Determinant

Amen to that. Read some books fellahs - they're great! Some of the stuff here is what I would expect Homer Simpson to trot out if asked. But at least we'd be knocking back some beers in Moe's. I have no liking for Montgomery. He was not a likeable man. He was a vain, prickly, self-conceited, prig. War is not a popularity competition but many of the criticisms that are levelled at him are motivated by nothing more than personal dislike. Some observations: 1. He had an enormous experience of, and appetite for war. Alan Brooke, no mean strategist and soldier, thought highly of Montgomery. 2. He trained his soldiers well, and he fought his battles as he wanted to fight them. More often than not his battles went the way that he wanted them to. He had grip. 3. The men that served under him are still very proud of the fact. Sydney Jary and his contemporaries still get angry, after all these years, at unthinking criticism of their much-maligned army group commander. That is a deeper and longer loyalty than many men have for their wives. Oh the fuss when that barman from Cheers slagged him off in SPR...

WHAAAAAAT??? Tell me, did you put in an extra '0' just to see if we are paying attention? Michael </font>

Naming things. Now here's a topic with something for everyone: poet; grog; pedant: everyone can have a view. Those American counsins with a penchant for criticising our British names might first reflect upon the modern practice of naming tanks after generals and helicopters after Indian (Native American?) tribes. I am looking forward to the M1A1 Arnold (for Benedict Arnold - that truly loyal patriot) and the UH1 Arranamappohoataxical (or similar). Mind you the Royal Navy seem to have lost their way slightly. A matelot wrote in to the papers to complain about the wussy names given to modern ships...

Ahh, Monty. Points to note: 1. He was a horrid self-important little prig of a man. Compare and contrast Ike who was an utter gentleman. But ****s have their uses too. 2. He was an effective battlefield commander. He had 'grip' and his men believed in him; that he wouldn't squander their lives. Can the same be said for Patton? 3. He commanded the land forces in OVERLORD. He therefore defeated the German Army in France. But he lied afterwards about how he did it: see 1 above. If anyone thinks that there was a better spot on the map for 'entering the continent of Europe' I'd be pleased to learn where. 4.

Ahh, That must have lightened the mood on the Start Line: Picture it - the boys are shaken out waiting for the guns to open; lots of dry mouths; drawn white faces old before their time; nervous anticipation; tension almost palpable. Suddenly a shot rings out! 'What the Feck was that?' 'It's the CO.' 'He just shot a dog!' 'What fecking business is it of the CO to be shooting dogs at a time like this?' It's the sort of stuff that people will talk about at regimental reunions for the next 50 years

Arrghh! The flies. That would be too too horrid-making. Worse still for those Italian evening scenarios: the whine of a mosquito coming and going; a dog barking in the next village. There goes the hair on the back of my neck...

When one is tired of World War Two then one is tired of War. (apologies to Dr Johnson)

Speaking as a believer. And WILLUY PETRRE has made me a believer how do you calculate the added advantage that spin gives to lethality as opposed to accuracy? As Sam Cooke so memorably sung I don't know a lot of mathematics; don't know about the science books I took etc... But I can't see that there is any lethality advantage to be gained by spin. Looking at it in geometry terms 2.1 inches (for a 4.2 in bomb) is not very much leverage - even if it is spinning like a dervish. Dwarfed I would have thought by the forward velocity of the bomb. And - It's the BURRSHTIN' CHARGE ladee! Dunno... Anyone do hard sums?

WP has two effects: it produces lots of instant smoke and it burns. In modern British ammo 81 mm mortars produce smoke from bursting WP while artillery rounds squirt non-WP smoke out their bottoms (presumably the shells are filled with furiously chain-smoking daemons - I'm unclear about the science). The distinction is that the mortar rounds produce a useable smoke screen much more quickly than artillery. But the mortars also have a significant anti-personnel effect. Which is not to say that artillery smoke shells do not have any anti-personnel effect, particularly if you were to be hit by one, but such precisely targeted shooting is beneath the dignity of the Royal Regiment of Artillery and considered unsporting. In conclusion 81 mm mortar WP is a very useful round. It is often fired in conjunction with HE rounds and colloquially this devilish combination is called 'mixed fruit pudding' thus confirming flamingknives comments above. [ October 19, 2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

Oh I agree Jason. Thanks for the material. Being South African, but knowing little about the circumstances under which Klopper capitulated a lost cause anyway, any insight is helpful than just a mere overglossing/dismissing of the South Africans combat role in the fall of Tobruk. Even in South African military circles - and elsewhere - Klopper did not escape severe critiscm, which seems quite unfair given (limited) material reviewed so far. </font>

Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name. Something else Americans can blame the French for... </font>

Named in honour of the 'Men at Arms' series one presumes?

