boy_Recon

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just naturally assumed that anyone who CHOSE a handle of "boy_Recon" did so for a reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No,wait. You're Oscar Wilde, aren't you? Go on,grandpa. Explain the rules then.

I'd like to think of myself as a gifted amateur. son.

Joe Shaw said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not to worry, old man, we weren't. Kindly advise us when the thrill of posting and seeing your "name" in print, be it only on the screen, wears off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I take it that the Joe Shaw bit is a 'handle', and your real name is something like "SSKommandant Rhino's bottom". Otherwise aren't you making life tough on yourself by letting so many people know you're a cretin?

back now, where were we...? Oh yes, in the middle of the usual sad, yet somehow banal display of Colonial and Antipodean 'wit'. Carry on, chaps. Don't mind me.

PoorBrown: I can call you a merchant banker without taking an alias. I am not Elvis, although I have have claimed to be as matter of expediency. If the Yankee moderators knew what impact the "W" word actually has, so you think they'd let you carry on using it?

....this would all be very funny if it weren't so tragic........

the remains of Hitler are dispersed on the breeze, and the bones of the Romanovs see the light of day for the first time in 80 years........

Note that "Recoiless Rifles" are different from the "squeeze-bore" principle employed on several German light guns during the war. Squeeze-bore gun barrels are smaller at the muzzle than at the breech, the difference being compensated for by retractable tungsten studs around the side of the shot. The benefit of the squeeze-bore priciple is a higher velocity discarge than would normally be possible for a shot of that mass. The benefits of Recoilless Rifles are simply reduced recoil necessitating a lighter and more mobile gun construction. This enhanced mobility is NOT shown in CMBO.

The emphasis in the British Army has always been on 'marksmanship', best defined as "proficiency with a bolt action rifle". In WW1 what the Germans thought was LMG fire was the Tommy's swift yet accurate usage of the .303, which could reach up to 60rpm. The British army did not develop the concept of a squad-based LMG until the mid-30's, and only later made a very poor compromise with the Sten SMG. Bear in mind that German SMG technology pre-dates WW1 with , ie, the Mauser 'Broomhandle' 9mm pistol/smg.

On attack or defence it all depends on the platoon leader's ratings. At the end of the day, the loss of a squad is generally inconsequential. when attacking with three squads, spread one out in front of the other two and expect to lose it.

Damn,Babra! That's why then...... An interesting article in the papers a few weeks ago: the British army has just decided to update its wireless comms, as the technology it's currently using dates back to the 1950's. God knows what we were using before the '50's, then. Cocoa tins and string, presumably.

The variety of German HT's in CMBO is very broad, and overall good value, but may not represent the truth. Each platoon leader's HT in a PzrGr platoon carried an AT rifle or Panzerschreck, according to the period of the war. 81mm HT's were capable of dismounting their mortars before firing. The nachineguns on every HT were removable. You can't have everything, but at least 81mm mortar HT's should be able to fire dismounted as well as mounted.

the problem with the mortar HT's is that in real life they had the capacity to dismount their mortars. this was shown in ASL, etc. basically, without this facility they are only half the vehicle they should be.

the MG39 and 42 were standard machine guns being capable of deployment in either the light or heavy role: i.e, the same weapon with either belt/magazine or box feeds, and tripod or bipod. The Allies both had an LMG and an HMG (Bren/BAR & Browning/Vickers/m1919) for each role. The MG39/42 also used a changeable barrel as a cooling system rather than air or water cooling, which considerably lessens weight. strictly speaking there is only the light and heavy version of any mg; the medium is basically a heavy mg with a smaller team operating it.

The British lorry in WW2 was the "bullnose" AEC Matador or the Bedford 2 tonner. Anybody fancy doing a mod for those?

The voices are a high point. We all talk like that, Gor blimey guv'nah! Its almost as realistic as Daphne's accent in 'Frazier'. 2" mortars are good, but nobody bothers with them. Churchill is very good, but slow. We still thought tanks didn't need to move faster than infantry (hangover from WW1), hence the Churchill's 16 mph top speed.

The German support vehicles massively outclass the Allies'in CBMO. This isn't strictly realistic: there were several Brit AC's that carried a 75mm gun (both AT and howitzer), ie the AEC and the heavy Daimler, and the US mounted 75mm's on halftracks. All these, plus the 'Meatchopper' (q.v.) were used extensively in Europe.

Thanks, Alex. Most games are developed in the US so there's always a bias, but fair play to Big Time for getting the Brits in there. Doesn't always happen.

I've never yet to see anybody voluntarily choose a purely British force in a QB. Why not? You get a free PIAT with every platoon, the tanks are no worse than the US's, and the arty's fine. What is your problem? If anybody doubts the efficacy of the British set up, feel free to email me for a pbem: 2000pts meeting QB; I'll take the Brits.

yep, I play pbem loads (2000-pts on average) and largest files are the movies but i don't think i've ever seen one over 400kb. how big is "medium"?