Ogadai

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Seanachai: I bow to your corrections, and to your point of order. But I spoke from the framework of our own 'freedom of speech' culture, with First Amendment protection, which is granted a fuller protection than almost anywhere else on the planet. Right or wrong, you are more free to speak your mind on the American media than most places on the planet. And Berli, my smoking friend, you should acknowledge that Freedom of Speech in America is not the same as Freedom of Salesmanship. The Constitution enshrines freedom of 'self-expression', and the freedom of 'political speech'. It nowhere enshrines the concept of freedom to advertise. Here in America, we have, through our freely elected officials, enacted into law the concept that the need to make a buck is not all ways, and by all means, a protected right of expression.<hr></blockquote> Excuse me, but what or rather who is being referred to in your comment "our freedom of speech culture"? You appear to forget, there are more than Americans or even Europeans who post here. You also appear, if I may say so, blind to the own contradictions in your polity if you believe your political system protects freedom of speech to the level you believe. There are many examples, even very recent ones of where your government has acted to inhibit freedom of speech. It is not quite the paragon of virtue you portray it as. No nation is without sin, either, not mine nor any other. Therefore, perhaps we should think carefully before we start to throw stones, hey? However, this has strayed somewhat from the purpose of this bulletin board and I for one think it should be locked down.

My business. Just let me say, I'm old enough to have done it, young enough to do it again and have the scars to show for it...

Iron Chef, its extremely hard to say which nationality was better than the others. In all armies there were excellent, good and indifferent units. The Canadians tended to be more uniform in their quality, in my opinion, whereas the South Africans tended to be either very good or quite bad. Australian units tended to be very good, while New Zealanders were considered to be uniformly of a high standard. Perhaps the best view is that of a qualified observer, from Hastings' book, "Overlord": "Outside Portsmouth at 21st Army Group Headquarters, Montgomery's Chief of Staff, Major-General Francis de Guingand, turned to Brigadier Bill Williams and recalled the beginning of other , desert battles. "My God, I wish we had 9th Australian Division with us this morning, don't you?" he said wryly." I don't think he'd be saying that if he thought the Australians were bad soldiers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Ogadai, Try here: http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm Also, one piece of advice: keep your first scenario small. Often, new designers get carried away and then overwhelmed.<hr></blockquote> Thank you. I was indeed intending that. Unfortunately the site you mention doesn't have what I need. Does anybody have any other suggestions to help an information impoverished antipodean?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SuperTed: Ogadai, Try here: http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm Also, one piece of advice: keep your first scenario small. Often, new designers get carried away and then overwhelmed.<hr></blockquote> Thank you. I was indeed intending that. Unfortunately the site you mention doesn't have what I need. Does anybody have any other suggestions to help an information impoverished antipodean?

I have decided, against all better sense perhaps, to create my first scenario. I was wondering if somebody could tell me where I could find the TO&E for the following units: US MP Company, 1945 US Transport Company, 1945 US Corps HQ, 1945 thanks in advance

I have decided, against all better sense perhaps, to create my first scenario. I was wondering if somebody could tell me where I could find the TO&E for the following units: US MP Company, 1945 US Transport Company, 1945 US Corps HQ, 1945 thanks in advance

So, Steve, your problem is not necessarily with what Brian posts but rather the manner in which he posts? He got up your nose, obviously, with some of his earlier comments. Yet, his manner is no more abrasive nor arrogant in my opinion than any of the other posters here, Andreas and Slapdragon included. They appear to be cut a considerable amount of slack, whereas he isn't. Fair? I think not. You, Andreas are apparently just as guilty as Brian of creating arguments. I've read his postings for sometime and I have seen no evidence of the arguments you claim he has made. Whose now guilty of playing the man and not the ball, hey? For the most part, Brian has attempted in this thread to be factual and whats more concilatory, as I see it. He hasn't fallen over himself to kow-tow to you, Steve but he has offered an olive branch. You, on the otherhand, have simply dismissed out of hand basically everything he's said. Now, I'm going to give you a blast. from your message you're just as arrogant, just as self-centred. You appear from on high, occassionally making a pronouncement. It appears you believe we should simply accept your statements as ex-cathedra and infallible. Despite upon several occasions, information being offered by several different posters on faults in your game with regard to Commonwealth or British matters upon only one occasion have you acknowledged an error in your research, in the time I've been posting here. Now, thats out of the way, I recognise that you are under considerable pressure and working hard on CMBB (I hope!) and obviously do not have as much time perhaps as needed for the BBS. Even so, I would suggest that everybody pulls their collective heads in and calms down a little. When I posted my original message, I was merely asking for further information about a modifcation which was mentioned in the Delaforce book. I have found the debate, interesting and intriguing. Indeed, I find some of the logic on both sides compelling, yet, I must admit I believe that some method must be put in place in the game to take into account this sort of armour modification. How, I'm not sure. All I can do is draw upon my figure wargaming days (when it was possible to model individual vehicles) and suggest that some value be given to vehicles so equipped which improves their protection against hollow-charge rounds. It is obvious though, that even if these add-ons didn't actually do anything, as some claim (something I find doubtful, in itself, going by the little I know about hollow-charge principles), players expect to see vehicles festooned with equipment and so on. Sure, that means, as some have pointed out, problems with polygon counts and so on and that has to be acknowledged. I'm more annoyed than anything else that as usual, thanks to all concerned, a genuine question once more gets lost in the egos of all concerned. I'd suggest its time for everybody to grow up a little and stop acting like kids in the schoolyard. I'm interested in an exchange in information, not a game of "king of the castle". OK? Therefore, Steve, Mad Matt or who ever is playing god at the moment that this thread be declared dead, null and void and everybody retire to their corners and calm down a bit.

