Aunty Jack

Yell me, is it possible to simulate a lower-intensity style conflict with TacOPS, such as say, East Timor? I have this feeling that its generally geared towards the American idea that the enemy will basically always speak Russian and use massed armour tactics, am I correct?

The Maus was not a member of the "E" series of standardised tanks. E-100 would have been its equivalent in that series. Maus, like E-100 would have been of extremely marginal value on a battlefield. That would be required to eliminate it would be the use of a minefield - once its tracks were broken, it required the "most sophisticate hydraulic jacks" in order to lift it. During trials, one of the two prototypes broke a track. It took several days to fix and that was under ideal conditions and involved digging a six foot trench and laying a foundation of heavy beams for those hydraulic jacks to lift the vehicle and allow the track to be repaired. In combat, that would have been impossible. As there were no recovery vehicles which could even budge the beast, it would have had to be abandoned. No, I don't want Maus in CMBB. I just want a good, broad range of standard vehicles, rather than every odd-ball experimental piece of equipment that graced the fevid imagination of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche and his mentor Herr.Hitler.

As the value of Rifle Grenades are pretty small, anyway, why would the British utilise a marginal weapon when they can have the PIAT which is much better? By the way, shouldn't the title be, "British Infantry do not have AT rifle grenades"?

My question has always been, why did the US Army design their jerricans to require so much more manufacturing than either the German original or the British copy of it? All nations entered the war with certain common ideas on armour design which as the war progressed experience proved them both wrong and inefficient (to manufacture). Of all the tanks used during the war, only the Churchill retained its side escape hatches, purely because they were so useful, although its interesting that the shape of them changed, from square, to round, once it was found that the corners of the opennings for the square hatches were found to crack when struck by enemy shells.

Can't you just go to www.monkeyboobs.de ????</font>

Hornisse/Nashorns were not the only vehicles capable of such long range shots as this passage relates: p.141, Spielberger, W.J., 'Panzerjager Tiger(P) Elefant', in Crow, D., Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Vol.5, German AFVs of World War II, Profile Publications, Windsor, 1973.

Thanks. From my viewpoint, Europe is pretty far north.

I take it therefore Slapdragon that you admit your error in making assumptions about what others have written? I also must assume from your answer that you do not know what a CES is.

What is muskeg? Further, is NW Europe counted as "the soft, spongy ground of the north"?

That is extremely presumptuous of you Slapdragon, considering that it has been me, not you, pointing out that it is very obvious that you not I who has not read his message properly. I have pointed out, what, twice now that you failed to read his message properly. Again, I stand by my comment, you have not read or comprehended what he said. The man's job on the beach was doing the above tasks, of which the Bren may or may not have been of use (not stated). It was used in the AA role on a tripod. </font>

I suggest you go back and reread Donald's message if you believe that, Slapdragon. It is not supported by his comments. He makes it very clear, in the first sentence of his message, exactly how his father was utilising that Bren mounted on a tripod and it was not to "clear beach obstacles". Further, I would ask, do you know which Arm of the British Army is responsible for obstacle clearance and why I find it somewhat amusing that you appear to be trying to utilise this quote to support your evidence of the use or rather non-use of Brens mounted on tripods in an infantry role, particularly when you cannot it seems, even comprehend what it says?

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?</font>

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?