Private Bluebottle

Yea gods! Someone claiming that the Petard fired a HEAT round or that HESH is a "type of HEAT round"? This is pretty basic stuff. Its been in all the publications for over 30 years that I know of. It fired HESH. HEAT functions by exploding when it contacts the surface (or rather it is best if it explodes just before it contacts the surface) of its target, creating a jet of liquid metal formed from the inverted cone of usually copper which lines the face of the explosive charge. This jet then basically burns its way through the armour, melting it as it goes. HESH, on the otherhand, explodes after it makes contact with the surface of the target. It is contained in a soft metal round, which allows the plastic explosive contained inside to flatten out, over the surface of the target, where a base fuse, behind it, then explodes, detonating the plastic "patty" of explosive, creating massive shockwaves which then penetrate the target and cause "scabs" of armour or concrete to break away from its inner surface and shoot around inside. The shockwave is often enough to kill the occupants of AFVs and bunkers. Even Wikepedia has entries on both types of round. I'd suggest you do a bit of basic bloody research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEP-T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT

I'd just rather make it harder for AFVs to identify AT teams. In real life, unless they are moving, its bloody hard to figure out what any infantry subunit is armed with, from my experience and even then, if its only a small team, its much harder to spot them than its made out to be in CM.

Personally, I believe that the scope of the game should be optimised for the battalion level game. It is at that level that most actions are fought, in most battles. Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.

Get ready to be defied then... </font>

I have a hell-burner missile launcher, a deathstar planet smasher and a supershield generator, watta you got?

So, no Powered Armour? :confused:

CM works very well, turn based. I defy anybody to simulate the tactics which are possible under CM, with a RTS game. Unless you have better than average reactions and hand-eye coordination, it will be impossible to control more than a small handful of vehicles/infantry (are infantry included in the game?) working on wide-ranging axis, attempting multiple maneavoures.

Why RTS? Why not turn based? [ May 20, 2005, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

If we see "more titles", will they share a common file/code format which will allow you to transfer information between them? At the present moment, each one of the CM titles in incompatable with the other.

I suspect that certain ORs were made to resemble pack animals and carried multiple weapons, using the appropriate one at the appropriate time, until they either ran out of ammunition or the situation changed and they thereforce changed to their alternative weapon, if that makes sense! I also suspect, nay know that by 1945 what the Establishment for a given unit may hae stated didn't necessarily resemble what the reality of what they were equipped with. By 1945, all Offs and SNCOs more than likely carried SMGs of one kind or t'other at the Company level. Afterall, being armed solely with a pistol marked you as someone important and therefore a target for snipers while a pistol's firepower is not much greater when you shoot it, as against when you throw it. What annoys me at the moment in our battle is I have a Bren gunner and a Company HQ in the same building. The Bren gunner has shuffled off his mortal coil, curtesy of your superior firepower and the Company HQ simply ignore the Bren gun sitting beside them. This needs fixin' or summit!

Skill, actually. A skilled operator was usualy very good at range estimation. One friend who served in Borneo during Konfrontasi told me of being attached to a British patrol and watching the 2in Mortarman put 10 rounds down range, during an attack on a village, with 9 arriving on target at the same time.

A quick question. How many Vickers in a Machine Gun Regiment?

What/whom is Pywacket's map converter?

Having had the misfortune to hear Mr. Irving speak on his last lecture tour of downunder, more by mistake, than design, I came away rather uncertain whether he was just an old-time Nazi or a neo-Nazi. Either way, he presented a very fanciful account, as you've outlined that Hitler was supposedly the innocent dupe in the whole matter of the "Final Solution". However, it is very obvious that while he was making an effort to sin by commission but rather by omission, as there is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that Hitler is implicated in the decision making of the Final Solution. Irving was found to have falsified his claims about Auschwitze in the famous case he brought against Penguin and Deborah Lipstadt. I'd recommend doing a search on those names and read what the finding against him was.

I've done a fair bit of research on British airborne units over the years. The only conclusion I've come to about their OrBats is that they didn't have a single definitive one. Basically it varies from Operation to Operation and year to year and from Division to Division. Each commander appeared to have his own ideas on how the establishment should be modified and did so, pretty much at will. So, I wouldn't be too overly worried about differences between theatres, let alone units. I've seen one source which claims that every British Paratroop Section carried a 2in Mortar, for D-Day, while another said their was only one per platoon as normal. I've another source which is extremely reliable (Otway's History of British Airborne Forces, which was written for the War Office at the end of WWII and drew heavily upon his and other's personal experiences), which gives Paratroop units just after D-Day 6 Pdr AT guns - airdropped, with their jeeps from Halifax bomber bomb-bays! So, I'm not surprised there are substantial differences in what BFC claims was the typical organisation and establishment for these units. Considering they got many aspects of the CW forces wrong in CMBO and have failed to correct them in CMAK, I more surprised often at what they do include, rather than what they didn't.

Ah, what can one say about a nation where:

This is a little something I came across which will, I fear add a bit of fuel to the fire. While from a book on WWI, it approaches the problem of British "doctrine" from an interesting perspective, I think.

And all are poorly controlled, directed and their users lack discipline in how they are fired. Therefore, its supposed superiority is largely wasted. </font>

Actually you are forgetting about your claim about the 1919a4 M2 tripod not having any fixed adjustment. It did have 1 mil adjustment vert and horiz. </font>

Actually, you're incorrect. German link came in both disintegrating and non-disintegrating form. They actually invented the modern disintegrating link for MGs. Reference - p.51, Barker, A.J., German Infantry Weapons of World War 2, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1969 (if my scanner was up and working I'd show you the picture he has of both types, side-by-side).

Wartgamer, if anybody is guilty of "confusing the issue" its yourself. You made an observation, claiming the supposed superioty of the air-cooled .30 cal Browning over the Vickers, because it was used "closer to the troops". When I pointed out the superficial nature of that statement, you're now decided to introduce a completely different weapon into the discussion. On many websites, such behavior would be construed as trolling.

Only if you ignore two factors. The effective range of the US .30 cal air-cooled MG was substantially shorter than the Vickers, therefore it had to be closer to the troops. Secondly, because of that shorter range and inadequate sights, it was not possible to fire against defiladed targets.

In the case of the germans, however, they had this thing: Which allowed boxes of rifle ammo to be dropped into the hopper to build belts of non-disintegrating link. I don't know how common this was in the Wehrmacht or how far forward it would be found. It can make the standard 50-round belts in short order. When I was firing the MG3 with the Bundeswehr, I didn't see any pre-linked ammo being used. Everything was linked right there at the range. </font>

In Korea, it was a common tactic to drive Centurions through buildings in order to "delouse" them of the DPRK/PRC infantry that were crawling all over them. While basements were rare in Korea, the buildings could be reasonably substantial. I've read no reports of optics/guns being damaged by the tactic.

H'mmmyes, but they mean something different. All the best, John. </font>