Mark Gallear

Don't want to get into the war is hell thing. Civilians are a feature in the early Blitzkreig period - causing chaos in the Allied lines as they fled. Theey are also a feature in some other conflicts - ietnam. Otherwise rather not see any thank you .

Ok I will do that. It would help me to understand the QB lists if somebody from BFC could do a quick explanation of how rarity works - this is not transparent to the CM system! I) how its rated is it common, uncommon, rare II) how its defined - figures on vehicles produced - if only a gut feeling on some equipment, etc III) the effects - expense, if vehicles are always available etc, and most importanly the reasons behind the system - what it was meant to model and achieve :cool: .

So what? What dates should they be available from, what dates should they be available until? I hardly think 30 units of any vehicle is really reason to include it in the game, frankly. Can you make a case for its use by other units? What about them? When did they become available, how long were they used, and in what number, by whom? It is very easy to pull names of kit off of a laundry list. Perhaps the reason that this stuff hasn't been included is because no one really knows who used it, when, or in what numbers? I could pick the Johnson LMG off a list of stuff that was definitely used in Italy. Once I did some research and found out it was only used by the First Special Service Force, it's necessity for inclusion drops... When? Starting when? etc etc </font>

Gosh Romulus has certainly put me to shame with his presentation "Oob" and "TO&E" not only can he do bullet points, he types and can spell in English as well!

If you are creating ops or scenarios you can change the date to when an equipment type or troop is available buy it then change the date back. However, I am against having stuff in the game which was not available in North Africa/Italy but was available in NW Europe because thats what the game is about!

Reams and reams of data and no real correlation to what you think is wrong in the game. If you wanted to say - briefly and succinctly - a) what is represented in CM what the reality was c) the suggested fix for the patch That would help. Lots of good data there but it started to look like a simple laundry list, or "Mark Gallear's Guide to What Tanks The British Used". That's great, but you need to show what is broken in CM before we can suggest that it be fixed. Fictional Example: a) British "Thatcher" tank available in CM from June 1943 to end of war with rarity of 150% Fake source document indicates that Thatcher not in production until July 1943 and first trial models in combat August 1943. First issue to combat units in October c) Suggest tank not be available at all in June, rarity be increased to 200% in July-Sep 1943 and drop to 150 in October Or somefink. Makes it easier to see what needs to be patched or not patched than simply saying "F-49 Bumblebee fighterbombers available historically from July 1941-43. Fix." </font>

