Dandelion

That's interesting. The "Feldgrau" homepage states that "Wiking then fought to the West of Budapest in more defensive operations, moving into the area of Czechoslovakia, where the Division surrendered to the Soviets in May, 1945". The BA/MA official records give a slightly different version again. It says "Die Masse der Division kam bei der Kapitulation Mai 1945 bei Radstadt in amerikanische Gefangenschaft." Maybe it split in three and ran in all directions Cheerio Dandelion

Darknight - the man with the armpatch mods is Darknight. So it goes not unmentioned.

Commandos are easily simulated. There are a number of minor units not represented in the game (there are LRDG units in CMAK?) but which one can easily recreate using bits and pieces from existing units. I made a green beret mod for CMBO, using the British helmet as model. Used in combination with two other mods - I believe it was a mix of Andrews mods and... rats, I forget, but you know the man who made a truly massive effort in creating, among other things, armpatches for UK units. Looked like this: These particular guys were Commando Kieffer, we made some late war ones with Denison smocks and so on. Had the berets open for download at the time, zero downloads in four months So I took 'em down. But like I said any unit can be recreated with a bit of work really. I even managed to recreate Italian marines Cheerio Dandelion

I don't think this issue is in dispute. Vehicle columns can, in certain regions and under certain weather conditions, darken the sky with dust. Not to mention landing and starting aeroplanes and so on. And it was manifestly used as ruse, to kick up large clouds in order to confuse the enemy. I think the issue is that vehicles do not always, regardless of weight and speed, terrain and weather, darken the sky with dust when moving in a desert. The invoked tankers will have been driving vehicles twice the weight and speed of WWII tanks, in the regions along the banks of the Euphrates, which technically is not all desert, and the desert region being fundamentally different from the Sahara. Deserts are not generic but regionally unique. The US used to excercise a lot in Egypt, experiences from here would seem more highlighting, and probably more so from MCV than MBT drivers. Myself I am a peaceful tourist of the Sahara, with vehicular experiences limited to Japanese type jeeps (i.e. small). The Sahara herself boasts no less than nine major types of terrain (I have been in only three). Not all areas sport the necessary fine layers of particles as topsoil. Topsoil can be heavier sand particles instead, providing only thicker and smaller cascades - though still enough dust to get between your teeth when eating and so on. Or crusted surface, or a rock surface with a dustlayer so thin it is unable to form into significant clouds. If there is enough Hammada around, the tires simply will not grab into the topsoil very much. In morning hours the ground gets pretty wet as the nightchill evaporates, binding dust rather effectively for a few hours. And some regions are outright moist for periods of the year, and surrender no dust at all during this time. So not all deserts provides dust at all times. Wind actually is a major factor. Dust behaves largely like smoke, except the particles return to earth rather than evaporate. And conversely, Macchia regions right up to central Italy, and similar terrain types, can provide as much dust as deserts can, save outright khamsins. The Paris-Dakar race runs regularly on Eurosport - and probably on US equivalents. It provides highly relevant input on driving in various types of desert, and one can study interesting dust phenonema without having to travel oneself. I think Marcus and us others would have wanted a more flexible, nuanced and realistic modelling of dustclouds. One reacting to speed and weight of vehicles, to windconditions and groundconditions, season and region in a more advanced manner than present, and one with a LOS check capacity. That's all. And like Sergei writes, had it been possible to include in the engine, we would have probably had had it too. Cheerio Dandelion

Marcus, I think I understand your point. The issue being that there are no LOS checks for dust clouds, they are always seen, even if in the middle of a Khamsin, or behind LOS obstacles as has been pointed out, no? This regardless of wind conditions. An issue also that dust is always kicked up, regardless of surface. And finally there is no sensitivity to vehicle size or speed in creation of dust clouds. Dustcloulds seem also not to drift in a manner one would have presumed considering windconditions. Could be wrong there but that's my experience. I agree it is a problem, especially with F/C turned on (hadn't tried it before you pointed it out, and am somewhat surprised at those brown sausages I must say). My general feel is that there is too little dust But I'd still want LOS checks. CMAK comes a way but not all the way. Apart from oddly behaving clouds there is also no sun-blindness, without which the attacking across open desert is very precarious. Also no haze, with much the same effect. Desert surface is plain and of just two types. Milder wind does not have the effect of not really bothering the guys with the wind in their back but almost blinding those who gets it in the eyes. And so on. You get Hammada but not really Wadi's, and Deir's don't work. Sandbags (presumably representing sangars) can exist alongside foxholes... I guess one will have to size her up for what she is, and all she is not, and decide if she is worth the while. Several players actually do not play desert scenarios at all. I do. But I will in the future make very sure my opponent and I are both using full smokegraphics. Cheerio Dandelion

