Kanonier Reichmann

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ncounio: I was just wondering if the release of french version of CM is not the perfect time to revive the much despised H39 support group. To the newbies, one of the goals of this group was to help CMholics to get rid of the "I got a bigger gun than yours" syndrome. How do you know you got this syndrome, well each time you play a QB you end up with nothing smaller than a Jumbo or a Tiger I. You are in terminal phase if you only pick up JagdTigers The H39 support group offers you a way to quit on big tanks by using the H39 fine piece of french mechanical genius . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a query ncunio...was it called a "Hotchkiss" because of its hotchpotch design combined with some French government purchasing official's acceptance in the 1930's of the manufacturers "we'll kiss your arse heaps if you approve our wonderful design of a new French light tank". Regards Jim R

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pathfinder: aah agrees with chupacabra... dem is peewits thats knowingly goes fer the medal of honor or pour le merite or whatever. likes that genr'l onest said "let them other bastids die fer THEIR country" or sumtfink laks that [This message has been edited by pathfinder (edited 09-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God Pathfinder....I thought "Strine" (a.k.a. Australian) was hard to understand but that suthen axsent of yours is even worse! Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: **** Happens™. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Arsheholes cause it (no offense just had to say it)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER: I didnt kill those people....geeez....if i posted a whole buch of PIC like that...then maybe it warrants a BAN... But even when I ask sensible questions I get Abused.... BTS........the judge and JURY.... you can see the point... The rest can kiss my ass as they have no idea....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One can see from JP's "style" that his future in the Diplomatic Corps is about as assured as the likelihood of Prime Minister John Howard saying "sorry" to the Australian aborigines. Jochen, you're goose is cooked! Jim R.

I can't believe someone is prepared to count the number of bleedin' shellholes to try & work out if more artillery is on its way. YIKES! How much time do you guys spend on each turn? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: The M60 is based on a Belgian design, not the mg42, and yes there is very little difference between the MG3 and the 42. As for the 60 being a POS, where're you getting your data? I liked mine, I liked it a lot(since it probably kept my young @ss alive) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry but I wasn't trying to say the M60 was a "piece of ****e" but simply I remember reading somewhere that the piston in the M60 had holes drilled into it for some reason whereas the MG42 had a solid piston. The problem with the "holy" piston was if you put it back the wrong way around (after cleaning say) the holes didn't line up or something & then all you would get is one shot off before it stopped firing! (from memory). I was just interested in the American rationale for changing what was a tried & tested design. Regards Jim R.

Can we anticipate a picture of yourself being posted? I'm sure many junior members/members would LOVE to see who it is we're dealing with. Jim R.

I'm hoping some of you grognards "in the know" could enlighten me why the Americans took a perfectly good design in the German MG42 & then made a number of design changes to it to produce the M60...an MG which I gather was less reliable than its predecessor with the greater complexity in its design making it more prone to jams etc. What was the rationale behind the design changes? Were there perfectly sound reasons for them at the time or perhaps could it have been a national pride thing along the lines of... "well, if the Germans can design a good MG then our version MUST be different and by definition, better." Any input on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellros: The MP44 does look similar to the AK-47 because the Mp44 is what Mr. Kalishnakov used as a template for his infamous weapon, just as we used the MG42 as the base for the M60.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This raises a point that has always puzzled me. Why did the Americans make so many changes to the basic MG 42 design to finally end up with the M60 which, form all accounts was a less reliable & more complicated design. I'd be interested to hear from someone who may just happen to know the rationale behind the design changes. Perhaps simply national pride that dictated that America MUST be able to make a better designed MG than the Germans? Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

Why am I reminded of a bunch of blokes lined up at the urinal? Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

How about the paint job be done with invisible paint? Then, and only then, might the "behemoth like" Hotchkiss survive for more than a turn once it's spotted...simply because it will never be spotted...THINKS OUT LOUD...unless of course it's moving through smoke ah la that current Kevin Bacon film. Of course the uncharitable ones amongst us could argue that even if it is invisible it will still be next to useless. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

I'm with you Rommel22. I have suggested this sort of idea before but never seems to create a huge response. Perhaps I needed to be a full blown Member for other board browsers to take me seriously? Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

I second that! Seeing the map first may also influence my force selection as well since, if there's a seemingly good ambush point on my side of the map I may purchase an A.T. gun, even in a Meeting Engagement. Just my 2c worth. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BasilD: As I remember this was part of Patton's strategy guide, something to the effect of: Drive forward til something blows you up then come back and give me a report. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No wonder Patton had that nickname, good ol blood an guts...."our blood, his guts!" from the G.I.'s perspective. Regards Jim R.

I should have known not to use PSW 222 with all you grogs out there. It's just that I never can remember whether it's SdKfz7-1 or SdKfz1-7 or whatever the hell it is! :0 Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

Thanks guys for the informative answers. It's clear that once a crew member is lost then you can't unbutton...makes sense I guess with the explanation provided that other tasks to be caried out to cover for the loss of a crew member means there's no time for sight-seeing. Regards Jim R.

