Doodlebug

Second picture. Honestly! I stand still for two minutes and some German comes along and puts a beach towel on me.

Oooohh. Aaaahh. That's nice. Big thanks for this one.

Thanks for this one. It looks absolutely wonderful.

So few thank you's. I'm surprised.Let that be a lesson to you to stick to uniforms Lovely mods BTW.

There were a lot of "mongrel" marks refitted to later standards so I believe the existence of 75mm armed MkIII and MkIV's is entirely correct.

It's got a closed breech so no backblast AFAIK.

I have a very bizarre mental image of one legged men balancing on each others shoulders on recon missions after reading that

D'oh. Thanks.

My manual only goes to page 30. What gives?

Think Panzerschreck with a closed breech and you're halfway to understanding the Puppchen. Closing the breech boosts the range of the rocket but reintroduces the recoil that a rocket launcher is designed to eliminate. Simple solution. Mount the whole arrangement on the carriage of the old 28mm taper bore AT gun which is obsolete at that stage and there you go. Longer range without increased use of rocket propellant and light enough to be moved easily by infantry.

My continued thanks for the effort you have put into all your mods: past, present and (hopefully) future.

Awwww. And I quite liked him. I thought he made some good points. What kind of charlatans would produce games like the CM range with so many glaring inadequacies !!!!

Please ease up on Gamax. He is trying to raise a valid point even if a little bit too flippantly. As gamers we're all prepared to fight to the last squad if there's the slightest opportunity but, as everyone points out, there were mass surrenders of many nationalities not only the Italian Army. Is there any justification for looking at the inclusion into CMAK of a refined morale system that triggers a mass surrender of troops sooner than we've seen in CMBO or CMBB? Yes I know that global morale etc etc already produces this effect but normally it's only the last remnants of a command that give up when the huge majority has already been killed or wounded. Do the terrain difficulties of desert fighting require a re-appraisal of this aspect of the game?

I read this one many years ago from a public library. With CMAK on the horizon I sought out and purchased a copy (reduced in price naturally being parsimonious by nature) and can certainly recommend it as a promising source of scenario material.

Yes but didn't they end up dead?

Interesting. An early piece I'd have guessed. Any idea from which year this dates?

Again I've learned something new. Mind you, I am an extraordinarily dim individual.

Guffaw

Nope. Credit the Brits with both names. After Dunkirk and before Lend Lease came into being the British wished to purchase tanks from America. Initially they wished to have existing British designs built and supplied but fortunately the Americans said no. Take the designs we're tooling up for or forget it. The British therefore purchased the M3 with a re-designed turret containing a radio (in line with British practices at the time)which they called Grant. When Lend Lease kicked off the Americans supplied tanks above and beyond the original orders and built to the American standard (with the radio in the hull) which they called Lee. Hence the names and the two different turrets. As far as I know the Brits also named the Sherman and the Stuart althought I stand ready to be corrected on that assertion. All the American tank names that followed in a similar vein are carrying on the British names like the Pershing and so on. Good job we didn't call them something really silly

I'll just weigh in with my vote of support for all modders who take the time and effort to produce graphics for the CM games. I have little reason to doubt that you will all be doing the same for the Med when it hits the streets and am very much looking forward to seeing the results of your labours in the fullness of time. I sincerely hope that we haven't reached a point in time where members of this board or of the public cannot differentiate between the production of a graphical representation of a historical insignia and active advocation of the principles represented by that insignia. I wholeheartedly support the rejection of Nazism: neo or otherwise but would further say that the supporters of that particular philosophy are more likely to be working their deviant little schemes in the dark and quiet of the night and not in the full glare of this board. I confidently say that if there was ever collected together a better informed group of individuals about the whole period in question than on this board then I have not yet encountered them. Knowledge of the facts is the greatest defence against re-occurance and, as I said, I know of no better collection of knowledge on the period than here. Please do not be hasty to judge. Collectively this board could be a considerable resource to draw on and educate those who wish to learn. I hope I have not gone too far. If I have caused offence I apologise now but my support for the modders remains unaltered.

It's a pleasure to be able to say thanks for this one. I hope you keep knocking them out - just like the Germans do everytime I field 'em . [ August 16, 2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Doodlebug ]

Fantastic. Appreciate the effort. Clearly amongst this season's must haves

Ok. I'm trying desperately to recall when Glasnost and Perestroika(forgive the spelling if it's wrong) kicked in. Wasn't it around '90 or '91? For some reason I cannot remember Now if your source is '85 then could it be a case of being subject to some sort of party influence even though(or because) it was intended for official comsumption? I wonder who did the research and what sources were utilised? I suspect that a quantative truth will be impossible to derive. As a sniper I guess you take a shot, see the target vanish but rarely see a body if you are in a positional type of war. You probably only have an instinctive feel for whether it was a good kill or not. I genuinely wonder if the statistics you give are capable of cross analysis to some other source. Hasn't there been some statistical work done on the breakdown of casualties and sources eg. artillery, small arms fire,tanks etc.? If there is, then it ought to be possible to check the figure against the total casualties inflicted to see if it's in the ball park. Anyone know of any such work being published?

I think you got the decimal point wrong somewhere in the calculation. I think it works out at 12 from the data above.

Hmmmm. NKVD were independent of the Army and presumably(?) drawn from politically reliable elements of the population to act in the state police role and the protection of party interests. Of course, national and party interests co-incide nicely under a one party system. I have always been lead to believe that the centres of Communist support were first and foremost the large towns and cities and it was from that power base that the remainder of the population in the villages and hamlets were brought into line. I would therefore have thought that the NKVD would be more likely to have been drawn from the educated and politically active urban supporters of the regime and that the men with most natural aptitude for sniping, the hunters and peasants and so forth would have been fed into army units. I would also have thought that another prerequisite for sniping success is a continued and close proximity to tne enemy such as Stalingrad would have offered. Special ops would have offered sniping opportunities but so would day to day contact in favourable conditions with enemy soldiers. Does anyone have any data regarding numbers of Army snipers compared to NKVD snipers? [ August 10, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Doodlebug ]