Stalin's Organ

And lots more gas.

And lots more gas.

I've been playing toy soldiers made of metal, wood, plazstic, fibreglass, electrons and various other things for 33 years now, and I know few people who play a lot of anything solitaire - except those things that can only be played solitaire!! I play RTW solitaire because I play the campaign, which is single player only. I am playing 4 PBEM games of DBAOL and 3 of CMAK at he moment. I play all my figure games against opponents. That't pretty much the norm for these parts at least. I suspect the article is more about the author's predjudices than anything factual.

So it's true - you ARE thick enough to reside in here!! Either that or too much of a panty waste to accept - I suspect the later - you've probably run out of Russian Courage! It's sooooo sad when a bad man gets even worse! :mad: :mad:

Thank you very much. </font>

Automatic Lee-Enfields. Someone called Philip Charltom modded LE's with a gas piston from 1/2 way down the barrel, acting on a sliding cam that operated on the bolt stub to lock, unlock and move it. Cyclic ROF was 700 rpm. It could take a 30 rd mag as well as the std 10 rd mags. 2000 were produced in NZ and "several thousand" in Australia. A semi-automatic rifle mod by the same bloke was also tested in hte UK, but obviously not adopted. -from "Small Arms of the World" - 11th Ed.

Of course we know what a Hoover is - it's a dam dammit!! But since you're going to send me somehting I will have to allow that you may be a little more worthy than the rest of the detritus around here. Not much......just a little!

Easier done than said! Not really - I haven't played BB for a while tho, so it might be good to refresh the grey matter So send it in - whatever it is!

Snarker - you got the turn sent to you - what's your excuse this time??

Erm... I'll just say I read the technical data a bit differently. Petrol engine, less horsepower / ton, less vertical obstacle / fording / trench crossing, armor I'd call "comparable" except in the "easy eight" variant (when you take e.g. the thinner turret armor into account)... I'd agree if you'd prefer to call it a draw, but I don't see "out-performing" there. </font>

Can't agree with this - the Sherman pretty much out-performed any T34 built at hte same time. It had better layout, better equipment (radio, sights, etc), a gun that was at least as good (75 vs 76, 76 vs 85) for most purposes (the 85 prolly had a better HE round than the 76), and it's armour was at least as good too IIRC - remmber the T34's went with 45-47mm front hull armour for the whole war - significantly less than any mark of Sherman! The Panther was, of course, better than both!

Just a quick suggestion - can CMx2 please have password entry BEFORE loading the 3D graphics?? I hate those few occasions where I load the other guy's file & have to await hte loading before I can exit it!!

Transport of all varieties - hands down. The war would still have been won if the US were using Springfields IMO.

How many tanks did they ever KO??!! All tungsten cored composite raounds had problems with accuracy, not just allied ones. This was because they were lighter overall to get higher velocity, hence they lost velocity faster and were more prone to being upset by wind. The British ADPS rounds suffered from irregular separation of the sabots that could put the shot wildly off-target. Squeeze bore rounds were an exception, since they did not have a large composite body or sabots. HESH was not used in hte way, but was trialed as an anti-concrete round for some british RCL's IIRC (going from memory of I Hogg's Allied artillery book) - these never saw service, but hte effect was noticed and development continued. Weight for weight a tungsten round would beat anything else. However mass was also useful - the official "AT" round from hte British 5.5" gun/howitzer was any HE round with the fuse replaced by the packing blank - at 80 or 100lb moderate velocity and actual penetration were not considered a problem!!

When he turned old enough to buy the grog for his mates!

Yes - now add in hundreds of Marders and thousands of Stugs, and put most of all of it on the Eastern Front....... As YD said - typically ("on average") the Germans had infantry with limited AT support vs Anglo-allies well equipped with Shermans and a few Brit tanks also armed with the 75 (Cromwells, Chruchills)

Yep - that's exactly it - thanks.

GAJ - he's a spelling grog - a hole you can climb into his a "hole" - a "whole" is something that is complete, in its entirety, unsplit

Like it says - how do I look at a map file? Do I have to create a dummy battle then go to the scenario editor??

Normally I have to offer choclates and flower to take out a tank!

No it's you turds who have all made ME sick!! Stuck at home with a sinkin' coldwhile the wiond howls at 100 mph outside and the snow and sleet falls horizontally and nothign to do apart from turns for CM and DBAOL!! However at elast I have been able ot get several turns done per game, which has allowed me to beat the snot out of BlallyWob - HA! In his hand picked scenario he suffered a slight reverse 69-31, but sadly still had 1 Churchill moving at hte end! Take note Horrible Dave - that's your benchmark to beat!

It depends - IIRC much of the Tiger mantlet covered existing turret armour - effectively doubling the thickness (armour grogs will slay me for that!! ). Most other tanks didn't have this - their mantlets covered the hole for the gun plus only a relatively small overlap of the turret armour, if any.

You're a chick - what would you know!!

No - we all detest you far more than you can possibly imagine!