Private Bluebottle

Right. I can see the dispatches: "His Majesty's forces were obliged to terminate their victorious offensive due to all our troops being told off as POW guards." Seriously though, I think it is going to be interesting to see how this works out. Basically it sounds like a step in the right direction. Michael </font>

The buzzing of flies would have been a much more likely sound to be heard in the middle of a battle.

Wild Sau versions of various German fighters, equipped with Naxos recievers qualify? At least one single-seat Me262 was tested with radar operationally as well.

The Covenantor unfortunately disproves the old maxim in AFV design that if it looks right, it usually is. Great looks but woeful performance. Unusually, the bridgelayer version of the Covenantor did see action, whereas the gun tank did not. The RAAC took one of their's to Bouganville for use there. There's no record of its performance but there are a few pictures of it being used to bridge holes in roads. One suspects that if its performance in the UK was woeful, its performance in the Tropics must have left a great deal to be desired. There was also an amphibious tank built on its chassis. Unfortunately, like the normal gun tank, its performance left a great deal to be desired. I wonder though, might have one or two gun tanks actually made it out to Egypt for trials? Churchill did, Cromwell did. Does anybody know?

I have a map of the Arnhem area dating from 1944 and I have a few questions about some features on it which I can't work out. I don't have a legend for it and I was wondering if any kind poster from Holland might look at it and work out from their knowledge of the area what the mystery features might be?

Double post. Please delete/ignore. [ November 18, 2003, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

I wonder, on a slightly more serious note, will we see this? Or this? Or even this?

ROF for a single tube sucks, but most ATGM carriers mount at least two , more usually four. Plus there are systems like the Swingfire (are there others?) that can fire from defilade. Return fire doesn't help too much when your target is behind a big hill. </font>

If we're going to talk about oddities, how about including the 7.5cm Selbstfahrlafette L/40.8 Model 1 or Model 2? Three prototypes were built, one of which saw service in North Africa.

AFVs - Cromwell, Challenger, Comet, Ram Kangaroo (although some Sherman Kangaroos were), Sexton weren't present. Fireflys were, in small numbers. For the US, only the M18 and M26 weren't present. M3 Lights, M5, M8, M4, M24 were (there's a famous photo of one crossing the Po river on a ferry IIRC). It'd also be nice to see a proper Commonwealth rank structure introduced as well.

But the Sten used a 28-30 round mag of 9mm, the Thompson a 20 or 30 round mag of .45 - would this difference really warrant a firepower change in game terms? (The large drum mag on the Thompson was unpopular by all accounts I've read - and noisy when on patrol). </font>

I always enjoyed David Niven's film on the East Africa campaign, "The Best of Enemies". Very funny and you get to see lots of British Armoured Cars (of course, the wrong ones for the period but what the hey, normally you never see Daimlers and Humbers). Filmed in Israel IIRC. Niven, of course, as usual, being Niven - that pre-war British Army experience always came in handy.

I can understand why you don't want to import any more sheep, Jon.

I've always wondered about that myself. Neither was it consistent with the usual practice of giving aircraft names that alliterated with the name of the manufacturer.</font>

I think I prefer it with the far more common canvas cover over the back of the turret. It being open like that, make it look a little too airy for my liking.

A brass cartridge case into which the charges were fitted before loading was used. The projectile was loaded seperately. This allowed flexibility in the number of charges used (they could be removed/added as required) allowing a great variation in velocity and range in the artillery role. Its ROF is given as 5 rounds a minute sustained although Blackburn in his books on NW Europe makes the point higher rates of fire were possible for short periods of time. The reason why the German 8.8cm guns had a much superior ROF was becuase (a)they're AA guns and therefore, designed to sustain a high ROF and ( have a fixed round. [ October 16, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Actually the 2 Pdr did have a HE round. Problem was, it wasn't very good and it wasn't issued. The main problem the British Army found with them in the Desert was that they couldn't adopt a hull-down position. The best you could achieve was tracks being covered by terrain. The position of the main gun precluded the vehicle hiding behind terrain and still firing. And before you suggest that wasn't a problem as the desert was flat, then you need a crash course in physical geography.

Richard Bender in his excellent (although a bit dated now perhaps) book on the Afrika Korps makes the point that as far as head dress went, all troops were initially issued the cork solar topee and the fore-and-aft cap (whose name escapes me at the moment). Infantry retained their helmets. The Solar topee was quickly discarded because of its bulk in favour of the peaked field cap when it became available. He makes the interesting point that individual soldiers were responsible for camouflaging their own helmets, so the finish was quite variable from simple applications of mud through to professional paint jobs. Often the German helmets were refitted by individuals with British chin straps as they were more comfortable apparently.

Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name. Something else Americans can blame the French for...

Basically you're correct, Michael. One Brigade of M3 Stuarts (7 Armoured Brigade) arrived in Rangoon just before the long retreat began and managed, despite all the odds to take one Stuart all the way to India with them (and it returned with them, when they took part in the final offensive to push the Japanese out of Burma!). No Matildas took part in the fighting in Burma. A Squadron of Valentines took part in the Arakan offensive(s), unsuccessfully. The primary tank for the Allies were the M3 Grant/Lee. The one theatre where they hang on. Not many M4 Shermans fought there - the preference was for the M3 Grant/Lee because of its roomy hull. The British Army took tanks into the most amazing places during the fighting in Burma. M3 Grants were winched down mountain sides, Valentines fought across flooded creeks.

No UK troops served in China, either, except for Mission 621 (I think that was the designation, I'll have to check) - a Commando unit formed to help the Chinese fight the Japanese and dispatched to China in 1942, via the Burma Road. Ultimately a pointless exercise but one of considerable high adventure and extreme hardship, going by the account I've read.

Neither Canadian nor ANZAC units served in Burma.

Anytime. Indeed, they do appear to be crossed on your's and other Americans' behalf. "PTO" - Pacific Theatre of Operations - a designation which has a specific meaning, which I attempted to make clear. "Pacific war" - a more general term which is all encompassing of both the PTO and other designated theatres where fighting occurred between the Japanese and the Allied forces. Appears to me that you are being sloppy in your terminology. "Troops" usually refers to formed bodies of soldiers. "Personnel" refers to those people who were part of the armed services of a given nation but which weren't formed into troops. I answered it. I pointed out that no Commonwealth troops served in the PTO, therefore no Commonwealth troops could have operated half-tracks there. I also pointed out that outside the PTO, in the wider Pacific War, half-tracks were rare outside of the US Army or Marine Corps. Dandelion, "abusive tone" is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder in a written forum. You percieve it as "abusive", I percieve it as terse and informative. [ October 11, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

On a companion note, one hopes we will not see Australian diggers portrayed in CMAK with Hat, Khaki, Fur-Felt AKA the "Slouch Hat", which was not usually worn into battle. If it was, it definitly wasn't worn with the brim turned up, but rather down and with rather a battered brim, rolled usually downwards to shade the eyes. I wonder though, any possibility of kilts and Tam O'Shanters for the 51st Highland Division?

On a companion note, one hopes we will not see Australian diggers portrayed in CMAK with Hat, Khaki, Fur-Felt AKA the "Slouch Hat", which was not usually worn into battle. If it was, it definitly wasn't worn with the brim turned up, but rather down and with rather a battered brim, rolled usually downwards to shade the eyes. I wonder though, any possibility of kilts and Tam O'Shanters for the 51st Highland Division?