Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Determinant

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Location
    Wandsworth, London, UK
  • Occupation
    fellow traveller
  1. Will the long range not work against your favour as the zooks will miss while the Hetzer will not? But best of luck anyway.
  2. Thanks for your interesting posts RDG. You're a lucky man to live in Normandy - a charming and peaceful part of the world. It seems strange now that it was a scene of such extreme, if necessary, horror just 60 years ago. I assume that you will be attending some of the commemorations. What's your itinerary?
  3. Good so far and after but wrong here: you would not be introduced to Lt Jones. You would be introduced to Mr Jones. If Lt Jones presumed to call the Regimental Sergeant-Major 'RSM' to his face he would be growled at and told: 'No Sir. You will call me Mr Smith'. A subaltern doesn't really amount to that much in the context of a British regiment. Quaint ain't it?
  4. In the UK infantry; nothing. It is a staff (administrative) role. In an armoured unit a sgt might command a tank (but corporals also command tanks), and in artillery units a sgt will command each gun. In both cases other sgts will have the equivalent admin role as in inf units. Regards JonS Edits: blimmin' UBB. And corrected numpty pointed out by Dorosh in the following post. </font>
  5. My dear fellow, well done. Sadly these days I can hardly ever describe myself as overjoyed. Middle age will do that to a man. But I am very pleased to hear that you are writing a historically correct BF scenario. There will always, I hope, be a place for scenarios that try to portray the horror and pity of war as it really is. Please do mail me your completed scenario when it is ready. I am only sorry that I did not make the cut for the test team. Good luck with it.
  6. I do admire your Italian heritage. Such a fiery and spirited temperament. It reminds me of Captain Correlli. When can we expect your historically accurate and equally playable BF scenario? I for one can bearly contain my excitement.
  7. Ahh. I see what you mean, but, but... Normandy was a horrible, horrible, nightmare. A killing match to the death in close, claustrophobic, and yet lovely farming countryside. I agree that CMBB captures the horror of the Eastern Front (I nearly shivered playing 'A Warm Place to Sleep') but perhaps, in retropsect, CMBO makes Normandy too jolly? Strangely enough CMBO in the Winter of 44-45 on the German Border does catch the wet, cold, grimness rather well. Much depends on the quality of your mods I suppose (another strength of both games). But I do have to agree that CMAK will b
  8. Ahh, I hadn't noticed that. 'Tis indeed a very fine simulation indeed. I suppose that most ATGWs will have a time of flight under 15 seconds except at very long range. Milan (which bears a striking external resemblance to Spandrel - I wonder are they in any way related ) takes 13 seconds or so to get out to its max range. So operator suppression is modelled. Excellent. But a further dumb supplementary. I know 'pop smoke' is an SOP for vehicles when fired upon. Will targets pop smoke while the ATGW is still inbound thus increasing the chance of a miss? Thanks for the clarific
  9. Does TacOps model time of flight for ATGW? The visual representation, in TacOps 3 at least, shows the pop-smoke-line-splash as happening all at once, but is there more going on 'under the hood' so to speak?
  10. If you get clearance I will be pleased to see that. This is the big nutty question about how the Red Army went about its business. We all have this conception of herds of men, like a flock of sheep, being pushed forward anyhow. The attack frontages that you quote are spookily similar to those used by the British Army in Jul 16 on the Somme. The key difference I suppose is the crushing weight of artillery deployed by the Red Army. But this raises the essential question of how the Red Army attacked: was it just herds of men plodding forward shoulder to shoulder (a la Somme) or w
  11. Andreas, Thanks for that. Very interesting. I look forward to the CMBB scenario conversion and after-action report! Toodle pip! Nigel
  12. Thanks for the tip about LTC Bolger - I'd never heard of him before but I've just bought his 'Battle for Hunger Hill' on the strength of your recommendation.
  13. Yes - is there a wargame on the market that realistically models command and control problems? It would be quite a challenge to have blue force units disappearing off the map everytime they moved out of range, lost comms, were jammed or whatever. In fact it would be a nightmare just trying to keep your own side organised and under command. Perhaps that's why it's not commonly done - it would be a bit like accurately modelling logistics: essential but boring! But your post nicely highlights the double edged nature of electronic aids: on the positive side they will give the tacti
  14. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter: > Is the combat advantage of digitization > properly modelled in TacOps? Seems to me that TacOps models an exceptional capability for situational awarness. As a commander you have complete knowledge of all your forces: You know where everyone is. You know exactly how much ammo they have on hand. You know what all your units are doing. When one of your units spots the enemy, you know instantly. If anything I think that TacOps gives the player better situational awarness than they might have in
  15. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MajorH: Superior situational awareness doesn't help much if the enemy can engage at a greater range than you can with rounds that go through both sides of your vehicle while yours bounce off or disintegrate even at close range .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Forgive me being dismissive of guns and armour: I'm one of those boring people who make controversial statements to stimulate debate. But: The enemy is engaging us from a position of advantage using his superior weapons? This sounds like his situational awarenes
  • Create New...