Perhaps one of the best movies to be made about the RAF, "Reach for the Sky" is on this evening. I am sure that all my fellow Australians who are unable to read their newspapers to discover that this little gem is on. If you want to see Spitfires, Hurricanes and other RAF frontline aircraft, then this is one of the movies to watch. BTW, did anybody else see "Hell in the Pacific" last night? Interesting Documentry, doesn't pull punchs. Ex-Imperial Japanese Army soldiers admitting their atrocities in China, ex-US Marines admitting their's in hte Pacific. Film of both. Interviews with survivors of Japanese atrocities. Very Anglo-centric though, but what else is to be expected from a British show? Bit too fast paced for my liking. Covering 1900-15 Feb'42 in one program with only 15 minutes given to the whole Malayan campaign was a bit short.

I'm sorry John if you feel you've been unfairly treated by my comment. I hope though, you understand my ire. I think I'll just start posting Australian TV schedules. I'm sure all the non-Australians will be fascinated with them.

I am presently reading the book, "Monty's Marauders: Black Rat and Red Fox" by Patrick Delaforce. It is a history of the British 4th and 8th Armoured Brigades during WWII. On P.217-8, I found the following passage: "Most of the tanks had by now unweildy wire netting cages welded on the sides to deflect bazooka bombs." On the same page, there is a picture (which I'm presently unable to reproduce), with the caption: "'C' Sqdn., 4/7th Dragoon Guards Sherman, showing the wire anti-bazooka skirts fitted to the tanks at about the time of the Rhine crossing. The bazooka [in reality he's referring to the German Panzershrek] was a real menace; simple to fire & operated by one man who could remain hidden until the tank was right by him. It had a tremendous blast power. Object of the skirt was that it was sufficiently flexible for projectile to bounce off without exploding, or if it did explode the force of the explosion was wasted before it reached the armour..." From the look of the photo, it appears to be something similar to cyclone wire netting, held off from the side of the hull by about six inches. It only reaches to the top of the suspension and covers the whole side of the Sherman's hull. This is the first reference I've seen to it use and I was wondering how widespread was it or was it something only the 8th Armoured Brigade did?

I am presently just finishing off reading the book, "Monty's Marauders: Black Rat and Red Fox" by Patrick Delaforce which is a history of the British 4th Armoured Brigade and 8th Armoured Brigade. Throughout most of the fighting in eastern Holland and western Germany, he mentions that quite often tanks were used to run over Panzershrek teams and other infantry. I'm sure he mentions it at least a dozen times throughout the latter part of the book.

CM Players might also appreciate these sites: For paper maps: http://www.gripmaps.com http://www.ign.fr (warning this is in French!) http://www.omnimaps.com For scanned maps, already on CD-ROM, try the IGN site at: http://www.ign.fr/fr/GP/cartes/cederoms/bayo/blocs/BLOC10.html#commander (that URL is specifically for the Normandy series) A general hint about the French site. I use Babel Fish to translate it as my high-school French is pretty rusty.

The British used M-22's during the crossing of the Rhine, landing them with Hamilcars. Thanks for the mentioning the He-111Z, I'd forgotten that one but it wasn't a particularly well liked aircraft, the two fuselages tended to flex apparently in ways the pilots didn't like. The Ju-290 was much preferred for the Me-321. BTW, didn't the Germans mount an airborne operations in Jugoslavia against Tito and in Central France against the Maquis on some plateau in 1944?

You're right, must have been an MM. Slim actually thought the Africans were pretty fair troops in Burma. Apparently the Japanese found it very hard to face them, they apparently scared them a great deal with their black skin which they likened to that of demons/devils. This was, of course, played up a great deal by the British Pysops troops.

