Mark Gallear
-
Posts
423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark Gallear
-
-
Thanks for the info on East Africa. I could not get Andreas's link to work though. Still not clear on any major actions in this area.
Didn't the fighting in North Africa start before December aganist the Italians? I have just read about an action between Bardia and Tobruck in July 1940.
Found no official reason on the forum for the lack of the Vichy French, just speculation by the players. My guess is not to annoy French customers?
-
I have been updating my time-line of British equipment introduction dates on page 3.
This is the start of a time-line of British and Empire Aircraft in the Med (North and East Africa). As aircraft do not have an exact 3d model I assume it would be relatively easy to add in Gladiators make Hurricanes rare etc?
The game just has Hurricanes in a strafing role for the first months of the war, this is not representational – very few hurricanes available.
Source Richard Townshend Bickers The Desert Air War 1939-45 and an OOB on the Desert Airforce on the net.
June 1940
Very few Hurricanes I in forward squadron and 4 in Egypt.
Gladiator Fighter 253 mph 4 .303 inch MGs
Blenheim Mk IV Bomber 285mph, carry a bomb load of 1,000lb usually in 250lb bombs.
Blenheim Mk 1s were converted into fighters with installation of 4 .303 MGs under the nose, in addition to the forward-firing gun in the port wing and ear-firing MG in the dorsal turret.
Bombay Bomber/Transport Aircraft
Lysander reconnaissance planes, on at least one occasion used to drop 8 20lb bombs.
July
3 more Hurricanes arrive!
August
Monthly deliveries increased to 18 Blenheims and 18 Hurricanes
No 3 Royal Australian Air Force Squadron arrives
Gladiators
Lysanders
Gauntlets 230mph, two gun fighters to be used as makeshift dive bombers first used in December but then retired and replaced with Gladiators.
No 33 Squadron converted from Gladiators to hurricanes and handed them over to the Australians.
October
Blenheims and Gladiators sent to Greece.
No 2 Free French Flight sent to Palestine to convert to Hurricanes.
Add Gladiator to all British lists up until January 1941.
January 1941
Hurricanes more common RAAF equipped with them. On 12 May some 50 Hurricanes arrive.
Game shows Hurricane II fighter-bombers which is wrong.
April 1941
British
No. 73, No 274, No 6 Squadron Hurricane I, No 14, 45 and 55 Blenheim IV
South Africa
No. 24 (SAAF) Squadron Det. (Maryland, Fuka)
June 1941
Order of Battle
6 Squadron Lysander and Hurricane
14 Blenheim IV
30 Blenheim I
39 Maryland
24 SAAF Maryland
73 Hurricane
274 Hurricane
250 Kittyhawk
2 SAAF Tomahawk
1 SAAF Hurricanes
3 RAAF Tomahawks
For June 1941
Game shows correctly Kittyhawk but wrongly the Airocobra in British use. Should be no Hurricane IIs at this time.
South African Air Force does not show Tomahawk and Hurricane I correctly, but wrongly Airocobra and Kittyhawk.
Australian and French Airocobra and Kittyhawks are wrong. Australian had Tomahawks and presumably, the Free French still had Hurricane Is?
(I was taught English by the widow of the Airocobra testpilot!)
Oct 1941
British
Hurricane I, IIA/IIB Tomahawk, Beaufort I, Fuka, Blenheim IV
Game incorrectly shows Hurricane C and Airocorbra and Kittyhawk. Tomahawk is missing.
Australian
- No 451 (RAAF) Squadron (Sidi Barrani, Hurricane I, Tac.R.)
- No. 3 (RAAF) Squadron (Sidi Haneish, Tomahawk, S.E.-F.)
Game incorrectly shows Hurricane IIC, Airocobra and Kittyhawk. Tomahawk is missing.
South African
No. 2 (SAAF) Squadron (Sidi Haneish, Tomahawk, S.E.-F.)
- No. 1 (SAAF) Squadron (Maaten Baggush, Hurricane I/IIA/IIB, S.E.-F.)
