IPA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leta: Why not? It's also a real tactic. When the Germans do their final assault over the Frost's positions in Arnhem they use this tactic (see Cornelius Ryan's book "A Bridge Too Far")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes it was a realistic tactic, but Frost's men stayed inside the buildings until the last possible moment which was not the norm. In addition to holding the bridgehead, the purpose of their legendary defence was to deny the Germans the approaches to the bridge, which would not have been possible from positions in the rear gardens (CM's patch for automatic building evacuation after a certain amount of damage, IMO is also realistic). Once they were forced out the battle was effectively over. Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: All true so far as I can recall, but I'd swear that I have read that the air-transportable 25 pdr. was developed even though it might not have seen action. Since, as I say, I don't have my references available at the moment, I could be misremembering the details, but that's how I remember it. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think you're misremembering. AFAIK the Aussie lightweight was the Airborne version. As mentioned it was short barrelled with the gun shield removed and 800 pounds lighter. It could be broken up into eight manageable pieces and dropped by parachute. I believe some were airdropped to Australian forces in Papua New Guinea. Peter

Manx, Reiterating everyone else's comments....your site is superb and greatly appreciated....I visit it everyday.........I can totally understand your frustrations, don't let those Jack n' Dannys get to you. Thanks and best wishes, Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen. Sosaboski: They were flown in by glider (Polish glider pilots) into the LZ at Oosterbeek. However, it was a mass of confusion as a firefight between the "Red Devils" and the SS was underway when they landed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it was a mass of confusion. The KOSB's were holding on to the landing zone by their fingernails. Then the Polish gliders came into land while the 10th Parachute Battalion was retreating across the open ground. Panic ensued when the Germans appeared in the treelines. Moon has made a very good scenario depicting this episode of the battle called "A Polish Tragedy". An entirely apt title. KFS, oh go on, give the people what they want! There have been very few scenarios covering OMG for some time now. I have been working on an enormous Northern Oosterbeek Cauldron Scenario for many months now, but I won't release it until the map and historically present forces are as perfect as I can make them with CM and until it's been thoroughly playtested. Cheers. Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: There's no arguing with that. Now I wonder about British Airborne flamethrowers, in Sept. 44... --Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK, 18 flame throwers went in with the 1st AB Division. 6 for each of the three main Engineer Companies (1st and 4th Parachute Squadrons and 9th Field Co). Peter

The 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade was a self contained organisation with various heavy weapons support elements embedded. The Polish drop on 21st Sept was a disaster not because of casualties caused by ground fire as depicted in the movie (Estimated only 5 dead and 25 wounded), but because of bad weather. The entire brigade was recalled shortly after take off. Due to erroneous communications only 41 of the 114 C47s turned back, the remainder continued on to Arnhem where about two thirds of the Brigade were dropped at Driel. The portion of the Brigade that had turned back were dropped near Nijmegen on 23 September and travelled by land to join the rest at Driel thereafter. The only support elements that would have made it in on the 21st were the Vickers MG and 3" Mortar Platoons of the Parachute Battalions. They were definitely incomplete. The Brigade's Anti Tank Battery comprised 16 6 pdr ATGs. The planners in their wisdom decided to land all the guns North of the river. 6 guns on the 18th Sept with the 1st Airborne's second lift, of which 5 were successfully recovered and eventually incorporated into the Oosterbeek perimeter. 10 guns on the 19th Sept of which only three were recovered. Here are the estimated figures for the number of Polish troops that dropped on the 21st (excludes troops landed North of the Rhine). Brigade HQ - 77 1st Battalion - 62 2nd Battalion - 323 3rd Battalion - 210 Anti-Tank Coy (no guns) - 62 Engineer Coy - 87 Signals Coy - 64 Medical Coy - 70 Supply Coy - 36 Light Artillery Coy - 3 (No Polish 75mm Pack Howitzers were landed at Arnhem, they followed up with the seaborne tail) British Liason officers - 9 Hope this helps Regards, Peter Edit note: The German counter-attack would have been undertaken by the 10th SS Panzer Division KGr. However, this possibly included remnants of Graebner's 9th SS Reconnaissance Battalion. [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

