dieseltaylor

Congatulations. To you and to your wife : ) Name? Matilda if it had been a girl Churchill for a boy!?????? I don't recommend naming him after a Russian tank though.

Brilliant Brilliant Brilliant and definitely not AWESOME which would under-rate them severely : ) I am impressed what Finland has done for the CM community - PBEMHelper, and now this. Don't put too much pressure on yourself for production - after all it is meant to be fun. Where is our CM Hall of Fame I want some inductees here!!!!!

Brilliant. Very much appreciated. I have linked to these from Band of Brothers so you can see some more appreciations of your work here BoB

Mazda - do tell! .........Merde!! [Mitsubishi] Pajero = Spanish slang for wanker

Generally speaking tanks are better than open topped armour as mortars, artillery and aircraft find them nice targets. However as sometimes the only armour with the gun big enough is a TD. Now from the point of view of mixing it with the enemy consider first that perhaps the smartest thing to do is to let your opponent know you have at least one of something that can hurt his armour. If it deters his assault, delays his advance you may have achieved sufficient advantage. Trying to duke it out, or being extremely clever at setting an ambush may not be half as effective. However that is a general rule. Sometimes though you need to fight. First check that what you are using will kill the enemy quickly - you cannot afford a miss and a couple of riccochets as your armour is generally crap. Bear in mind that 20mm AA , light guns, heavy MG's may all be lethal. And mortars may disturb you from being in the ideal spot. In an ME you may have had the opportunity to notice his forces but where you are advancing it is high risk time. BTW sometimes sacrificing say something like an Archer for a Tiger is worth the point differential/risk involved but try to play smart.

Nice. but do not give up the day job : ) Italian SmG squads rule : )

Excellent cartoon.

I ran a series of tests : ) sometime ago and reported the results. AFAIK it was very noticeable that the better the crew the less likely to bog and the if they did the faster they extricated themselves. The detail is no doubt in my original posting!

Eritrean Camerone Very different with quite a build-up. Very atmospheric : )

From what I recall the idea was to hide the big gun as the Germans would try to nail the Fireflies first.

Jeez! Don't you hate guys who turn up after 5 years to take the piss out of JC....! Nah, only kidding. Lets have a little love and tranquility here. CMAk I prefer to CMBB as it has dust, bogging is not as ferocious, and there are more interesting toys to play with. I too lament underpowered 76mm's in CMBB which is kind of crucial really. BTW JC is grumpy as he did not know what a V covered arc did : I have trimmed it of surplus notation - but it is quite funny.

Sixty years ago .... I am not quite clear if Uncle Sam is collecting on this now , I think it unlikely.

I used hidden Grilles in broken woodland in CMBB and they were a surprise to the T34's - what I did find surprising was my opponent did not spot them but that may have been due to his forces being in fast mode when they opened fire. The ones that might have seen me being dead att he end of turn. Range 800-1200 metres.

Great! How come he only heard one of the two pairs moving? Or were the Eastern two stationary? Interesting

Nice find Jk Great photo of a Hurrican strafing at under 50ft in the desert. Taken by a German : )

http://www.crowoodpress.co.uk/ You could contact his publishers. I could not see the title you wish in their extensive list of titles. Some of them are very groggy : )

U.S. INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II by Bruce N. Canfield Improved Edition. The definitive study of the infantry weapons carried into combat by the Army and Marines and fired from the hand, shoulder or light support - rifles, carbines, edged weapons, shotguns, machine guns, mortars, bazookas, grenades, recoilless rifles, submachine guns, automatic rifles, flame throwers. Special "collectors notes" in each chapter! 303 pp., 417 photos, 8 1/2"x11". Hardcover $39.95 + p/h Well its got Bruce in the name : )

In the barrel. : ) BTW some devious people use a crack to save swapping CD's when playing both games in a session

Harry Yeide Do you have links? You will note that the terrain was especially chosen for a particular type of attack. I think that also there is a tendency to believe rather like all tanks were Tigers all hedges were true bocage. If you sincerely believe a Stuart could drive through a 10ft thick mound of earth tied together with hundreds of years of roots I suggest you are wrong. Reading the account makes me think that these hedges were fairly traditional European unmounded hedges of perhaps 4-5ft thick maximum, possibly even thinner at 3ft. Designed to be impenetrable to livestock they were plenty adequate to disrupt severely human movement. To a tank not a huge problem provided they had momentum. Harry have you looked any any pictures of true bocage?

rune Why not quote this from the same article? So only two thirds as much explosive plus an actual account of successful use.

JK. The article mentions several men evolved in the evolution of the device - perhaps you read the linked article too hastily.

Using PBRMHelper in trusted mode a complete 24+ game can be easily finished between Friday night to Sunday night. BotrytisII serously large 60 turner took I think three weeks from memory.

Darkmath. I agree Jon S. : I never thought it would be fixed. However people seem unaware of this travesty of history and of the Allied armours singular advantage. The details I provided were to illustrate the bogusness of the CM representation. To add to the bogusness as you correctly point out it applies to all Allied fully tracked vehicles, and in Italy. So it sucks mightily as it is historically bogus. Rather like incredible air power it is a myth that needs slaying. I am glad that you have posted as the comments might alert folk to the problems in truly representing it in CM

I was posting this at Band of Brothers and thought perhaps it should be more widely discussed so that the bad history, and the way it is replicated in CM can be appreciated for the garbage it is. "I must admit to having a deep loathing of the way in CM after July 1944 US armour miraculously is able to drive through tall hedges whilst other countries armour cannot. There is a discussion here where I have brought several sources to the discussion: web page Those of you who have checked the game will find that all US tanks can get through in just over a minute and perversely the light tanks even quicker. If you are wondering how this ties in with the recorded history of using engineers etc and the preparatory work involved, the damage done to tanks by repeated charging of solid earth banks, the run up needed, the impossibiliy of getting enough speed purchase in wet/broken fields you make think thta the myth was spread to counter adverse comment on the US armies performance in the bocage and to raise home morale. So should scenario designers be aware of the false advantage given in the game by this piece of 1944 propaganda? Should designers ignore tall hedges post June 1944 to prevent gamey exploitation - I think so. [ September 14, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

From a memoir. Interesting to see how quickly they could bring down fire. [ September 13, 2006, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]