- No. 4 (SAAF) Squadron (Sidi Haneish, Tomahawk, S.E.-F.)
No. 3 (SAAF) Wing (HQ at Maaten Baggush)
- No. 11 Squadron (Maaten Baggush, Blenheim IV, L.B.)
- No. 12 (SAAF) Squadron (El Daba, Maryland, L.B.)
- No. 21 (SAAF) Squadron (Qotafiya, Maryland, L.B.)
- - No. 24 (SAAF) Squadron - employed on reconnaissance until December 1941 (Fuka, Boston III, L.B.)
- No. 60 (SAAF) Flt. (Fuka, Maryland, Sur. R.)
Game incorrectly shows Hurricane IIC rather than IIA or IIB, also wrong shows Airocobra and Kittyhawk and misses Tomahawk.
No Polish Squadrons at this time. Free French are not listed in the squadron lists with armed planes?
November 1941
First Beaufighters arrive carry Six MGs, 4 20mm cannon and eight 60lb Rockets.
Squadron added a 7th MG for the navigator.
Could carry 2 – 250lb bombs
Add Beaufighter to British list.
Western Desert Air Force (WDAF), 26th May 1942
Britain
Hurricane I, Hurricane IIA/B, Hurricane IIC, Tomahawk, Baltimore I, Kittyhawk I, Wellington IC, Beaufighter IC, Albacore
Game incorrectly shows Spitfire when not yet in service, misses Tomahawk and Beaufighter but includes fictitious Airocobra.
Australian
Kittyhawk I
South Africa
Blenheim IVF, Hurricane I / Tomahawk, Boston III, Kittyhawk I
Game incorrectly has Hurricane IIC and misses the Tomahawk.
French?
- No. 821 (FAA) Squadron (Maaten Baggush, Albacore, T.B.)
- No. 826 (FAA) Squadron (Maaten Baggush, Albacore, T.B.)
French has Airocobra and Kittyhawk but no such Squadrons existed.
Western Desert Air Force (WDAF), 22nd June 1942
- Eleven Hurricane squadrons.
- Six Kittyhawk squadrons.
- One Spitfire squadron.
- Two Tomahawk squadrons.
- Two Beaufighter squadrons.
- One Hurricane squadron (T.R.).
- One Tomahawk squadron (T.R.)
- Two Boston squadrons.
§ One Blenheim squadron.
Britain
In the game Spitfires should join list at this date – Tomahawk still missing
Can find no separate New Zealand airforce or Free French?
No South African Spitfires at this time.
Western Desert Air Force (WDAF), 1st September 1942
Britain
Hurricane IIA, Tomahawk, Hurricane IIC, Hurricane IIB, Baltimore I, Kittyhawk I/II, Spitfire VB/C, Wellington IC/II, Beaufighter IC/VIF,
Game misses Hurricane IIA, Tomahawk and Beaufighter IC/VIF
Australia
Kittyhawk I
Game has no Australian list but New Zealanders with other aircraft apart from Kittyhawk?
South Africa
Hurricane II/IIB/IID, Kittyhawk I / II / III, Tomahawk, Boston III
No South African list
USA –USAAF
P-40 Kittyhawks II, B-25 Mitchell
No US list.
Game has French Planes?
Western Desert Air Force (WDAF), 27th October 1942
Britain
Hurricane I/IIA/B, Hurricane IIC, Hurricane IIE, Spitfire VB/C, Kittyhawk I/II/III, Baltimore I/II/III, Beaufighter IC/VIF, Wellington IC/II
Game misses Hurricane IIA/IIE, Tomahawk and Beaufighter IC/VIF and has fictitious Airocobra.
Australia
- No. 3 (RAAF ) Squadron (Kittyhawk II / III, S.E.-F. / F.B.)
Game has other aircraft apart from Kittyhawk.
South Africa
Boston III, Baltimore III/IIIA, Kittyhawk I, Spitfire VB/C , Hurricane IIA / B, Baltimore II / IIA, Mosquito II, Maryland
No South African list.
