Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: First, I do not think Madmatt drove way a poster, he just banned two Australian posters who had gotten out of control then locked the threads they had side tracked and destroyed already in order to cool the whole situation down. They have since warned a third member of that trio (well, we are not sure how people people had how many accounts) for throwing a bomb over that thread at Spook. The posters if anything drove themselves away with there behavior. Matt just made it official. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My, its interesting how observers have a different viewpoint on matters, Slappy? I'd suggest that you worked very hard to drive them off the board, myself but who am I? I'm just a hick Australian from downunder whose been judged by you as "unreliable" merely 'cause your hicktown college can't get my hicktown university's library copy of my thesis. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for the fascine disucssion, Blackburn is an interesting secondary source for extended use of the devices, but he does not really help us in our quest for defining times and employments of the fascine carriers during regular battles (assuming that the shore battles are out of our reach because we cannot simulate them). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whereas I have quoted extensively from a primary source, Slappy. The training pam which I quoted makes the note that the time to deploy the fascine depended upon the approach to the obstacle and the width of the obstacle (ie if more than one was required). It notes the actual deployment of a single fascine is under one minute. Sounds very similar to what Kim stated about his training film. I take it you do not consider film a primary source, Slappy? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The real questions that we will face is how common was it to carry a fascine into battle (recognizing that they would blow the bundle by SOP when coming under fire because it was a hazard) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB] Would they? My source makes no such reference and the reference you provided talked about "bobbins" not fascines, Slappy. Two very different pieces of equipment. Until you make it clear which you were talking about I think you're talking bull****. Oh, and BTW, exactly how would the AVRE carrying the fascine know it was under fire? Afterall, the view out of an AVRE with a fascine is extremely limited. Only the driver and his coie can see forward (and that is limited) and the commander is limited to vision to the sides and rear. If it was then left to the detechment commander to determine if the carrier needed to drop the bundle, then I'd suggest he'd decide if it was needed to be dropped, not SOP's. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB] did the carriers operate on their own attached to other units (some evidence indicated they often were used with a dozen other Avre and funnies as support because of how difficult their job was), which is difficult to simulate in the game because 3000 poinst are would need to be spent just on funnies, and the question still remains if the fascine would be better simulated as already dropped in place to avoid an endless relatively boring "engineering battle."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Jon, I think the function was never in question. The employment on the CMBO battlefield was. Unfortunately when that was pointed out, instead of looking for evidence, the poster driven away decided to attack even me for being anti-British. *shrug* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, I was under the impression he attacked Slappy for anglophobia, not you, Germanboy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> From the Blackburn quote, I would say it is pretty clear that it was not used under battle-conditions there - 'overnight' being the clue for me. As you say YMMV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you need to reread it again, then. Blackburn obviously is referring to the movement of troops up to the startline, not the battle, itself. He makes no reference in that passage to when they were used, just that they were present and what their purposes was intended for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Part of the trick is knowing who to converse with here, because there are always a few that like to stir things up or, not listen to reason when his opinion on a CM element is challenged to be proven better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd actually have placed you amongst one of the worst culprits of abuse with your anglophobia.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Well Karch, when you get closer to me in how many books you have read, I will begin to pay attention to what you have posted. I bet you have never read "Frogs over the Fatherland", or "Frog Commandos of the Australian Commonwealth", or "Allied Frogmen", or any of Winston Churchill's series of books, "Frogs at War".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You forgot those other books from your vast collection, Slappy - Jane's All the World Frogs, Boy's Own Frog Adventures, Across the Andes by Frog and of course, we shouldn't forget, American tales of Superior "can-do" Frogs.

Actually what I think would be much more useful would be linking of CM to a compression program - so that when you saved a file you were given the option of compressing it. I'd find that very handy when doing PBEM.

