Kim Beazley MP Ma

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Take the Ark --everyone likes to quote its 5 minuet deployment time, but that ignores that it needed a preplanned (at least eyeballed surveyed) drop zone, and needed complete cover from fire since it could be droped in 5 minutes, it took nearly 30 minutes to position, seat, and be ready for tank one. Any one who thinks this was done under 88mm defensive fire needs to get a better understanding of the vehicle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet, according to Brian's source, which is a British Army publication, it took only 3-5 minutes to deploy, Mr.Slapdragon. You appear still to confuse the differences between preparation time and deployment time. Is this deliberate on your part, it appears so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The advocates wont even take the manual that advised AVRE bobbin tanks to dump the bobbin by firing explosive bolts if they came uner fire since the bobbin was flamable and dangerous if still in place when the firing started. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, are we discussing bobbins or fascines, Mr.Slapdragon? Two very different pieces of equipment. As to the flammability of the fascine, perhaps this is why in the film I saw they brought them forward as fast as possible, to minimise the time they were exposed to the "enemy"? Of course, as I mentioned, the wargames rules I'm generally familar with all seem to assume that this is a slow operation, something this film I think put paid to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In other words, there needs to be a clearer understanding of these vehicles, there use, and why they might not be appropriate for the game, and this understanding needs to be realistic, and backed up by evidence, before a case can be made for there inclusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I rather think that this is the purpose of this discussion. You however appear to believe this is a point-scoring exercise and about the creation of a mythical creature called the "uberBritish", Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The simple reason is the coding will be much more difficult than any other vehicle, and they just may not show up all that much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This site provides an excellent start as to the distribution of the main versions of the "funnies" within 21 Army Group. It doesn't list the less common vehicles but then, the claim has never been they are anything other than "less common" - merely that they were available and that they were used. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Or if they did, they may be so hard to use in the typical CM game, or so boring to use that the game would be better off just assuming they were already used as the game starts (which is a likely case with the Ark at least).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps, with the Ark but the fascine? It was an integral part of the AVRE's equipment. [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: No? Well this Profile says something different. The 'reason' isn't that hard to comprehend. No, you assumed that the information contained in the profile is representative of me. I made no such claim. Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Bob Semple was a labor politico in New Zealand. During the darkest days of the war in the Pacific, the NZ armed forces designed an armored pillbox based on a farm tractor and named it after this man. None were used in combat, half of the main production of 4 machines tipped over. Although 81 conversions were planned, they sucked so bad and people hated them so much the 4 were all that were ever made. They were more dangerous to their 8 man crews than to the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite. Bob Semple was the Minister of Defence. The reason why the "tank" named after him was abandoned was more because of the sudden influx of both American troops and American AFV's. Whilst the "tank" was unstable, desperate times dictate desperate measures. It was directly comparable to other such developments in the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941 and Australia in 1941.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: No he wouldn't. A company or battalion commander, which is what the CM player actually is, would not get to "choose" his forces. He is given whatever support is available. You get to do your recce - a detailed one - in the setup phase, as has been noted already. How many real life company commanders could look at an objective and decide they want to command a company of engineers instead of a company of paratroops? Or snap their fingers and summon up three Tiger IIs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then, I take it your proposing an end to the system of "purchasing" one's forces? In reality, what is being simulated is the role and function of a "higher command" (say at Brigade or above) which determines the forces to be employed on a particular operation or battle. In reality, that command would be provided with at least a map, showing at least semi-accurately the terrain and the approach routes to an objective. In all likelihood, they'd also have aerial photos, even perhaps a light observation aircraft with which a recce could be undertaken and so on. At that level, considerable resources are brought to bear through the Division/Brigade staff to plan an attack. Yet, in CMBO, all that happens is that you get a chance to purchase you forces, completely unaware of what the actual terrain will be or no intelligence reports of what your opponent has. At that level, the ability to choose forces to undertake a mission is what is being simulated. Then, effectively the player switches hat, becomes his own subordinate and accepts the forces chosen for him and plays the game with them. Problem is, BTS for some reason decided that players, when simulating the higher command function would operate blind, in a vaccuum. What I'd propose would be that each player, before purchasing their