USA
P-40 Kittyhawk II / III, B-25 Mitchell III
Game has Free French and New Zealand Airforce but no US, Canadian or Polish list.
Canada
- No. 417 (RCAF) Squadron (Spitfire VB/C, S.E.-F.)
Poland
No. 145 Squadron - including Polish Flight - (Spitfire VB/C/IX, S.E.-F.)
On 21st July 1943 Western Desert Air Force was renamed Desert Air Force.
Desert Air Force, 3rd September 1943
Britain
Hurricane IIC / Spitfire VC/VIII/IX, Kittyhawk II, IV, Boston III/IIA, P-51 Mustang III
Beaufighter VIF on loan to USAAF
Game shows Hurricane IID and IV but no Squadrons of these, No Squadrons of Spitfire VB.
South Africa
P-38-5-A, Mosquito VI / IX, Spitfire VC / VIII/ IX, B-26 Marauder II, Baltimore IIIA/IV
Game shows Hurricane II and Kittyhawk when no Squadrons of these planes. Missingg Mosquito VI/IX. However Australia still had Kittyhawk?
Australia
No. 3 (RAAF) Squadron (Kittyhawk III, S.E.-F. / F.B.)
- No. 450 (RAAF) Squadron (Kittyhawk IV, S.E.-F. / F.B.)
Game misses Hurricane IIA, Tomahawk and Beaufighter IC/VIF
USA
P-40 Kittyhawk II/III, P-47 Thunderbolt
US list does not show Thunderbolt but wrongly the Lightning, Mustang and Airocobra.
Poland
- No. 318 (Polish) Squadron (authorized establishment: 16 Spitfire VB/C, S.E.-F. / F.B.)
Germany
January 1941
First planes of the Luftwaffe - Me110s arrive.
Joined by Ju87s, Ju88s and He111s
April 1941
First Me-109E arrive
July 1941 Germans finally show up late in the game!
Have Me-109
Me-110
Ju-87B
May 1942 first mention of ME109F and Italian Macchi 202
Italian lists are wrong and show every plane available during the time frame at once. Bi-plane available initially and slowly replaced with newer monoplanes. Need an Italian Plane Grog to sort it.
[ January 12, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
I think I know what is meant by North Africa and the battles that took place there, but I am not sure what is meant by East Africa and the battles that occured there :confused: .
I checked the manual it didn't help.
Another question is why were the Vichy French missed out? This removes the possibility of doing the first battle the US was involved in.
The Free French see to have brought a lot of stuff with them from Dunkirk and then shipped it to North Africa - did this really happen?
-
Just been reading the Maori Battalion - I know I cann't have ethnic Kiwis but can they at least have the Thompson SMG. Got a picture of them so equipped at Casino.
I have been editing and updating my list on British and Empire equipment introduction on page 3 as I find things out. You may want to take a look.
[ January 07, 2004, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
QUOTE]Origin ally posted by JasonC:
I've seen many briefings lately that are all history lesson about events much larger than the actual tactical fight, with precious little else. I hate these. A little background is fine even fun, though often I already know that much. A thesis about what happened and why is not a briefing.
-
The time sepration is not modelled all that well,in some respects. Battlefront designed it to be a few minutes or hours sepration in the gaps between battles. So you could have a battle in the morning/ afternoon/ evening/ then night. The system factors in the difrent light conditions as time changes. This is done by when you set night turns which don't have to be played.
However weather can also change dramatically, the game could give cloudy and heavy rain by afternoon it could be sunny and dry. The players usually can move men about where they like in the pauses, which is not always realistic.
I have used the system to represent a day of combat per game. It is up to you how long you make each battle - you should generally make them shorter than a scenario 20-25 works well. So it is fairly flexible to do what ever you want.
-
I think the point about the low light is a good one.Originally posted by rexford:The German 50mm Pak 38 is said to have significantly lengthened the range at which could take place due in part to the optics. Here's a few thoughts on the role of the optics behind that statement.
1. 50mm Pak 38 had 3.0x magnification with excellent light gathering qualities, 2 pdr guns had 1.9x magnification.
So,
A.