Interestingly, a recent copy of Air International magazine which is published in the UK has an advertisement for a video entitled "The Battle for Stalingrad" - but it is not listed on their web page. The blurb from the magazine states: "Stalingrad was one of the most brutal battles of the Second World War. It is also one of the most crucial as it was Hitlers first defeat and, from then on, Germany never won another battle. In 1949 Stalin personally decided to make a vast epic drama documentary celebrating the Soviet Union's great victory at Stalingrad. This film has rarely been seen outside of Russia and is now release on video struck from a new print. A brief documentary explains the importance of the film and, as an added bouse, there is a full length documentary about General Paulus, the ill-fated commander of the German forces at Stalingrad. An important film made available for the first time. 16.99BP 172 mins, Colour." Could this be the same thing? [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eumundi: I think he is against Australians, and just lumps the British into the same boat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Eumundi, can I politely suggest that you pull your head in? You're not helping matters with your scattergun approach. Simon is not anti-commonwealth, if anything he's been one of the more effective pro-commonwealth debaters. Slappy, gets quoted 'cause his lunacies need to be refuted, thats all. Americans aren't all Communists, some might be but I'd suggest they are as Kim would say, "as rare as rocking horse ****".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barticus: Anyone have any information on this puppy? I think the Russkies used to mount them on their T-72's and I have seen some rather impressive footage of one firing. Otherwise, I have no idea when it was developed, deployed etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to my copy of Jane's "Heavy Automatic Weapons", the KPV (the KPVT was the version mounted internally inside AFV turrets) its data is: Operation: Short Recoil, automatic Feed: Continious closed pocket belt Weight: Gun only 49.1kg; Barrel with jacket 19.5kg. Length: Gun 200.5cm; Barrel 134.5cm Sights: Cylindrical post foresight; tangent leaf U-notch rear 200-2,000m x 100m Rate of Fire: 600 Rds/min cycle Effective Range: 2,000 again ground targets. 1,400m AA. It has both a much higher rate of fire and a longer effective range over the .50 Cal M2HB HMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I did not notice this one guys. Just wanted to bump it up as evidence that no real data is being used here and the case for funnies is merely being hurt by the same people who worship the things and the potted meat product the crews who ride on them eat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, I've wondered why your so voracious in resisting an effort to correct the historical inaccuracies for the British in the game. I think Kim has hit the nail on the head - you're anglophobic, aren't you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Hof, this is the problem -- many of the recent arguments for uberBritish have been launched without a whole lot of evidence, or thoughts to how that evidence will be presented and placed before the peer review of board critique. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, this isn't an academic journal or publication - and thats your problem. Its a web discussion board where people are meant to be discussing a topic of interest, now trying to ram down each other's throats their own historical viewpoint. Indeed, if you tried half of the things you've been noted trying here, in real academic debate, you'd be laughed out of even a first year tutorial downunder. Deliberate misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ad hominem debate, patronising, smug attitudes, tsk, tsk, tsk. You're no advertisement for the academic standards of American universities, Slappy. I find it amazing that you've ignored the efforts of myself, Kim, Simon, John and others to point out the errors in how various weapons/tactics for the British/Commonwealth are related. Instead, you appear to believe that CM is your personal creation and that you control this webboard. No wonder Kim derides your attitudes and treats them with contempt. You are, to use a 'strine phrase, "a legend in your own lunchtime," Slappy. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: ! what evidence? where?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I rather think the evidence of numbers of funnies in use in 21 Army Group qualifies, myself. I also percieve as Kim has, quite a sea change in Slappy's posts - he's gone from smug and patronising to nearly conciliatory. From outright rejection to semi-serious consideration. I'd say that its about 2:nil, Kim's way at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barticus: No, it isn't. The German 37mm AT gun had an option where it could fire a hollow-charge rocket off the end of the barrel, pretty much as was shown in that episode. