unfortunate consequence of this hollow piston design is that it is perfectly possible to put the piston into the cylinder block back to front so that the holes do not line up so that when one fires the weapon you get one shot and it stops. Imagine trying to strip the damn think in the pitch dark yet trying to ensure you get that bloody piston back in the right way around. A story going around is that this particular design feature even caught out a salty Vietnam vet type who was demonstrating to some new recruits how well versed he was in stripping the M60 down to clean it and then quickly re-assemble to be ready to meet the potential onslaught of the charging enemy. After he had done his oh so impressive speedy strip down, clean & re-assemble trick he then cocked the bolt for a long burst into the firing range but only managed the one shot. Suffice to say he didn't live that effort down for quite a while! Regards Jim R.

Wasn't it designated the M60 because it had 18 more design faults than the MG42 it was based on? Or is that an urban myth? Regards Jim R.

A quick question Kingfish. Do you agree with the reasons stated why all participants should stick to 1.02 while playing these 3 scenario's? I'd be interested in obtaining your input on the discussion. Regards Jim R.

My only problem with what you're proposing Juha is that it may turn out that there are not enough results under 1.02 to be able to obtain a statistically reliable measurement under the Nabla scoring sytem. I would imagine (off the top of my head) that one would need at least 15 to 20 results under 1.02 to be able to produce meaningful statistical information. If a whole bunch of players decided to complete their games under 1.03 then there could well be a problem in meeting the required number of games completed under 1.02. I'm sure Kingfish will set me straight if I'm talking out of my arse. Regards Jim R.

What, they weren't in Italy? Regards Jim R.

I concur with Mikeydz. Because everyone's performance (including the finalists) under the Nabla scoring system is based on all the scores achieved by the various players competing in this 2nd round, it could adversely affect players who have made significant progress in these games under 1.02. It would unduly penalise players who have made significant progress in their games but suffering from the unhittable gun bug under 1.02 compared with players who have just started but would obtain the benefit of being able to hit those guns under 1.03. Seeing as there's no ladder position attached to these games I would have thought that it's essential to ensure the Nabla scoring system maintains its integrity in the circumstances. It seems to me that the way to ensure a level playing field is to have everyone playing under 1.02 so there can't be any argument that one competitor benefited from a different version of the game compared with another. Regards Jim R.

Geez. For a minute there I thought you were planning a late war giant scenario set in Germany somewhere east of Berlin using lots of T34 flamethrowers. Obviously not. Regards Jim R.

Chris...you don't happen to be an actuary or an accountant do you? BTW, your hard work in producing such a comprehensive spreadsheet is sensational. You must have amazing patience! Regards Jim R.

I loved this part from that site when reveiwing Airborne Assault. It's September 1944. Under the plan devised by British General "Monty" Montgomery, the allies launch Operation Market Garden, the biggest airborne operation of all time, aimed at capturing the bridges across the Rhine. While the U.S. 30th Armored Corps rolls through the Netherlands to meet them, British, Polish, and American paratroops are supposed to secure a passage as far as the last bridge: the bridge at Arnhem, near Eindhoven. The Americans succeed in capturing their targets and holding them until the land forces arrive, but the First Parachute Division of the British Army holding the bridgehead is decimated (only 2293 survivors out of 10,000 men), and the Division is forced to abandon the fight after nine days, though it was only supposed to hold the bridge for two days! Just a very slight rewrite of history here. The way this reveiw is written one would swear that it was virtually an all American show with the Brit's being bit players. To top it off, it would appear the British First Airborne were not up to snuff the way they failed to hold their objective while the U.S. forces did their bit with ease. Regards Jim R.

Another point worth considering is that these 3 scenario's were apparently tested under ver. 1.02 so they are as the designer intended. Regards Jim R.

Thanks for all the replies to date. I would guess the best reason was simply the Soviets predilection for artillery and lots of it so the need for clear observation was paramount. Seems to make sense to me so at least I can sleep easy now. Regards Jim R.

