Marlow

Thanks for listing Christmas Surprise. Let me second the bit about reviewing at Scenario Depot. I have a couple of battles waiting in the wings, and I want some feedback on the battles I have already submitted before I finalize them. My three other battles have between 40 and 70 downloads, but no reviews.

It looks like at long last I have reached the end of the River Peng. In what a sad, pathetic state of affairs do I find the long sought after outpost? Debates over whether Kirk can kick Picard’s ass, vaguely homoerotic longings for Dr. Who, the Justicar starting a “Am I a Hot Cyborg or Not” contest, pictures of garden gnomes … A truly wretched and pathetic sight. Even the Devil seems bored. Where is the taunting? The challenging? The primal hatred? I miss even the incomprehendible uttering and mutterings of Mench and The French. Where is the later day Meeks? Who will remember the glory of a sound Penging? None I fear. Instead the once glorious MBT is reduced to Star Trek and Dr. Who (which aside from the original Star Trek series are so utterly awful that the creators should be tried for crimes against humanity). The horror, the horror. My advice for the natives of the Schloss Peng is the same as Kurtz’s: Exterminate all the Brutes

Bad Monkey, check your math. Modern body armor (and Kevlar Helmets) is effective against more than just shrapnel and pistol ammunition. I know of at least one instance in Panama where a soldier survived a close range burst from an assault rifle (AK47 IIRC, but I'm not sure) without serious injury. Not that I would want to try it out myself.

OK, but the mitt really isn’t the type of special tool that keeps the M60 from having a true quick-change barrel (it does). Also, the mitt is not, strictly speaking, necessary. I have used empty sandbags, towels and field jackets in a pinch. I’m not sure, but doesn’t the MG3 also need some sort of mitten to change the barrel. In any event, the U.S. is replacing the M60 with the M240(MAG), so the mitten will be a thing of the past soon.

First a public service announcement: my e-mail troubles have been sorted out, and various and sundry topplements will be resumed this eve. Now to other matters. For shame Seana-troll. Taking bets on the grogfight in the running bren tripod thread is one thing, but then to go and announce to the thread participants that they are being mocked. Once again you are coming dangerously close to the unacceptable practice of inviting grogs to the inner sanctum of the MBT. I think it is high time we upped your tranquilizer dose. You also fail to note that in that very thread I managed to give the boot to not one, but two Grogs, and humble them in their grogginess. That should count for something. Slappy, I felt bad about correcting you on machine gun matters, but I had little choice. You should stick to talking about firearms with which you are personally familiar. I believe that would be a .38 revolver with one round in your shirt pocket.

I can't speak for every U.S. Army training course, but I was never taught to fire from the hip, nor have I ever tried it (except when goofing around and burning up a belt of blanks), during several years when I was on a MG team. The only mention of firing from the hip was when the instructor told us that it was basically a worthless waste of ammuntion. Also, you mention that in the TA, you didn't often use the tripods. We carried the things quite often (set up at any lengthy stop), and even occasionally used them in the attack. Where did you get that information? No tools required.

While not well versed in the arcane mysteries of the bren tripod, I will say that in my experience, a tripod mounted machine gun is considerably more effective than one on a bipod, particularly on the defensive, where a gun with a tripod and traverse and elevation equipment can be preregistered (I don’t recall if this is the correct term or not) on expected enemy areas of enemy activity. Even when not preregistered, the tripod increases the effectiveness of the gun. A few examples: the tripod mounted gun can fire a longer sustained burst on target. This may not be all that important when firing suppressive fire at an unseen target, but when firing at a visible target in the open, the increase in firepower is dramatic. Use of a tripod also increases effectiveness of subsequent shots. If the first burst is on target, the gunner with a tripod has a much easier time of putting subsequent bursts on target as well (particularly if T/E equipment was used. Further, if the first shot missed or the target has moved, the tripod mounted gun is better equipped to make minor targeting adjustments. You have bad information. Hip fire (at least with the M60) was actively discouraged in any normal combat situation. I was never taught that hip fire was anything other than a Rambo move. Also, the M60 is more accuratly characterized as a General purpose machine gun, with the M249 being the standard U.S. LMG. [edited to fix a bad cut and past job. Sorry about that Slapdragon] [ April 16, 2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Trois Ponts. A company of engineers blocked the advance of KG Peiper by slowing down the German attack, and then blowing a couple of bridges. I have no idea what level the orders to blow the bridges came from. [ April 15, 2002, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

I've got an unreleased battle you can use (serious, not Crodaburgesque) if you like. Yes, but do the guys still kick sand in your face at the beach?

Oh, the shame. (Boot ... Boot ... Boot) BTW, haven't you now completed more than five *Official MBT* games? I think that it is time the Moldy ones lowered your status to that of Kanigget. That way I'd be rid of you.

A quick announcement for my current PBEM victims. Due to technical difficulties, my e-mail is out of service, and thus your topplement is on hold for a few days. Enjoy the reprive. CMplayer, where are Sludge's ears?