I am starting to feel as if my teeth are being pulled! (There is this TV advert in the UK where some clown phones up an insurance company and goes quote me happy!) Yep, I agree you cannot just go by one snippet of information in one book or source - however that is usually all you will ever get.) I am confused if your history article says Churchill Crocs in Dec 1944 and again in April 1945, why not in between then! (Does this situation hold for the Wasps as well then.) Not had a chance to go though the history of the other New Zealand units on that site. Do not remember insulting the colonies and do remember saying I don't have a clue what the Canadian Army got upto. I also remember after Grog Dorosh told me off for putting ? after things I was not sure of - telling him that I wasn't that arrogant. As for what went on in Italy it is very different from organizations on NW Europe, appears that changes and new equipment generally appeared their some time after. Unfortunately, most of my regimental histories are on the Desert war and then go to NW Europe. There can be startling differences between battalion/Squadron organizations between regiments in the British Army, so why not between Canadian/New Zealand/ Australian and Polish units as well. When I went through my list of British Army stuff on the first bugs post - I new many things were wrong by just looking but as I started to check I found many discrepancies. I did it for fun and to make the game better - does that make me a bad person or stupid in some way. So, if you have any more info on NZ or other Empire use of flamethrowers in Italy, why not come clean - as you have seen from my list there are that many good sites out there. Although sometimes you do find a gem. From the site given by Jons and Mr Dorosh - I am now fairly homed in on a Nov 1944 date for the introduction of British Man pack flamethrowers to Empire forces in Italy! Sorry about the confusion on the game site - I went with the description from goggle. This ruleset shows a platoon of six with HQ standard Uni carrier. I did put the other game sites with oobs down as such. (I think looking at what other Wargame rules have done in the past helps as alarm bells should go off if you go and do something different base on some scrap of info.) So you are looking at these sites then (glad you are finding ammo to use against me!) I don't think I have ever tried to mislead anybody as to where my info was coming from, omitted info to suit my argument or pulled the line "BFC has sources you don't have access too." Yes, there is a problem with the Wasp in the list as it appears in the Battalion structure before you can buy them separately. As you get loads in the Battalion structure not just one – this appears to be from some theoretical oob not what actually happened – if the difference between the theoretical and actual structure is very great – I think we should try for the actual. Otherwise, we might as well have 20mm Flak guns in the Battalion structure even though that never happened. It is not limited to NZ units but everybody else as well – not sure, I am willing to believe Battlefront word on that. Although I’m not saying for sure that other nations infantry battalions/heavy weapons companies did not have them. CMAK Introduction Dates July 1940 Man pack Flamethrowers are available According to Chris Bishop Ed WWII: The Directory of Weapons - Flamethrower Portable No 2 Mk I was produced around mid 1942 - it proved unreliable and was withdrawn and used only for training from mid -1943 onwards. (This does not mean they were necesaarily widely used in he Desert War.) The MK II was introduced into service in June 1944. (As I said above gleaned a date of around Nov 1944 for Italy.) "However, the British Army was never really enthusiastic regarding portable flamethrowers and decided that not many would be required. Production of the MK II ended as early as July 1944, after 7,500 were made." Dec 1944 The Infantry battalion 1944 has the Wasps as part of Battalion structure – assume this info came from JohnS and has rather more than he is happy with? Feb 1945 Wasp Flamethrower now appears in support section and can be bought separately. This date may be correct but first date in use I could find was April 1945 for 2 RTR - where they are concentrated with other specialist equipment. (JohnS for New Zealanders has Dec 1944?) The April date for 2 RTR appears in Churchill's Desert Rats 2, Patrick Delaforce. (It is possible that other British units got the Wasp before this date but I cannot find any info.) April 1945 Churchill VII Crocodile date appears correct as it appears in 12 RTR in 21 ATB for April 1945. (presumably 2 RTR never gets the Croc and uses the Wasp until wars end.) This info comes from the site below http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm This link has an article by Shilto, which gives graphs of tanks in use per month by type in Italian campaign for 8th Army Tank - which had the Churchill. As the info was complied from regimental records, I think it is very solid and has got to cast some doubt on reports of Churchill Crocs before this date. The CMAK dates for Wasps and Crocs are not that bad - compared with non-existant British Lees and Grants that appear after their time as uber tanks has passed! Yes, it was me who put a question mark on Canadian Churchill in Sicily – based on book by Donald Featherstone which is 90% history and 10% wargame rules as I pointed out before he was actually there which is more than most historians can say. I did look on the official Canadian history site and found a document saying they converted from Churchills to Rams before the battle - I don't think they had Rams in Sicily! I used the account from his book of a tank driver in his tank regiment to create the Steamroller Farm scenario on my site! [ January 23, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

I have put a revised version of my small CMAK scenario -on Mod Corner. Still not sufficiently happy with it to put on the SD. The idea is to play as the British against the computer and compare how well you did (and the AI does for the matter) against a full historical account which starts on the second page of the main briefing. If you have already played it - probably not worth going back to it. After my tester thought it was to easy - I have increased the German Strength slightly and tweaked the Churchill squadrons structure to be more realistic. The briefing also has some notes on Chuchill TO&Es in Tunesia and Italy. If the Churchill III appears in the patch I will go back and revise it again .

