Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

jtcm's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. Any suggestions for the attacking force ? The article's figures should probably be given a haircut
  2. Has it been colorized post-war, or is this original colour footage ? Good images of FIBUA-- Soviet troops hosing down buildings with HMGs, jeep mounted coupled .50s, and even field arty
  3. How does a mixed Tiger / Pz III Co. fight ? To help me visualize: how would I use such a Co. in a CMBB fight, say on the attack ? Should I hang back with the Tigers (say in 3 plts), and push forward with the PzIIIs, moving with overwatch ? Should I do it the other way round, with Tiger front armour leading the way and (short) 75s in overwatch ? Should I mix (say a group of Tigers in overwatch, and two mixed fighting groups, with Tigers to deal with armour, PzIIIs to support my infantry ?)
  4. What's the newness about it ? I mean-- new archival research ? New angle ?
  5. Walpurgis Nacht knew those pat, in all the conditions-- the values are, indeed, fixed, and you should know them when setting out for the fight. You can do all kinds of redoubtable things, e.g. move to within 1 m of LOS and throw a satchel or fire a FT...
  6. Is the response to that not the M1, then ? (with apologies to JasonC, who sees its emergence as organically growing out of technological changes and specific developments)
  7. I don't think I have the military history culture to appreciate exactly what's going on here-- but is the following correct ? There is a conventional view that US failures at Kasserine and general performance in Europe during WWII is due to faulty doctrine (TDs fight and contain tanks, whereas tanks support infantry ? break through ??)-- due to this McNair chap-- and concomitant choices, namely insufficient armour and armament on AFVs. JasonC disputes this, on two grounds: the armour specs were actually fine for Africa and fine in Normandy too, and the doctrine was good. -Is this right ? -who's correct ?
  8. Was the M1 not the result of a conscious take on what was considered, if I understand JasonC correctly, tendentiously, as the results of US performance in WWII ?
  9. At a slight tangent-- does the development of the M1 (with invulnerable front plates and heavy-hitting gun) fit into this debate, as seen from the post-war perspective ? I.e. the M1 as the "King Tiger" redux, and designed to prove that specs are the things that matter ? Just a thought
  10. I take this means that in Real Life -they were supposed to fight with plts, to give them a bit more oomph; in fact, just dragged them down -they were not grouped in "50 mm batteries", like us CMBB players like to do !
  • Create New...