The best rules are to either find opponents that you like to play, or to play scenarios in place of QBs. I only play with such rules at the request of an opponent, otherwise I rely on the integrity of the other player not to get too whacked out in his force selection. A few problems with the rules: no airborne - While airborne units did make up a relatively small portion of both allied and German armies, they were at the sharp end in quite a bit, particularly in better known engagements. With regard to the statement that German airborne made up less than 10% of the OB is not surprising since there were so many different infantry types in the German forces. Each would be proportionately less prevalent than any allied troop type. Also, I have not noticed German Airborne troops as being particularly subject to abuse (compared to Volksgrenadier platoons for example) as they are fairly expensive. Why exclude airborne troops (German or Allied) when you do permit such rarities as Pumas and Jagdtigers? Pumas only with other ACs – Pumas, while rare, were not committed piecemeal with other armored cars, but rather formed together and equipped a few (one?) select recon battalions. To force players to combine them with other armored cars in order to purchase more than one is not historically accurate. Limits on 251/9s – The TOE for german armored recon units show that the support version of the 251 were often deployed en mass in one company. Like the puma, the artificial restriction is not historical. Also, a note. While not one of the rules, the “reasons” section states: Typical allied tank platoons had one to four 76mm or 17pdr armed tanks with the rest being 75mm tanks. German platoons frequently mixed versions of a tank, but the base model was almost always the same. The Americans did sometimes parcel out the 76 Shermans to provide AT firepower to an armored company; however, as the war went on, an increasing number of armor units were equipped solely with the more powerful 76 gun variants. Additionally, some units were equipped with only 75gun variants throughout the war. [ April 04, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Only the vain and foolish need reply.

That’s it! You write this gracious apology after I send up a rather (perhaps too) sharp post? You just made me feel bad (sob). I demand satisfaction! Quick Battle at 100 paces.

And what point would that be? That you insulted all the Australians who post on the board because you don't like a couple of them? What OSGF pointed out (obvious to everyone but you apparently) was just that. Loosen the sphincter muscle a little buddy.

The forces of good have been defeated (in an itsee bitsee, very, very, minor defeat) by the most vile of Evil Antipodeans, Sir Speed-a-lot. The Dirty Bastich cheated by killing all my guys and taking the flags on the last turn. Moral victory was mine, however, when my poor pathetic Sherman firefly killed his UberTiger in a gun duel.

Oh, and what makes a tank? Lets see: adequate armor. M36B1. Roughly the same as the M4 with the exception of no top armor on part of the turret. Yup (again except the turret). secondary MG armament. M36B1. Bow .30 and AA .50. Yup. Turret. M36B1. Power turret faster than equivalent axis turret (please, no posts about revving engines). Yup. Slap 15 to 20 mm of armor, along with the other necessities (hatches, periscope, etc...) and we have a winner. IIRC, the army was fiddling around with a redesign to uparmor and upgun hte Sherman, but the decision was made to go with the M26 instead. The flawed tank/tank destroyer doctrine, and later the development of the M26, is also the reason that the Sherman was not further upgraded during the war, or prior to Korea, not technological limitations. The problem is not so much the Sherman, but that U.S. didn't take advantage of what could have been done with it. Combine the best features of a W(+) easy-eight suspension Sherman with either the 17lb gun or the 90mm, and you have maybe not the worlds best tank, but one that certainly could have stood up to the German Panther and Tiger on something approching an equal footing.

Yes, I was wrong about the M7, but one of the M36 varients, the M36B1, was built by dropping a 90mm turret on the M4, and even had the bow machine gun. The Sherman could have (and did, see above M36B1) carry a 90mm. It would have been a simple thing to add top armor and turn it into a viable medium tank (there were even field addition kits that did provide some top armor for M36s). [ March 21, 2002, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

For the record, I miss the M16 far more than the M12. Ok, now for the OT stuff There was nothing wrong with the adoption of the Sherman. It was an excellent design for 1942, when it was fielded. The problem was that it wasn't replaced or significantly upgraded in 1944 when the powers that be knew or should have known that it was outclassed. The Sherman chassis was itself very adaptable, and formed the basis for countless other American armored vehicles, (the above mentioned M7 among others), and could have resulted in a medium tank that could have gone toe to toe with the Panther and Tiger, had some effort been made. The Firefly is proof of this, as are the M36B1 (90mm gun on a sherman chassis) and the post-war Israeli Sherman varients. A closed topped 90mm gun version of the Sherman was entirely within the techical cababilities of the U.S.

Wrong. The M2 was a multipurpose machine gun that was mounted on many platforms that required a right-hand feed (fighter aircraft, twin and quad mounts). A picture of a M2 in a dual mount clearly shows both right and left-hand feeds. Oh, and the quad mount on an M16 (although it is a little harder to see). [ March 20, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Place your troops behind the wall (or hedgerow), not in it. To see what impact the wall has on Play around with some infantry on the "preview" map in the map editor, and look at the cover percentage (use the LOS function from the "shooting" squad) the squad gets in different locations (in front of the wall, in the wall, behind the wall, but close to it, etc...). You'll find that placing the squad within about 10 to 15 meters of the wall provides significant protection.

Minor point of correction Your Evilness, that post points to what appears to be the second incarnation. I believe that this is the originalPeng Challenge.

Iron Paw, can’t even get your ‘Pool lore strait can you? What is it this time, your alcohol sodden brain or the senile dementia? Back in the mists of the Cesses past, the Bard once did post (and post, and post … ) on the very subject at hand: This comes from the third incarnation of the MBT (hint, hint, Aussie Jeff). [ March 20, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

While I more or less follow the MBT tradition as far as bolding goes, and ussually spell names correctly, I prefer to make an exception for you Jo Xia, the esteemed Rent-a-car. Mainly because it annoys you so.

Ya, ya. 3000 freeking points on a map that just plain sucks. Everytime I start the set up I end up throwing something at the monitor. Who thought this thing up anyway? Oh ya, you. Bastard.