Jump to content

Wisbech_lad

Members
  • Content Count

    515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Wisbech_lad

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Hong Kong
  • Interests
    My wife

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On the attack, I find that using something like a Kangaroo or Stuart Recce to quickly move FT teams around helps. But still, hardly worth the effort. Fun when it works though
  2. Manouevrists. Bah. Dangerous buggers, because they preach war can be won on the cheap. If more theoretical strategic thinking was attritional, we'ld have fewer wars methinks... E.g. of Schleiffen had planned to defeat France via Verdun tactics, not some glorious end run, probably no WW1. Or if the Japs thought past the first 6 months, no Pearl Harbour...
  3. 6pdr and Universal Carrier I like. UC's are quite useful little things. The holy trinity of CW support weapons (Vickers, 6pdr, 3" mortar) all fit nicely, and it is tracked and pretty nippy. And because it has no weapons, no temptation to put it harms way - whereas I find HT's usually end up having other roles than just transport, and then dying.
  4. And try 6pdr armed Valentines with tungsten as a nasty kitty killing surprise...
  5. Also played vs AI - a good scenario. I made gamey use of the fact that AI fire discipline is poor, and the expected FJ with 2 LMG have low ammo points vs CW... One platoon, and a Company HQ with support weapons went over Pink Hill. Two full platoons went way way right. The rest (about 4 platoons and the tanks) pushed up the road. This thrust (and the right flanking move) then basically sat in good cover and traded fire for 20-25 minutes, only shifting to get away from mortar fire. The armoured prams took out the HMG. The left flanking move then rolled up the defence on that fl
  6. Bridge/Road = 100% Wheatfield exposure - 60% Wheatfield with fox hole = 44% Open ground - 75% Open ground with fox hole = 44% Crater = 44% Foxhole - about 40% less incoming FP than open ground, 26% than wheatfield So in CM - foxhole = crater, thus my comment about 2-4 feet. Remember CM abstracts different types of weapons as FP - so direct fire/ HE direct/ HE indirect all are given a FP number. That 75% - 100% exposure for open ground/ roads is for stationary units. Prone/ seeking what cover they can, so only exposing a head/shoulders target anyway So a foxhole wouldn't
  7. I've always assumed that fox holes are small slit trenchs and scrapes, dug in a few hours with a spade. 2-4 feet deep A trench would be deep enough to allow hidden movement, with a firing step. Timber reinforcement of the trench walls. 6-8 feet deep, maybe dugouts to ride out arty bombardments.
  8. Jakarta, Indonesia (after UK, Uganda, India, UK, Hong Kong, Japan, HK, Indonesia, HK) Mother was born in Shanghai, before the war. I now describe myself as "Overseas English"...
  9. "Fire power is everything," said the British commander at Bardia, "and to attain this no more personnel should be used than is absolutely necessary. In modern warfare, under certain circumstances a man with a bayonet or a hand grenade is of the greatest value, but a man with only a rifle is frequently a hindrance rather than a help. What is required is automatic weapons -- the more the better -- but it should be borne in mind that except in close-up work, personnel should be reduced to the absolute minimum. It is infinitely better to use rifle personnel to provide the attackers with covering f
  10. Playing devil's advocate (and messing about in CMBB) the Valentine is at least equal, probably better than MkIII. Drawback is buttoning up when firing, due to small crew, but plus is small size, and reliability. It also has sloped armour in the front... 2pdr ownz 50mmL42 and 37mm. 6pdr ownz 50mmL60. 75mm and PzIIIN are about equivalent.
  11. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0304362166/qid=1065576514/sr=2-1/104-4294139-8051920?v=glance&s=books I picked this up at an airport book stall. Highly recommended, the author was a UK tank commander of a troop of Shermans of the Sherwood Rangers, 8th Armoured Brigade, at D-Day, ending up as oi/c of the recce squadron (Stuarts) by VE day. Even has simple sketch maps to help scenario builders... And he fights with the US Airborne during Market Garden so there's something for US readers too. I would say that it is up there with "18 Platoon" by Jary. Review from Londo
  12. Kammak, you say: Chinese civil war, Iran-Iraq war, Afgan war, Eritrea, Vietnamese war (from both sides) Algerian war, Korean war, Tamil Tigers, all involved industrial mobilisation, (both of material and manpower) beyond the existing forces in uniform. Heck, the Japanese economy was kickstarted by the US mobilisation for Korea. I think you will find the USA ended Vietnam with completely different equipment than they started it with. Arguably Mao's concept of total war far better describes how to win a post WW2 conflict than manouevrists. The wars that just involved the starting f
  13. Monwar, Any other CMBO'ers in Bangladesh? Someone did make a Kohima scenario (using Germans as Japanese), not sure if it is still around. It was bloody
  14. My new favourite is the Italian L47 "Tank Destroyer". It just is soooo cute and vulnerable, you want to take it home and feed it so it has a chance to survive and grow into a real tank.
  15. And I can see why a posse of Typhoons/ Thunderbolts would also work to cut this attack column down before it got close to doing much damage! That and a front of 17 lb'ers/ 76mm. Seriously, I look forward to trying this with PZIII/ PZIV in CMBB, or with IS2/ T34-85 going the other way. Question (from this and the other thread on German tactics) Did the Germans learn much between 1942/1944? It appears that they persisted with "schwerpunkt" tactics, incredibly effective against fragile opposition, but by mid 1942 or so it seems that the Allies had mostly learnt to deal with it. The Germ
×
×
  • Create New...