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, Germanboy is correct. The Stielgranat 41 was not a "rocket". It was a spigot round - it had a rod, inside its body which went down the bore of the weapon from the muzzle end. A large blank cartridge was inserted in the breach and fired. The gases released from this then shot the Steilgranate 41 off the end of the barrel. Range was limited but it had a reasonable, if not spectacular penetration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Poor Beaz, hasn't gotten it yet and stbeing lead by the hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only person who appears to need "leading by the hand" is yourself, Slappy. It is obvious that are having problems with the concepts being discussed here. Perhaps its your lack of military training showing through? I would suggest slappy that in reality, if we were to see this sort of thing included in a future edition of the game, this is how it could be used. Player A is provided with the intelligence that a river/ditch forms an obstacle to his advance. He then decides to purchase a means of crossing said obstacle - be it fascine, bridgelayer or Ark. Come the game beginning, it is assumed that all pre-battle recconiassances have occurred (ie "surveying" as you refer to it). The player believes that he has the means of crossing said obstacle - based upon the intelligence that he has. He then moves from his FUP or startline (its impossible to determine from the game manual which is being simulated in the "deployment zone") along his chosen route of advance. He then utilises the means at his disposal, to enable his obstacle crossing assets to approach said obstacle and be deployed. Sometimes he will be successful and prevent the enemy from engaging the crossing asset, sometimes he won't. A careful commander will eliminate the enemy means to interfere before he uses the asset. However, that doesn't mean it will always work or that some idiot will try and use it without the correct preparatory operations - buts life, **** happens. Hey, presto, "in game terms" - the magic mantra which you keep using when ever you're pressed, it is the deployment time of the vehicle which is important, not the preparation time which you keep harping on about. In the case of the Ark, which is only one of the means available to the British commander to bridge a linear obstacle, the vehicle must be drive into the obstacle before it can be used. In the case of the others, they merely have to halt beside it. Only the AVRE with either fascine or SBG Assault Bridge, does not need to either halt nor remove itself before other vehicles cross the obstacle. Yes, these are "single shot" assets, which means you wouldn't get a second chance to use it, if you stuff up. How BTS would handle this "in the code" is up to BTS but with that short explanation I've shown that such assets could be used in a "assault" type game. We already know they were available in real life. You on the otherhand appear to even deny that. Considering there were, according to the site that Kim cites for 21 Army Gp.: 1944 1945 June Dec June DD 265 56 90 Crab 189 133 180 Kangaroo 0 214 393 Churchill AVRE 0 164 251 Churchill Croc 0 90 187 Churchill Ark 0 3 35 Churchill B/L 6 8 7 Valentine B/L 33 9 13 Grant CDL 162 0 28 Its obvious that while the Ark and the Churchill B/L weren't available in significant numbers (no one in fact has claimed the reverse), that the Valentine and AVRE (all of which were capable of carrying fascines) were available in significant numbers. What is interesting is that the numbers of Ark's actually increases markedly, after peace has broken out in Europe and they are not being expended any further in operations. It is also obvious that the British put great store on these vehicles - why else would they maintain such large numbers of them? Yet, in the game, they are largely ignored...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The sentinal was a great tank. The last version of it was ready for a 17 pounder, and may have gotten into service before the firefly. It turned out not to be needed, and too expensive to manufacture compared to just using Shermans, but it was an amazing vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, Slappy it was the ready availability of the M3 Grant/Lee which destroyed the Sentinel program. It was simply too expensive to manufacture, so the industrial resources utilised to build it were instead turned over to the manufacture of aircraft within Australia, rather than tanks which could be supplied much more readily from US stocks. Australia never adopted the M4 Sherman. We did though, end up with an interesting series of hybrids, by the end of the war. M3 hulls with M4 automotive and suspension components. We used both Grants and Lees - again, interestingly most of the Lees had their small cupola removed in an effort to lower their already massive silouhette. We also produced our own 25 Pdr SP gun, the Yeramba - based on the M3, as was the Sexton (originally if one traces its ancestry back far enough) but it didn't enter service until after the end of the war - unusually, it was designed to be armed with either the US 105mm Howitzer or the 25 Pdr, although in the end, they all carried 25 Pdrs. As it was, the Australian Army decided that the M3 was simply too large and too heavy for effective use in the SW Pacific and instead utilised Matilda II's, instead, of which we produced a series of our own "funnies". BTW, the AC III proved that a 17 pdr could be carried in a turreted tank, by mounting twin 25 Pdr's as a proof of concept vehicle. It was the results of those tests which convinced the British to build the Firefly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> basically