Determinant

It would be nice if it were possible to get an e-mail when CMBB can be ordered or releases. A bit like HPS did when they were debugging 'Decisive Action'. Any chances?

How can we be sure that any contemporary claims for kills are reliable? A unit diary might be accurate about its own losses (Joachen either returns his Mk IV to the assembly area or he doesn't) but I would always be suspicious about claimed kills. It's the same old story - Look at the air war over Kosovo in '99 - NATO claimed to have destroyed 100s of AFVs - they actually found less than 20 KO'd vehicles on the ground. Seems to me a bit pointless to extrapolate from statistics if the numbers are wrong...

Well, yes. Global morale. People talk to each other, don't they? Even on the battlefield.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AussieJeff: In fact the front on shot somehow conjures an image of a Doctor Who UberDalek!!!! :eek: hehe.. AJ<hr></blockquote> The provenance of this vehicle is obvious: the A team built it. The base chassis is Mr T's van onto which they've welded some corrugated iron while holed up in a barn. Total build time about 15 minutes I'd say.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by George-III: Heres some sites I found that might be of interest to scenario designers: stalingrad kursk [ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: George-III ]<hr></blockquote> Very interesting site on Kursk - especially the colour photographs. Lovely looking farming land - very green and fertile. But would anyone seriously want to play a Prokhorovka scenario - or have the time? Just imagine: 'Now to hunt that Tank Regiment up to the crest line and hope they can pick up some nice hull-down positions'. No, too much...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar: What, is that like a tongue twister?<hr></blockquote> No - It's those daring young men in their flying machines they go up diddly up up they go down diddly down down... Or something like that... It's a song m'lud... Sung in Music Halls I believe... Featured in a 1970's film...

It's like the insulting supposed Limey quote from Italy: 'When the German Air Force fly over the lines the British all duck into their trenches When the British Air Force fly over the lines the Germans all duck into their trenches When the US Air Force fly over the lines both the British and the Germans duck into their trenches...' Cheap shots aside - what do the gilded youth going up diddly up up care for the oafs in the mud?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian: And, out of a matter of interest, whats the minimum arming range for a German WWII HE round of that calibre? (hint, I think you'll find its a bit further than 5 metres...)<hr></blockquote> But are you sure? When did minimum arming distances become standard for HE shells? I've heard stuff - (anecdotal yes) - about outward bound mortar bombs being detonated by overhead branches. Make your own tree burst sort of thing. Obviously there is a world of difference between some twigs detonating your bomb and firing your shell into a building 5 metres away <Duh> but the phenomena may be related... Someone out there will know. But what I really want to know is: when did the USSR start firing green tracer - or is that just a Chinese thing?

Where is the Scenario Depot with the lovely map? Life - too short. Thank you.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: I'll have to go tell some Korean War tankers that their tank didn't exist. I'll be right back. Gyrene [ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]<hr></blockquote> Thank you Gyrene for one of the funniest pomposity bursting posts that I've read on this board. 'Where's the drivers hatch?' 'It's the back of the tank - note the fuel filler cap' Tee hee hee

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: "Not enough time, not enough hardware, not enough manpower..." these are common complaints of the battlefield commander. Wild Bill<hr></blockquote> What's that quote from Napoleon to his Generals? Something like: 'Ask me for anything, except time'

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg: Determinant, Is that "underwear elastic giving out" because they are being filled with a substance ?? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: I strongly suspect that this would be my reaction if I were in such a situation. Cheers, Richard <hr></blockquote> You suspect that that would be your reaction if you were in such a situation? That is my reaction just playing the freaking game. If CMBB is more immersive than CMBO then I may as well book myself an appointment at the 1,000 yard stare clinic right now...