Post deleted by an intellectually impaired poster out of respect for Slapdragon. [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lah: Can I have some of that anti-wrinkle cream?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. I fully support the less flabby look, but why the large wart on his cheek? Peter

Residing in Singapore. Originally from Sudbury, Suffolk, UK Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: There were three major variants of the Sten by 1944 - the Mk II, the simplified Mk III, and the Mk V (which went to airborne troops only.) The Mk II (the most common) could be broken down easier than the Mk III (which had the barrel housing and body all in one) and was dropped in large numbers to resistance units in Europe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the reply. If anyone's interested here's a superb website on the Sten, everything you ever wanted to know and some. It also concurs with Michael's comments. http://www2.prestel.co.uk/history/sten/ Peter

Jason, Would you consider factoring in the following to explain some of the distortion? 1/ Colonial and Commonwealth ground forces by 1945. Britain - 2.9 Mil Commonwealth - Approx 3.5-4.0 Mil (Largest contributors India, Australia, NZ, Canada) British Home Guard - 1.7 mil As I understand it, Commonwealth and Home Guard forces generally followed the British Army TO&E and were armed in similar proportions. Thus the sten allocation for the war in the Far East is perhaps too low. 2/ Could the large sten quantity also be attributed to progressive upgrading and replacement? There were 5 or 6? variants. Was this also the case for the Thompson and the grease gun? 3/ Have the US Nation Guard/Home defence forces been factored in? I have no idea on the manpower figures. Peter

Could somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong, I can post images. I'm using a online portal "Freedrive.com", that has a photo album facility. This is what I've tried (probably dumb). I upload a JPEG, it posts a thumb nail, I double click on it to get the full size image, I right click, select properties, copy the http address, go into CM Forum, click reply, click image, paste address and this is what I get:- http://205.141.206.69/files/025folder06/1534/9911499112345705.jpg?a=VJMCUKP0S0SUJ4D9&n=1st%20Border-01.jpg&m=image/pjpeg&fs=205916&v=0&ip=165.21.83.214&fd=9345415&oid=192[/img ] If you paste this address on your're browser does it get you there? Please help, I ain't too savvy! Thank you in advance Peter Post edit: Sorry, problem solved [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