If you're aiming at a target at a range where the observed target size is small, higher magnification means it is easier to put the 50mm Pak 38 cross-hairs on the center of mass, which increases the accuracy.
A 2m x 2m target at 1200m range appears to be 0.066 inches high (1.68mm) on each side to the naked eye (measurements taken one foot from the eyeball, or 30.5cm.
With 3.0x magnifying power the observed image is 0.20 inches (5.0mm), with 1.9x is it 0.12 inches (3.2mm).
2. 2 pdr guns had range markings up to 1800 or so yard, 50mm Pak 38 was not as limited.
I think the 2pdr is ranged out to 1800m because that’s the maximum distance anybody believed the round would go with any power left to penetrate anything! Hitting something at this range would take a whole stack of ammo and luck. As has been said before the "belief" amongst British crews was that you had to get within 600m before the gun was effective against the German Armour of this period. This distance is not short for WW2.
I think the point about the crosses hairs is a bit misleading for long range fire as the round at these ranges will not travel directly to the target, but follow a curve - meaning that you will have to point the gun below or above it. (Even more so with more exotic rounds such as APDS.) The Germans tankers have a device to help them decide how much below or above to put the cross hairs but it’s not a "battle computer".
The good optics will only give them a rough guide to how far away the target it is from how big it is in their sights. The better optics may allow them to see the puff of dust from the round and then adjust it, where as tankers with simpler gun sights would be unable to do this.
At shorter ranges, the better optics may allow them to target an exact point of tank - allowing them to blow the tracks of tanks that they could not otherwise pentrate. There is some evidence that KVs and Grants when they where first introduced were dealt with in this way. The better optics may enable them to identify the opposing tanks types much earlier.
Periscopes and gun sights sophistication for all nations increases dramatically as the war goes on. I think the CM should model these effects but at normal battle, ranges and light conditions the effects of them are "only a small part of the equation".
Featherstone says, “In 1939 Sighting and Fire Control gear consisted of little more than a telescope of which the graticules could be moved to put on the range. As the war progressed it increased enormously in complication. The first demand brought on by extremely long ranges used in the Desert, was for greater magnification and as a high magnification was not suitable for all purposes, this led to dual magnification. Then to secure better protection and wide angle vision the sighting was combined with the gunner’s observation into a periscope combination and a remarkable all-round improvement was obtained. A good gunner looked after his periscope lens as he might his eyes – each morning tenderly wiping the dew off the periscope in the armoured sponson bulging in front of the turret.”
I think a missed opportunity is that CMAK treats each tank variant separately – compared to other paper and computer wargames, which bundles them together. But then fails to model the minor differences. I admit these are often minor differences such as better periscopes and sights, which are hard to detect and quantify. Hunnicutt does go some way however to list the different marks of periscope in the Sherman. Differences between petrol and diesel engines are also not modelled but again period tests showed that ammo storage was a more critical difference.
For JohnS – I came across the 25pdrs stopping a German armoured attack whilst doing the research for my Polar Bears CMBO op, it is described in Polar Bears by Patrick Delaforce. From memory, a British armoured attack was stopped dead and the Germans then launched their own armoured thrust. 25pdrs supporting Infantry were rapidly brought up and stopped Panthers at very short ranges.
-
Optics is not the same as a computerized battlefield computer, linked to a laser range finder. Ranging it is a primitive process using a calibrated gun sight, for the type of ammunition your tank fires. They are far from brilliant you can expect your first shot to be out by possibly hundreds of metres. The tank gunner adjusts the shot in from seeing puffs of dust from where the round falls. If he cannot see this then it makes long-range fire impossible. The optics helps here but the tank commander could do this task by sticking his head out with a pair of binoculars. You can expect to use up a lot of ammo before you even start to hit the target. Good optics will also help the tank find targets when he is buttoned down.
The big fear of British tankers of long range engagements was not because the Germans had super sights but better penetration compared to the 2pdr.