Underwear elastic giving out?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cameroon: To answer your question, I don't think a single penetration by a PIAT would make one abandon the rather decent protection of the bunker. Granted I've never been in combat so I couldn't really say, but it seems to me that if I were being fired upon I'd want to be where the cover is, namely inside the bunker (until the arty comes ). [ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Cameroon ]<hr></blockquote> Penetration of a bunker by the blast/jet of a chemical energy round or what must be worse still - the warhead coming through the slit and detonating inside the bunker - must be a very unpleasant thing indeed. Perhaps the reasoning is that if they can hit it once then they can hit it again... During the battle for Goose Green the Argentine resistance on Darwin Ridge supposedly collapsed after a 66mm LAW hit the Argentine command bunker which caused the occupants to surrender. Significantly though it was apparently quite difficult to get those surrendering to leave their bunkers. 'If you knows of a better hole then go to it'. Perhaps bunker dwellers should surrender rather than abandon if things are tight?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis: I've noticed this a bunch of times. I have a sniper in the top floor of a building. He fires once... and immediately everyone sees him. The nearest enemy troops are at least 200 meters away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But they fail to spot the shooter on the grassy knoll. You may well have a point...

The UK tradition has been to use two word titles for training exercises and one word titles for operations. Some will say that this is the reason that 'Market Garden' was jinxed - it broke the rule. Perhaps therefore explaining a certain lack of <umm> co-ordination between the airborne and groundborne elements. Of course the Germans were also a factor here. UK operational names are still supposed to be randomly selected. This means that sometimes they are cool as 'Op Corporate' to retake the Falklands; sometimes not so good as 'Op Granby' for the Gulf war; and sometimes just odd as 'Op Agricola' for Kosovo. Luck of the draw.

An idle thought came to me while I watched tracers from three enfilading guns tear apart my lead squad: Will the Red Army use green tracer rounds in CMBB? I know that the Soviets used green tracer after the Great Patriotic War but when did they start? Did they even fire tracer in WWII? More importantly what precise shade of green should they fire (lime green?, Cyalume green?) and will it look any good? Oops time for my medication...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: [QB]You'll have _plenty_ to keep you busy just killing the Germans who try to stop you from taking the bridges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll have plenty to do just stopping your own troops from mowing each other down in all the confusion on turn 1!

Well, yes... It is always said that a snap assault is the best response to an ambush. And that's fair enough because if you are ambushed then you are in the killing zone of a prepared attack by a force lying in wait for you and you are therefore likely to be hit quite soon (if you haven't already been hit). The rationale is therefore that the worst thing has already happened and that your best possible response is to attack your attackers - it is the reaction they will expect least... So far so good. But is this is what is happening in the original problem referred to above? I'm not sure that it is. CM is modelling troops in battle - not patrol anti-ambush drills. Anyway as a point of interest, even though it is the recommended drill, how often have troops caught in an ambush actually responded by assaulting the ambushers? Somebody somewhere must have researched this (pretty sure that the US Army did a bunch of statistical work on ambushes during the Vietnam era). It would be interesting to know. My bet is not very often. Not if the ambush was any good anyhow.

It's a fair point. If troops are that spooked by the incoming fire and associated butchery then common sense says that they would leave by the same way that they came in. Unless they were really spooked in which case they would probably lie where they were hoping for better days on the 'If you knows of a better 'ole then go to it!' principle. The only historical example I can think of of troops under fire taking cover towards the source of the enemy fire was 2 PARA at Goose Green in the Falklands Conflict - Rifle Company advancing down a forward slope towards the settlement on a billiard (sorry pool) table piece of ground. The only possible piece of cover (a fence line or similar) was forward and there was no way anyone could run back over the crest of the hill... Quite rare - hardly ever see ground that open in NW Europe...

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.

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 tactical commander enough information to fight his battle, but conversely they give the rear area commander an opportunity to interfere where he's not needed ('Now move that fire trench 3 yards to the right...'). The doctrine says to delegate missions to subordinates but how many commanders will be able to resist the temptation to interfere, especially when casualties must be avoided at any cost?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skorpion: Mines in the ford - now there's an idea! I wonder if they would still work underwater?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup they sure do. Most mines are pretty waterproof for the simple reason that ground (particularly in Europe) can be very damp. (Swings lantern, pulls up a sandbag) When I was monitoring the Russians keeping the peace in Georgia/Abkhazia the favoured tactic amongst the local terrorists was to place antitank mines in fords or large puddles - no need to dig and instant concealment. Obviously mines aren't _that_ waterproof: you wouldn't want to store them under water, but they'll be fine in the water for a week or two - long enough to do some nastiness anyway...