Napoleonics at Arnhem. C Company 1st Border waiting to repell an attack on the Western side of the perimeter. I count 22 and apparently there were a couple more sections just out of camera view to the left. I guess in that situation concentrating available firepower was everthing. Peter [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I think this decision should be made after solid research has been done. What was the SOP for Universal Carrier crews after they deposited the mortars and AT guns? An AT Gun is usually dug in well and camouflaged. I don't see them keeping the carrier anywhere close by, since that means extra work in camouflaging it and trying to hide it. Three inch mortars, too, were designed to be inconspicuous and their advantage was that you could put them underground and they were invisible to the enemy. Not so a carrier. Pictures I've seen of 3 inch mortars show large piles of ammo - with no sign of the carrier nearby. This isn't proof of anything, but I would suggest one needs to check the regulations, as well as first hand accounts, to see what the practice usually was. It is interesting to note that at least one Canadian battalion (the 48th Highlanders) didn't use carriers for the AT platoon - their transport was sunk on the way to Sicily, and they used 15 cwt trucks instead - and I believe continued using them in Italy. Then again, AT platoons were underemployed in Sicily due to lack of targets and enemy tanks - another battalion's AT platoon in Sicily (Carleton and York) never fired a single shot in anger during the 38 days of the campaign. In any event, my presumption is that, say, for a 3 inch mortar team, they would be deposited in a decent spot and their ammo offloaded before an action started - so penalizing them with an ammo shortage if their vehicle isn't close by would not be realistic. I wouls suspect it would have been offloaded and made ready long beforehand. If the mortar/AT Gun starts the scenario in tow or on the carrier, that would be a different story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Michael, I totally agree with everything you just said. I have also seen many pictures and read first hand accounts of what you describe. Please refer back to my much earlier post (Page 1 and 2). I actually wasn't proposing an ammo penalty at the initial setup, but only if the mortar/A/T team was moved on foot. As you mentioned it appears that the ammunition would be stock piled at a prepared position, normally well concealed gun pits (given the time) and the attached transport moved out of the way (please refer to page 1 and 2). So such units would not have to able to move wholesale a great distance without leaving something behind. Not meaning to be repetitive but a 3 man mortar team would only be able to move the tube, bipod and base plate in one go. With each mortar round weighing about ten pounds, one man could perhaps carry six or seven at a time. Thus with out transport it would take a several runs to move the lot over a short distance. Steve has already explained something along the lines that there is a certain abstraction in that the attached transport element is difficult to simulate because crews cannot be separated from their vehicles. I just thought that Simon's idea of "bundled" units and an ammunition penalty if unit moves were made on foot without using transport was perhaps a solution. Peter Post Edit Note: Darn it Michael, I even used your website in my second post as a primary source! [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: No doubt simulating the British tactical use of the Bren carrier is difficult without the ability to dismount the crews. This applies to a number of British units in which organisationally the carrier was part of the unit. I take it that the same principles applied to the modelling of the 3in mortar were applied to the Vickers MG since it has quite a lot of ammo and is glacially slow. Personally I always buy a carrier for these units unless I'm on the defense (and even then I often do). On the issue of simulating these kind of units without rewriting the game engine to allow specific crews to dismount I had a couple of alternative ideas. Firstly, the 3in mortar could be 'bundled' with a carrier as a specific unit. This would be fairly historically accurate and have the effect of raising the price. Alternatively a transport version of the carrier could have been put in the game. This could have say 1-2 crew, no Bren gun, and a slightly increased transport capacity. As an aside, since the British are disadvantaged in being unable to use their Bren carrier crews in a historically accurate way I have spent the last week calculating the effect of of this on the combat efficiency on a British infantry battalion. My conclusion is that the formation is undermodelled by 14.362% in CMBO compared to the historical case. My reasoning and calculations are of course rather long and essentially dull, though supported with the most pertinent examples (well those that do support them anyway). Therefore I will not post them here. However, I have just signed a publishing contract and the first of three volumes should be out soon. To summarise my conclusions: CMBO is gamey, BTS please fix or somefink. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really think that the "bundled" idea for towed units as described would go some way the handle this issue. It goes without saying that units such as 3" mortars or towed ATs, etc were deposited using a vehicle of some sort. Also, if such units are moved (beyond a certain distance) without using the bundled transport that unit should suffer an immediate ammunition penalty - casualties or no casualties. Of course, the option to purchase without transport should also remain, but the penalty should still apply. Peter [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

Steve, For British line infantry, I'd have to agree that the below actual strength reasoning is justified. However, I was actually trying to use the accompanying transport as an explanation for the high ammo load out of 66 rounds in CM. Line Mortar crews, on a CM battlefield would have been very static. During the initial setting up of positions, the ammuntion would have possibly been unloaded into the weapons pits and then the transport pulled back to the rear/battalion HQ (out of harms way). On the other hand a Mortar crew could not have possibly moved that much ammo without transport or additional manpower. However, I can see that increasing the size of mortar crews would have increased the cries for gamey use of mortar crews as last resort infantry. I have to admit that my source for line crews, is Michael Dorosh's excellent website commentary on the organisation of a Commonwealth Infantry Battalion. Now airborne units are a different matter. Support Companies (but not necessarily rifle companies) were sent into operations at full official TO&E strength. I have several sources too support this. Airborne units with limited transport, of course had to lug the whole lot around on foot. The very nature of airborne ops meant that mortar crews did have to be fairly mobile as the situation dictated. As such the full 8 man team would (unless absolutely necessary) have to stay with tube in case a move was needed and also to provide local defence. At Arnhem, once ammunition was expended, these crews did resort to infantry and gave a very good account of themselves. I fully understand though, that airborne units are a very specific case and don't justify a change. So to conclude, yes I would like see an increase in crew members specifically for airborne units. But on the other hand if anyone feels that the ammo load out is unfairly too high, go and reduce it yourself using the editor. Thanks for taking time out to respond Steve, you must be very busy. Peter [ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] [ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