Ok then JonS has Quoted me humiliated! A single Wasp in New Zealand Battalion Carrier platoons from December 1944 then. I apologize unreservedly to JonS and Michael Dorosh for doubting them. Also to Michael who is slowly improving my use of the phrase TO&E, hopefully these posts will help the TO&E lists in CMAK as well. Very good site on the New Zealand Army. Read the article it talks about converted Croc flamethrowers at this date, and Churchill’s crocs are not converted but made that way? The date of the action with Churchill Crocs is at the end of April 1945. (I think the game has an introductory date of March 1945 for the Croc.) 2 RTR has a wide range of engineer Chuchills AVRES with fascines and bridge laying version, Kangaroos and Wasps at this fate but no mention of the Croc. So what is the consensus of opinion do British/Canadian/Polish Battalions or Heavy Weapons Companies have Wasps and if so from when? When do Crocs arrive and which unit has them? I noticed a big change in the New Zealand Structure for Jan 1944 with a lot of mechanised and support units been turned into infantry. Vickers companies appear to be in the infantry battalion as well. Looks like the structure would be different from other nations units? [ January 22, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

You had me confussed as the other equipment on the form is shown underlined - which your form says the unit used but the wasp is not. This evidence suggests Wasps in Italy long before April 1945, unless thse were just training vehicles? Not sure exactly what a weasel is - is it a US made Ambhibious Jeep. Sherman DD and Buffalos called Fantails were used in Italy but are not in the list - don't think the System allows amphibious assaults.

Is this in NW Europe or Italy? I was aware that Wasps were available in NW Europe shortly after D-Day, but not that every battalion had at least one. (Ok you say TOE then! I can learn and improve!) Done some research to get my composition better! “One other task of the Carrier is worthy of particular mention. The British were not much taken with the backpack flamethrower, reasoning the operator was extremely vulnerable and had to fire at particularly close range. A vehicle mounted weapon offered the possibility of much improved range and sustainability. Ideally to survive it should also be armoured. The Carrier fitted this role perfectly, and after much delay the Wasp appeared. This mounted a flame gun in place of the Bren, and displaced two men to fit the fuel tanks. The Canadian Army had also been pursuing the idea and opted to place the fuel tanks outside the machine at the rear. This cleared sufficient space for a third crewman to return with his Bren, firing from the rear troop compartment though as the gun slit was still occupied by the flame projector. This improved Wasp 2 quickly took precedence over the earlier model. The stated aim was to provide each Battalion with eight units for fitting to existing machines as required, extended to Motor Battalions and Reconnaissance Regiments on the same scale. Actual availability varied enormously, with preference being made for units slated to take part in assaults I would suggest.” http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Tactics/Formations/FireSupport/carrier_platoon.htm Describes a typical carrier platoon. http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/carriers.htm http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/queslyster.htm This interesting document seems to suggest that not every Candian Unit had the Wasp in NW Europe. This site on Polish Equipment lists the Wasp in NW Europe not Italy. http://www.republika.pl/derela/polish.htm PDF document of Polish division org in NW Europe with Wasp. www.fireandfury.com/britinfo/firstpolarm.pdf US Army Intelligence document on the Organization of the British Army saying Wasps held in the MG company. www.battlefront.co.nz/documents/intel-british.pdf The Carrier platoon site with the history of the Uni carriers development! http://www.universalcarrier.org/history4.html http://www.spearhead1944.com/toe1.htm Not in the Candian TOE but in the British Armoured and Infantry TOE with the heavy weapons company. http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/wargames/crossfire/carriers.html Another game site doing the carrier platoon. My conclusions so far are that CMAK is following a theoritical TOE, but which was never implemented. JonS is correct for NW Europe but Wasps do not apppear in all units and seem to appear singly in the Support Company. For Italy the only evidence I can find of Wasp use is in 2 RTR in April 1945, I think of my head the Croc appeared in March were the Wasps then farmed out to the ordinary support companies or retained and sent out to Battalions who requested them? Am Icompeletly wrong and the wasp was common as in NW Europe? Quote me humble! [ January 22, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

Have you got some web link,document or Tow I can look at? As Far as I know the first use of the Wasp in Italy was by 2 RTR, who were converted to a 79th Hobarts funnies type organization and were equipped with Churchill AVREs and Wasps. (They got the Croc later.)

Now I understand why the Vichy French didn't make it into the game, but how come Dr Sinister allowed the Free french in?

