Private Bluebottle

Which begs the question, why is it called a ford? Fords are, by definition a place where a river is shallow enough to be crossed, either on foot or by vehicle. If a vehicle can't cross a deep ford, what can? I'd suspect from the use of the word "deep" its actually more than a metre to a metre-and-a-half deep, which usually the fording limit on most vehicles before specialist preparation is needed. Infantry might be able to cross but it would need preparation beforehand (ie stringing of ropes, etc).

So can LMGs: The caption for the photo from the Australian War Memorial is: While this particular tree was quite large and obviously, because of its position during what would have been prolonged trials, subject to heavy fire, it shows that even a rifle calibre round can do quite a bit of damage. I know of another photo, which I'm attempting to find at the moment which shows a palm tree hacked down by a Bren gunner to kill a Japanese sniper hiding in its crown, during fighting in New Guinea. Apparently it was a tactic used but as to how common is another matter. Depends upon several factors. Perhaps the two most important are the construction of the building and the fusing of the round. If the round is nose fused, it will usualy explode as the round enters the building (and if the building is particularly well constructed, on its outside wall). If the round is based fused, it will explode well inside the building (and if the building is particularly lightly constructed, it will explode even beyond it, on the otherside!). Most HE rounds, unless specifically designed for penetration, tend to be nose fused, so therefore the explosive effect will not IMO be all that well "confined" but rather will centre on or near the wall of entry, rather than in the centre of the room/building.

Pulling off my bookshelf, William H. Tantum's Sniper Rifles of Two World Wars, 1967, he lists for British snipers in WWII a variety of equipment: Commonwealth forces, particularly Australian and New Zealand, utilised SMLE Mark III rifles as a basis for their snipers in the Western Desert, South-West Pacific and Italy. In WWI, British and Commonwealth forces used an even larger variety of equipment. The Canadians used Ross Rifle Model 1910, Mark III, Calibre .303, fitted with the Warner and Swasey Telescopic Sight Model 1913. The British Pattern 1914 Enfield, Calibre .303, varients of the SMLE Mark III rifle and the Rifle No.3, Mark I(T), Calibre .303 and Rifle No.3, Mark I(T)A, Calibre .303, mentioned above. [ July 30, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Out of a matter of interest, have you ever, ever, actually visited a desert like North Africa's? If you had, you'd realise it is not "flat open terrain". It is undulating terrain, riven with watercourses ("wadis"), features ranges of hills and has outcroppings of rocks. I'd also suggest you read a good history of the Western Desert battles. You might find out infantry were utilised a great deal to do exactly that, "seize and hold ground" and they did it quite effectively too, often without support by armour. I'm sure that theory would have been news to the British and other Commonwealth Armoured units. Apart from the "I" tank units, British and Commonwealth armoured theory believed that armour operated independently of infantry - that was one of the problems with it and why the Germans were so much better than the Commonwealth and British armoured units. I can think of only a handful of occasions when British armoured units were attached to Australian units during the Western Desert and in most cases, they were set piece battles or a siege. Why? I think you under-estimate CM's audience. Monty was not the first to do that. He was though, the first to make an effort at a combine arms doctrine (not terribly successfully, as 2nd El Alamein showed). [ July 23, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

No. Australian divisional cavalry units equipped with light and cruiser tanks were deployed in the Western Desert. Most famously perhaps was 9 Div AIF's cavalry squadron equipped with Crusader Mk.II/III at El Alamein. You really do need to purchase that book, I think, Jon. </font>

As they were? Infantry are extremely useful for assault and defence in the desert. They suffer from a lack of mobility in the manaouvre though, obviously. Therefore you'd tend to see infantry being used, as they were, to seize and hold ground, which is their traditional role on the battlefield, afterall. Gamers don't like infantry battles I suspect 'cause there are no cool tanks zipping all over the countryside. Why? The Axis made extensive use of infantry as well in the Western Desert, again in its traditional role of the seizer and holder of ground. Again, they also lacked mobility but without the infantry, it was impossible to assault, capture and perhaps even more importantly, hold strong points.

This I don't understand. How were they his successors? As you say, he was CIC of Australian forces. They were CIC of Middle East Command. Also he remained (if I've got it right) after they left. :confused: Michael </font>

The only "thorough mixing" was perhaps in Indian Army units where typically one British battalion was deployed with two Indian ones in the infantry brigades, while invariably British armour units were utilised, rather than Indian ones. As others have noted, Tobruk was the exception, rather than the rule as far as Australian units went. Indeed, there were several quite (in)famous exchanges between Tom Blamey, CIC AIF and his British successors (Wavell and Auchinleck) over the deployment and use of Australian units. The British view was that Australian divisions could and should be broken up to be used in penny-packets. The Australian view, based upon experience in WWI was that the AIF was a national army and hence a cohesive force which should not be broken up. The Australian view prevailed, purely because Blamey could appeal back to Canberra and have his opinions backed by his national government. Under the agreement struck between Canberra and London on the use of Australian forces, Canberra had the final say and made it very clear. Particularly after the attack on Malaya when it recalled the Australian divisions home from the Middle East. Shouldn't be a need, as it was a rare occurance.

