Brian

I thought that Jones had revealed who the author was - electronics specialist in Siemens, or some such?</font>

That's pretty easy -- because only the Allies (specifically, the Americans -- credit where credit's due) developed a successful proximity fuze during the war. Ian Hogg's "German Secret Weapons of WW2" (my copy not to hand so my recollection of the title might be a bit squinty) is replete with codenames for German proximity-fuze projects that never made it into service. Like VT, they were mostly intended for air defence applications. </font>

As Aunty Jack suggests, many early Churchill marks were reworked to similar standards as later marks. These included: Mk.IX - a Mk.III or IV which its hull armour improved brought up to "near Mk.VII standard" and had the turret of the Mk.VII added. Mk.IX LT - a Mk.III or IV which retained its original turret (LT - Light Turret) and had additional applique armour applied to it externally, along with the hull. It retained the 6 Pdr. Mk.X - A Mk.VI reworked to Mk.VII standards with the Mk.VII turret added. Mk.X LT - a Mk.VI reworked along the same lines as the Mk.IX LT. Mk.XI - a Mk.V reworked with heavy turret as on Mk.VIII. Mk.XI LT - Mk.V reworked as per other "light turret" vehicles above. Obviously none of these vehicles would be as good as a real Mk.VII or VIII. However, they were issued and were used throughout the NW European campaign.

Very tempting, Jim, very tempting. However, I won't grasp the thorny nettle again, quite yet. John, BTW, the 100 round drum was issued for AA work. My understanding is that it wasn't well liked, being prone to stoppages. Its featured actually in quite a few pictures, usually on obviously, AA mounts for the Bren, particularly the quad AA mount.

I wondered about this for a long time (as the dumb foreigner I am ) : where do you get the "Lef" from???</font>

Well, some of those criticisms will now have to go by the board, with CMBB's promised increase of maps to 9km square.

One has to wonder though, what ever happened to the German 81mm and 120mm "Bouncing Betty" fuse?

Generally, I'd agree with you but in the case of Omaha, I'd disagree. A conscious decision was made not to utilise technical means to overcome the enemy, with reliance instead being placed upon essentially an all infantry frontal assault. I wouldn't say they were "ahead of their time", I'd say they were appropriate to their time. They were the technical means developed to overcome enemy resistance in the most appropriate manner. That essentially the same types of weapons are in service today, indicate that they had the basic ideas right, even then. You should note, that even you emphasis the fact that US military copied them, once it had realised its error in not devoting the necessary resources to their development. Rather like the US Navy borrowing so heavily from the Royal Navy for its development of carriers. Which indicates as I said, they got it right, now doesn't it? However, that is now, not what occurred or was occuring on 6 June 1944. The US Army got it badly wrong and its soldiers paid the price unfortunately. Just as the British soldier paid the price in the Western Desert for ignoring what Hobart, Fuller, Liddell-Hart and Co. had been preaching for so many years before. It is always the way - the PBI are the ones who suffer because of the inadequacies of their commanders.

We have the same problem in Canada. Sadly, most newspapers have adopted American spelling in mainstream articles, which is even harder to bear than the occasional dumbass talking head saying "Lootenant Governor" or "Lootenant Colonel."</font>

I am not sure that is commendable. The plural of Regimental Sergeant Major is, of course, Regimental Sergeants Major, but the plural of RSM is still RSMs. That is, of course, if you count an abbreviation as a word in itself.</font>

I assume you are talking about Omaha, as we broke out from Utah just fine. However, the Funnies effect was ancilliary, considering the primary obstacles: (a) Cliffs ( More Germans than anticipated © uselessness of the air/rocket bombardment and naval to an extent I'm sure that there are more that I can't think of right now, but most of the allied problems on Omaha did not stem from the fact that we didn't have an equivalent of Hobart's Funnies. Regards, Ryan</font>