Or an M-22 'Locust' light tank (US equivalent of the Tetrach). In addition, the Me-321 was, after the initial problems with the "Troikaschlep" (3 x Me110's) usually towed aloft by the Ju-290 transport aircraft (developed from the Ju-90, which was only just able to get an Me-321 aloft, if it was unloaded). Finally, there were other transport aircraft available to the Luftwaffe, apart from the Ju-52. There were the Ju-252 and Ju-352's both smoothskinned developments of the original Ju-52 trimotor, produced in small numbers. The Ju-90/290/390 and the Ar-334, all of which could and were used on the Eastern Front extensively for aerial resupply, paradropping and glider towing. Several especially equipped Ju-290's undertook and completed several return trips from German occupied Russian territory to Manchuria and back, as late as September 1944 (via Iran-Afghanistan-Tibet-China because of Japanese concerns about their neutrality pact with the USSR). The Me-321/323 could carry a Panzer III or 38(t) or early Stug III tank. Alternative loads included a field gun and tractor or up to 200 soldiers. They were used extensively around Stalingrad and over the Mediterrean from Sicily to Tunisia. Outside of aircover, they were fairly easy pickings for fighters though. If Operation Herkules, the invasion of Malta had gone ahead, they would have seen fairly extensive use in a combat role.

This sort of announcement is of course of tremendous value to all us non-USA posters, now, isn't it?

Actually, the only real award he had was an MC (or was it MM, can't remember at the moment). All the other titles, including the VC and Bar were self-awarded. He won the MC in Burma, serving with the Kings Own African Rifles, as a Sergeant. I see no one picked up the second question though. It was Q'adaffi of Libya who was in the end, instrumental in the toppling of Amin's regime. He sent several Tu-22 Blinder bombers to bomb Amin's strongholds and that did the trick, apparently. I'm glad to someone picked up on the culinary hints. Long-pig anyone?

Do not slight the memory of President for Life, Field-Marshal, Idi Amin Dada, MC, VC and Bar, marksman badges! Can anyone guess which of the above awards/decorations/titles/honorifics, Idi Amin was genuinely awarded/won on the field of battle? Extra points if they can also indentify the leader of the regime which proved instrumental in his toppling? BTW, at last report, Idi Amin Dada was living in Riyad with his extensive family. He apparently attempted in the mid-1990's to immigrate to the US to become a professional ten-pin bowling player. The charges of cannibalism were made by the regime which toppled him and which was from a rival tribe, so I'd take them with a big pinch of salt.

I suppose, each to their own. Personally, I find its cloying sentimentality rather annoying. It basically seems to pull the right heart-strings for an American but as an Australian perhaps I'm just a tad too cynical.

John, "shouldn't" doesn't equate to "never". You do realise that, don't you? It rather denotes that Jon believes they literally shouldn't, unless absolutely pressed, be employed in a direct fire role. Doctrinally, the RA determined that artillery was better employed indirectly. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, rather that they preferred and worked as much as possible to make sure it didn't happen. Indeed, as a counter to your case from Hastings, Blackburn has a situation where his troop of 25 Pdrs was set up on one side of the Orne and some Germans were observed retreating on a ridge on the otherside. They were so untrained in direct fire that despite the pleading of a SNCO to him to give the order to open fire over open sights, they missed the opportunity and the Germans escaped. In the Desert, 25 Pdrs were routinely employed as AT guns and over open sights. By 1944, they rarely were. Their employment had simply changed. Now, the question is, should something which rarely occurred be modelled, and perhaps as we've seen, modelled incorrectly (no smoke) in place of something which was more common, John? [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ogadai ]</p>

Out of a matter of interest, does anybody know the arming range for the Panzerfaust? It might a case not so much of a miss as a failure to explode because it hasn't armed (in otherwords, you're too close).

[Putting down his Chardonnay, Ogadai accepted another peeled and pitted grape from the beauteous wench serving his every whim and said...] Personally, I prefer not to necessarily get involved in such ugly self-proclaimations of prowess, they are so unAustralian (to quote a certain redhead). I am in Adelaide, BTW.

And, pray tell, what exactly is wrong with Vegemite? At least you cannot get BSE from it as you can with Marmite. By the way, isn't Bovril a drink, "beef tea"?

Let me throw my three-pennieth worth into the ring. John, as others have suggested, an isolated incident does not disprove Jon's comment. As Simon has pointed out, you appear to be reading words that were not in Jon's original comment, erecting what is it called? A "strawman" argument, I think. At the same time, in an ideal world, yes, the 25 Pdr, indeed, all field artillery would not appear in a CM style engagement. However, in a CM style operation, there is the possibility of the gun lines being over-run, if an attack is pushed fast enough and hard enough. The British field regiments were well aware of that, as were I must presume the American artillery as well, why else the issue of AP rounds and instruction in how to use them? Many years ago, when I wargamed with miniatures, the club I was a member of did a Normandy campaign. Interestingly, one of the key battles of campiagn was when one of the German Panzer divisions did manage to get momentuum up in the first day and pushed right to the American beach, along the way, outflanking and then over-running several American field artillery units which were caught by surprise. So, it is a possibility that perhaps should be included in CMBO. However, that does not explain the discrepancy of a lack of smoke rounds for the 25 Pdr on map, as against it off map. Perhaps Steve would care to issue another mea culpa? Indeed, the last was refreshing indeed to see, if I might say so and Steve is to be commended for it, in my opinion.