The 88mm was deeply feared but I am not sure in reality how often they were used to kill British tanks or how effective they were at long ranges of 3000 metres, which are often quoted. The Germans eventually fitted the 88mm with an optical sight to engage ground targets. The equivalent British AA gun had its sites to engage air targets in a separate unit. Although they were used at least once against German armour with "home made" sights. The British powers at be believed they should be used in the AA role anyway.
The 25pdr was regularly used to engage German tanks in the early period, because of the lack of a decent AT gun and in the Infantry organization. The gunners did not relish this task. I came across an account of 25pdrs been used to stop a German tank attack in Normandy!
A regular German tactic was to withdraw the German armour after an engagement with British armour that had not gone their way through a curtain of hidden German AT guns. I think it is the British Cavalry charge tactics blundering into this, which resulted in the vast majority of British tank losses and helped bring about the fear of long fire.
-
Ligur is right at 2nd El Alamein the Australian battalion only has 1 Sten in it! sections are all rifle with a Bren.
My earlier post might help :-
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000980
[ January 03, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
The Diggers should be equipped with the Thompson rather than the Sten and at the section level, but for some reason this has not happened.
-
Valentine tanks first action with the 8th Royal Tank Regiment of the 1st Army Tank Brigade at Capuzzo on Nov 22, 1941.
Yes, Valentine II would be historical. I think the IV with the diesal engine comes later but not sure exactly when. My guess is when US Tanks with diesal engines become common. (The British had problems keeping captured Italian tanks with diesal engines running!)
My post on the patches page might help.
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000838;p=3
I suggest you do an internet search or find a library book with a battle account for this period - it will help a lot and will give you lots of other ideas.
-
Not sure I understand Soddballs point - surely if the tank's 3D model is in the game, even if on the other side should not be to difficult to make it appear in the other sides list, just a few skins with crosses or Kangaroos on? :confused:
There are also a lot of vehicles in the British list that appear a long, long time after they had been dropped and others such as the Lee and certain Churchill types that should not appear at all :eek: .
My plea for Italian tanks for the Aussies and a better and historically accurate British and Commonwealth (Empire) Infantry Battalion structure.
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000980
-
Barrie Pitt The Crucible of War - in a series of three!
I am also going through Churchill's Desert Rats 2 7th Armoured Division in North Africa, Burma, Sicily and Italy - Ok limited to one Regiment but sometimes such works give you that extra detail!
(I promise not to post anymore for at least three days!
) -
Thats a good point - you cann't tell can you - as these versions had the turret removed and the gun with shield placed on top. I will have to test a Marmon!
-
wow, the Boys AT rifle on that Marmon-Herrington really puts out quite a blast you would think it was a 20mmm cannon or a death ray or something
! -
I also would like to see more captured stuff in the Desert War much more common practise than on the Russian Front.
At Beda Fomm February, 1941 some 112 medium tanks almost all M13/40s were captured. The best were fitted with British wireless sets and used by the 6th royal Tank regiment. They were used in the first offensive by the DAK, but masny were destoyed for lack of diesel fuel at Musus, April 5 1941 and the rest were abandoned one b one as the fuel ran out.
-
Australian organization
The representation of Australian armour is not that bad but I would like to see the M13/40 represented, it just needs a White Kangaroo adding!
From 73 Italian light and medium tanks captured at Sidi Barrani (December 12 1940) the 6th Australian Cavalary managed to put 16 medium tanks in working order. They equipped three squadrons; one of six tanks (1x M13/40 and 5 x M11/39) and two with two tanks supported by Bren carriers. The squadrons were named Ringo, Rabbit and Wobat respectively and the Italian vehicles had a large white Kangaroo painted on the sides, drivers plate, and turret sides and back for recogniation during the attack on Tobruk.
(Problems with diesel fuel and ammo probably meant they lasted in service a couple of months at most.)
I would like to see these tanks added to the list.