Ok, I do not appear to be numerate ! This is a good site discussing the British Army and discussing the differences between the Commonwealth countries. I used it for my post discussing the Australian Battalion, which I can’t find in fact the search index does not work at all. (He does other Armies as well – anybody want to do some research to criticise the Italian list?) http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/British/british_army.htm I don’t think the British Army should not have flamethrowers or Wasps or Churchill Crocs. However, I don’t think they should appear in the run of the mill Battalion structure. The Pioneer platoon does normally do combat tasks as you can see from their titles, if you want a flamethrower here I think you should buy it extra. Don’t think Wasps or Crocs should appear or as part of a standard tank structure, if you want to have specialist troops such as the 79th some of which were Royal Engineers as I have heard Mr Dorosh talk about them. I think the players should buy them extra or in their own “speacial” unit organizations. OK, you could get infantry in the Canadian Version of the Wasp, but I don’t think even Canadian infantry were insane enough to regularly ride about in them and have them in every battalion structure. I think Mr Dorosh quoted a production run of under 200 vehicles to be used presumably in NW Europe and Italy for all the Commonwealth. Ok the British Army produced hundreds if not thousands of the orginal versions of the Wasp. The British Army used the extra space in the Candian version to man the Bren AA gun – which is missing from the game Brens! This gave the vehicle firepower at ranges beyond the reach of the flame projector. I did discuss the Boys AT rifle in the Battalion structure here and give a number of different tows some actual some theoretical – saying very different things. (The PIAT would have basically replaced them - but I suspect they were being dumped and soldiers were relying on the Sticky bomb before the PIAT came out.) http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000838;p=3 I discuss why I agree with Mr Dorosh that the Boys AT rifle and PIAT teams would be considered “Tank Hunters” but there is still room for a tank hunter team with sticky bombs in the British list. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001161 Oh – found the Aussie Disscusion after all – http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000980 I do think there should be a Support Company in the lists with the Vickers HMG etc. (Makes MGs cheaper in big QB games and scenarios!) I will go through my various Tows tomorrow list them out and try to put together a CM list. Which you can then bang me over the head about – Ok. Just to upset flamingknives - I cann't find any battle accounts of 4 tanks in a troop for the Italian theatre. (Yes, they do appear in NW Europe.) (Does not mean to say there wasn't any but I have looked and cann't find any.) The last troop change for one unit was 2 Sherman 76mm with a Firefly in the last Battles of 1945 when they were up against a lot of Tigers and Panthers! [ January 21, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

It does and at the same time shows that there are not enough in the Battalion for each Company to have 3! Theoretically, the PIAT are held in the Support Platoons and as part of the Support Battalions, which have the Vickers HMG, these could be doled out to individual companies. I think they should be shown as being held by the Company HQ and have a max of 2, rather than be in each platoon. This gives a more realistic actual battle organization (at full strength). If the player wants 3 per company, he can always buy the extra one separately at the higher price! I noticed the Canadians discussing the Empire Battalion structure maybe they will sort it out for us but hopefully without all those snipers! (Don't see why we can't have a tank hunter unit with Sticky bombs and a sten and rifle. The Germans should really be a SMG and rifle as well!) I did put up a post on the (early) Australian Battalion structure to try and get a debate going but it didn’t. Got to rush off and get some saves for Red wolf !

which page is that on? Says nothing in the section on the PIAT does not show a PIAT in the 1944 Platoon structure for the Infantry Battalion structure it shows a theoretical 25 2 in mortars against 23 Piats and remmber the Carrier platoon needs equiping with them as well, which has them at ne per sec and no 2inch mortars pg 165 and 167 .

Er No - should not have a Flamethower per platoon - British Army didn't like using them - ungentlmanly don't you know - alright for the odd Royal Engineer to have a go with them on bunkers tc. As for the PIATS 1 per Platoon is probably too many as well!