Michael, what on earth is this Forum recipe document? Inquiring mind wants to know. I see some very familiar names and some really, really strange food there, and I don't get it. Cheerio Dandelion

The 250 and 251 families had quite different specs when ordered in 39/40, and they were not ordered simultaneously. Its was only because the producer meeting these demands - the Hanoveranian Hanomag - got both contracts, that the 250 and 251 came to be so similar. 251 was meeting a demand for a "battlefield bus" specifically capable of carrying the infantry squad all the way to jump-off point for battle, with some protection from artillery and small-arm intervention. 250 was ordered by the armoured reconnaissance troops, asking for a vehicle capable of carrying the recon teams (halfsquads), providing light protection from shrapnel and small-arms. It was primarily intended for transport in exposed sectors, e.g. busing OPs back and forth etc. (The "recce-down-the-road" standard task of Amd Recce was intended to be carried out by ACs). The 250 was very often replaced by Kübelwagen or Schwimmwagen, sort of proving Jasons point. Appearances create an impression of sameness not entirely justified. 250 was considerably lighter, weighing slightly more than half as much as 251, and it was considerably faster, with better ground clearance. It had better fording capabilities and more favourable ground pressure ratings. It also consumed less fuel. All of it at the same armour level as the 251, and equivalent stowing capacity as well. Neither vehicle was intended for combat facing direct heavy fire. The option of fighting from the troop compartment was however noted and troops were trained to do so, though intended only for situations such as speeding out of ambushes, forcing token resistance and the like. And then of course there were artillery tractors, some of which had made room for the crew (only) aboard. Cheerio Dandelion

CM is not just a game, it's the forum too, and communities and so on. And as has been said, there are no alternative games of the same genre right now (but of course, weariness with CM can lure players into entirely different genres altogether, and so it's a factor). I cannot agree on the obsolete museum part. But I can agree graphics look tired now, many communities have died down and that after all these years one is looking more and more for the next generation. I know what I feel is lacking, and I know what I feel is already top notch, so like everyone else I guess, I am hoping they put in the first and leave intact the latter. There is no denying Maddox games is a highly skilled team. With IL2:BF however, I cannot see them taking a step beyond the CM series. It looks quite startling from the air (and the sky is truly a work of art), but the ground looks pretty much like CM to me: Nothing new under the sun there. However, I still believe this team is one of few able to threaten the BFC CM concept. Question is - do they want to? Is there money enough in such a project? Your guess is as good as theirs Bohemia Interactive is another team which might pull off a brand new generation CM type game, coming in from a slightly different angle than MG. They might even manage the individual soldier and tree problem somehow. But no sign of anysuch project. As for the BFC, the BTS were always interested in graphics, a lot more so than the average Grog at the conception of CM. When it arrived, CMBO was a graphics galore for grognards, with no other serious simulation (Like TOP/PIS or the Grigsby games etc) even bothering to try. The fact that other games very rapidly bypassed CM in general 3D graphic detail - e.g. OFP appearing around the same general time - means nothing. Lots of graphically nice games had already come and gone by then, but none in the accurate-historical-simulation-at-tactical-level department. So, if I am not reading these people wrong entirely, I actually believe the BFC will put a lot of focus on graphics in whatever new product they deliver - if any. But I'll still be looking under the hood. Cheerio Dandelion