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Military%20Models/m1340mt_1.htm
French Renault R-35 tanks (these are believed to be from the French 6e or 7e RCA. Who were known to have used R35 tanks in Syria) captured and used by the 6th Australian Division in Palestine. 6 of these R-35 tanks were used by the 6th Australian Division Cavalry Regiment, and operated in 2 squadrons of 3 R-35 tanks and a squadron of carriers. One of these tanks was put out of action and the remaining 5 were handed over to the 7th Australian Division when it arrived in Palestine in mid-August. They were then used for garrison duties. The campaign against the vichy French in Syria is not represented?
The 9th Australian Divisional Cavalry Regiment was equipped with Crusader MK II Cruiser Tanks and General Stuart Light Tanks during their fighting along the El Alamein position 8 July to 5 November 1942. This appears to be modelled correctly.
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/australianarmourinthemiddleeastph_1.htm
Infantry Organization
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/structure/army_detailed_structure.htm#Infantry
Usual very serious problems as per the British list.
Submachinegun was the Thompson not the Sten.
1941 Battalion
33 Offr, 759 ORBn HQ Regimental Aid Post
HQ Coy
Signals Pl
Anti-Aircraft Pl
Mortar Pl
Pioneer Pl
Admin Pl
Carrier P
l4 x rifle coy
Rifle Company:Coy HQ (2 Offr, 10 OR)3 x rifle pl
Rifle Platoon:Pl HQ (1 Offr, 5 OR, 1x AT Rifle, 1x 2" mortar)3 x rifle sect
Rifle Section:10 OR1 x Bren LMG1 x Thompson SMG
These notes are from the description of a British Battalion applied to the Australian.
Headquarters Company (8 Officers, 247 men) comprised of;
Company HQ (1 Officer, 7 men)
Signals Platoon (1 Officer, 35 men) - maintained radio, wire and telephone communication between the Battalion and higher and parallel formations.
Anti Aircraft Platoon (to 1942) (20 men) - refers to four mountings each holding a pair of Bren guns. The platoon also deployed four anti-tank rifles. By 1941 they were mounted on 2 seater cars, possibly 8cwt trucks, substituted for Jeeps in North Africa, with a couple of 15cwt trucks carrying supplies.
(20mm Posten AA guns were theoretically supposed to have been issued in 1944 to British Battalions but this never happened. The 20mm were limited to Light AA regiments. I am not even sure if any served in the Med!)
Mortar Platoon - the Mortar Platoon was perhaps the single most powerful element of the Battalion. It was equipped throughout with the 3 inch mortar, a sturdy if unremarkable weapon whose early range of 1600 yards was eventually increased to a respectable 2750 yards.
The platoon served six such 'tubes', each transported by a modified Universal Carrier; the crew had to dismount and assemble the weapon before they could begin operation. The six detachments were paired into three Sections, each provided with an ammunition truck to augment the carrier load. The truck also carried an infantry anti-tank weapon (Boys or PIAT) for defensive purposes. A seventh carrier and a motorcycle element provided platoon HQ.
Another point is that the Austalian Battalions suffred from a lack of mortars as did the British prior to November 1941, so that most Battalions were missing this asset in this early period.
Pioneer Platoon – (1 Officer, 21 men)
The Pioneer Platoon deployed two Assault Sections and one Pioneer Section under an Officer and Pioneer Sergeant . Each five strong Assault Section had its own jeep and trailer by 1943, while a 3 ton lorry carried the bulk of the Platoon stores. The Platoon commander had a motorcycle, also upgraded to a Jeep by 1943. The Assault Sections provided specialist men and equipment for the disposal of mines and breaching obstacles. The British Army was not really keen on flamethrowers, but if issued the Pioneers would no doubt have deployed them.
The Pioneer Section was comprised of Tradesmen, a mason, bricklayer and carpenters under the Pioneer Sergeant, necessary to turn burnt out buildings into bearable accommodation for the riflemen.
Administrative Platoon (2 Officers, 57 men) - provided the bulk of the Battalion motor pool, plus the various cooks, fitters and tradesmen required to keep the unit functioning.
Carrier Platoon (2 Officers, 62 men) - the Carrier Platoon offered a unique blend of mobility and firepower to the Battalion. It was based upon the early Bren Carrier, more correctly referred to as the Universal Carrier. The vehicle was an attempt to provide a fully tracked, lightly armoured vehicle which could transport a Bren gun across exposed ground and return fire.