Interesting. I've always read that it was referring to the tracked system, not the rockets but I'm quite willing to be corrected, Mattias. Indeed it could. I'd like to see their definition of "successful". I'd suggest that none of the tracked or semi-tracked rocket systems were exactly perfect, as used by any of the combatants. The rockets on the SdKfz 251 were IMO rather less than perfect because as I said, basically you rocked up with your rockets, aimed them and then abandoned ship in order to fire them. Where did the crew go? Out into the harsh cold world, away from their (admittedly limited but still better than nothing) armour protection. I'm actually rather surprised no one thought of adding some OHP to the vehicles to protect the crews from the backblast. The 15cm Nebelwerfer on the Opel Maultier suffered from the overloading of the chassis but at least it allowed the crew to remain within the vehicle while it was being used. The sWS version improved on it, by providing a better chassis with more motive power. Both however were not intended to fulfill the same role as the rockets on the SdKfz 251. Originally posted by Brian: it has the sort of look of a field expedient lash-up which was later developed into something slightly better but never really lost its primitive look. The Sherman was obviously inadequate by 1944 as well but it continued in production long after its inadequacies were demonstrated, Mattias. The "Stuka zu Fuss" rockets were used on "normal" towed, artillery rocket systems as well, despite their short range, so perhaps the mass of production went to that use rather than to the short-range, direct sighted weapon systems? That the weapon system was still in use in 1945 indicates nothing more than (a) it was adequate and ( there was nothing available which was better to replace it. 20+ years of reading plus 10 years of direct military experience. All my reference refer to a set of posts on the bonnet of the half-track for azimuth and some simple form of sight for elevation. I have a picture of a Infanterie Schlepper UE(f) fur 28/32cm Wurfrahmen which is being demonstrated to a group of high ranking German officers, including Rommel before the invasion. It has a fairly large piece of ironmongery in front of the commander/gunner's position which is described as a "sighting vane". I suspect something similar albeit smaller was in use on the SdKfz 251.

Occasionally, when faced with a tight spot or difficulty in maneauvring, the TacAI will force your vehicle into reverse and will complete its entire move, through all waypoints, in reverse, John. Its just one of those silly things that happens occasionally. I've found the best way is, when face with a vehicle which will be maneauvring through/around buildings/forest tracks (which is where I've found it happens the most), to put in lots of way points and move at the slowest speed. That way, if I need to, I can correct the direction the vehicle is travelling in before it becomes too dangerous at the next turn. It also pays, as you've seen, to actually read the briefings and to refer back to them during the game.

Do they have a website? Where did you get you atlas on the Pacific Theatre? Did it include any information on the SW Pacific Theatre or was it exclusively the central pacific?

Mattias, I was referring to the Stuka zu Fuss on the SdKfz 251, not the rocket, which I believe your referring to. The 28/32cm rocket was indeed deveoped long before the Eastern Front and used before that but as you note, its range was limited and it was pressed into service by the Pioneeres rather than the Nebeltruppen who were issued with longer range weapons. However, the Mittler Schutzenpanzerwagon mit Wurfrahmen SdKfz 251 was marginal at best. The crew had to dismount, before firing and it has the sort of look of a field expedient lash-up which was later developed into something slightly better but never really lost its primitive look. [ April 12, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Perhaps that was their problem? Relying on a linear rather than a flexible defence? In reality, obviously, wire and "pillboxes" are much easier and cheaper to install than CMBO would have it. I suspect also that the "pillboxes" on the map aren't necessarily the same as the "pillboxes" in the game.

That's why I suggested it be in an editable format, so that you would only print out those sections that you need/want to have in hard copy. You should also be able to resize the page so that you would not be strapped to an 8 1/2X11 format. You could make it digest size if that suited you better. You can have it bound pretty cheaply too. Michael</font>

The first 'Stuka Zu Fuss' was a SdKfz 251 (Ausf fitted with rockets strapped to the side. The correct title was SdKfz 251 mittlere Schitzenpanzerwagen (Wurfrahmen 40) Ausf B. I believe there is some documentation of it being used in Stalingrad, so I guess that places it on the battlefield circa late 1942 at the earliest. Visit Missing Lynx to see a late war one. Mace</font>

My manual states "Manual Version 1.2", Bill. Perhaps adoption of a loose-leaf binder style manual might be more useful than a conventionally bound one - it would allow easy updating through downloading of PDF files done in the same format.