No. Australian divisional cavalry units equipped with light and cruiser tanks were deployed in the Western Desert. Most famously perhaps was 9 Div AIF's cavalry squadron equipped with Crusader Mk.II/III at El Alamein. You really do need to purchase that book, I think, Jon. [ July 19, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Really? According to whom? I think you have to be careful about periods. At various times British, Indian, Australian, South African and Kiwis contributed large proportions of the infantry units involved in North Africa. To claim one nation's contribution was greater than another is a difficult one fraught with possible errors.

double post [ July 19, 2003, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Except AVsRE are not recovery vehicles. You want REME LAD or ARV vehicles.

Interesting. This meant to be a definitive or merely a selective list of what is currently available? I do hope you haven't neglected the various official histories? While they may have their faults, they are generally an excellent source for what occurred and as to why they happened. While I admit the emphasis must be, by the nature of the game on armour, I do hope Infantry hasn't been neglected? They had an important role to play, particularly in the first year or so of the war. I also hope that Italian East Africa, Syria and Iraq hasn't been neglected.

Running out of juice, in the midst of battle was pretty embarassing and I would have to suggest, actually quite rare. POL are one of the first things a driver checks on his first parade service and a good unit commander (or rather his SSM [squadron Sergeant-Major] ) will always attempt to endeavour to make sure that his unit is supplied with adequate POL for the day's planned operations. The predicament of Pieper was indeed pretty unusual, as his unit and others were sent out, essentially with their tanks full and told thats it, you'll have to capture the rest. The only other accounts I'm aware of AFVs running out of juice were of in the Western Desert, and they did so out of battle, rather than in the middle of one, during the chaos of a retreat which was almost a rout. What would normally happen, unless indeed you are modelling the Ardennes, would be that the driver would normally notice if his tanks were nearing empty and he would alert his commander who in turn would order a withdrawal to a resupply point. As vehicles would also be withdrawing to rebomb up with ammunition, this would see a fairly constant flow of vehicles back and forth across the battlefield in the course of a day. However, that time period is pretty outside that of CM's, which is intended to represent, as far as I can tell, engagements rather than "battles" as such. In real life, its the period between engagements which are when resupply usually occurs. While I'd like some sort of means to design scenarios which would model varying levels of POL availability, I don't think its necessarily that important, for the reasons I've just given.

2000lb? What the hell is it made of? The standard British assault was folding canvas. Most of the pictures I've seen of them show only four men lifting them. Most of the pictures of German assault boats appear to indicate they were inflatable, rubberised canvas (although I must admit I'm no authority on German engineering equipment, more's the pity), they weigh a lot less than 2,000lb.

Except of course, most nations had boats which either had real paddles or came equipped with outboard motors.

Ditto for watercourses. How many times have I seen water features places on the highest ground, rather than the lowest. Marshes in particular spring to mind as one such. [ July 01, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

Are we discussing only US tanks or any vehicle mounting an AA MG? There are many accounts of German tank commanders using their AA MGs against ground troops. However, their AA MG was set up on the commander's cupola and intended to be utilised with the commander standing in the hatch, not exposing himself unnecessarily. Personally, I think most tank commanders, equipped with the US style of AA MG wouldn't have exposed themselves unnecessarily. This would have meant that ranges would have been somewhat limited to those over say, about >500-1,000 metres. Below that, you're simply too close, too exposed and you've removed yourself from your most important job, commanding your tank.

Within the time frame of CM:DAK, there were several cases of REME fitters going forward, under fire and fixing/repairing faults on tanks. One case which springs to mind, that I know of involved the use of an Oxy torch, under fire to free the turret of a Mathilda. It won for the fitter concerned an MM, I believe and was recorded as the first use of such equipment under fire. Those though, were even for the day, considered unusual and risky. Normally, repairs would be executed after dark (ie after the battle had started). British REME crews were always at a disadvantage in that the British armour would laargar away from the battlefield whilst the Germans would do it on the battlefield, so often they had to fight for possession of abandoned vehicles. The Germans, because of circumstance, in North Africa were much more aggressive in their recovering of abandoned vehicles, both friendly and enemy. The British learnt from this experience and later in the war started to decentralise their REME workshops, providing ARVs well forward, in order to execute a recovery of a damaged vehicle as quickly as possible. They also led in the development of specialised ARVs and fitter vehicles for most of the war (one of the reasons why they were so interested in the Bergepanther in its immediate aftermath and why it influenced their own designs so much, post-war).

That's right. And the Brits did the same thing with the 3" CS (close support) Cruisers as well. I think the standard in that case was two CS tanks per squadron (or company in US or German parlance). Michael </font>

I was under the impression that mixed units were SOP for the Germans from the beginning of the war, when Panzer IVs were often assigned to Panzer II and III coys. The British, due to circumstance, rather than design, occasionally ended up operating mixed Armoured Sqns. in the Desert, while in Italy and NW Europe, it was SOP to mix Fireflies with other types.

The PRC-25 and 77 sets are quite different, internally from one another. The -77 has a much greater use of solid-state electronics, whereas the -25 is mainly transistors. The 18 Set was a dog to tune and use. Unreliable and power hungry.

I'm sure there will be 2-lbers en Portee. What more could you ask for? </font>