The Platoon contained four Sections, each of three carriers, plus one at Platoon HQ for a total of thirteen. Each Carrier was crewed initially by three men, increased to four men by 1943, an NCO commanding a driver and one then two riflemen. Each Section was accompanied by a motorcycle orderly from 1943. Previously, there was a motorcycle 'section' of twenty men on eight solo and four combination machines, but it seems this was only intended for use in home based units.
Each Carrier mounted a Bren gun, which could be removed and fired from cover. Also each Section had initially a Boys Anti-tank Rifle, and later a Projector, Infantry, Anti-tank, plus a 2 inch mortar which could be fired in or out of the carrier. This collection gave the platoon a higher number of light support weapons than a Rifle Company, but its manpower was insufficient for it to hold ground indefinitely, and the profusion of German anti-tank weapons made for a hostile environment. Platoon HQ added one, later two trucks and further motorcycles to the Commander's Carrier.
Anti-tank Platoon
Like the British Battalions, the Australians at the start of the War had no integral anti-tank platoons.
Units were officially ordered to form them at the end of 1940 when the Brigade Anti-Tank companies were disbanded and absorbed into Divisional Anti-Tank Regiments. However it was not until 1941 British & Australian units started to form integral Anti-Tank units with 1-2pdr Portéé Stand.
From August 1942 (after the 1st Battle of El Alamein) some Commonwealth Battalions adopted unofficial TO&Es of two 2pdr Portéé Stands per battalion (8-10 actual weapons) - This was done in North Africa by Some Australian and South African Battalions (about 1 in 2), and by all New Zealand Battalions.
I have seen an Australian Battalion tow for March 1942 in the Middle East with two, “unofficial” MMG Platoons each of 4 Vickers and Platoon HQ and two Anti-tank platoons each with 4 2 pdrs. And 4 Brens, Plattoon HQ carried Portee by 4 truck and a lorry. The MMGs were officially kept in their own Support Battalion but as the war went on were farmed out to the Infantry Battalions
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/tobruk.htm
Describe the Australian battalion at Tobruk December 1941.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/tobruk.htm
http://www.histofig.com/history/20/ww2/tobruk_01_en.html
As its New Years Day can we have a decent and historic British and Commonwealth (Empire) Infantry Battalion structure pretty please
![ January 01, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
Some of the British Grants together with the Lees supplied to Britain, which are in the game but shouldn't were shipped off to the Far East. They saw action in Burma in 1944. Its large crew and high profile was not seen as a big problem as theyt were almost totally immune to anything the Japanese could do to them.
-
So spmebody actually has looked at that page then!I am in need of some new contributors for the "On Tactics" page so if anybody has got any ideas I inerested. I through to the quarter finals in the rugged defence bash so I may feel up to some words of wisdom myself
.[ December 31, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
Happy New Year!
I suspect Battlefront are going to have a happy New Year, Mod Corner had 831 visitors in December 2003, my highest ever
. Somebody must have bought CMAK!55% came from the forum, probably looking for Nazi Flags, grog Scenario icomns and other things to correct the CDV version - so if you have not got your copy fixed yet - something to do before it chimes in the New ear and your to drunk to care
! -
I think early Shermans - all Marks with 76mm Turret front armour should have a slope of 30 degrees.
I also think that Sherman IIIs with diesel engines should be slightly less likely to burst into flame than the petrol versions.
Early Shermans should have .30 cal AA MGs on the turret - later British and Commonwealth Shermans should have no .50 AA MGs but of course US Army/French tanks should.
My link on this subject on the forum is here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000966
[ December 31, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
I was perplexed by the number of different Shermans in the game so I got out my copy of “Sherman A History of the American Medium Tank” By R.P. Hunnicutt and did some checking. I was surprised to find that the game accounts for all the Sherman types. However, I have some questions about a few points :confused: .
