sand digger

Basically CMAK is over modelled, the right modifiers are there but they are over emphasised or exaggerated. For example I was reading a first person account of an infantry battle in Vietnam. They were on their bellies all the time, that is how they fought, crawling around the place for hours. If you did that in CMAK for a few minutes you'd be exhausted and imobile. LOL to that in Vietnam. I suppose there are technical faults or defects but the over modelling aspect is most noticeable to me.

Hmmm, is the ADF getting the version where the Aussies run away under fire? "There's too many of them", geez I've heard that a few times. And perhaps now those bloody Boys AT rifles will be consigned back to the QM where they belong, together with the Stens, although they'd have to go back to the Brits.

OK, will try Advance rather than Assault. My previous 'real world' comments were made on the basis of information provided in several WW2 official histories. Attacking infantry was invariably fired upon before being able to close with the enemy. Light fire from a single source, which is what I was talking about, was usually what they got on a good day. Bren gunners often fired effectively on the run, in fact the Bren was often basically used as an assault weapon, fire support being provided by other means eg Vickers MG's. And having used a Bren gun myself, although fortunately not in combat, I can categorically say that it was quite suited for the assault role, a very nice and effective weapon. What was written in drill books often bore little relationship to what was practiced in the real world, as the records show. I'm surprised if that is not realised. Back to the game, unless Advance works more realistically then it is skewed against my Commonwealth boys, also forced to lug their Boys AT rifles around when no such real world requirement existed.

Not so sure about that. The scope and area of operations was Eisenhower's province.

The 'Assault' move order invariably results in the troops going to ground immediately they are fired upon. Then, often, the 'Sneak' move order is automatically adopted. So all the Germans have to do to stop an infantry assault cold is to fire once at the assaulting infantry. Not only is it stopped but the participants are often left exposed to further fire because they didn't reach the cover of the objective. This is happening in two games where I am playing Commonwealth against human German and it is ridiculous. If this had happened in the real world 99% of infantry attacks would have failed. The other point about 'Assault' is that it is not available to a separate Bren gunner yet it is available to a section which has a Bren gunner. In the real world the Bren gunner was quite capable of participating in an assault and keeping up with the riflemen. It was also not unusual for the Bren gunner to play an important part in an assault, the extra firepower making an obvious contribution. Nothing much can be done by a player about that but what about the first point? Any suggestions as to how to improve infantry Assault performance?

Is part of the being bad identifying something as the 'Scenario Depot', and leaving it at that? Let me guess.......... It's a beauty salon??

It was in CMBO against the AI no less. I was British defending against German attacking. There were several German AFV's around including a Panzer IV, my infantry were dug in on a reverse slope with a Churchill tank in support. It was all about timing. The Churchill had to come up over the crest of the slope, put a round into the side of the IV before it could turn towards me and then reverse back over the crest before the othe AFV's could react effectively. Using PAUSE and a few other control devices it worked out perfectly. I must have replayed the action from every angle, it was so satisfying to get it just right, and to watch the IV blow up.

The ANZAC's were at the forefront of innovation and development, no doubt about it. Perhaps because they were not so bound by tradition, were more result oriented and information and experience flowed both up and down freely. You won't find any acknowledgment of this by any of the other Allies though. For example, there is an excellent recent British book, Alamein, Stephen Bungay, Aurum, London, 2002, which goes into the Dominion contribution in NA more than most. But no mention of the Kiwi artillery or any other specific matter, just general approval stuff. And the Yanks, well the Germans were the font of all military knowledge and that was it.

'Standard concentration' = 'stonk' The continuing dominance of Axis AT guns over 8th Army's tanks, it continued at El Alamein 2, has been said to have resulted from a failure to specifically use concentrated artilley fire against them as the situation required it. I'm guessing to some degree but that appears to be part of the failure of British armour to cooperate with the other arms.

Love the vocabalary range, duhhh.

There are several pics of both versions of the carrier mounted two pounder gun at the AWM site. Trying to do a link.............. http://cas.awm.gov.au/pls/PictionPRD1/cst.acct_master?surl=204073556ZZZTHFFVSDQYK62572&stype=2&simplesearch=&v_umo=&v_product_id=&screen_name=&screen_parms=&screen_type=RIGHT&bvers =4&bplatform=Microsoft%20Internet%20Explorer&bos=Win32 Naah. Well just search WW2, all words, two pounder carrier, for a start. [ April 14, 2004, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: sand digger ]

There was a bit more to it than driving up and dismounting, as a reading of the entire action clearly shows. Firstly, it was a well tried tactic against significant defensive positions. This particular attack had been scheduled prior to obtaining the enemy's map of the position. As a result of obtaining the map, the forming up place and bearing of attack were changed to reduce the area of mines that would have to be cleared. The full account then goes on to describe in detail the entire action which included bitter hand to hand fighting and significant casualties on both sides, followed eventually by the usual in such situations Axis surrender. To make out that it was something much less than a hard fought confrontation is IMHO an insult to those involved on both sides.