Hi all There is no "re-crew" function in the CM engine. The lack of which has been hotly debated. If a squad loses a weapon, the weapon disappears. The game engine does not keep track of where or if machineguns are lying around. However, exception is made for POW. Weapons magically re-materialise when they "un-surrender". They do not pick up any weapons and need not return to a point where they lost them, weapons simply materialise in the soldiers hands. So former POW do open up on their former captors. This was explained by a BFC representative in a thread way back. I am too lazy to go look for it myself Cheerio Dandelion

Hi all There is no "re-crew" function in the CM engine. The lack of which has been hotly debated. If a squad loses a weapon, the weapon disappears. The game engine does not keep track of where or if machineguns are lying around. However, exception is made for POW. Weapons magically re-materialise when they "un-surrender". They do not pick up any weapons and need not return to a point where they lost them, weapons simply materialise in the soldiers hands. So former POW do open up on their former captors. This was explained by a BFC representative in a thread way back. I am too lazy to go look for it myself Cheerio Dandelion

Thanks for the input (Eric Young is often mentioned here, he probably has no idea how well known he is among BFC product consumers) and I quite agree on the preparedness to invest. CM is still the best thing around, in fact the only thing around I often see the word "competitors" on the forum, and the BFC use the same term. What competitor? Myself I have always been afraid some would actually appear, meaning some giant company will roll in, make a product that I will not find quite enough (think CC), but still attract a large segment of the CM audience, thus killing BFC and leaving us with no company attending to our youknowwhat retentative needs. Cheerio Dandelion

Michael, What is EYSA? I even googled it to find out. Seems to be some kind of soccer team for kids? "Coming out" is idiomatic English for accepting and openly professing some kind of deeply personal preference no? I'm not getting it. Cheerio Dandelion

This is probably right - to do it right, you'd probably need to tune the shape of the fp field, and adjust its effects for the type(s) of cover as well as the firing unit. This is not trivial, of course, and I'm sure more complicated than I think - but it's not like you'd have to track each bullet individually or do something conceptually foreign to the game. The thing I like about this suggestion is that it makes the game much more realistic without making it any more cumbersome to play. </font>

I have an old fieldmanual for Pioniere, but it only mentions models Flammenwerfer 35 and 40. It's from 43. My sample is incomplete, but seems to cover Flammenwerfer. Couldn't say for sure though. 35 was large and bulky, with 35 "Flammstösse" (bursts of 45 seconds) capacity and 25-30 meter effective range. Weighed 37 kg fully tanked. It seems to have used a separate ignition similar to a lighter. 40 was lighter and apparently more common, weighing only 22 kg but with a capacity of only 10-12 bursts and 20-25 meter range. It had an electric ignition and the user could control the length of the flame. That doesn´t mean there was no model 41 or later ones, I just can't find any other model in this manual. It says that the main tube is filleld with highly inflammable oil ("leight entflammbarem Öl"), so probably mixed with gasoline just as Mike Adams says here. The oil was pressed out of the tube using nitrogen gas. In the model 35 the "lighter" at the end was simply lighted and the oil rushing through, mixed with nitrogen, ignited upon exit. Model 40 used another system, pressing through only nitrogen initially, it passing over a batterydriven glowing... well you know a small glowing thing, and so the nitrogen ignited, and only then did the firer let the oil on. Says flamethrower teams (of two men) could only count on success if able to fire at short range from hidden positions, and that they should always be escorted by riflemen (Hilfsschützen). Strangely, it actually says the smokedevelopment is as effective as the flame. Not sure what they mean here. Also emphasis on psychological effect of course. Also says flamethrowers often malfunction due to bad maintenance, and great emphasis is put on proper maintenance. Nasty business, flamethrowers. Cheers Dandelion

Another problem being that not all epic, major battles serve well as scenarios however one design it. The drama of Cassino is poignant (if depressing), just like Dien Bien Phu, but like the latter not all that easy to make enjoyable in CMAK scenarios. Cheerio Dandelion