This is very much a subjective thing. Is someone using the "bug to their advantage" by simply placing their guns just behind slopes and ridges? Whether I was using 1.0, 1.01, 1.02 or now 1.03 I would still place any guns I had in the most advantageous position possible. Is that considered using a bug to ones advantage? I would hope not since that tactic wouldn't change for me no matter what version of the game I'm using. Food for thought, that's all. Regards Jim R.

I've been wondering for some time now why the Soviets did not equip their AFV's and mortars (on board at least as depicted in CMBB) with a supply of smoke shells? Surely they could see the benefit in being able to mask advances made by infantry with locally provided smoke screens. The only reason I can think of why there is this general dearth of smoke shells when it comes to the Soviet side is that they may have considered it not "manly" enough or too "wussy" to advance against entrenched defenders with the benefit of smoke cover. I'm sure that's not the real reason but does anyone know for sure why they didn't rely on smoke alot more on the tactical level? Thanks in advance. Jim R.

I wonder what that could be? Regards Jim R.

Thanks for your thoughts H No idea. I can't imagine any other country could have as pernicious a Customs Dept. as good ol' Aus. has but I could be wrong. Just to add a bit more to the story, it now turns out they can't find the package anymore and are "searching" for it at the moment. I wonder if the red stained empty wine glasses in the store-room are any hint? I also have the (mis)fortune of playing the Germans in this one. Judging by the look of the setup I don't like my chances. Great! Something to look forward to then. I could do with a few more downers. I've heard worse. BTW H. I know I owe you a game but I'm a bit busy with these 3 extra games on top of some I have going in tournaments instituted via the Band of Brothers BBS. I promise I'll send you a setup once my card clears up but you may have to remind me occasionally. Regards Jim R. Note: Edited to fix a couple of spelling mistakes etc. [ June 02, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

I just thought I would throw this in as a by the by. Fellow ROW'ers may be interested to know that I finally received a note on the 15th May from Australia Post (our local postal service) that a package had arrived to be collected from their depot. By all descriptions it was a box with half a dozen bottles of wine contained within having been sent from South Africa. Trying not to get too excited since I had already waited for around 6 months I casually asked the postal employee on the phone what the ticked box at the back of the delivery note meant. He explained that the box titled "Customs Dept." meant that the payment of customs duty was probably required. After making further enquiries it turns out that the good ol' Australian Customs Dept. has assesed the value of the half dozen bottles of wine to attract customs duty of $66! Based on this information it would seem that the bottles of wine will either be consumed by those fine fellows at Australia Post or sent back to Winecape for non delivery. This is not a slight on Winecape in any way as he very generously sent the wine off as promised and did all he could to ensure the prize was received but it appears he has not tackled the likes of our customs officials before. Suffice to say, I won't be paying $66 for the privilige of taking possesion of the ROW III prize and now wish that someone else from another country had won it so it at least goes to someone worthwhile. It goes without saying that in future I wont be trying quite so hard for those victories as the beurocratic nightmare one has to tackle to take posession of any hard fought prizes one may win simply is not worth the effort! Regards Jim R.

Just to answer your question Mikeydz...I'm pretty sure Kingfish will say that you should be using ver. 1.02 as the beta patch of 1.03 only works with American sourced copies of CMBB and not the CDV version. Unless all the players in your group have the American version then it may have to be 1.02. This presents other potential problems mind you as there will be the ongoing bug of not being able to hit infantry, MG teams & guns by direct HE fire if they're in a small depression. I'll leave it to Kingfish to decide which way to go on this. My suggestion would be to play it as ver. 1.01 as at least this version didn't have the unhittable gun bug and seemed to work reasonably well in my ROW III games where my AT guns in both The Beast & King of Debrecen were eminantly hittable despite often being in "hull down" positions. Regards Jim R.