I agree with your opinion on the "value" and realism of these competitions, but I cannot help but comment that a comparison jumps to my mind regarding the initial argument in this thread on whether or not the training footage of orchestrated, rehearsed and set-up ARVE action are representative of the vehicles' actual use in combat or not, and Mr Beazleys <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there migh also be a world of difference between how a "competition" is conducted and how an exercise for a training film is conducted. From my own experience, training films tend to be designed to show soldiers how things should be done, therefore if Kim stated he saw an AVRE deploy a fascine likedysplit, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> regarding using the gunnery competitions as a means of comparing the vehicles and the performances of the rules - why bother to lie, and why create artificial rules? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps because its impossible to simulate battle conditions and if you have a "competition" you must have some means (other than perhaps survival) of scoring between the contestants to enable a "winner" and a "loser" to be proclaimed. As the competition was between like tanks, rather than unlike tanks, as occured in the Gulf War, I think its rather like members, who play different positions, of the same football team competing against one another, rather than an opposing football team. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the main problem with a rifled barrel is not the rotation caused in HEAT rounds (this can be offset and today HEAT is not that much of an issue anymore anyways), but the friction generated by the rifling, resulting in a lower Vo and therefore lower AP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmmmm, you appear to have forgotten the other component that spin imparts to a projectile - improved accuracy. In the case of HESH, this means a high MV can be attained and its more accurate at longer ranges, with the relatively high, arcing trajectory that HEAT has. The rifling is there for the secondary round, not the primary round. The problem of friction is overcome for the primary round APFSDS through the use of sliprings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have been unaware so far that these authors -who did a wide range of books- should have made an authoritative book dedicated to the subject, but perhaps you would disclose more about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My copies are interstate at the moment but they are Hogg - German Artillery of World War Two, Chamberlain and Doyle - Anti-Tank Weapons, WWII Fact Files, US Army, German Army Handbook and also Weeks, Men Against Tanks. I'm going by memory here so could be wrong, I admit. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have yet to see these sources claim that the Puppchen was "as rare as rocking horse ****". Mr Beazley btw has so far refused to give ANY facts regarding his original preposterous claim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps he was a tad over the top with his use of colourful language but again, all I can say is according to my sources, the claim was that it wasn't successful and wasn't widely used. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> although your statement is a bit sketchy, if I interpret it correctly than this is nothing but your iteration of your opinion which is what we are arguing about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right its my opinion - based upon the above sources. Your sources are? You have yet to actually name them, I believe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the PWK 8 H 63 ("PAW 600") was rare indeed, but that is beside the point because the original statement pertained to the Puppchen not the PAW 600 (an altogether vastly different weapon concept)(that said with the PAW you'ld have had a much better argument, I have a total production number for the PAW 600 of 260 here, with the delivery of the first 81 in January 1945, and a documented combat use of 105 by the 30. and 31. PzGrenRgt. Now, please don't take the following as impolite are as offending, but if you do a search under my member number and PWK as a key word then I am sure you will find an earlier article of mine on this subject) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will do so but I am a bit mysterified as to why two Panzer Grenadier Regiments would have 105 towed anti-tank guns between them...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife: A fine visual exhibition, David - I've certainly learned a bit about the Challenger from this thread. Not to derail the intended purpose of said thread, but I've often wished for the twin, pintle-mounted Vickers 'K' MG Jeeps, to use in CMBO with my SAS boys. Jeep-Mounted Twin Vickers Pix Of course, i can only hope for their inclusion in CM3's North African theatre, but I believe one can make a case for insertion in NW Europe beyond '44 as well. Certainly, during Market Garden, the 1st Airborne intended to use them (of course they were lost in glider crashes) and I've got pictures of these twin Vickers Jeeps with Commandos in Wesel, Germany as well. Of course, not a big deal, but - it would be nice to see them - and they'd make the now sloth-like Vickers a bit more mobile... [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Different weapons. The