Yes I can understand you conclusion there Jon. But I'm sorry, this text is filled with errors. Some exmaples; - On the description of the DFL, later DMI, he states there were battallions of Marines. There were none. The only Free French marine unit served with the British Commandos. In the DFL/DIM were only a battallion of Haitians, named 1e Bataillon d'Infanterie de Marine et du Pacifique but being no marines in a US meaning. The role of Marines was traditionally shouldered by the Colonial army. - Also on the DFL, the RBFM was not converted to an armoured regiment, it was converted to an armoured reconnaissance battallion, then later into a tank destroyer battallion, although from 43 on called "regiment", as it had four, later six squadrons. These were sailors from the Merchant marine, and had initially served as antiaircraft gunners. - Also on the DFL, it lies in the nature of the very name that there were no "normal" de Marche units, the term is synonymous to "Ad Hoc", sometimes translated in English to "Composite". So what a "normal" March infantry division isremains elusive to me, especially so as the organisation of the DFL remained quite unique, an anomailty in the French armed forces. - Also on the DFL, this is the sole example of brigades being used by infantry troops, and this is the very division that had a long affilitation with the British, and what I meant with "strong deviation" in my previous post. The reason for sticking with this was the schism between pre 42 Gaullists and the Armée d'Afrique entering the allied camp post-Torch. Units would not combine. I still fail to find any other use and cannot grasp why he makes that strange statement on French preciseness. Even a superficial examination of the 1940 OOB will reveal not only that the cavalry brigades (i.e. the only brigades to be found) consist of both homogenous and heterogenous types of units, that the only French infantrybrigades found in all of WWII except the Brigade Haute Montagne are those that served with the British. - The Demi-Brigade mentioned in the text is the 13th DBLE. The history of this unit reads "Le 27 février ces deux bataillons sont réunis en une Demi-Brigade." No other units were intended to join. Thus there never was a 13th Brigade, it was designed to be a halfbrigade, as a third battallion was not planned (which would have made it a regiment). It remains one today. Compare the French OOB of 1940. Demi-Brigade were not incomplete brigades. It was a fairly common standard organisation in the French army. ...and so on. On a final note; - The description of the origin of the Goumiers is erronous. Northern Morocco was Spanish, not French, and North Africa was not part of the French colonial empire. Algeria was a departement of France proper and both Morocco and Tunisia were protectorates. The region had it's own army (Armée d'Afrique) which was a separate entity from the French metropolitan army. The Foreign Legion belonged to the former (as well as the Spahis, the Chasseurs d'Afrique etc) and for obvious reasons this army became the dominantly represented one in the CEF. The infantry of that regular army was the tirailleurs. The need for raising local native levies stemmed from the fact that the colonial army could not operate in the region. As it was no colony. It was otherwise the responsibility of the special directorate of colonial administration to raise local native security forces. "Goum" simply means clan - or tribe or family or village or whatever one wish to call the basic form of organisation in Maghreb society. The Goum in military shape was a company, give or take a few men. The original "Goums" serving France were five Algerian such (Goums Algeriéns), some of them mounted, with the Moroccan ones appearing only in 1908. And the Berber ("Nothern Morocco" must mean the Atlas and "Mountaineers" must refer to the Berber of the Atlas) entered service in Goums in 1912. While it is true France fought serious wars with the Berber, so did they against the Twareeq. None of my statements above will take more than a Google search to verify from numerous sources. Most of it is actually available from official government sites in easy-to-access format, and I had not considered them very unorthodox had you not questioned them Of course, mostsources are in French, or Frenchspeaking Maghreb, and the language factor I think might explain some of the confusion here. I'm not doing this just to argue with you Jon, I wouldn't. Well not with you anyway. But I must insist on my previous statements in my last post. The conclusion that the French were precise in the manner described is an err. Not an unreasonable one, but still it cannot meet with real OOBs and survive. But as always I am open to logical reasoning, and if you find French infantry brigades outside the DFL and BHM I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my position Cheers Dandelion

