Ogadai

Thank you Jeff. Out of a matter of interest, do you have any information on the scale of issue of both Smoke and HEAT rounds for the 95mm? It could well be that like the 2 Pdr. HE round in NW Europe, the 95mm HEAT round was as rare as rocking horse poo, which might well account for its non-use as an uber-tank-killing round. If the CS tanks carried predominately HE and Smoke, it might explain why Lt.Cotton decided his CS equipped Cromwell wasn't much use in a standup tank fight like that around Villers-Bocage.

So, no windage. Therein I think is the answer to Jason's questions about the accuracy of the 95mm CS How. Low velocity weapons are easily effected by wind and unless this is modelled correctly, the acccuracy of the weapon will be much greater than it was in real life. If windage, as part of the general weather conditions were to be taken into account in future releases of CM, then the matter of the 95mm and other low velocity weapons being so accurate would be basically fixed in my opinion.

Ah, but Jon, the question is, is that correct? Did the 95mm have a smoke round? Was the primary responsibility of the CS How. changed from smoke to HE direct fire, with the adoption of the 95mm to replace the 3in? I must admit I have no idea. Does anybody else on the board?

Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon. As most tank gunners desire to engage at long range, its utility would have been quite small and only useful in the single environment of Normandy, rather than out on the rolling plains of, well anywhere. Another factor which might have told against its promotion to being an uberweapon in real life might have been its reliability. I know Hogg, in his British and American Artillery of World War Two, was quite contempteous of the towed version of the weapon, citing problems with sealing around the breech and jamming of cases as to some of the reasons why it was never issued in large numbers. Did the tank mounted version suffer from similar problems? I'd also be interested in finding out what the scale of issue of the HEAT round was for the 95mm CS Howitzer. Might it not have been like the 2 Pdr HE round - developed but never issued in large numbers?

Simon and Michael, while I agree with you that the Iron Chef is quite annoying, I'm quite willing to defend his right to post, how he wants. I see the picking on him by yourself and others as merely being an effort to make him conform to your expectations, rather than necessarily an effort to refute him. Personally, I ignore 90% of what he says but I'll defend his right to say it how he wants.

Jon and Simon, I think we'd better stop that line of thinking, straight away, otherwise Slapdragon will be accusing people of trying to create an uberCommonwealth army again! I was wondering, Steve if you've been taking note of the criticisms which have been levelled against CMBO from the various knowledgeable people on the board about Commonwealth matters? Will we see any correction in the next release, which addresses the Commonwealth, which is I believe CM3?

If the CS isn't supplied with smoke rounds the, as you mention, Simon, "traditional" use of the CS tank, then why not? Is there a way to actually alter the ratio of ammunition types within a given vehicle? I haven't found it but I'm still discovering aspects of the game. BTW, Steve, I hope you've got someone else to write the manual for CMBB...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm sorry, I just can't let this go by. Why the picking on the Iron Chef? So, he can't type or format a damn. Perhaps English isn't is his first language but it appears he's not going to be cut any slack for his unwillingness to conform to how we all like to read a message. I'm ashamed of some of the way you have seen fit to respond to him. How old are you lot? You're acting like kiddies in the schoolyard, picking on the kid whose different 'cause he's different. Ny all means, refute what he says, attack him for silly opinions not supported by any verifiable evidence and even if you so desire, ignore him. However, don't pick on him 'cause he types differently or badly. Looks to me like the sort thing my kids do, rather than what adults should be doing.

Steve, thank you for you willingness to admit your error WRT my motivations. I still believe you're cutting Slapdragon a bit too much slack but thats your opinion. As I said, I am not being dismissive of Slapdragon's report but rather skeptical. He appears to have to taken any effort to be skeptical, to be dismissive and has launched upon his usual defensive posture of acussing all and sundry of being "anti-American", "nationalistic", etc. If nothing else, I find it more amusing than anything else 'cause its exactly what he accuses everybody else of! As for the Soviet thing, well, your nation was much more tightly tied up in the Cold War thing than the rest of the world. In Australia, we tended to sit back a bit further and look at what both sides was claiming and treated them both with heavy doses of salt. From my own viewpoint, I found all too often what America claimed (still does claim in some cases) to be unsupported by the facts. However, that lies outside the scope of this discussion. I am sorry though, that its effects have been such that they have made it difficult to accept foreign reports merely because of their source. At least you've identified the problem. As for the 95mm/Bazooka thingy, I think the problem that Jason/Redwolf and some others are having is that while you state you're willing to listen to cases and make changes, it appears that you seem to set the hurdle impossiblly high. Essentially it seems that no matter what criticism is levelled, it is impossible to either have an admission of fault or a change made to the game. I don't think necessarily that the you've got it wrong, going by the data and knowledge I have available to me. Jason/Redwolk, others have various times have provided sufficient evidence to suggest that not all is exactly right in the state of Denmark, if you get my drift. As to the cyclical nature of such discussions, I think thats more a problem of an unwilling to compromise on all sides. Anyway, I enough has been wasted on this thread, I suspect. No game is perfect and not all data is known. Jason, I'd suggest you accept that!