forces, would be provided with a map showing the major terrain features of the gameboard. Exactly what a commander would have in real life. It would be as detailed as the gameboard but it would provide sufficient information to allow a commander to choose the right sort of forces for the terrain facing him. Flat, wide open spaces? Lots of armour. Close, confined terrain? Lots of infantry. On the map, might be marked such generalised features of FEOT and say, 50-75% of known, fixed, enemy positions. Indeed, to "discover" such positions, it might be possible to allocate a certain level of resources to the pre-battle recce - the more points given over to it, the great likelihood each fixed position would be known. I've seen this simulated in several sets of figure gaming rules under the heading of "reconniassance" and "camouflage discipline". However, you might decide thats being a tad too realistic and prefer to simply "abstract" it to the point of saying period+resources-enemy's camouflage reputation+experience of enemy troops=x number of positions discovered. [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

One point that has come out of the funnies thread and I never realised how much it does annoy me is that I, as a commander am unable to survey the battlefield before a battle commences. This is perhaps OK for a meeting engagement but in a defence/attack scenario, its obvious both sides will have some time in which to carry out a recce of the battlefield. In doing so, a commander would then be able to make the best decisions as to forces, FUP, routes, etc. and not simply be pitched blind into a situation in a very artificial manner. One wonders if future editions of CM will change the present system whereas a commander is literally, groping in the dark.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Gee, oddly enough, they are! Looks like they got one thing right then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One is forced to wonder what Mr.Slapdragon thinks they were used for...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: C.Dunphie did indeed fill out his identity claiming to be a published author in the area, listing his publications, which was enough for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, I don't recall him listing anything. Merely claiming to be a "published author". You leapt to the conclusion that he was claiming to be the Brigadier, Slappy. Rather in the way you leap to so many conclusions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> People assumed you meant the MP because perhaps you linked to his web site, posted his picture, used his entire identity in your about page? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I again, commend to you, Mr.Shakespeare's words, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And yes, the defacing of any war memorial is not a lark in civilized society. It something to be taken seriously, at least in the United States.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I rather think the point is that in this case the original defacement was that the Breaker's name was left off of the memorial, in the first place. Of couse, you wouldn't understand. Call it a cultural difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Aren't the Finns settling in for their winter-long hibernation just about now? The Aussies of course never sleep. Michael [ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, we just happen to be awake when you lot are snoozing your heads off. Helps to have fantastic weather, all year 'round, great beaches and bonza shielas. Eat your hearts out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: E-mail Brigadeer Dunphie, an honorable soldier, scholar, and citizen of his country, whose name was hijacked. He found the content of "his" post and the fact someone would pose as him not amusing in the slightest, and felt real damage was done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of a matter of interest, why did you assume "C.Dunphrie" was the Brigadier? I saw no reference to his trying to claim he was "Brigadier Craig Dunphrie" - you assumed he was "Brigadier Craig Dunphrie" and acted accordingly. No one assumes I am Kim Beazley, except yourself for some reason. I'd suggest you remember what Mr.Shakespeare had to say on the matter of names and identities. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is actually not surprising that so many people think idenity theft is no big deal. You learn in police training that a dozen people will watch a mugging without taking even a safe action to prevent it, and less henious crimes Or take a real situation where at leat 15 people watch two youths paint phallic symbols on a WW1 war dead memorial. Interviewing them later, and they thought that it was "funny", "not important", "just a prank" which is why not a single person called the police to stop it. [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps that merely indicates the importance of WWI in the minds of most people in the 21st century. Tell me, would you ring the police if you saw someone welding the name of a very contraversial soldier onto say, a 2nd Boer War Memorial, Mr.Slapdragon - if you knew that (a) the person concerned was a descendent of that soldier and ( the soldier's name was one Lt. William Morant? I suspect so. Here in Australia, people would applaud him for his larrikinism - his unwillingness to accept the "official" view that William Morant - the Breaker, was as he was portrayed by the forces of the establishment. You'd see it as defacing a public memorial, not the righting of a wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Doug, This is just "Kim Beazley MP Ma " and gang trying to stir the flame wars and direct BTS attention from CM2. I suggestion we all leave it alone and wait for it and them to get banned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *SIGH*, looks like I'm gunna get blamed for everything. Mr.Slapdragon, I can assure you, I am not "God". Of course, you won't believe me, but as a non-believer I'm offended that you'd think it was me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Simple, First, by carrying multiple accounts just to make your arguments seem better, as is likely the possibility, you are shaming this entire forum and yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Keep up on your high horse, Mr.Slapdragon. Hey is the view from up there really good? I notice that you've given up talking about historical facts in favour of continuing your attacks on me, personally. Looks like I was right, you seek to silence your opponents, rather than refute their arguments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Second, by using a real living human being you are committing identity theft, which is wrong even if your moral compass cannot comprehend that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, you'll be telling all those comedians who do impersonations of other people that they are doing something nasty, Mr.Slapdragon? Gee, you must be the real life and soul of the party. I must remember not to do my Bluebottle impersonation around you... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Third, you failed to read any of the previous arguments and comments, so are as is often the case, out of touch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What makes you think I didn't read them, Mr.Slapdragon? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Brigadeer Dunphie was collecting real harm from the troll who took his name. Your taking of Mr. Beazley's name is wrong, and has been reported to them. It is up to them to decide if it is actionable, and how far they want it taken. Brigadeer Dunphie only wanted that I keep him informed of the cowards actions on this board. Your own cowardice I cannot control one way or another, and unless Mr. Beazley wants to do something or ask me to post a disavowal of your commentary to the board, it wont be an issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This Mr.Beazley is laughing

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Again, we need to move past the Troll in the ointment. I am unsure why you think my name being the same as someone else in real life matters, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps (as usual) you are missing the point, Mr.Slapdragon? You attack me, because I have chosen as a pseudonym, the same as that of an Australian politician who happens to have a deep interest in military history, not my ideas. You've decided to be a sanctimonous prat, merely because I challenge your views, something you dislike. Indeed, you appare so insecure that you have to silence your opponents anyway you possibly can. What is the difference if I appear as, "Kim Beazely MP Ma or as...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I have a historical battle of Maltot (A Sqdr. 9th RTR and 7th Hamps on 9th July 1944) on my HD that I will not publish because it does not work as well as I want it to, but I would be happy to send it to you, maybe you have an idea about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be more than happy to look at it. What I'm saying is that, not that there are no Commonwealth scenarios but rather that there are not as many as I'd hoped. That is changing I note, as it seems more are written, which is a good situation, I agree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, just to lay this other idea of me being against reinforcing the Commonwealth to rest: the three vehicles I miss most in this game (not in the Commonwealth vehicle list) are in order of yearning: Buffalo (for the Scheldt battles) Crusader AA tank Churchill III w/6-pdr <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that the Buffalo is sorely missed. I miss the earlier marks of Churchill, whether 75mm or 6 Pdr armed - as the early marks were the ones that were most often remanufactured into AVRE's. What I miss most are perhaps the landingcraft, gliders and so on. I know its possible to "abstract" their presence but I actually want to be able to bring a landingcraft ashore or land a glider and get the men/vehicles out and onto their objectives. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Regarding the tripod-mounted Bren. I saw the picture. What I meant are pictures in action. I have seen a lot of pictures of ordinary Brens in action, but I have never seen one of the 2,500 that JonS talks about in NWE. Maybe they hid them when the photographers came around, maybe my collection of Commonwealth literature is just not good enough, but somehow I wonder if it could be that they just weren't deployed that often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen, over the years, several pictures of them in use. I'll have to think though, where. It was more than likely in some book borrowed from a library, rather than necessarily in my collection. I don't think the point is how often they were deployed but rather whether they were available. As they are listed in the weapon's CES I'd expect to see them on issue. As to whether or not the soldiers decided it was worthwhile pulling them out and using them is another matter. I was personally surprised to see the picture of them being still used in Korea. My understanding was that they'd virtually disappeared after the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: well then how does that have anything to do with your whining about CMBO modeling oh-so-rare vehicles while leaving out those british specialty tanks? It does not further your argument the least bit. M.Hofbauer, Hfw cd iur WA KA<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am presently at work. My books are at home. When I return home this evening, have fed, watered, bathed and bedded the kids and have a few moments to myself I will consult them. Your figures were for numbers produced and numbers held, if memory serves me correctly. That does not necessarily equate to numbers issued. As to its utility, the German army was, as Richard Overy pointed out, rather technologically "fastidious" - they often refused the workable in favour of the gold-plated - witness the Panther. As to why you think the Germans were badly off for AT weapons I have no idea. Mid-war perhaps, before the deployment of the Panzerfaust and Panzershrek but late war they were more than adequately served IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: hey KB MP Ma, I called you on your original presumptous statement; I think you had better come up with a production figure for Hobart funnies in excess of three thousand per type before you wander off to new preposterous claims (and btw, in case you hadn't noticed - there is no Ferdinand/Elephant in CMBO) or other unwarranted statements about BTS etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you need to have a civility implant. You also seem to equate "production numbers" with "numbers issued". All the sources I have state that the Puppchen was not widely issued or used - indeed most refer to the point that becuase it was mounted on wheels/skids it was not considered a proper infantry weapon. Now, I'm always willing to be corrected, if its done in civil manner and you provide some references. The Funnies were not produced in large numbers but they were widely used, being attached to even US Army units because the Americans were either unable or unwilling to produce their own equivalent vehicles. BTW, I used the example of the Elephant/Ferdinand as a vehicle which was extremely rare, and unless you served on the Eastern Front at Kursk or in Italy, you'd never even have known of its existence, not that it was included in CMBO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Second, there are so many "this nationality gets treated unfair because of x" threads that have so little substance, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was wondering when you'd put in an appearance, Slapdragon. Why is that you interpret criticism such as "this is inaccurate" to "this nationality gets treated unfairly"? Why does a desire for accurate portrayal become in your mind a desire for advantage in the game? Thus far, we have - the 25 Pdr, the Bren, the universal carrier, rank structures, the funnies and I'm sure a few others that I've missed. In each and every case, where people have pointed the inaccuracies, you've leapt in, confusing the issue and utilising ad hominem to try and divert attention from the real issues which are being raised. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Take the funnies. They may well have a criteria in mind on which ones to add in later games. For example, tp add the game the funnies may need to be useable in less 15 minutes of action (leaving out the ark) and must be tactically deployable (bye bye Sherman bomb roller) and have been tactically employed. Many funnies simply are not deployable in the average scenario length. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm unaware of any funnies which could not be deployed within the average length scenario, given that they are usually readied before a battle would commence. You seem to believe preparation for use is the same as the length of time taken to deploy a particular vehicle. The Ark took some time to prepare but in actual use all that was required was for it to drive into the ditch/crater/etc and for a few explosive squibs to be blown which deployed the ramps. If anything, its faster than the Churchill bridgelayer which took about 3-5 minutes to deploy - which is why it was used. The Assault Bridge was just as fast (but much clumsier to use), while the skid-bailey bridge would depend on how far back it needed to be assembled (which would occur before the battle started. Even the Great Eastern was deployed in under 3 minutes (quite impressive, even perhaps alarming to watch, with its multiple ramps deploying via rockets). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In addition, each funnies needs special coding and animation, so the designer needs to ask how much work is it versus how common was it. This is very important because maybe it is much more important to improve the simulation of ambush than to build a funny that was rarely used in tactical combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That may be so but if we are discussing historical accuracy, then we must discuss that these vehicles were available and then by extension ask why they weren't available in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Finally as a side note, the funnies that were very common including the AVRE did indeed make it into the game, despite requiring that extra coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet they didn't make it the most common variant of the AVRE but rather the least - based on the Mk.VII Churchill - indeed, you have the Mk.VIII included in the game, perhaps the rarest of all Churchill variants to have ever been produced. I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added. However, I'd also agree with you that perhaps the designers decided they wanted to place more emphasis elsewhere in the game, like modelling the Lynx or the Jumbo Sherman...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ron Volstad gave me the perfect quote for situations like this: "Where were you when I needed you?" Hopefully these topics will come to the fore again when the CMII engine is written and NW Europe is revisited. Until then, there is no point quibbling about Commonwealth stuff, since there will be no more changes to CMBO, and all energies are directed at CM2. I still have serious issues about sergeants being in charge of Commonwealth infantry sections! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unusual but typically American view of rank structure then. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But, it is of course, time to move on. I wouldn't expect BTS to take part, and am in fact very pleased with the representation that Commonwealth forces have received in CM. How many other games have gotten the red ensign flag correct, or bothered with such nationalities as Free Polish or Free French? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No idea. How do you tell the difference between a Polish Army unit and a British Army unit, apart from shoulder titles and language? Ditto for Free French and US units? I'd be more worried if the assumption was (as usual, according to too many Americans) the US won the war and did all the fighting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> These conversations also, quite frankly, never seem to solve anything. Looking at our funnies discussion, for example - it is clear both you and I resorted to talking out of our asses instead of actually consulting an actual reference or source regarding "how fast" a fascine tank could operate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Has someone provided a better reference than the movie which I saw? I haven't read one, thus far. I didn't attempt to give a speed, I merely stated, "at speed" - they definitly weren't crawling, in fact the speed was what surprised me, more than anything else - I'd never realised the Churchill was actually that sprightly, nor when carrying a bloody great roll of branches on its front. Its that sort of thing which something like this training film conveys, so much more than simply reading in a book, "the top speed of the Churchill was...". Reminds me of a different film I once saw on the Centurion - it demonstrated that a Centurion could climb, quite happily a slope that a man walking alongside had trouble keeping up with it on. Yet, all the books would merely have stated, "Maximum Incline - xx degrees" - how does that translate to real life though? Yet, it appears that many here would prefer to resort to their tabulated data rather than see the experience of how these vehicles operated, as related through the medium of film. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think the implication on your part (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the BTS design team is relatively unschooled re: Commonwealth stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd have said that was also the implication on your part, as well. I think its obvious they know something about the subject but not everything. I would suggested that they know, at a guess, shall we say 90% about American, 85% about Germans, 75% about British matters - if we were to use a linear scale. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The point is, the time for that discussion is long past, and we are stuck with what we've got. When NWE is revisited, or for that matter early war and desert Commonwealth stuff - perhaps discussions like these will have some relevance to them. I am willing to bet that when the time comes, they will in fact listen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair enough. I will bide my time, then. Indeed, I look forward with keen anticipation the chance to actually play earlier periods in WWII. I lost interest in late war WWII in Europe a long time ago. CMBO has rekindled it a little but I'm still much more interested in the early period and the SW Pacific and Burma than I am in NW Europe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE, as well as those instances where fascines and scissor bridges were used in a CMBO setting (outside the training movie). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have references to tripod mounted Brens being utilised during the advance into Holland and during Operation Market-Garden. I also have references to Fascines being utilised in the assaults on le Havre and the Channel ports and in Italy. I have no references to the use of the Lynx, the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind or Ostwind. Perhaps you'd care to provide them? The point being of course, armies often have equipment that is (a) never issued but produced, ( in such small quantities that its use is never noticed, © of such insignificance that no one records their use. As George McDonald Fraser suggests with the PIAT and its use in Burma - he's seen references which state it was never issued or used in that theatre, yet he carried and used one, as recounted in his book, "Quartered Safe Out Here". I suspect you'd be dreadfully upset if CMBO had appeared without the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind yet you seem to get annoyed when I or others point out that these weapons were available to the British and were utilised by them and then ask why they aren't in the game or even considered in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In the mean-time, please excuse me while I pour a bottle of Jacob's Creek down the kitchen sink, it needs disinfecting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Barbarian. Of course, depends upon the year but Jacob's is considered one of the better quality, cheap Australian reds. Much better than vin ordinaire in my experience. I suggest, if you really want to show your disdain for things Australian, do it with a bottle of Grange Hermitage or are you too cheap?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Ouch, you've stepped on a major land mine here. To date Madmatt has 3926 posts, Kwazydog has 1294 posts, and Steve has only a few more at 6668 posts. I'd say they're one of the most responsive game manufacturers ever. Have you ever considered they might be trying to get CM2 done? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet they appear not to take part in these discussions about Commonwealth weapons/equipment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: For instance, the short 75 was increased in length from 24 calibers to 70 over the course of the war. I don't know how much of the increase in muzzle velocity was due to an increase in the length of the barrel and how much was due to other factors. I also don't know to what extent lengthening the barrel requires other changes to a gun. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite a lot. In order to increase the muzzle-velocity you either increase the amount of propellent or allow a longer burning time for the propellent you have. The first can be fulfilled by increasing the chamber size, the second by increasing the length of the barrel. Eitherway, you will increase the recoil, as more pressure is developed behind the shell in order to throw it out the end of the muzzle faster (remember Newton's little laws?). With an increase of recoil, you get a need to absorb the recoil so the recoil system must be beefed up. In turn, so must the mounting. When the Germans increased the barrel length of their 75mm tank gun, they also increased the chamber size. Initially, they over-engineered it. The increase from L/24 to L/43 didn't mean the mounting had to be improved but the recoil system did. Once they increased it from L/43 to L/48, the mounting had to be reinforced and the increase from L/48 to L/70 was made possible. The planned move to an L/100 piece though, required a major upgrade of the recoil system and the mounting, as well as an increase in chamber size - which is why it did not occur before war's end. The US on the otherhand, decided that it was preferrable to move to a gun which was in the middle of its development cycle, rather than at the end. What must be remembered is that the 75mm M2 gun was a development of the venerable French '75, a design which in 1940 was already over 40 years old. They could have developed it further, as the Germans did with their gun but decided to leapfrog to the 3in, then the 76mm and beyond to the 90mm and 105/120mm guns. Essentially, one gets the feeling that the US and British were frantically searching for a solution, of being able to put the highest velocity gun available into a tracked vehicle, rather than as the Germans did, which was to stop and say, "hey, there is still a lot of potential in this gun..." and working from there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'd take another look; what type of scenarios/which forces were you looking for specifically? I have a handful of Brit/Canadian one at my two sites, with others in development as we speak by a variety of scenario authors. No funnies, though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I said, "most" not "all". I've visited most of the various sites around, your's included, which host scenarios - apart from a lot of duplication (not a bad thing, in itself), most of the scenarios are US versus German. As to what sort of scenarios I'm looking for, basically British versus Germans, preferrably non-elite (and no, I don't class the funnies as "elite" rather as "specialised"). I'd like to see more historical ones. I'm presently working on a scenario about a small action I've read about on the western flank of the operations around Caen - where the British fought in the hedgerows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: It is easy to drive 22 mph to an obstacle and lay a fascine on it when you are told where it is, rehearse it for a camera 10 times, then do it at full speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe so, IYO. IMO, the point being made was that this is how they intended to use it - it could be done. Even if the speed was below the 22 mph top speed of a Churchill, the point was that there would not have been the significant pause that I've seen assumed in so many wargames sets of rules. In battle its either the quick or the dead. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In combat, you get only one chance - usually with smoke drifting about, shells dropping on you, etc. And the only advance notice you have may be at the O Group the night before, with a rough pencil sketch of enemy positions, or a grease pencil mark on a 1:25000 map. Or, worse, the next day, when the troop sergeant radios you and says there is a ditch "over there, reference: red house - three fingers left!" Hard to motor over at full speed and do it with movie-like precision if you have only the vaguest idea where the bloody thing is.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless, as you are a key part of the assault plan, then you've been involved in a pre-attack recce as well as a full dress-rehearsal. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is what I mean by front lines - as opposed to a rehearsed scene in a training film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't look terribly "rehearsed" to me. Appeared more to be a case of "this is how we use this weapon" - there was more than sufficient smoke and explosions going off (this was, afterall, a battle range during war time - live ammunition was being utilised). The only advantage the driver might have been that he was familiar with the ground beforehand. That might have allowed a much higher speed than he'd use over unfamiliar ground but I think you're still missing the point - its an operation that was conducted as quickly as possible, not something which was conducted in a hesitant, slow manner. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Nothing in a battle goes according to plan, or training, - yes? [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But training ensures that you can adapt to changing circumstance - that they trained to use this at full-speed meant that they presented less of a target to the enemy who would percieve this as a major threat to the ability of their natural/prepared defences to channel/slow the advance of their enemy's forces - guess who they all start shooting at - its usually the funny machine which looks different. If I was inside, I would want to get it laid and out of the way ASAP - the film reflected that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Play scenarios that get good ratings at the Scenario Depot, and rate those that are crap, and over time the quality should go up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most scenarios are US-centric, which I am not that interested in. An alternative is write my own, which is something I'm presently working on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Regarding the statement of the Commonwealth being undermodeled - *shrug*. Finns think Finns are undermodeled (and they are not even in the game), and some think Germans are undermodeled, and Americans think Americans got shafted, which to me says BTS got it pretty much right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not debating that they did not "get it pretty much right". What I am suggesting is that it requires a little bit more tweaking. As there appears to be little input from BTS itself in these forums, as far as I can tell, its a bit hard to determine if what is being discussed is being considered for inclusion in patches or new releases in the future. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Even people I really trust on the Commonwealth stuff (like Simon Fox IIRC) say that it was difficult to say how common the tripod-mounted Bren was. I have never seen a picture of it, or heard of it being employed, and I own a fair range of Commonwealth books. [/QB/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't Brian post two pictures of the tripod mounted Bren in another thread? I haven't heard anyone suggest it was necesarily common, but then so many weapons which were not common are already included. Production levels for most German AFV's was so low that IMO it would have been possible to fight an entire campaign and never see a vehicle - how common were Ferdinands/Elephants/Tiger(p) in NW Europe? How common was the Lynx? Same goes for the Allied side to a certain extent - how common was the Crocodile? How common the Jumbo or the M26? Yet, here we have a piece of equipment which was part of the CES for the weapon and its not even included. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB] As Vanir says - BTS did not have time to do everything. They needed to get the game out at some point, it was already six months late, and one my most beloved funnies (and a truly crucial one for the Scheldt battles) is the Buffalo. I eventually got over it. Anyway, since a fascine carrier or a bridgelayer are nothing but AVREs as modeled in the game once they have dropped their load, you can say that they have been modeled as vehicles, albeit not with their special abilities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why they were created - for their special abilities. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Open ground is not just open ground - in the background, the calculation takes into account shallows, ditches, etc. Not small streams, but I really don't know how important that is for the modeling in the game. I live in north-western Europe BTW, and I don't feel the game is artificial at all. Many maps are (particularly auto-generated), but with some knowledge of the terrain, and some abstractions in terms of cover, you can create realistic and good-looking maps. It is very easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't doubt it. My problem is that from my knowledge of NW Europe its criss-crossed with irrigation channels, canals, streams, rivers, you name it - water is a very dominant feature of the geography. In WWI, destruction of the ability to drain a large slice of the countryside rendered it impassable. Such waterways do make movement across country difficult and slow it considerably, yet CMBO seems to assume that only something 20+ metres wide will impede movement and then doesn't provide the means to actually execute a crossing of them...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: There are a number of problems in this area (well, here we are in that imperfect world again, aren't we). I was just thinking tonight how often in QBs I am obliged to begin my forces in terrain that I would not choose to defend or (if the attacker) would not choose for my start line. It's often impossible to have my FOs in locations with good LOS. If I have vehicles, there may be no good covering terrain for them to wait behind until they are called for. And so on. This is not to say that commanders in the real world often had all that they could want in this regard, but I strongly suspect that they may have had a bit more flexibility available to them. Michael [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In "real life" I agree that commnders do not always get the best situation possible, handed to them. However, they do tend to try to work out as much as possible before the start an attack. One point is that unless things were hurried, platoons do tend to stick closely together. Yet in CM when I've started quick battles or even the planned scenarios, I keep finding sections spread all over the place, on the opposite sides of deployment zones, and so on. At the same time I find my "columns" more closely resemble sunday school outings than proper approach columns with an advance guard, main body, etc. Now, I don't know if this a fault of the game's mechanics (I've only designed one scenario thus far myself and am still working through the process) or the laziness/ignorance of the scenario designers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Back to the original topic, BTS has like almost every tactical computer wargame I have seen, has marginalized the Engineer battle. In reality it is as critical as the other two pillars Direct and Indirect Fire. But as it seems most game developers have little expertise in this area, it get pushed to the side. CMBO does model a few things which more than some games but the cost vs effect of some of the obstacles is waaay out of proportion to the negative and other aspects have been left out. Engineering in the assault is probably as critical as your indirect fire plan in reality but in CM they get pushed into the role of "infantry with satchels". From what I have read the crew is developing the obstacles et al for CMBB and I will be interested in looking at just how much they change the game. So I guess the short answer the "funnies" went the same place as proper minefields, crater groups, wire which can be blown, AT ditches, vehicle run up positions and various other engineer devices which are used in reality but risk throwing the game off balance if employed in such a way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An excellent and well thought out post, Capt. I and others have also wondered where the ability of engineers to influence the battle had went. Why is it not possible to crater roads, demolish bridges/buildings, destroy barbed-wire, etc.? As a task force commander, I would have these facilities, which were utilised "in the assault". It even appears the humble wire-cutters have been forgotten.