Soddball

I was blown up in an artillery barrage. I got better.

Well, he didn't develop that technique to hide from a 88 round. </font>

Speaking only about the one book I mentioned above, Hills doesn't mention that the rest of his crew were ever shot like that. He mentions that he developed a crouching technique as TC, which made his legs ache but meant that only the top of his head and his eyes were sticking out of the top of the tank. Not saying it didn't happen, just that in the sole book I've read it isn't mentioned.

I think you should take them barrel first. :mad:

I loved the book. Part of the reason is that Stuart Hills lives (lived?) about 2 miles away from me, so it's a very 'local' book. I know the schools and towns he talks about. I agree with the reviewer that every AT gun was an '88' and that his descriptions of battles can feel 'imprecise'. Stuart Hills though, seems to have written like a TC. When TCs received a new Sherman they didn't know what armour thickness it had to the millimetre or what the angle was. They knew whether it was reliable, whether it stalled alot, whether it was a pain to wash down or whether it was difficult to get in and out of, whether the gun was good. In short, he wrote it as though he was there. For example, his troop was called on to support an infantry push. The infantry were bogged down. His troop attacked the German positions supported by infantry, and then withdrew. So I feel that the author's being a tiny bit unfair with his criticisms, but I can see why he made them.

Not exactly - it was the operation to clear the last German units west of the Rhine, in preparation for the grand crossing. What's the matter, Soddball, you forget what google is? </font>

What was Op Veritable?

I've been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank Into Normandy", which is an account of his time with the Sherwood Rangers from D-Day until mid-1945. What struck me is the number of times they baled from a tank that had been struck by a single round. It was almost an automatic reaction - round penetrates and kills crewmember x, remainder of crew leap from hatches and run for their lives. At no time did I read "We scraped the mangled lumps of Willikins from the drivers seat, then Hodgson grabbed the wheel and we were off, fighting like billy-o". Judging from this book alone, my impression of tank combat would be: 1)Tank comes under fire. Round penetrates. 2)Crew bail and cower pathetically hoping nobody shoots them. 3)If, after a few minutes, fighting dies down and tank shows no signs of brewing up or continuing to be a target, crew remounts tank. Hills spent some months with one crewmember missing from his tank after a round penetrated a Sherman he was commanding and killed (IIRC) the loader. Edited to improve the wossname, thing. [ March 11, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

By the way, you had exactly a month's head start on Seanachai. Your turns -- 0 His turns -- 7. You suck. :mad: :mad: :mad: </font>

ARAGRHARGAHRGARHAGRHGA ARGAHRHA Flint chipping Krauts!! :mad:

SEE!?!?!?! More anger less quibbling over useless crap like, 'how can 54-46 be considered a draw? I obviously have more points therefore I should win.' I need a elephant tranquilizer..... </font>

Jinkies. That's a fairly serious hack and it's probably the first time I've seen a successful one demonstrated on the forum.

Man, you iz stoopid. Check Here, Dimwit. :mad: :mad: Posted by me. Shameful though it is, I am responsible for the essence of the Cheery Waffle. Now if only I could find the motivation to send a turn.

bah.

bah.

bah.

I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC).

I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC).

I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC).

Steve, Like many players, I've spent the past 4+ years playing (and not finishing) masses of PBEM games. TCP/IP is a pain for two reasons - one, trying to hook up with new players (see the challenge threads) and two, trying to commit enough time to make TCP/IP worthwhile. PBEM is wonderful because it allows a player to have a couple of dozen games running at once, and commit to them maybe an hour a day. PBEM also allows much bigger games than TCP/IP - players exchanging one turn an hour because they're setting up 10,000 points of equipment get bored quickly. I know you'll get PBEM in if you can, so don't take this post as an aggravated rant. It isn't. But people like PBEM for what it is - a multiplayer option that's easy to dip into and out of. Those without broadband (and in the UK (for example) that's still 50% of internet users) can't play TCP/IP. So that's where these people are coming from (some of them). People are speculating like crazy because they're excited. Sure, there are a handful of whiny whingers who whinge and whine, but most people are just excited, nosy, and can't wait to see what's coming.

Never heard of it before - not that I'm doubting your word. But - jinkies. Zombie Ninja Pirate Warriors. Maybe George Lucas can make a script and really balls up a film of it?

For people that want a basic overview of prehistoric Britain, Francis Pryor's "Britain BC" is the best choice.

A few corrections for the Stonehengians: I was there in November. The car park was relatively empty. You can walk around the stones, inside the perimeter ditch. It will be very busy in the summer months, though. By Neolithic times (when the late phases of Stonehenge were completed) much of Britain had been divested of its forest cover. No point in building a fabulous sight if you can't see it on your approach. Lots of neolithic archaeology was expressly designed to be viewed. Stonehenge includes a long 'avenue' that leads away from the stones and then bends sharply and winds down towards the river Avon. The avenue was probably as much a part of the ritual. Stonehenge is part of a larger ritual landscape, which includes Woodhenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, and West Kennet. Stand at the centre of Stonehenge and look around you. In every direction, you can see low mounds - burial sites. It is awe-inspiring.

A

Zitadelle, I just sent an email to the address in your profile about (amongst other things) Stonehenge. Definitely worth a visit.