Dear Steve. I have a problem. My wife has left me saying I dont pay her anywhere near enough attention now that I have this game. Last I heard she's shacked up with some lesbian prostitute who can "attend to her needs" better than me. I'm left at home trying to look after 3 children, but that's not easy. My son has just "come out" and proclaimed his undying love for his Physics teacher Mr Poondock at his school. My daughter has just joined the Divine Wind ultra religious anarchist group whose agenda is to poison all non believers with physohexachloraformic gas, which they are furiously brewing up in huge quantities in various sites around the world. My other daughter has a partially formed parasitic foetus like growth growing out from her skull which requires constant medical attention so she can have some sort of quality of life. I have just lost my job as my employer went bankrupt but made sure he fled to Spain first with all the employees funds that had been accumulated in the superannuation fund. I'm 3 months in arrears in my home loan repayments with an eviction notice slapped on the property and I've spent all my last savings on the latest computer upgrade to be able to run Combat Mission in 2000 x 1800 resolution mode on a 30 inch monitor To top it off I've just found out that I'm suffering from the rare disease testropic mesotheliatus which is invariably terminal within 6 months Now my problem is this....I have this bazooka squad lying in a perfect ambush position to take out either a PSW 222 Armoured Car or a PzKw IVh, which one should I target first? Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

I have a query which I'm hoping some of the experts can quickly clear up for me. I'm playing a Q.B. where I have an M10 Tank Destoyer hull down (I think) on top of the hill. As soon as it shows it's presence, sure enough a distant PAK 75 bobs up, hits the upper hull on the 2nd shot achieving a partial penetration and killing a crewman. Now my T.D. is immobile, I assume because the driver has been incapacitated but leaving the rest of the crew O.K. My problem is that when I go to unbutton the vehicle once it gets over the shock of losing a crew member, I can't do it. Despite the hit being on the hull am I to assume that the Commander somehow bought the farm or does the loss of a crew member ALWAYS result in the vehicle being considered immobile for the rest of the game?...possibly due to lack of confidence to carry on agressively perhaps? If I'm wrong on this assumption & perhaps the commander has somehow been killed by the hull hit then shouldn't I be able to move the T.D. as the driver must still be O.K. (although no doubt badly shaken). Any thought you guys have on this perplexing situation would be greatly appreciated. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Canuck: This sounds like such a despicable, cowardly deed (the fact of blaming the Aussies instead of the British officers). I guess I'd like to know because of some morbid fascination with the truth (no matter how unsettling) or something Thanks Captain Canuck <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It seemed to be a bit of a trait of the Poms to try to blame some of their disasters on the Aussies. Take the fall of Singapore for instance. There was a particularly vicious theory going around (promulgated by the "motherland") that the Australian 9th Infantry Division (from memory) stationed on Singapore was the catalyst for Allied units surrendering prematurely to the Japanese due to their poor performance in action and propensity to lie down in the face of enemy action. What fails to get mentioned is that the idiotic British commanders who decided where to defend on the island overlooked the fairly critical fresh water storage tanks which were basically left undefended. Once the Japanese captured these it was all over red rover for the defenders as they had nothing to drink and couldn't possibly hold out for any length of time. Funny how the Aussies suddenly became the scapegoats for that particular sorry chapter in the Britich Empire. Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: And to see a display of this particular example of Aussie tank design, check out: http://www.iol.net.au/~conway/ww2/sentinel.html </A> Mace Thanks Mace, that was a brilliant site. I am continually amazed at the sources of information you guys manage to dredge up. Regards Jim R. [This message has been edited by Mace (edited 08-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: The Australian Cruiser Tank, of course. It had 3 Cadillac V-8 engines. The A.C.1 had a 2 lbr. gun, a water-cooled 0.303 Vickers co-ax with another Vickers centrally mounted in the hull front. It weighed 28 tons and could go up to 35 mph. The A.C.3 was to have the 25 lbr., retain the co-ax MG but drop the hull MG. The A.C.4 was to have had the 17 lbr. One interesting feature is that the 3 Cadillac engines shared a common crankcase, giving the powerplant a semi-radial appearance. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn....that was too quick! You're right Michael, the Australian "Sentinel ACIII" Cruiser Tank is the corerct weight. Was it the reference to the American engine that gave it away or did you simply know it anyway? I see I'm going to have to make it tougher in future. BTW, I still think it was a shame it never saw any service as it would have been rather interesting to see how it would have performed. Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

Who can identify this tank described below: Medium Allied Tank Horizontal Volute Suspension Max. Road Speed 30mph 25 pdr main gun Height 8ft. 5in. (therefore NOT a Sherman variant) Cast one piece hull I could give it away by describing the power plant but rest assured it (powerplant) was American. The other hint is that it never saw service yet it apparently outperformed the equivalent Sherman in cross country ability, was relatively fast, had a low profile, good armour protection & excellent development potential in that the 17pdr. gun could be fitted without too much modification. Be interested to see how long it takes. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference)

This might be useful to the original poster of when are you hull down. What I have done in the past is advance my tank up a hill using the hunt command to a point where I'm pretty sure I'm hull down to the intended target. Timing can be critical but assuming my tank gets to its point towards the end of the turn it should hopefully have enough time to loose off a shot. Then you go examine the replay of the turn with a side on level 1 view of your tank to see if it depressed its gun to any great extent..if it did then there's a fair chance it is hull down to the intended target. If not then its time to hit reverse a.s.a.p.! A fairly labourious process I know but at least I'm content in the knowledge that my opponent has to live with the same rules as well. Hope this helps Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: There is a combination of factors here: 1. People for some reason don't think of AAA as effective ground to ground weapons. ( They were and are.) 2. People are starting the AAA gun off in a perfect attacking position. In reality IF a AAA gun got into position to fire at a bunker then it had a very good chance of taking it out BUT the bitch was dragging the AAA gun into position through the hail of MG or HE fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the more reason for BTS (he says hopefully) to include the M19 GMC with twin Bofors AA Guns mounted on an M24 Chaffee chassis. I know it was only being delivered to US units right towards the end of the war but it would still be alot of fun to test out against bunker fortifications. I guess I'll just have to keep dreaming Regards Jim R.