Vickers 'K' was a gas-operated weapon developed for use in aircraft observer positions, originally. The "Vickers" is a modified Maxim recoil operated weapon. Indeed, there is only one real major difference between the Maxim and the Vickers - the Vickers breaks upwards, the Maxim downwards in operation (or is it the other way 'round, I misremember). The SAS operated in NW Europe with Vickers 'K' armed Jeeps, behind German lines. Popski's Private Army operated in Tunisia and Italy with .30 cals and .50 cals, usually one or two of each, although they were aircraft, rather than ground versions of the weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: JonS, I was referring to the "fabulous" performance of the Challenger in all the NATO competitions up until they were discontinued , the fact that they tend to loosen their loose tracks , that they still use the rifles 120mm, that it is so fast that it indeed brings back memories of the WW II Churchill , that it originally lacked a ballistics computer worth its name (see again the first point), et cetera perge perge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And yet, when push came to shove, in the Gulf War, the Challenger performed as well and in some ways better than the M1 Abrahms utilised by the US Army. There's no denying, that on paper, the Challenger is the worse of the two MBT's. However, it has certain advantages over the M1 - it might lack speed but it has as good or better agility on the battlefield because of its gearbox and its diesel engine. It has considerably longer "legs" than the M1 - British units often remarked about how they would pass the M1's refuelling yet again, during the war. Its armour is as good and its gun as good (and with non-DU ammunition as well). As for its FCS - remember, its a Challenger that has the record for the longest ranged tank gun "kill" - 5,300+ metres. Therefore I'd suggest that perhaps the NATO tank gunnery competitions are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of determining which tank is "better" - except in the artificial conditions of the competition. Oh, and BTW, the use of a rifled gun barrel is not quite as silly as it seems - considering that the secondary round the British use is HESH, not HEAT, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am not "fixiated on production numbers", please read my original post, I was merely responding to the (quote) "talking out of the ass" of two individuals -who were stomping into this virtual room like senseless drunkards clamoring into the next pub- regarding how common any funny was vs the Puppchen. I am not fixiated on production numbers at all, we can use numbers issued just the same (see my former posts), I am merely holding them to their original, totally unholdable statements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, Hogg, Chamberlain and Gander and a couple of other sources that I have all state that the Puppchen was not generally issued, nor a terribly succesful weapon. The sources might be wrong, and you might have access to different sources, but that does not necessarily mean that I or Kim are lying merely for repeating what we have read in our sources. As to the funnies versus Puppchen - I'll lay odds that you'd have been far more likely to see an AVRE in you were serving in a British armoured Regiment than you were a Puppchen. Out of a matter of interest, what do your sources say about the PAW-600?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I do not hide behind my psuedoname. My full academic, professional, and publication record is available for all to see. In addition, I do not think any famous politicos are named Slapdragon -- although I am sure that someone would have let me know before now if I was taking a politicians name. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Steve Jackson" Isn't he someone famous? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for ad hominem, please for god sake look up another word in the dictionary. You use that every three sentences when you do not want to admit ignorance or defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, I use it because it correctly identifies your method of debate - you invariably do attempt to attack the poster, rather than what they are posting. You don't like Kim 'cause he points out exactly what you're doing and refuses to play your game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Combined with the term "strawman" which you use to represent any subject you are baffled by, it makes your posts rather repetitive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, bull****, Slappy. You enjoy deliberately misrepresenting what another poster says simply because either you want to demolish not their argument but the argument you claim they have made. I've pulled you up on it more times than enough. Its not only stupid, its annoying. I don't doubt you have a great deal to contribute to this sort of discussion but you do yourself a severe disservice by adopting these childish tactics when people disagree with you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I also want you to note that this thread did not turn into a flame fest until you darkened it. It was a serious discussion which you had the possibility of adding too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I rather think it was very much a "flamefest" - you were attacking IMO rather unfairly someone whose decided to