Well Jon, feels a bit sad to take away some of the credit the French have received here but not even les Francais were that organised. As far as I know the French infantry arm did not use the Brigade as organisation before the collapse in 1940 except for the alpine units, it was used by the cavalry (cuirassiers, dragoons (including RDP), hussars, RAM, Chasseur's d'Afrique, Spahis etc) and consisted of two regiments. These regiments were battalion sized and thus practiced the same painful abuse of terminology as the British. The brigades contained regiments of the same type (i.e. two Spahi regiments in a Spahi brigade) except in the case of infantry-ised cavalry, were RAM and RDP formed a brigade. The infantry arm used Demibrigade instead, denoting a two-battallion force of identical size as the cavalry Brigade, with the battallions actually even named so. Two Demibrigades could be merged into a Groupement, see below. The French deviate heavily from this after their close affiliation with the British, with the FFL infantry brigades and so on, but return to their roots after switching sponsors to the US. The US using original French organisation at the time. Replacing the brigade of the former FFL was the US-type RCTs (in French of course initially Groupe de Combat then Groupement Mobile or specific like Groupement Blindé/Aéroporté etc). And the Goums that you mention served in Tabors, roughly battallion sized units that were brigaded into Groupes (e.g. 1ere Groupe de Tabors Marocains), rather than regiments. The Groupe of course meaning anything from a battallion (e.g. in the artillery and recce) to a brigade and the Groupement really meaning nothing but "grouping of" and could thus be any size, any type. That's not even venturing ionto the specific French calamities of de Marche, Mixte, nor mentioning that France had four separate armies all with their own branches of service etc. Basically, I feel the French are not at their advantage with organisational or logistic issues, but they have many other virtues to make up for this. Cheerio Dandelion

The thread topic was, I belive, derogatory terms for Frenchmen. I think we exhausted that one rather rapidly. It was in fact Martyr who hijacked the thread by bringing up German nicknames, and then again by bringing up regimental structures. In fact, he has been the engine of one of the most interesting threads in months in my humble opinion. So you see the thread is a bit of a better box of chocolates, there's a little juicy something for everyone's taste Cheerup Dandelion

Hey I found an artillery regiment in the roll from 1620. It's the Feld-Artillerie-Rgt.12, in 1939 called A.R.4, Dresden boys. And I found older infantry unit too, than 1701 I mean, the oldest here on the first roll would be the Grenadier-Rgt.4, raised in 1626, in 1939 called I.R.2., Allenstein boys. I bet I'll find older ones too if I read all of this. Tiresome to read, gothic lettering. 1626. Christ, we're talking 30 year war here. I really had no idea, haven't checked these date of raising before. These regiments are as old as the UK ones. There goes another myth out the window. Cheerio Dandelion

This is all very interesting. Though much younger (the oldest Regiments being from 1701 I think), the German regiments actually had the same system of naming as the UK. Little known maybe, as it is rather invisible in WWII. But there was since 1871 a German "Stamm" or regular army, into which the Regiments of the various German states was incorporated, and so it consisted of a number of regiments similar to that of the UK as John displays here, all with named and numbered regiments. The names were, as with the British, normally geographical. But not always. Traces of older fiefdoms and baronies were to be found, as well as some bizarre historical names. The German regiment, unlike the British then, was both a peacetime and wartime organisation. Worked as follows. In peacetime, the Regiment consisted of two battallions, one of which was a the training organisation consisting of a cadre of officers and NCOs, plus the conscripts being trained (normally organised in 10-12 companies). The other battallion was an administrative unit, very small, say caretakers of the wartime equipment and facilities, as well as planning. In war, the regiment mobilised into a full combat organisation. In each wave of mobilisation (Welle), the regiment multiplied itself by division, splitting into two (in some cases three) cadres, the cadres then filled out to full size by new conscripts. Well, that's the general system in short, and thus the Regiment produced Regiments, not battallions, for service. When the army was restricted in size after the Great War, the "Stamm" (regular) regiments were reduced to battalions, or simply disappeared, their traditions carried by other units. Thus a single Reichswehr Regiment could (and would normally) carry the traditions of up to three Stamm Regiments. Now that makes for cumbersome names. With the mobilisation of Welle 1, the Regiments were again back to Stamm numbers, and each Regiment carried the traditions of such a Stamm unit. Thus, in their full extent, German Regiment names also had a suffix, just like the UK counterparts. So for example the IR 1 was by full name actually called I.R.1 (IR 373 (Königsberg)), IR 85 had the suffix (Bayrische IR.16 (Passau)), Pz.Rgt.12 had (Kür.Rgt.8) [that's 8th cuirassiers], Gebirgsjäger-Rgt.98 had (Tiroler Kaiserjäger), IR 60 from Hamburg had (Schutztruppe-Deutsch-Ost-Afrika) and so on. Not to mention the Hanoveranian IR 73 (Füs.Rgt.73 (Hannover)) which might be familiar as it carried the same name in British service. As per decision in spring of 1939, traditions would rest for the duration of the war. That meant not only stopping of ceremonies etc, it also meant dropping of names, titles and suffixes of historical, non-functional nature. Battallions had no separate names (after Welle 1), with some exceptions. Nor did they really have any separate identity, just a Latin numeral. The normal basic unit of any German (Heer) soldier was the company or the Regiment. And in abstract sense, the Division, which like most UK counterparts were regional and sometimes equipped with unofficial suffixes of that region. No I am not going to write the full list of Stamm Regiments with their full names. That would take me all night. I am guessing John and Michael must have had prepared lists that they used, and I don't have any such. Cheerio Dandelion

