Terence

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: "The Siegfried Line Campaign" by Charles B. MacDonald has most everything you'll need. There are maps, detailed descriptions of the battles for Eschweiler, Hastenrath, Wilhelmshohe, Weisweiler, Inden, and many more. US and German forces are discussed. The 104th faced the German 12th Infantry, then the 47th Division, then the remants of those two divisions in Kampfgruppe Engel, then the inexperienced 3rd Parachute Division. It is a US Army "Green Book", available on the web from the www.army.mil/cmh-pg location, or I am sure one of the NYC libraries has it. It's impressive how well the 104th did -- the US divisions which entered combat in September'44 and later certainly did much better (at first) than some of the divisions which entered combat in Normandy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sir, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks very much for your help. All the best, Terence

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: We will see who has the most chips on their shoulder when Brown and Erikson next meet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WhatEVER!!. American chips are still way way better than British chips. In fact, you guys wouldn't even HAVE chips it it wasn't for us. Its people like you what cause unrest!!!

Hello All, I'm looking for details on Operation Queen, (Nov 44)which was concerned with breaching the Seigfried line and taking Aachen Eschweiler and surrounding towns, as far as I can gather. Im particularly interested in the role that the 104th ID played, and even more specifically in the role played by the 414th Regiment. Can anyone point me towards resources -- maps, AARs, whatever? I've searched on the web with little luck. The 104th ID site has some good stuff, but its not very specific, and neither is army.mil, as far as I can tell. I see overviews but nothing on a day to day basis that describes the campaign. Any help would be gratefully appreciated, and if you are in NYC or the surrounding area, repaid in beer. (No, not American beer.) thanks, Terence

deleting duplicate posting caused by forum error, not my incompetence. cheers, Terence [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crepitis: Hey Terence,IPA,et al,I feel so proud that we've all done our bit for International relations.I certainly wasnt having a pop at Americans,it was just tongue in cheek....,Bob.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is what I thought, and as I said, if I really were irked, I bet I could have come up with some better retort than "sucks boo." Although, for the British, taking the piss out of the Americans is a tradition with a long and glorious history --predates the War of Independence (or as you gleefully call it, The Colonial Uprising of 1776) And I'm sure that's because we always, always rise to the bait. Every nationality has a few points worth making fun of. I'd just rather talk about the game -- in this thread, anyway. So in a desperate effort to keep this on topic -- MACE: can you tell us any more about these scenarios? When might they be ready? Ternece

Right. Don't worry too much about the formation, and think about ways in which you can stop the enemy bullets from hitting you. An ideal assault across open territory would involve suppression fire (from tanks MGs mortars, other squad. whatever you have, really. And lots of smoke. If you can do that you can move in whatever formation you like. If you get close to a suppressed enemy, you are likely to win. This is just what works for me. Terence [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-05-2000).]

Thanks for the quick reply! I figured that it must be some variation on that scheme. Still, it must get tricky when units are exchanging fire and causing mutual casualties, or when the mix changes and one of the combatants starts getting shelled by a third party... . Eesh. Makes my head hurt. I will do that search. Thanks again for such a great game. Terence [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-04-2000).]

Comrades, How does CM model small arms fire? Before you start chanting Abstraction Abstraction, let me articulate a bit. If I have, say, a US rifle squad of 10 people in the woods shooting at a German rifle squad of 10 people in the woods, how does CM figure out how my troops fire hits, misses, suppresses or otherwise affects the enemy? Note: Did a search for "infantry and accuracy" and didn't turn anything up. Terence (edited for grammar and spelling) [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-04-2000).]

had no idea there was a uk history channel. my comments apply only to us version thereof.

Mister Bates, Sometimes the History Channel (having a shortage of original content) broadcasts documentaries/propaganda films that were actually made during the time period in question. Was this one of those? I only ask because these days it sure would be hard to characterize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets and justify the atomic bombing that way. (Perhaps you can justify it some other way, I'm no expert on the period or the issue.) However, if the piece in question was shot in 1946 (for example), the context is a little different.. Terence

I've seen this too. I was playing one of WBW's excellent scenarios, (the one where you have 3 panthers one commanded by a guy named Barkmann, I think and defend a crossroads in Normandy) and a Sherman tried to flank me and ended up backing through a gap in the bocage and ending up right in front of one lurking panther. This happened twice in that scenario (two dead shermans) and once again (in a different spot)when I replayed the same scenario. Now, my ambuscades were such that even if the shermans had come around the corner front-ways, I would have gotten off the first shot, but still. Terence

You know, I don't think he was taking one at me either, although he did make a sort of ungenerious swipe at the Yankees on the board. (But I classify that as the sort of hail-fellow-well-met piss-taking that we hear so often from the British Isles.) If I was really irked, I think I would have managed something more devastating than "sucks boo." ha ha ha? Terence PS. Yeah, where would the British Empire have been without Irish Generals and Scottish troops? [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-04-2000).]

Well, Im an American and I posted the topic in the first place _and_ I deliberately said "British" to include Scots, Welsh and the Irish who served in Her Majesty's forces. One of them (an Englishman) was my (recently knighted) godfather, so sucks boo to you, old bean. Terence [This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-04-2000).]

exactly! Didn't the British practically INVENT commando operations, after all. I do recall hearing that the word commando came from Afrikaans, but didn't the British Commandos make a habit of nipping across the channel to break things and hurt people in occupied Europe? Now, again, i do realize that there are SOME of these out there, but when you consider how exciting and challenging the british operations were, it just surprises me that they aren't better represented in the pool of scenarios. Now, I'm a Yankee, (although my Godfather is a British Diplomat and was a soldier before that. He drove a Sherman during the Second world war and took on a King Tiger once. And won.) so I wonder -- is this just the US looking inwards? Would there be more british scenarios if there were more british/continenal gamers? since you can't walk into a store in Britain and buy the thing etc etc. Terence

Comrades I don't read much on the board about British tanks. Perhaps I just missed it, but people seem much more interested in the German and then the American tanks than in the British ones. And I wonder why? (also, I haven't seen very many scenarios for the British. (I mean, Ive seen SOME,(south of sword, for example) but not nearly as many as for the American forces. For the record, I'd like to see more, but I don't have the skill to design good ones myself yet.) Are the British tanks less fun to play? I always thought that they were rather clever-- the flame thrower tank, the mine sweeper tank, etc. I played one scenario with three Challengers and thought they were just fine. Of rourse, I was the Germans, and my jagdpanzer took all of them out, but that was cause i was terribly terribly clever about ambushing them. So what's the deal? Nobody wants to give the Boche what for with "Hobart's Funnies?" Terence PS. This is a fairly serious question. Im not trolling. I really do want to hear what people think about the British weapons (and troops for that matter) and why there arent as many scenarios that feature the British arms. If in fact, I have it right and there is an imbalance. PPS. If there are some particularly good British scenarios that people have done, let me know where they are, please.

I love this mod, as an IA, I do a lot of interface design work. And I find this new intervace really does improve the experience. Really really first rate work. Terence

I just like to see stuff blow SKY HIGH, while my men snicker nastily in their fox holes, unscathed. (anyone else think "fox hole" sounds dirty?)

Juardis, Thanks. Are you by any chance the same Juardis who played M1 Tank Platoon 2 with such verve? I wonder what happened to Mike Dubose... Rock on, Terence

Indeed, Captain? I did not realize your affections did that way tend. Hell, lets make it a highly evolved bicycle instead of a machine gun, and a remote control mallard duck instead of a half track or a tank. Can my bicycle shoot bullets into the goddamned duck more easily if it is up high? Yours in Haste, Terence

If I put a Heavy MG team (lets say .50 cal) in a building and an open topped vehicle (like a german half track) drives within range, lets say real close range, is it easier to knock out cause you can shoot down into it? What about other vehicles like lighter tanks? Has anyone seen the bullets punch through the roof? heh heh heh. I belive that would be cool to see. Terence

Anthro in a rut? Because every discussion of ethnography dissolves in a burst of post modernist static? Thank you Foucault! And after that, the ruins are picked over by epistemologists. who ask "What does it mean to "know" something. At which time, there is No Hope. albest, Terence

Thank you Jeff. I certainly will try to find that book. Yes, that is a motley collection of books. Some I read for beautiful use of language, some for the ring of military authenticity, and some for the pace of the narrative. The best have all three. And since i don't design military simulations, it matters little to me what kind of gun the Panther carried. (if you told me it was an 88, I'd happily walk off believing it and probably repeat it in a knowing tone at a cocktail party.) Althought let it be known : I'm VERY happy that BTS cares about all that stuff, and I wish them every success. As far as Ambrose is concerned, we may have to agree to disagree. I've been posting on bulletin boards and similar systems since since 1989, I never step away from a discussion or a disagreement and have yet to change anyone's mind about anything. Ever In that sense, at least, I have a perfect record. All the best to you, sir. Terence

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo: Hmmm I hate to rise to Ambroses defense but.. One thing should be clarified though, and its best to come from a Brit. There is no way Ambrose is anti british , I submit his "Pegasus Bridge" as exhibit A for the defense, read it and come away singing "Rule Brittania" Sure he has voiced a few of the complaints Americans had about Monty but its always worth remembering that Montys harshest critics in WW2 were British not American as he made very few friends in the RAF or RN. Just my 0.02c _dumbo Uh oh I mentioned Monty, duck and cover <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, by God!!! When I finished Supreme Commander, I wanted to run out and buy a bio of Montgomery, Ambrose painted such an interesting nuanced picture of the man. I still haven't. Can Anyone recommend one? I thought I'd maybe read one by an American and one by a British historian...

For the love of god, BTS, please lock this thread!!!

And while we are on the subject, gentlemen, can anyone reccommend some histories that they do like? After having confessed liking Ambrose's work, to a chilly reception, I'm a little skittish about listing off some of the others that I read and enjoyed, but I'll trust that should you determine my list to be the ramblings of a fool, you'll say so gently Here it is in no particular order: The Last Battle A Bridge Too Far (both by Cornelius Ryan) The Forgotten Soldier (Guy Sajer. Ive heard this was unmasked as fiction, but its a hell of a read, really) Barbarossa (Alan Clark, ) Lost Victories (Von Mannstein) Stalingrad (Anthony Beevor) Achtung Panzer (Heinz Guderian --although my play of CM does not reflect that I absorbed any of what he wrote!) Panzer Commander (Hans Von Luck) Battle For Stalingrad (Vasily Chuikov) I struggled through this in the original, which was heavy lifting, let me tell you! Moving back, I also liked David Howarth's books on Trafalgar and Waterloo, and Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August. There are more, of course, but a small voice is telling me that you may be sick of my drivel for today. Albest, Terence