Steve N Jackson

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Yes well Jacko does take a bit of getting used too. I have an affectionate and amused regard for his tendentious proselytizing. Akin to how one might regard a professor on the cusp of dementia who wanders between lucidity and babble . It would be best for all of us if you just responded to the worthy bits of what he has to say rather than stirring him up all the time (though that can be fun). It does get a little tiresome when every second thread turns into Jacko's Debating School <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not the one who turns the debate to a mud-slinging match, everytime, Simon. I am merely defending my position. I'd suggest you ask him to refrain from his attacks. BTW, like the new name you've given me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Terence - indeed those are Bailey bridges. We still use them in Canada; one of my best friends is an engineer in the Canadian Forces; it does indeed take a wee bit longer than 30 minutes to "build" one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why they developed the skid/mobile/Dalton/Brown Bailey Bridges which were assembled offsite and pushed into position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Germanboy is about the biggest proponent of Commonwealth stuff I know (duh) so its beyond me why any of you regulars feel the need to respond to him. Ignore the little peckerwood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "proponent" or "opponent"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Please note to the community that the original poster Kim Beazley MP Ma (a stolen identity originally) has started to post under my name, Steve N. Jackson, in some attempt to bail out his image on this board. This is the fourth new account attacker I have faced. Most could be ignored or let past, but the community should know of this is not me, not that the poster is hiding who he is. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not claiming to be you, Mr.Slapdragon. Remember, you supposed to be play the ball, not the man, as we say downunder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: It's the same 3d model. BTS just wanted to spend the time for more important stuff. Great post. Seems to be creating some discussion too and that's always a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it interesting that the "more important stuff" included graphic representations for German Field Artillery and American Field Artillery but NOT British Field Artillery.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague: In deliberate attacks/defences, both commanders would have some idea about the terrain they are going to fight over and would make plans based upon that knowledge. Silly me, and I thought that one asessed the terrain and made one's plans in the setup phase... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is _after_ one has "purchased" ones forces... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyway, thats enough riling. I personally enjoy the uncertainty of commiting one's troops. To digress a little, I'm glad to see that you didn't argue with my choice of tea and scones. I was going to replace scones with lamingtons but I didn't think that many on the thread would actually know what a lamington was. It seems perhaps that I was wrong. So how about it then, hands up, exactly how many Kiwi's are hiding out in this thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bloody Kiwis! 'twas you bastards who wrecked Ansett! Give us back our airline! :eek: Lamingtons are good but personally I've always preferred fresh scones. Ultimately though, nothing beats a downing a few schooners, hey?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Re-reading this, and coupled with your other comments earlier, I have decided that you are indeed clueless. You seem to have no comprehension of the engineering battle you clamour on about so loudly beyond the training movie you watched. I sincerely suggest you go and talk to an engineer about the laying of bridges under combat conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I admit I am not a military engineer - never had ambitions to be one. I have observed Engineers at work though - and I am well aquainted with what their capabilities are. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Here are some clues, to help you on your way: 1) If bridges were unimportant, why did armies go out of their way to capture/blow them up? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did not say they were "unimportant". I made it clear that they represent choke points for an attacker, in the context of the game (as Mr.Slapdragon's mantra has it). Armies sought to capture bridges because they would ease their advance and their logistical burden. However, at the same time, if the desire was to advance along a different route where bridges did not exist, then armies do have the ability to create their own. I can think of only 3 famous operations/battles in NW where the capture of bridges were the major focus - over the Orne, in Normandy, Market-Garden and Remagen. I'm sure there were others but there were also cases where bridges were deliberately bypassed and the attacker decided to cross somewhere else, away from the obvious defences. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) If 79th AD was the panacea to all German resistance, why could the Germans hold on for months to defenses behind streams, e.g. the canals in the low countries, the Rhine, the Scheldt. 79th AD was present at all these battles, and materially influenced their outcome, but why not faster, if it was the be-all and end-all of combat engineering? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB] I never claimed it was a panacea, merely an advantage that the British created to help them to circumvent those very situations, where obstacles were used to hinder or channel their advance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB} 3) What is the deployment time of a Class 40 bailey bridge, and what are the pre-requisites for its construction (hint - the answer as to why existing sites with blown bridges were used is in here)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the deployment time is very dependent upon several factors - primarily the number of men and whether or not they are under fire. According to This site, which is the manual for the modern US Army class 40 bridge, it depends upon the distance to be bridged and the number of engineers undertaking the task. I will note though, that the British worked to overcome these limitations by building entire bridges off-site and moving them into position as rapidly as possible to allow an assault to occur. As Chamberlain and Ellis note in their "British and American Tanks of World War II": "Churchill AVRE's were used operationally to propel various types of assault bridge used in combat. These included the Skid Bailey, a short bridge built from Bailey parts, mounted on skids and pushed and pulled into place by two AVRE's, and the Mobile Bailey Bridge which was a complete (class 40) bridge mounted on dumb Orolo track units. Two AVRE's were also used to propel this. Two other similar types were the Brown and Dalton Mobile Bridges, used in Italy, built from Bailey parts and pushed by one AVRE while a second AVRE, with turret removed, acted as the carrier vehicle." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4) If you have a game without anti-tank ditches and small streams, is there a need to model the means to cross these non-existant barriers in the game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree there isn't. Nor have I insisted there should be. I have noted that I think its rather unrealistic to expect a simulation which purports to portray WWII in NW Europe to not have those features included in it. If those features were included in the game, then obviously a means to overcome them would be required. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 5) Why don't you just admit you are wrong, instead of continuing to have a go at Slappy? It gets tiresome, you know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well there are two things here - one, I don't necessarily believe there is a "right" or a "wrong" in this discussion, more a case of a thesis and an anti-thesis - the combination of which will produce a synthesis. Mr.Slapdragon, as Brian has noted, appears on the otherhand to treat CM and this BBS as his private property and woe betide anybody who questions his authority. I like unseating those who like to seat themselves on such high horses. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB} 6) Have you ever seen a canal in NWE?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. I was though, referring more to the network of irrigation and drainage canals, rather than the major navigable canals which I think you're referring to. Either way, there are a lot of waterways in NW Europe which are in all likelihood, 20+ metres in width, which don't appear in most scenarios.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: No I am not content with hitting my head against a brickwall, and like you, I would love to have an all-singing, all dancing game that allows me to go from the Corps level down to the squad level, letting me jump into game simulation whenever I desire, gets all the aspects right, models all the most obscure vehicles, and gets the modelling of even the most minute aspects of the war right. No argument there. But then I tweak myself, and think 'Hey, this is bloody damn good, I won't get everything, so there will have to be choices'. The procedure for choices has been outlined by BTS (it is what Slappy posted earlier) and so far I am not convinced about the need to have all this extra stuff when looking at the procedure. If I could programme a game, I would try to do mine, but I am afraid I can not. Therefore I am stuck with BTS choices. Which is not a hard life at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You must remember that I am new to this forum and thus unfamiliar with "the procedure". I was under the impression that this was a forum for the discussion of aspects of the game. I have raised, I feel a genuine question about where are these significant vehicles and Mr.Slapdragon and Co. have attacked me as being the anti-Christ or something similar for daring to be so heretical. Perhaps I was mistaken for being under the impression but I have shown that I can give as good as I get, I feel. We have a procedure, Simon has answered the points required in that procedure. I don't have to add to that, I feel. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now as for the quick bridging - I have not forgotten that. But what is the applicability to CMBO? 43rd Wessex and XXX Corps engineers took quite a few casualties when bridging the Seine at Vernon, but the bridge was not needed to stop this. Units that crossed in assault boats cleared the area. The Canucks crossing north got their tanks across on rafts. Again the bridging was not a CMBO issue at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet, if you read about the bridging of the River Rapido, one finds that building of bridges under fire were not unknown and did occur in the midst of battle. It is an option which should be available IMO. However, I'd just much rather see such bridges treated virtually as a terrain feature than necessarily being build in the course of an engagement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So since the Valentine B/L is not the issue, what exactly do you want now? Have we gone from a desire to include funnies to a desire to include Class40 rafts and bailey bridges?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I want the ability, as a real life commander does, to overcome obstacles, natural and manmade which might lay in his path. Simple as that. River? Bridge it. Ditch? Fascine it, etc and so on. At the present moment, we are forced into the IMO unnatural situation that we must seize a bridge if we are to cross any sort of water obstacle. Essentially, the attacker is channelled to choke points which are easily defended.