You named a regiment after a railroad baron? How pioneer-ish. So who was Patricia? Who was Luoise and are there places like "Grey and Simcoe"? And were the Algonquin regiment soldiers actually native Canadians? All these names referring to old British regiments, why? Was there once battallions of these regiments stationed in Canada? Why do I never get to play the mounties? Cheerio Dandelion

LOL! Didn't the Japanese use similar such terms, of poetic, non-martial type? Swallow, Cloud, Cheeryflower etc? I can see an AAR becoming very puzzling here. :cool: Not to mention what ideas sprang up from names like Greenjackets, Black Watch and the Honourable Artillery (or rather what the latter seems to suggest about other artillery units). Yeomanry was another favourite, with every armoured car filled to the rim with medieval farmers, straw-in-mouth. They're such a lovable and unimitable bunch, the Engländer. I believe at least the cockneys called American MP's "Snowdrops"? That sort of punctures the whole "brute" deal with MPs. Cheerio Dandelion

JaBo is official abbreviation turned into unofficial acronym "Jabo". Like "VO" (Verbindungsoffizier, liason officer, pronounced as fa-o) or "VB" (Vordere Beobachter, artillery FO, pronounced fa-be) etc. Very common. U-Boot is official abbreviation used as intended, just like M-Boot (Motor boat), S-Boot (Schnell (fast) Boot (i.e. MTB)) etc. If practical, officially sanctioned abbreviations would be picked up as spoken jargon. Like KZ and SS. Flak (Fla) and Pak are officially sanctioned acronyms used as intended. Like e.g. Stuka, Dulag and Gestapo. Heeres-Anklopfgerät or Panzer-Anklopfgerät (Army doorknocker) was a real derogative term used for the 3,7 which seems to have been born in France 1940, when the crews of these were starting to suffer abnormal casualty rates. In addition there were popular abbreviations used in spoken languague but never in written such. E.g. Sani, Nazi (compare contemporary Sozi etc). And the pure army jargon used nowere else, like Zahlmops, Spiess, Etappenschwein, Küchenbullen, Papierkram, Trossknechte u.s.w. Cheers Dandelion

...and forgot to mention, one quite often see the radio callname of tanks being used as nicknames for specific tanks in sources. "Sun one" "Arab two" etc.

Very accurate, and I couldn't agree more about the lack of vital information. Conversely, German sources never bother telling me much about "enemy" units, it is the odd joy of finding even a superficial explanation where the boys were from and what it was like living there. Couldn't agree more again actually. What's the point of knowing a unit is called "Nova Scotia Highlanders" if one has no idea what Nocia Scotia is, except a green blob in an Atlas of course, but nothing of what people do for a living there in 1940, if it is urban or rural, what regional political sympathies look like, if there are regional peculiarities or dialects and so on. They might as well be called "Dark Side of the Moon Rangers". Well, guess I could answer that one quite easily, and so could Andreas, Joachim and quite a number of Germanspeakers here on BFC. But by all means, you go ahead and mail this Hofbauer character... Indeed. Or the nickname of a tank if very established, or the commander name. In your example then, "check Fritz' tank (wagon/cart/can or similar popular contemporary German slang for tank)". Cheerio Dandelion