Steve, you comment is well taken but yet again, it appears I am being charged with something I am not guilty of. I am not biased against the report(s) because of their nationality. Far from it. I am biased against the report(s) because of percieved problems with them, that even Slapdragon admits to. I find your comment about Soviet Reports interesting. That might be true for Americans but outside of the USA, I've always been taught to take all reports skeptically until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everything the Soviets said was false and everything the USA said was true. Rather all such reports have to be checked. Slapdragon seems to have taken this strange idea that if its an American report, it has to be good, despite admitting there are possibly flaws with it! Now, RedWolf, the problem with your's and Jason's thinking, as far as I can see is as Steve has pointed out - you're ignoring doctrine, belief and intended use for the 95mm CS Howitzer armed tanks. Even the title betrays what they were intended for - CS - Close Support. Their AT capability was secondary. They were intended to render high-angle, direct fire support to armoured formations. The British would not have then utilised them for AT work, because they'd not have considered it. Just as the 3.7in AA gun was not considered for AT work, despite its excellent performance and the obvious example supplied by the Germans of the 88mm. As Steve suggests, you're using perfect hindsight. However, at the same time, Steve, I must suggest that perhaps your statement conveys the idea that you believe you got the ballistics and chance to hit for the 95mm CS How. exactly right. I have my doubts about that but am willing to accept that in the context of the game, it might be close enough. If Jason and RedWolf took a slight different approach with their argument, they might, I suspect get a more willing ear.

Will we see a bibliography included in the manual?

Have you considered other alternatives to WineX? There is VMWar and Win4Lin, both excellent emulators of Windoze. I know, the present version of Win4Lin does not support DirectX so you'll have to wait for the next before trying it. VMWare should work but I haven't got a machine powerful enough to attempt it yet (working on it though ). Further down the track, Lindows offers some hope but they haven't even released a beta yet.

The British and the US, copy the Tiger? No, Chef, I don't think so. I am aware that the British did restart the production lines for both the Tiger and the Panther, building several examples from components found in the factories and surrounding sub-contractors just after the war had ended. Indeed, if you ever get the chance to see the movie, "Their's is the Glory" - which was made by the British, in 1946 about the airdrop on Arnhem and was filmed in and around the town, utilising many of the real participants of that battle (basically 6 Airborne Div recreated it for the movie, as an exercise), you'll see some of those vehicles in use, during a night-attack.

Field-Marshall William Slim - perhaps the best general produced by the British in WWII and I'd even hazard to suggest amongst all the allies. A truly inspirational man who never forgot his men. I know of two very good acedotes about him. Both are from the post-war period, when he was Governer-General of Australia. Having risen through the ranks, he never allowed himself any more comforts than his men and one day, when it came to reviewing a unit of Australian troops, it was pouring with rain. While all the other dignitaries sheltered under a canvas awning, which also covered the saluting dais, when the unit marched past, he was standing on the ground beside the dais, in the rain, taking the salute. The second concerns the contraversial decision by Macarthur not to have surrendering Japanese commanders hand over their swords to their captors at the surrender ceremony. Slim refused and demanded of his Japanese counterparts, their swords. A decade later, while GG of Australia, he had them prominently on display in the front entrance of Government House. Upon the occasion of the first official visit by the Japanese PM to Australia in 1956, apparently the Japanese PM when greeted by the GG in the entrance hall refused to look at the swords. However, Slim's Aide-de-Camp noticed the PM's underlings stealing surriptious glances at the swords and exchanging grimaces. Slim knew it was important to impress on the Japanese they had lost the war and by taking those swords, in front of the surrendering Japanese, and displaying them, did so. For the Axis - Field-Marshal Albert Kesselring - master of both air and land tactics in the Mediterrean.

Slapdragon, you appear to believe that I merely dismissing your studies on the basis of their country of origin. I am not. I am dismissing them because I know US military studies are, as you yourself admitted, all too often politicised and that US efforts at Operations Research methodology lagged a considerable distance behind those of the British. If you produced a study which was written by the government of Timbuktoo, I'd still question its accuracy if I knew those studies were flawed. I am not anti-anybody or pro-anybody particularly, Slapdragon and the mere fact that you have yet again been the first to try and play the nationality card, I must wonder about your motivations. However, I will leave it there. You are welcome to reply, Slapdragon.