AFAIK - British Line Infantry 3" Mortar crew - 4-5 men plus accompanying transport/driver (usually a universal carrier) British Airborne 3" Mortar crew - 8 men. One carried the tube, one the bipod, one the base plate, 5 others carried 7 bombs each. Reserve ammunition would be carried in the Support Co handcarts and jeeps. Peter

What makes this day in history even sadder, the 10 May 1940 was the day that the Germans launched their invasion of the Low Countries. Peter

An example of a British unit using 4.5" guns, was the 64th Medium Regiment RA during Operation Market Garden. This unit was largely responsible for the XXX Corps Artillery support provided to the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem, performing shoots at extreme ranges from as far away as Nijmegen. From memory, the unit comprised 1 battery of 8 no 5.5" and 1 battery of 8 no 4.5" guns (each battery divided into two troops of 4 guns). I have no idea whether or not they were using WWI guns with modified carriages, but can provide a photograph if anyone's interested. Peter

Here is a rather excellent site on the Bren Gun. http://www.brengun.org.uk/ Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Smith: I fired one in the 70s in the army cadets! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That brings back memories. I fired one in the Army Cadets during the eighties. It was still the standard "cadet" section support weapon even then. As I recall, it had very little kick at all and had a tendency to pull forward. Nice tight groupings. Shame they wouldn't let us spray suppressing fire on the range, for CM testing purposes. IIRC I've read that some British units stilled used it in the eighties as a non standard vehicle support weapon. Even though the magazine only contained 30 rounds, experienced Bren teams could effect a change over in 2 or 3 seconds. Peter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: Wrong. Ambrose has no such theory and never, not once, in any of his books, says so. He does say that the United States, Britain and the democracies who opposed the Nazis were capable of producing soldiers who were just as good as the German ones, and fought just as hard. And I've never been convinced he is wrong about that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've read "Pegasus Bridge" and "Band of Brothers" and thoroughly enjoyed both in the context of a collection of first person accounts. Ambrose has greatly contributed to bringing the US's role in World War 2 back to the masses. However, Keith's "screwy theory" comment seems valid. From "Band of Brothers" after the 101st's triumph at Bastogne, Ambrose concludes the following (P.224) "It was a test of arms, and national systems, matching the best the Nazis had against the best the Americans had, with all the advantages on the German side........The Americans established a moral superiority over the Germans. It was based not on equipment or quantity of arms, but on team-work, coordination, leadership, and mutual trust in a line that ran straight from Ike's HQ right on down to E Company. The Germans had little in the way of such qualities. The moral superiority was based on better training methods, better selection methods for command positions, ultimately on a more open army reflecting a more open society. Democracy proved better able to produce young men who could be made into superb soldiers than Nazi Germany." Now I found that a little hard to swallow. Such ascertions are at best gross generalizations and at worst baseless tripe. I'll go with the latter. Nuff said. Peter

And Singapore....

Just checking

Thanks Jeff and Jager 7 for sharing your in depth knowledge on actual FOO practice. IMHO I still think it is a worth while expansion to the present FOO commands to provide a more specific artillery call in terms of number of rounds. However, I think at present this would be too difficult a judgement call for the Enemy AI to handle. I can only see this workable for Human vs Human engagements. Something simple like this. 1) Identify target. 2) Specify number of rounds (CM ammunition count is already based on the number of rounds) 3) Shoot comes in, turn over. 4) Next turn, after players observation of shoot effectiveness, option to repeat fire order or fire for effect (again designate number of rounds) and or adjust target "coordinates". For the above, there should be a reduced waiting time penalty. Lets face it, we can say that the continuous fire in CM represents the FO's ability to repeat a fire order or "fire for effect", but that is not the case. It's too abstract and the CM AI does not model this. Artillery resources were limited and at this level of engagement FOs did not have the luxury to expend them so inefficently. Perhaps it's not feasible to implement, and as it's been addressed before I guess I'll just drop it. Thanks, Peter [This message has been edited by IPA (edited 04-05-2001).]