Siege

I don't know if there even is a plural of the word Phoenix.... after all, there was only 1. Even if there is, I would guess a non-numerical plural/singular would be the case, similar to Deer and Moose. -Hans

I had never really thought to compare Monty and MacArthur before, but the more I think about it is the more I would say Monty was the better choice between them. MacArthur was caught totally unprepared in the Phillipines in 1941. I can understand not having a CAP at Pearl Harbor, but for almost the entire USAAF in the theatre to be caught on the ground on Luzon after being issued an immediate war warning? P-35's and P-36's and P-40's may not be an even match for an A6M, but they could at least have been in the air! Everybody predicted the Phillipines would be the primary target for Japan, so why was he caught totally indecisive and unprepared? Had they struck the japanese airfields in Formosa, like had been planned for months in case of hostilities, it would have caught hundreds of japanese aircraft on the ground due to poor weather. He launched a number of un-needed invasions that could have been isolated and ignored, in order to stage his assault "Back to Bataan". