Brian

Sounds a lot like a Boys to me too, Brian. Michael</font>

Sounds a lot like a Boys to me too, Brian. Michael</font>

It will be, as far as some members of the board are concerned.

Why do you assume that they are the same, apart from the designation and calibre? The British 4.2in was basically an upscaled 3in mortar, which in turn was based on the original Stokes mortar of WWI vintage. Its biggest problem was that it was intended from the outset to be utilised in chemical warfare and its HE round was designed as an afterthought. It was also made originally from cast iron and becuase of its weight, had a poor range/payload performance. In 1943, a newer, light bomb was introduced which corrected this somewhat but it never realised its true potential. The American 4.2in mortar much more closely resembles the original trench mortars - effectively being designed more like a light artillery piece than what we'd call a mortar. It fired a shell which was optimised a great deal better and had a higher weight of HE filling. [ May 17, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

My understanding that all of you are basically right. Yes, the Soviets did call different weapons, different calibres in order to avoid confusion in their logistics system. In addition, many of their calibres were hangovers from the previous Tsarist regime's, being based upon the older imperial method of measurement. However, they were not alone in both points. Other armies used similar tricks - the British 3in Mortar, was in fact not 3 inches in calibre (76mm) but actually 81mm. The French who introduced 155mm calibre weapons, actually manufactured the rounds to be 152mm in calibre. The difference between the round and the tube was made up for in the driving bands on the round. It was in fact that last point which allowed the Germans to continue using the captured Russian 76.2mm guns, which they had found to be so effective in the AT role, after the ammunition had run out. All they did was rechamber them (ie put a new chamber on the existing barrel) to the same shape/capacity as their own Pak40 round and utilise Pak40 ammunition in them - the difference in calibre was made up by fitting slightly wider driving bands on the rounds. As to the parable told by Suvarov, I have no idea whether its true or not. It rings true, although I'd have thought it more likely Stalin would have had those responsible also reduced to the Gulag. Speaking of Suvarov or rather Suvarov(s), I've been under the impression for some time that there was no single person who was writing as Suvarov - rather it was a group of defectors who shared the pen-name. I seem to remember reading somewhere or other that had been revealed after the Cold War. I've also been a tad skeptical about his claims. He appeared to have no real understanding of the Geo-Political aspects of the Cold War he was writing about. I personally still get a laugh out of reading what he claimed the Chinese Politburo was thinking WRT Australia. He always seemed to tend towards exaggeration a bit. He reminded me, if nothing more than of those various writers who were writing at the turn of the 20th Century, who were trying to "alert" Britain to the dangers that Germany represented. His descriptions about conditions within the Red Army though, were I admit, pretty spot on. It was the stuff which was obviously not based upon personal experience which appeared a bit suspect, I felt. [ May 16, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Interestingly, one of the first "kills" by Australian troops in Korea, occurred when a Sergeant fired his Bren gun at the external fuel tanks on the back of a T34/85. As to the matter of "flash point" temperatures, I think you'll find that might well because Russian crude is what is called a "heavy" oil, as against most others, notably Arabian oils, which were/are a "light" oil. Heavy oils require more effort to convert to either Diesoline or Petrol. Dieso, which is what was used exclusively in Soviet tanks, has a considerably higher "flash point" than Petrol, by quite a margin. One should also remember, its not the liquid fuel that burns but the fumes. Perhaps someone might like to hazard a guess when petrol is utilised to actually put out fires? Its quite a common practice here in Australia.

I wasn't out to prove you wrong Brian, just adding a few numbers M.</font>

Mmmm, raises an interesting question, perhaps one some people might not like to contemplate. How dependent is BTS on Charles's expertise at programming? What would happen if he (heaven forbid it) dropped dead, tomorrow? Would BTS be able to survive and move forwards?

I stand corrected. I'm sure I read in one of Zaloga's books that they put a loader into at least one of the turrets but I could be mistaken, I admit. Which is what I was alluding to.

Only the first version(s) of the T34/76 had a two man turret. This was corrected, IIRC on the M1943 version, which introduced a larger turret, with a loader in it. Even so, the lack of a turret basket, plus the storage arrangements for the rounds, made fighting the vehicle a great deal more difficult than was the case in the Panzer III or IV. The T34/85, of course was a completely different beastie one must be careful in differentiating not only between the two gun calibres but also the differences in the turret designs for the /76. IIRC there were I believe about 3 or 4 different turrets produced for the /76 and only 2 for the /85 (the later of which doesn't really concern us 'cause it was a just post-war development). The main external differences for the /76 were the hatches and the shape (rounded corners or definite hexagonel).

The Panjandrum.</font>

Interestingly enough, I knew an Australian Officer who insisted on wearing his Iron Cross 2nd Class ribbon on his uniform. Used to send the RSM into apoloxy, particulary on ceremonial parades when he actually wore the medal but it was a bit hard to argue with a man who'd served with the Hungarian Army in WWII, the Legion in Indochina afterwards and then done two tours of Vietnam as part of AATTV, including on one, recovering the body of his best mate, WO2 "Dasher" Wheatley who won a VC (posthumously) for refusing to leave his wounded AATV co-advisor when their CIDG unit was overrun. Felix Fazekas won an MM for his efforts to recover Wheatley. He was pretty impressive, even when I knew him towards the end of his career. Oh, yes, the point of that piece of information? His was the pre-1957 version of the award. :eek: [ May 02, 2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Do they have sufficient straw to burn in the stove?

Really, though, "Honour" is misspelled - the Americans spell it "Honor" and since it is an American award....</font>

Shouldn't the title of the thread read, "Medal of Honour,Iron Cross or Victoria Cross"? Anyway, here's a picture to add to the others:

You don't think they should have some self-defence capability? I'd personally like to see all light-weapons teams (ie 60mm/50mm/2in Mortars/PIATs/Bazookas/Panzerschreks/HMGs/etc) have a self-defence capability, just as do the crews of guns, once the ammunition of their primary weapon had been expended. In "real life" those crews carried personal weapons, and contributed to their unit's firepower when the occasion demanded it, bringing into use their "special" weapons when the situation demanded it.

Well, while I agree with you about the British Armoured Cars, John, I understand the 222 was by 1943 pretty much relegated to second-line duties and used primarily on LoS security and such like. While the M/C's are sadly missed, again, by the time period of CMBO, they were no longer being used in the same way, as far as I can tell, as they had earlier in the war. What I think is missing is the Panhard series of Armoured Cars that the Germans used extensively after the fall of France. Also the Schwimmwagen (now wouldn't that make battles interesting? ). I'd also like to be able to arm the Kubelwagen and the Schwimmwagen, as the Americans are able to arm the Jeep.

It would be interesting, purely for interest's sake to see a breakdown of the sales for CMBO, country/region, Steve. Doesn't have to be absolute numbers, percentages or even just a ranking, would be fine. I'd just be interested to see which countries are interested in this sort of game.

Bump! As it doesn't yet appear to have caught his attention.

Now that I've got your attention, as you haven't posted your email address, could you send me an email? I have something I want to discuss with you.

All hail our Aussie and Kiwi chums! All our best, despite the continuing, you'll have to understand, need to Crush You All. </font>

No. Its a syrup extracted from sugar, IIRC. Very sweet, very, well golden, in colour. A bit like molasses but a lot lighter (both in body and colour). Often used in the past as a substitute for sugar (easier to keep and more useful in cooking). Nicknamed "Cockies' Joy" ("Cockies" is our slang term for farmer, for like the Cockatoo bird, they are forever scratching in the dirt ). I'd surprised if you couldn't get it at somewhere in the US. However, if you cannot, as the recipe suggests, use honey instead. [ April 26, 2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

No, they were discontinued primarily 'cause they took too much time and effort to cut from the turret. As their value was considered neglible, they were eliminated usually on the basis of efficiency for the Germans. For the Americans, on the otherhand, they were eliminated because they were felt to provide a weak spot on the hulls of M3 Lee/Grant tanks. In the case of the rivetted versions, I suspect it was the case. However, with the cast hulls it was more than likely felt that providing them wasn't worth the effort. No, because of ammunition and other equipment inside the vehicle whose stowage interfered with the concept. Well, to answer the first question, those hatches were not intended as "escape hatches" but rather were designed primarily for ammunition replenishment. The one on the back of the Jadgpanther and Jagdtiger were also intended for gun insertion/removal. As to why the Germans did not utilise floor escape hatches, well, there wasn't room in most of their vehicles becuase of their use of torsion bar suspension. American vehicles which utilised either VVS or HVS units had an unobstructed floor in which to place the hatches. When the Americans adopted torsion bar suspension, floor hatches disappeared as well.

Michael, can I suggest that you and your fellow Catafalque party members wear a small sprig of Rosemary upon your lapel? It is the traditional emblem of rememberance and the Australians present would appreciate it. As to the biscuits, they are called ANZAC biscuits and there are a few theories on their origins but it is certain that they came about during the First World War, around 1914/15. Some say that they started as biscuits made by the Troops in the trenches with provisions they had at hand to relieve the boredom of their battle rations. And some say they came about due to resourceful of the women on the "home front" in an endeavour to make a treat for their loved ones that would survive the long journey by post to the war front. There is even the suggestion that they originated from Scottish Oatmeal Cakes which is entirely possible. Whatever the origin, they have won the hearts of all Aussies the globe over as the pseudo-National Biscuit. Here is how to make them, it is dead simple. If I can make them, anyone can! Ingredients 1 cup plain flour 1 cup rolled oats (regular oatmeal) uncooked 1 cup desiccated coconut 1 cup brown sugar 1/2 cup butter 2 tbsp golden syrup (or honey) 1 tsp bicarbonate of soda 2 tbsp boiling water Method Combine the flour (sifted), oats, coconut and sugar in a bowl. Melt the butter and Golden Syrup (or honey) in a saucepan over a low heat.. Mix the bicarbonate of soda with the water and add to the butter and Golden Syrup. Pour the liquids into the dry ingredients and mix well. Spoon dollops of mixture, about the size of a walnut shell, onto a greased tin leaving as much space again between dollops to allow for spreading. Bake in a moderate oven, 180C / 350F, for 15-20 minutes. Cool on a wire rack and seal in airtight containers. Tips The American tablespoon is a little smaller than the British tablespoon, so be generous with your Golden Syrup (or Honey) and Water. If you have any thoughts of keeping the biscuits for any length of time I suggest you keep them in a padlocked container! For a little variety you may wish to add 2 teaspoons of ginger spice or even Wattle Seeds, a recent addition but don't ask me where to get them. Mmmm, ANZAC Biscuits. Enjoy! [ April 25, 2002, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]