have a joke and thats the point - it is a joke. You appear to need pretty much a humour transplant, Slappy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The fact that this "Australian Delegation" (which is likely one guy from Sydney who is posting from a asylum) all chooses the route of hiding their idenity AND trying to take on a living persons identityis the issue. Your defense of them is just because they are the only supporters of your British always get screwed BTS sucks viewpoint. [ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *SIGH*, as usualy you attempt to misrepresent the arguments which have been put forward. As both Kim and I have pointed out, you appear to equate a desire for improved historical accuracy with a desire for one upmanship in the game. Perhaps this is how you think but I know I don't. You appear to have real problems with coping with historically based criticism of this game from a British/Commonwealth perspective. Now, if I wanted to engage in your illogical thinking, I'd perhaps suggest that your an Anglophobe?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: If the real MP's weren't concerned about all this, then that's their own outlook. Not like the comments on the earlier cited thread were much in terms of controversy. But if impersonators would later post political views diametrically opposed to those of the real MP's, or started posting racial slurs and personal insults, then would that also be a "great hoot"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously not. However, that has not happened. Tell me, do you view Slappy's efforts at ad hominem as a "great hoot"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Borrowing someone's identity is lame, obnoxious, and inviting potential legal action. (Anyone further care to ask BTS's tolerance on having their forums utilized in such a way?) As Slap related earlier about C Dunphie having his identity borrowed, the real Dunphie didn't regard it to be funny in the least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tell me, should BTS ban all those people who use pseudonyms and the names of great generals/leaders from the past as their names? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I suppose some people might have also regarded the antics of "Cpt Manieri" & "Jochen Peiper" last year to had been a "great hoot" in their turn..... [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And what did they do? I think you're prejudging these people before they have even committed anything more serious than using an (to you) obscure politician's name. None of the Australian posters have exactly been upset by this happening. Indeed, most of them have treated it as a joke, as I do. I'd recommend a little less high-horse riding and a little more lightening up. It might make people much happier all 'round. [ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, your really need to get some new lines -- the ones you have got boring a long time ago. My suggestion remains the same as it always does to you: read some books. I don't care that they made you read one book when you were an undergraduate, try a second. You may like it so much that a third will follow, and then you would not be such a joke in serious conversations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you for proving my point so well, Slappy. I couldn't have done a better job myself. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seriously, as we said, the posters who have listed themselves as MPs are not very impressive in the first place, so no one figured they were actually politicos, but it bears checking out. [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out a matter of interest, what is the difference between calling oneself "John Howard" or "slapdragon", Slappy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I thought the initial AVREs were all based on MK Is ? D'uh. Hmm, back to checking the old sources again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to Fletcher, the most numerous varient which was converted to AVRE's was the Mk.III and Mk.IV. Chamberlain and Ellis also make the same point. The real problem in identifying "which was the most common" is that the British undertook a massive remanufacturing program for all Churchills in 1943 to bring them up to standard, mechanically, with the result that you get some real odd beasts (Mk.IV hull with Mk.VI turret, etc). What is obvious from most pictures, and the production numbers that Fletcher supplies, is that the earlier marks were far more common than most wargamers realise. The Mk.IV and Mk.VI were never surplanted in service until post-war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Hmm, I've been assuming all along that it was just an inside "Aussie" joke. I'd be flabbergasted if an actual head of state were posting to the CM forum under his real name (or under any name). I suppose it is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think its rather obvious that Slappy and Spook take themselves far too seriously, which is why these people have assumed these names. Personally I think its a great hoot, from an Australian perspective but then we are well known for taking the piss and stirring the pot. Its interesting though, that Slappy, perhaps one of the worst ad hominem debators I've seen in a long, long, time has decided to attack the persons of these posters rather than answer their points. [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: For example, Soviet forces seem to have a paucity of ground-attack aircraft. Their main plane for this was the Sturmovik, and it was very good. It used bombs, rockets and cannon to achieve its objective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, the Soviets also used various versions of their front-line fighters, in fighter-bomber form. Most notably, the Yak-9T, which mounted a 45mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. They also utilised lend-lease equipment such as the P-39 and the P-63 Aerocobra/Kingcobra - which were extremely popular with their pilots. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Germans also used bombs, rockets, and cannon, but also used other weaponry to devastating effect. The two that spring immediately to mind are the Heinkel He177 and Henschel HS129. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, they also again, like the Soviets utilised a great many fighter-bombers, primarily the BF-109 and the Fw-190, armed with primarily bombs - although they also extensively utilised cluster bombs against armoured and infantry targets. The Fw-190 was also equipped with "Panzerblitz" rockets of various calibres/types - the final version being a converted R4M with a hollow-charge warhead. In addition, they used the Ju-87 "Stuka" both as a dive-bomber and a ground-attack aircraft armed with two 37mm cannon. The 75mm armed He-177's were used primarily for train bustng, not CAS, according to William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Ah, you were wondering when I would make an appearance. "The wicked flee when no man pursues" to quote one of my favorite books. First off -- Hof has been civil to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We all know you use a different definition of the word "civil" as you do so many others, Slappy. Hof hasn't been civil to Kim, he's been damn rude IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Again, this is not to say there is no need for the funnies, but before you go off an a nationaliist jag you need to read up on some of these things, do some home work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe I have, Slappy. I've quoted from the relevent Training Pam on the matter. It was designed to inform the Engineer officer of the capabilities of the various "funnies" which were under his control. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The simulation would require that designers read some of the same things I did and ask: would this thing ever show up? The Ark, probably not. The fascine carrier, maybe. The Flail, maybe not unless you had lots and lots of time on your hands. Present this data in a clear way removing the invective and speaches and you get somewhere, and the designers hear you. Whine about how put down the commonwealth is, and they don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Kim has already answered your childish views on how you believe he, I and others do not believe "how put down the commonwealth is", Slappy. What we are talking about is the historical accuracy of the game, not seeking to give one nationality a vast advantage over all others, as you claim. I have produced some data and I have given its references. You've produced your's and the two do not seem to compare, purely because you are talking not about actual deployment times of the vehicle, themselves but rather their preparation times. As I would like to see these vehicles used in the game, they would be "one-shot", you aimed/released them and was it, they would then basically remove themselves from the game (if not armed as in an AVRE) and their bridge/whatever would be recoved after the battle. Of course, their use would have to include the radical idea that you do actually get to recce the ground before a battle, instead of simply purchasing your equipment blind, as one does now. [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Second off -- present some true to set up times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> British Training Pamphlet, "Engineer training 1945" Hidden in the depths of the chapter headed, "Engineer tactics, support to the Armoured Division" was this information: Deployment Times Churchill ARK Mk.II (UK Pat) - 3-5 minutes Churchill AVRE with SBG Assault Bridge - 3-5 minutes Churchill "Great Eastern Ramp" bridge - 3-5 minutes Churchill bridgelayer No.1/2 bridge - 3-5 minutes Churchill bridgelayer No.3 bridge - 3 minutes This did not take into account time spent on preparation nor on approach marches. Rather it discussed the time taken to deploy the bridging equipment for planning purposes. Slappy, you appear to be confusing the pre-battle preparation times with actual deployment times. The same publication suggested that time taken to deploy a fascine would be "less than 2 minutes". As to where you got the idea "they did not carry the bundles into battle" I have no idea. Everything I've read indicates the vehicle carried the fascine of the cradle mounted on the front of the vehicle How else did they get it to where they wanted it? As to your other claims WRT flails, others already seem to have demolished your theories there, Slappy. I'll just note that the above pamphlet notes that they were intended to be used to "lead the advance by clearing a lane across enemy minefields" - as they did most notably to my knowledge in North Africa where they were first developed.