Jason, I believe I have detected a flaw in your argument. You assume that if a weapon is capable of penetrating a given tank, it will be utilised in killing those tanks. You appear to have forgotten that doctrine plays a big part in how certain weapons are employed. The CS Howitzer on British tanks was not meant to be employed in an anti-armour role. The HEAT round was provided more for the destruction of bunkers, than tanks. Therefore, to suggest that the British would have used this uberweapon to kill King Tigers, is to forget that their doctrine called for the CS vehicles to not engage enemy tanks if they encountered them, except in a last ditch situation. Instead they were to withdraw and allow the normal gun tanks to take on the enemy tanks. I'd presume that the US Army had similar ideas about the use of the 105mm armed Sherman. Basically it appears the entire basis of your argument with regards to the CS armed tanks is based around the "gamey" idea that such vehicles will engage tanks when they encounter them. As to the Bazooka and the King Tiger, surely the use of this weapon was such that it would have been last ditch by the infantry if they encountered a King Tiger? Wouldn't they have preferred to rely upon their towed AT guns or even Tank Destroyers? As far as I can tell, a great deal of the argument centres more around game tactics than real tactics.

Slapdragon, the reason why I have problems with you apparent acceptance of "estimates" or even the studies you mention is because "estimates" are basically just guesses. The studies, as even you note, are politically motivated and hence flawed. I also have doubts about US Operations Research, having read a few of their reports. The USAAF was and still is, very much motivated by an almost slavish belief in the teachings of the airpower theorists. We both agree that the number is no where as high as the Iron Chef's claimed 90%. I think I just have sufficient doubts about US military studies to make me question their accurracy.

Wasn't the introduction of the "Heil Hitler" salute a further means of enforcing loyalty upon what was, after the October 20 Bomb Plot percieved as a potentially disloyal/relacitrant armed services by the Nazis? One thing that always surprises me about American saluting is the sloppy way it appears to be all too often executed. From my admittedly extremely limited military experience, we were taught the correct way to salute and the timing of it and heaven help anybody if they did it wrong. Yet from everything I've seen seems to indicate that the US services had a much more relaxed view of how a salute should be performed. Another thing that interests me, where did this thing, when a civilian, of placing one's hand over one's heart come from in US society? In Commonwealth nations you either stand to attention or, if wearing one, remove your hat, when the national anthem is played.

I'm surprised at your seemingly naive acceptance of "estimates" Slapdragon. I'm not disputing that the Chef's claim is ridiculous but that we should accept the guesses made by others as being somehow better than hard numbers.

Michael I was under the impression that the standard colour for British vehicles was British Army Bronze Green - which this mod matches reasonably well. Lend-lease was often supplied in US Olive Drab, which is lighter than Bronze green, while Khaki Drab was different again.

Seems to me you are making some assumptions, Slapdragon. The first is that all units were always up to full establishment and strength in the US Army. The other is that the range of the handy-talky was sufficient to reach far enough back to call in artillery. As you've ducked out on the discussion about US Artillery practices, I'm still wondering how the US platoon commander called in artillery. Did he call back to company and they called to the artillery unit or did they call to battalion and they called the artillery unit which actually provided the fire support?

Do you have a problem with that, Michael? I know of several cases in North Africa where it occurred. One where a RAEME craftsman was awarded an MM for using oxy-acetelyne cutting equipment in the middle of the battle to cut free a Mathilda II tank turret which had become jammed by a hit in the ring. However, I was referring more to minor repairs/resupply which might be occurring as the fighting rolls towards the tank in question, rather than necessarily the sort of thing which you normally wouldn't want to happen if it was an ideal world.

What might be better than just a general "immobilised" for that Panther you just purchased could be an "immobolisation" which disappears at some random point during the battle, to represent the Panther being US at the start and it becoming serviceable at some point, after its been repaired (ie had fuel/ammo supplied, had that engine repaired, etc).

As I understand it, the Australian experience and SOP has long been no embellishments and officers carry longarms, rather than just pistols. The first was to prevent them being marked for special treatment by snipers or if captured (after the experience of WWII with the Japanese and Korea) while the latter was becuase they were expected to contribute to the firepower of their platoon/company. Saluting in the field has also long been discouraged, for the same reasons. In Vietnam, even Chaplains were known to carry an unloaded rifle, because of the danger of snipers. In WWII, it was long recongnised that a pistol is only useful as an absolute last ditch weapon for most people and then they'd most probably be better off throwing it at their opponent than firing it. I believe that as the war progressed, the weapons that HQ personnel carried tended to resemble more and more those of the standard infantry soldier, both for self-protection purposes and to make ammunition resupply easier.

In their never-ending search for improving CM, it appears the modders have left one stone unturned. Where are the American Negros, the British Indians and in the future, the Russian Asiatic soldiers? I was glacing through the various mod sites and it suddenly struck me, all the soldiers are white, anglo-saxon/celtic or "aryan" in aspect. Perhaps its a no-no to even mention it. At the same time, I was wondering, has anybody else noticed the resemblance between one of the stock faces and the ex-Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating http://www.keating.org.au ?