The game lists the M4 Sherman early (Sherman I) as been :-
24mph
33 tons
400 horsepower
Turret
Front 76/0 Degrees (should it not be at 30 degrees?)
Side 51/5
Rear 51/0
Upper Hull
Front 51/56
Side 38/0
Rear 38/10
Lower Hull
Front 51/15
Side 38/0
Rear 38/10
Top
19 Deck 25 Turret
Gun
75mm 38
12.7mm flexible, Hull, Coaxial
Armour quality 85%
M4 Sherman
24mph
33 tons
400 horsepower
Turret
Front 89/0 Degrees
Side 51/5
Rear 51/0
Upper Hull
Front 51/56
Side 38/0
Rear 38/10
Lower Hull
Front 51/15
Side 38/0
Rear 38/10
Top
19 Deck 25 Turret
Gun
75mm 38
12.7mm flexible, Hull, Coaxial
Armour quality 90%
M4 Sherman mid-production according to Hunnicutt
(1 inch = 2.54 cm)
Max speed 24mph
66,900 pounds
400 Gross horsepower
Turret
Front Gun shield 3.5 inches (88.9mm) Front 3 inches (76.2mm) 30 degrees
Side 2 inch (50.8mm) 5 degrees
Rear 1 inch (25.4mm) 0 degrees
Upper Hull
Front 2 inches (50.8mm) 56 degrees
Side 1.5 (38.1mm) 0 degrees
Rear 1.5 (38.1mm) 0-10 degrees
Lower Hull
Front 2 inches (50.8mm) 0 –56 degress
Side 1.5 (38.1mm) 0 degrees
Rear 1.5 (38.1mm) 0-10 degrees
Top
0.75 inch (19.05mm) 83-90 degrees Deck 1inch (25.4) 90 degrees Turret
I assume the second model represents the gun shield been extended across the turret to protect the MG. However, the angle on the turret front has been ignored and is 76mm at 30 degrees. This is the same situation on the M4A1 (Sherman II), M4 A2 (Sherman III) and M4 A3 (Sherman IV).
The M4 A2 (Sherman III) has a diesel engine but is listed the same as the petrol engined Sherman’s, "as burns easily"?
The game list the M4 A2 (late) (Sherman III) lower hull as being Front 102mm at 15 degrees but Hunnicutt has it at 107.95mm- 50.8mm at 0-56 degrees. Is this the same thing?
Said it before but the first British Sherman’s came with a .30 Calibre AA turret mounted machinegun, which was used on some tanks. After a few months, the British army went back to its normal practise of not fitting an AA machinegun to its tanks. The Commonwealth marks of Sherman's should have a .30 Calibre for the early Sherman II and III (to represent Alamein) and the rest should be removed. I assume the first US Tanks had the .30 calibre MG and later tanks the .50 calibre. This is what Hunnicutt basically says happened with the .30 cal browning proving to be not powerful enough in this role.
-
Is that ATR in period?
Sarge, its true you really do have a pointy head!
-
Its the pointed heads that everbody in the Commonwealth seems to have that makes me smile
.
)
!
What is meant by the Region East Africa?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Andreas
Yes, Syria and also the first US landings in North Africa brought them into conflict with the Vichy French. I would have thought they would have been modelled just for that. The Germans added the French tanks to their kit list anyway.
I quite like the idea of Free French and Vichy French going up against each other, sounds like a must do grand humdinger to me!
I would have thought these conflicts are more important than East Africa? Because I still cannot place a single major battle there. (But then I am stupid and am sure I am about to be proved wrong!) From your link I gather most of the troops here were either south African or "ethinic" Regiments. I can only think of Humprey Bogart saling his small ship down that river to blow up a large German gunboat or is that WW1?
I am thinking of placing the fact that North Africa does not go back to July 1940 on the errors and bugs thread! Ok the battles were small because the two sides are small but then CM does small skirmishes best. You could have the whole of the 11th Hussars in action!
Ok, it wasn't for commercial reasons that French "players" might be upset about being reminded about certain parts of WW2, what was the reason for the Vichy French being left out of the game then?
[ January 08, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]