I take it you're referring to the Mittlerer Schuetzenpanzerwagen mit Wurfrahmen SdKfz 251/1? On the Eastern Front, where the Stuka zu Fuss originated, it was part of infantry units. Not very. Its value was limited. It was primarily designed as a stop-gap weapon for use in street fighting on the Eastern Front. In France, other vehicles took its place, such as the Gepanzer Munitionsschlepper UE(f) mit Wurfrahmen or RW auf UE(f) or the Infanterie Schlepper UE(f) fur 28/32cm Wurfrahmen or the 28/32cm Wurfrahmen auf PzKpfw 35H(f) all of which used captured French AFV's for their basis. Much more common was the 15cm Panzerwurfer 42 auf `Maultier' (Opel) SdKfz 4/1 or later 15cm Panzerwerfer 42 (Zehnling) auf Schwerer Wehrmacht-Schlepper which were on half-tracked chassis. They tended to be issued however to either armoured or artillery formations, rather than infantry ones, as far as I've been able to find out. The ones I named definitly saw service in France. As to whether or not they saw service in Normandy I have no idea. I suspect some of the 15cm Panzerwurfer 42 auf `Maultier' (Opel) SdKfz 4/1 along with the three French chassis were but primarily in the indirect artillery role rather than the direct support role. [ April 10, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]

It appears that not many of you have actually read the manual or more particularly the index. Hands up if you can tell me, from the index where one finds these items: Roadblocks - effects, removal, etc.; Smoke Dischargers - how do you use them? Bogged (the index says to "see Status" where is "Status" in the index?); Immobile (I suppose I could always look under "Status"); Victory Flags - how to place them on the map; HQ's - effects on, on-table mortars firing. There are numerous others. Now, I appreciate everybody approaches the use of manuals in different ways. Some believe they are the last resort, when all else fails or the reverse. Me, I like to use a program and if I encounter a problem, I then utilise that handy thing in the back called an index. This manual's is pretty bad IMO. What I don't want is the Squad Leader idea of massive numbers of charts and so on but clear, concise explanations of the various aspects I need to understand about how to make the game work, preferrably in a numbered form of annotation. As an example of a well laid out manual, I recently recieved a copy of Panthers in the Shadows - I'm not comparing the games, just the manuals. PITS appears on first reading, much better laid out and in some areas better written IMO than the CMBO one.

Its something that has worried and annoyed me for some time about CMBO. Basically its really basic and IMO pretty inadequate. Too much information isn't there and what is, tends to be poorly written. The index sucks and the lay out of the book leaves a great deal to be desired. One hopes that the CMBB one will be much better. Does anybody know if BTS has thought of getting say a technical writer in? The game is excellent but I suspect that over 80% of the queries that appear here shouldn't and wouldn't, if the manual was more comprehensive.

Thank you for the numbers, Brian. So in other words, the Flak 38 was almost two feet taller than even the 75mm Pak 40. I would call that a significant handicap for trying to conceal on the battlefield, especially in any kind of fairly open terrain. But at least it should be no easier to conceal, which is the whole point of this thread. Michael</font>

I'm more used to seeing this sort of public "outing" behavior on USENet. I'm disappointed in you, Michael. I don't doubt you felt you were goaded into this action but I still feel you've gone too far. What next, issuing of a yellow star? BTS, please lock this thread ASAP!

Comparative Heights for various guns: 20mm Flak38 1.81 m 75mm LIG18 1.10 m 37mm Pak36 1.17 m 50mm Pak38 1.10 m 75mm Pak40 1.26 m 88mm Flak36/37 2.41 m 88mm Pak43 1.73 m 88mm Pak43/41 1.93 m I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to just how small a silhouette these weapons had.