A.E.B

Hi all I may be being thick here, but will the game have more aircraft than listed in the Data Base? Issues: USAF - why the P35? The P35 saw limited action in the Philipines (on both sides - the Japs had twenty). Also, where is the Wildcat, Hellcat, Helldiver and Avenger. These planes formed the bulk of the 1942-44 Pacific battles. British - Why the Lancaster? The Lancaster was a night bomber, hence no dogfights unless being jumped by radar equipped nightfighters with jazz-music cannon equals dogfighting. Why not the Wellington that conducted a number of daylight contested raids? Japanese - no Val? German - no Do17 or Ju88. Battle of Britian anyone? I have never played the card game so it is possible that the aircraft are generic. But a number of airframes that were involved in the major battles in the Pacific and in Western Europe are missing. Regards A.E.B

Andreas Just remembered where I saw the video - the Barbarossa episode of The World At War. The targets appeared to be T28s, and they were firing back. Regards A.E.B

I have seen video of 88s dealing with Russian armour while on wheels, but that was in 1941 before the mud and snow totalled everything. A.E.B

Hi all I've fought everything from an 800 point infantry battle on a small map to a 27,500 point monstrosity. The fun comes from the opponent (having 1 gig of ram doesn't hurt either). Regards A.E.B

The Australian War Memorial database has statistics that differ from the MSN encata ones in some degree. WWII casualty statistics The Australia War Memorial has 39,000 Australia combat personel deaths - including both combat and non-combat caused - while Encata has 23,000. Australian Military Statistics WWI & WWII Based on the Australian War Memorial's figures - how reliable I don't know - you get combined military & civilian deaths per 1000 of population.... UK = 7.7 USA = 3.2 France = 14.9 USSR = 128.8 Poland = 182.4 Canada = 3.5 South Africa = 0.9 New Zealand = 7.6 India = 0.1 China = 34.2 Japan = 29.5 Italy = 6.6 Australia = 5.8 Germany = 71.8 Regards A.E.B

Hi all Yes, the bracket on the back of the 250/251 is a MG mount. My understanding is that it was available so the riding infantry could attach their squad LMG for use while in transit. The reality was that infantry fighting from inside a APC was tantamount to suicide, so the embarked infantry never attached their LMG to the bracket as dismounting the LMG took time, and the LMG represented a large % of the squads firepower. I have rarely seen LMGs mounted on these brackets. In fact, many 250/251s seem to lack them, suggest that they were removed or not replaced if damaged. The only pictures I have ever seen of a mounted LMG was (a) a halftrack retreating after El Alamein, ( a halftrack somewhere in NW Europe belonging to a recon battalion, and © 251/10s with the 37mm ATG on the front and a LMG at the rear. Regards A.E.B [ June 01, 2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

Tank Ace Jumbo Sherman This site claims a production of 254 units between May & July 1944. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I think the problem with the tank destroyers is quite explainable. There were two broad Marder III superstructure designs based on the Czech 35t tank chassis. The first models had the gun mounted centrally on the hull, much like the earlier Marder II. Later models were redesigned and the gun mount was moved to the rear of the chassis. Both the Marder destroyed by the molotov cocktails and the Marder destroyed by the Bazooka are the central gun mount design. You need to copy and paste these links. http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-01-large.jpg This picture from the site Dorosh linked to clearly shows two crew members on the open rear deck of the Marder III. http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-02-large.jpg After one crew member is shot, the remaining gunner disappears behind the gunshield. This vehicle is definitely meant to represent a Marder III, not a Jadg or a SM/43 Swedish assault gun. You will notice that the actual gun mount is a mockup, as the real Marder III did not mount the gun in a ball-type mount. Instead a 75mm ATG was mounted, gun shield and all, and the crew were protected by a crude shield of raised armour plating. http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-04-large.jpg This image clearly shows what is supposed to be a mid-gun mount Marder III. Regards A.E.B

JasonC I agree with everything you just said. In fact, it has been posited that Germany could have been defeated earlier if the chemical plant making octane booster had been bombed in place of the Hydrogenation plants. What you post doesn't answer is, if Germany had put its ecomony on a war footing in say 1939 rather than mid 1942, would it have changed the eventual outcome of WWII? Regards A.E.B

Will they be in Escape from Castle Wolfenstein III? Regards A.E.B

JasonC I recieved an email once from another poster who, after yet another JasonC/Rexford/Mr Tittles/et al thread on penetration stats and T34 vs. Pz IV and StuG IIIs, as the same question - "why are you guys getting so worked up over this. We know what happened, Germany lost". So basically, you can look at history simply as a list of facts. The historical players make their decisions because that is the decisions they made. Or you can play around with alternative "what ifs". What if Germany had fully mobilised its economy, including using women in the workforce, for total war earlier? What if the Pz III had originally been fitted with the 50/L60 gun rather than the cut price 50/L42 as intended? What if Germany had pushed jet fighter research while they had the chance? What if Britian had pushed jet fighter research when they had the chance? What if Hitler had been assassinated in 1944? And so on and so on. So why do people like counter factuals? For the same reason people like to refight historical battles - to see if the outcome can be changed. In the fantasy of the counter factual Germany may not lose in 1945. The Poster starting this tread posited the counter factual of whether Russia could have defeated Nazi Germany if Britain had chickened out and made peace in May 1940. You can posit a counter factual on whether Germany could have avoided/delayed defeat in 1945 if it had mobilised its economy for total war earlier. It is just a bit of harmless fun. Now, if I had been the Byzantine Emperor in 1454, and I decided to............ Regards A.E.B

Michael I am aware that Germany taking its naval assets out of the Atlantic was a risk. However, having signed an armistice with Germany, I can't see Britain restarting the war without Germany breaking the treaty first. Would Turkey have said no to a German request to move heavy naval assets through the straits if Germany was already the victor in France in 1940 and Britain had given up? Who knows. That is the fantasy element of the counter factual. But certainly the presence of the Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the remaining pocket battleships would have made a huge difference in the Black Sea. The Gneisenau firing its guns from port disrupted a Russian advance in 1945. The real difference to me is the removal of the Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlanic. The resources Germany put into U-Boats could be diverted to other war production, the 1,000+ planes and aircrews lost against Britain are saved. The Paratroopers lost on Crete + the Ju52s remain and can be used in Russia. But most importantly German can import strategic resources by sea. If Britain won't trade, then French and Dutch colonies may, the USA and Canada may, and the South Americans will. Imagine if Germany could import enough Tungsten so that all of its tanks had HVAP rounds in 1941/42. Again, I doubt that German could reach its intended stop line in Russia, but I also doubt that Russia could defeat a Germany whose entire resources where diverted to a single front. In 1917 Russia had given Germany land for peace. Would they have done the same in 1943? There is no right answers, just fun speculation! A.E.B

Hi all Didn't this go off track fast. The premise of this "counter factual" is the Britian makes peace with German in May 1940. So: No Battle of the Atlantic. Germany is no longer subject to a naval blockade and has access to foreign imports - particularly food and oil. No war in the Mediterranian or a war limited to Commonwealth vs. Italy if Italy insists on starting a war after Germany makes peace with Britian. No Lend Lease to Russia, although Britain receives US aid in fighting the Japanese if Japan goes to war in 1941. So in May/June 1941, Germany attacks Russia with all of its Air and Naval forces being available, and with minimal garrison forces required for occupied Western Europe. Germany may not have been able to support more troops in Russia logistically, but all those troops and planes not lost/needed for the BOB and the Med are now available as reinforcements for Russia. I suspect that the positions at the end of 1941/1942 would have been similar, Savastapol would have fallen more quickly,and the availablity of German Naval forces would probably allow German forces to hold Rostov thanks to naval supply. In 1942 the push to the oilfields would have been easier with German naval assets avaible (11 inch and 15 inch bombardment). My guess is that, without the support of the western allies, Russia would not have lost, but it would have had a hard time winning. Stalemate, with a negotiated settlement? Regards A.E.B

Your question is about undesireable territory! Don't worry, all the secrets of the Forums will be revealed to you after your initiation. Now where is that paddle............. A.E.B

Welcome Beer....mmmmmmm.....beeeeeerrrrr! The Pengers and Cherry Wafflers are the BF.C forums darkest secret. Even darker than the fact that Eric Young is the designer of the next Combat Missions game. We don't like to talk about them, sort of like that crazy aunt the family keeps chained in the basement. However, it is not unknown for fresh mea....I mean new members to wander into the pools by accident, so I'll give you this one warning. The Peng and Waffle threads are sort of a combination of the Bethlem Royal Hospital for Hysterical Fallen Women and a CDC level 4 containment unit. You have been warned. A.E.B

Scariest tank? Would have to be the Tiger I. A huge slabbly block of metal designed simply to kill as many enemy AFVs as possible. In 1942/43 I doubt there was any anything scarier in the minds of allied tankers. Regards A.E.B

The Sherman is more of a 1975 Ford Pinto than a sportscar. I like the Chaffee myself (for looks, not to fight in). Regards A.E.B

Hi all I also thought that Russian tank hunters weren't worth squat early in the war. But in Morning March I had a tank hunter unit hidden behind a building kill two Pz III Gs with two molotovs. The first Pz III G was only immobilised. The second Pz III G ran up the back of the first one and started pushing it. The second Pz III G copped a molotov on the top and blew up. Either the flames or the explosion caused the crew of the immobilised Pz III G to bail, and the tank hunters gunned the survivors down. Even worthless units can on occassion surprise you! A.E.B

Hi all I'm late to yet another thread. Do I consider my self a historian? No. I have actually conducted historical research (I constructed a price table for Europe and the Mediterranean basin covering 1066 to 1454 including the metal weight of the various coins at various dates) but I still don't consider myself to be an historian. Why, because to me HISTORIAN is a professional label. Basically, to be able to call yourself a doctor, or a scientist, or an accountant, or an engineer, or a pilot, etc, etc, etc requires qualifications that are obtained by education. What the budding professional undergoing education is in fact being instructed in is method and methodology. I have studied to be both a scientist (never completed) and then an accountant. The reason why I was expected to study for at least three years at university to become either is because that is the timeframe required to teach you how to be a scientist or an accountant. As a scientist you were expected firstly and for mostly to practice scientific method. This covers the correct methods for performing data collection, experimentation and analysis, collation and interpretation of results, publication and peer review. As an accountant I am expected to understand GAP and the conceptual framework, implement correct methods of measurement, practice conservatism, obey a set of professional standards and ethical rules, and to submit my self to ongoing training and (god forbid) discipline by my professional body. Anyone can call themself a scientist or an accountant, but it is the above that separates the professional from the amateur. Of course, simply being a professional doesn’t automatically make you better than the amateur: there are many dud scientists and accountants out there. But the method taught to any professional if implemented greatly decreases the chances of error or fraud. I believe that the same holds for professional historians. A professional historian is trained in the accepted methods of research, on keeping notes, on the correct methods of quotation, footnoting and attribution, and I am sure a large number of other things that an amateur like me is not aware of. So I am an avid reader and regurgitator of history, but I have not been trained to be a historian. Regards A.E.B

Hi all I think the only way to determine if minor nations were Axis, Allied or Neutral in their leaning is..... 1. Who did they support diplomatically? 2. What were their trade arrangements? 3. Did more members of the population choose to join one side or the other? 4. Did they ally with one side or were they invaded. Most European nations in 1939/40 had both Fascist and Communist movements - Britain had Mosley for example. The difference is how much influence they had. To use Norway as an example, it had Quisling and an active Nazi movement that furnished the SS with many recruits. Yet the government tended towards the allies (though both the Allies and the Axis seem intend on intervention), and many Norwegians either escaped and joined the allies or fought as a resistance movement. Difficult to decide who were the friends of whom: aka Free French (Allies) and Vichy (Axis). Regards A.E.B

Hi all Also Bulgaria - Axis Greece - Allies Yugoslavia - (King - Axis) (Army {Serbs} - Allies) Denmark - Neutral Portugal - Neutral Norway - Allies Regards A.E.B

Hi all Baltic States - annexed by USSR so Axis 39/40 Sweden - Axis Iraq - Axis Regards A.E.B

Hi all One thing I noticed when watch coverage of combat in Iraq was how often the vehicle mounted 50 cals needed to be recharged. Basically the gunner would fire a burst or two, recharge, fire again, recharge, etc. Either there was a large number of dud 50 cal rounds in Iraq, or continuous usage forced the gunner to occassionally recharge the MG due to residue buildup in the chamber. A jam can indicate everything from a dud round, a case seperation, barrel overheat, kinked or broken links, or simply a biuld up of junk from continuous firing. The more you fire a weapon without cleaning it the more likely it is to jam, so jamming should occur more frequently as a MG expends its ammunition. And some jams should be unrepairable on the battlefield. Regards A.E.B

Bone_Vulture The locations were Canada, England, New Zealand and Australia. I didn't invent the system, I just had the benefit of being asked to participate by those who did (and managed to screw up for the first few turns). Regards A.E.B

It does actually work as a PBEM. I have fought a 3 player and a 4 player PBEM. Regards A.E.B