Six sucks, sucks six.......... Yeh it is a jumpy game, those friggen birds twittering away are always the prelude to something bad. And no doubt the Allied tank gun loaders slow down deliberately, just to boost your blood pressure. :eek:

Jon, say after me - six, fish and chips, six, fish and ........

If there is ever going to be a patch which could include changes to the 1942 Aussie TO&E, eg Trig 29 scenario, there is a primary source available concerning weapon and ammo useage and loss. That is the 9 Div Quarter Master General returns. From a perusal of a few of such returns it is clear that the Thompson SMG, referred to there as the TSMG, and not the Sten or anything else was in regular and significant use. There are a couple of other things being checked out so they will be added in due course. But I'm not going to do a whole lot of research unless it is likely to be used.

Have now located an original primary source on weapons and ammo use during El Alamein 2 for 9 Div, the Quarter Master General returns. Relevant to this topic, a 37mm spigot mortar using both HE and anti tank ammo is mentioned as is a #73 anti tank grenade.

A contemporaneous description of a carrier bourne assault on an Axis position in the area of trig 29 on 25 Oct 42 in the war diary of 2/48 Bn, here- http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/alamein23/awm52_2-48th_bn.pdf

Well I'm with JonS and supporters. The apparent neglect of NA Commonwealth modelling is shabby to say the least but will have a look further to see just how far this goes before going off half cocked.

There is mention of successful Australian use of sticky bombs against tanks around Alamein in the official history, namely Tobruk and El Alamein, Barton Maughan, AWM. Dunno about the Kiwis, haven't had time to play the game much, but the Aussies have some significant corrections due.

Defeat? Whats that? Sounds like an archive job that one. The ummm 'successful arrival' of the Japanese at Ambonia and the 'stepping aside' of Gull Force?

Thanks Jon. Noticed a query over the first appearance of jeeps in NA. May 42 or Feb 43? Haven't the definitive answer but 9 Div had them for El Al 2. They are specifically mentioned in a vehicle list appendix to the operational order for 'Lightfoot'. Info accessed online from the AWM site.

Trig 29 - Aussie Equipment topic. Just got the game so I haven't had much time to check it out in detail. But Aussie equipment for the Trig 29 scenario, Oct 1942, looks all wrong. Sten guns were never seriously used, as far as SMG's go the Thompson was used into 1943 being gradually replaced by the Owen which itself was not available for NA. The Boyes AT rifle would have not have been manually carried into battle, if used at all by then. At the most it would have been carried in a vehicle in addition to the usual armament. The British 'sticky bomb' was used as an AT weapon around then. Not sure about the Crusader CS. But 40 RTR were involved in giving infantry support and I believe they had Valentines. The CS is a remote possibility I suppose however my knowledge of what the RTR's had and used then is limited. The M5's (Whites?) are very doubtful. Very much more likely to have been the universal (Bren gun) carrier, various versions of which were made and used throughout the war and even later in Korea. The Dingo armoured car I know nothing about. I might add that it was common to use additional weapons including enemy ones. Eg I was looking at at unit history references today of official training in the use of captured weapons and the use of a 20mm Breda cannon for air protection. The 9 Div was relatively quite heavy on firepower. So, where to from here? Canberra is where all the AWM material is, I'm in Brisbane. What sort of hard evidence is required? [ March 15, 2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: sand digger ]

OK, the subject will be taken to the Patch Request thread and someone may then be able to mention what sort of material is required. The AWM is getting some documentation on line but I haven't found satisfactory references to the matters mentioned, although there is some interesting stuff eg 2/13th's Operational Order for Lightfoot. Which the system won't allow to be linked.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as if you need an invitation , but the Aussie equipment list in that scenario is ummmm 'inaccurate'. Now the books have not been hit on this one so all IIRC. The Boyes AT rifle was long gone by late 1942. British 'sticky bombs'were in use around that time for up close and personal AT work. The Sten was not in use, it was regarded as a POS anyway. Thompson SMG's were in wide use at the time, not mentioned here and probably more widely issued than indicated here. Incidentially the Thompson was later superseded by the Owen. The M5 I'm not sure about, could be but I thought that the universal carrier was in use at the time. Did a quick search but couldn't find any previous mention of this topic so what gives?

Yeh, should have acknowledged CMMODS. Still a problem so will try the Mod Manager, thankyou.