Whilist I am in stream-of-consciousness mode - why doesn't battlefront simply make the Free French - The Vichy French - change the Flag, change the sides, dump the few allied weapons, change dates for the US invasion of North africa. They could then do the Free French with The British pointy helmet, Free French patch on the arm, mostly British weapons in this period - goes US later on, and a few French weapons. Just a thought redwolf Member # 3665 has still not contacted me with a valid email address to send those saves - if indeed he is an official member of Battlefronts bug resolution team? [ January 21, 2004, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

"Mark Gallear - not sure what to include or not include from yours, you got pretty stream-of-consciousness there for awhile." What does stream-of-consciousness mean exactly! Anyway those mentioned above are a good start - doubt they will all appear in the patch anyway. A lot of airsupport is simply wrong - had ago for the RAF - some of the planes listed did not exist in the Desert Airforce other ground attack aircraft are missing. The Italian Airforce needs sorting out all the diffrent planes appear at once - rather than the bi-planes at start of period slowly joined and then replaced by monoplanes. Big hint somebody with this specialist knowledge should post here about it .

Yes, we are taking about the Computer AI controlling a defending force who are doing unrealistic things. You can download it and play it yourself from mod corner. Not sure why nobody else has not noticed or post about it here!? </font>

Yes, we are taking about the Computer AI controlling a defending force who are doing unrealistic things. You can download it and play it yourself from mod corner. Not sure why nobody else has not noticed or post about it here!?

I am getting weird AI "bugs" guns move that were ordered to hide and were dug-in, infantry ordered to hide in houses running out for no reason,infantry running out of trenches for no good reason. This came to light when I created my Steamroller Farm and has been noted by my tester as well as myself. I noticed infantry running about in the open and doing strange things when I first played the official walk-in the sun scenario. These problems didn't seem to be as common under CMBB.

The drum was used on the Thompson in the early war period by the British as Mike Dorosh has pointed out as it was the only magazine available. For some reason it is not modelled in CMAK. It was disliked because it was unreliable and expensive - the desert conditions with all that dust cannot have helped. It was replaced with stick magazines - I suspect made in the UK. The cheap and nasty Sten was notoriously unreliable and developed during the war to give Britain its own SMG. (The Commandos kept their Tommy Guns but the Paras had to use the Sten.) I think the decision to make the Sten was on cost they could not afford to equip although Empire troops with the expensive Thompson or even make it. I would have thought reliability would be the most important factor to simulate the difference between the guns. The Sten was slowly improved as the war went on and appeared in a number of marks.

Don't know about being the "best" but the mods on Mod corner try to be useful.

Er no, the big failing of the British Army was not to get the combined arms thing together - only the Germans manage that its called Blitzkreig. Yes, the infantry was meant to be supported by "Infantry Tanks", heavily armoured and weirdly equipped with a 2pdr gun that didn't fire HE rather than a field gun to blast their way through the defence lines, and so was rather useless in this role. This was more to do with a tight budget than some weird doctrinal idea. Weirdly British Infantry doctrine for taking on tanks at the start of the war was comparable to a poacher bagging his catch. The infantry didn't want AT guns, as they would fix them to one location, they wanted to sneak up on a tank and bag it. They had only just got the Boys AT Rifle and for that matter the Bren and 2inch mortar so they were already boys with toys as it were. The Boys AT Rifle could keep up with an mobile infantry tank and take on (just about) any known tank in service. The Boys team in CMAK is pretty comparable to the tank hunter team of the Germans with their Panzer Woof or what ever it is . There is a big gap when the Boys was no longer effective and the PIAT had not been developed and they had to make do with the sticky bomb. A tank hunter team with sticky bombs would be perfectly correct in this period. (I would suggest one man with a sten and another with a rifle would be realistic!) However, the Infantry were then very grateful to get 2pdr hand me-downs from the Royal Artillery. At the end of the war (Feb 1945) in Italy they once again dumped their then 6pdrs as they were once again on the offence and the static 6pdr was a bit useless in this role(and the gunners could make up some of the casualties in the ranks.) Both the German and Russian tank hunters in CMBB are not a strict part of the Battalion formation, but a couple of men from the platoon, told to go off on patrol and ambush that tank down the road. Why they have SMGs and not rifles is for Battlefront to justify! [ January 16, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]