I would say the most direct equivalent to the T34/85 in CMBO terms would be the 76mm armed Shermans as their guns are able to penetrate the Tiger and occasionally the Panther from front on but you will need to be pretty close. The equivalent of the normal 75mm armed Shermans is, of course, the T34/76. As far as British equipment is concerned, the T34/76 equivalent for them is the Cromwell while the T34/85 equivalent is the Comet with its cut down 17 pdr gun (oficially referred to as 77mm although it had exactly the same diameter shell as the true 17pdr. gun). In fact the Comet can pretty reliably take down the Tiger and Panther from the frotal aspect at ranges exceeding 500 metres or more. Just make sure you get the first accurate shot in that's all. Regards Jim R.

Redwolf. I assume "AF" stands for allied forces. Regards Jim R.

Interesting stuff these stats. If you look at the following one thing is very interesting.. Section 1-1 Juha_Ahoniemi 0.17 Bimmer 0.16 Enoch 0.01 Tabpub -0.08 (+.081)=.001 Spanish Bombs -0.18 (+.162)= -0.018 Combined Arms -0.12 If Bimmer had simply submitted 1 AAR he would have actually won for his group. Furthermore, if the 3rd placegetter Enoch had submitted all 5 AAR's he would have actually pulled himself up from 3rd place to win his group with an overall score of 0.172. I wonder if Bimmer and Enoch are kicking themselves right now? As for lack of AAR's it is a bit disappointing and I'm guilty of that myself with only 2 of them submitted in time. Rest assured Kingfish you will receive my AAR on King of Debrecen hopefully tonight while I'll also do a very brief one on The Christmas battle but I believe my comments in the seperate BBS on this one probably covers the main points I wanted to make on that scenario. For some reason I can never motivate myself to write AAR's for a game where there were multiple opponents as occured with The Beast since it doesn't seem right when one possibly scores an unjust result due to the subsequent players who have taken over not knowing what has transpired beforehand. Rest assured, my overall view is that The Beast was an excellent scenario if a bit tough for the Germans and if ever a side needed some bonus points it was in this particular game rather than the easier to defend scenario of Hosszupalyi. Just look at the bare weight of numbers and I would have thought that 10 T34/85's plus a virtually impenetrable "Beast" plus an AT gun plus a significantly stronger and better armed infantry force against a weakened and significantly smaller (and poorer quality) infantry force, all of 2 Panthers and 3 AT guns would qualify the German side for the bonus points when compared with "Hoss". The only way this scenario tips in the defenders balance IMO is if it was played under ver. 1.02 where those AT guns could be placed in defilade positions behind small ridges or gullies near the river and become virtually impossible to hit. Unfortunately mine died very quickly despite being in such positions as soon as they exposed themselves when each gun took down a T34/85. Anyway, all games were fun in their own way and my heartfelt thanks to Treeburst, Kingfish and Nabla plus the Boots & Tracks team for all the scenarios to ensure the tournament went ahead. Regards Jim R. [ May 28, 2003, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

Ummmm....I think you've just broken your resolution already! Regards Jim R.

Let me be the first to formally congratulate you Holien for your very fine efforts in Section 1/2. A very good result for you with your record of mostly extreme wins putting you in good stead. Well done indeed. The end results appear to be as follows with no amounts of AAR's making any difference to the end winner as H had the foresight to do his AAR's as he went along: Holien .57 Kanonier Reichmann .45 Cpl Carrot .22 Bertram (.28) Martyr (but mostly Tuomas) (.55) Michael Dorosh (.64) I'm sure all of us in our group wish you the best in the 2nd round and hope you win the grand prize for the bottles of wine. Regards Jim R.

The "B" stands for bigger? Regards Jim R.

I believe one of the best bunker killers are the likes of auto-cannon armed AFV's like Pz II's & 20mm armed armoured cars and halftracks. Doesn't really make sense does it. Regards Jim R.