Has the Indian Army made it into CMAK? It would seem unfair if they are not in view of the substantial and heroic contribution made by soldiers from the subcontinent to the fighting in the Med. It would also seem to miss an opportunity to exploit an potentially large customer market. There must be more wargamers in Indian, Pakistan and Nepal combined than in, say, New Zealand who want to play with their own boys? Surely ? As I once heard an officer of the Brigade of Gurkhas remark: 'They aren't brown Brits you know!'. Wise words indeed. And imagine the fun of being able to go down to your local curry house, order ten pints of lager, a lamb jalfrezi, and asking the waiters to shout into your dictaphone phrases like: 'Watch the flanks!' 'Take that you bastard!' and 'They're all over us like a cheap suit!' in as many indigenous languages as they can muster.

'Vergissmeinicht' also by Keith Douglas: Thre weeks gone and the combatants gone, returning to the nightmare ground we found the place again, and found the soldier sprawling in the sun. The frowning barrel of his gun overshadowing. As we came on that day, he hit my tank with one like the entry of a demon. Look. Here in the gunpit spoil the dishonoured picture of his girl who has put: Steffi, Vergissmeinicht in a copybook gothic script. We see him almost with content abased, and seeming to have paid and mocked at by his own equipment that's hard and good when he's decayed. But she would weep to see today how on his skin the swart flies move; the dust upon the paper eye and the burst stomach like a cave. For here the lover and killer are mingled who had one body and one heart. And death who had the soldier singled has done the lover mortal hurt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F19%2Fdb1901.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F19%2Fdb1901.xml

.. thats why in the german army the smalest guy have to carry the maschine gun around.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F06%2Fdb0601.xml

Interesting thoughts. This is I guess classic OODA Loop stuff. An acronym which I believe means 'Observe, Orientate, Decision (make one), Action (do something)'. Once you've done something you're supposed to go back to observe the next new threat and sort that out. If you cannot cycle through your OODA loop quicker than your opponent then you're always playing catch up. In fact you cannot work out what is going on. Bad things happen to you. But you are clueless and helpless. That is battle shock We all experience bits of this from time to time. Being in a car crash. Seeing your wife give birth. Watching TV on 9/11 (we'll not forget the shock of that day will we?). That kind of thing. Near lock down of any rational cognitive response. How much worse when some evil little bastard is actually TRYING TO KILL YOU in the flesh. And you can't even work out how/from where etc. As CMers we are, I suppose, interested in the behaviour of formed units under control. You're right to say that the flight of fugitives will encourage other fugitives to flee. But that is not a wargame. It's crowd behaviour. Like the bitter end of the 1/24th Foot at Isandlwhana or the 7th Cav at Little Bighorn. But I have experienced something a little like battle shock when playing CM. It's called playing PBEM with an opponent who is much better than you. Someone who lives just inside your OODA loop. Crappy, crappy, hateful games. It really hurts but Brother do you learn (pride is such a small thing - but there). So in conclusion: CM offers us a window (small and a bit opaque, but a window nontheless) into battle shock. By the way - my sympathy is with the NVA tank crew. Especially as I believe that even a LAAW will, technically, overmatch a T55 flank! Happy gaming!

If you feel strongly that national qualitative differences should be modelled then that can be done most easily through giving units a lower experience rating. Make all Italian infantry conscript if that's how you feel about them. See p 146 CMBB manual. But surrendering on the battlefield is far from straightforward. There's the old story about defenders fighting hard, surrendering at the last minute, and being shot down by the attackers with the cry of 'Too late, chum'. I have seen this happen a couple of times in CMBB with immobile HMGs. Always a chillingly realistic sight.

Sound sense Sir. But I should still prefer Cheddar over Wensleydale. Though truth be told my heart is set is on the softer French cheeses. Does this mean that you still owe me a turn?

Do you enjoy snuff movies in colour as well?

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 be even better than CMBB!

Now that sounds like an account of a real battle. This is the brilliance of CMBB in my view. You can enjoy a quick 30 minute game or, if you prefer, and if you have a like minded opponent, you can try something that approximates quite closely to reality. It is a strength of the game that it can support both points of view. I remember as a callow young infantryman (never been in a firefight) asking my father about it all, as he had been. Being strong on theory but weak on pratice (now weak on both) I framed my question in terms of the doctrine that I had been taught. This was the old PREWAR mnemonic: Preparation; Reaction to Effective enemy fire; Winning the fire-fight; Assault; Reorganisation. The question I asked my father was: how long does it take to win a fire-fight? In training, firing blank ammunition it took about 10 minutes at most. His answer: 'Well sometimes it takes all day.' Not many of us would have the time, or patience to do that for fun. But that is the grim reality. The CMBB engine gives us this if we want it - remember the complaints about MGs ruining the fun in CMBB as opposed to CMBO? Both schools of thought are available now. More encouragement to play scenarios if any is required.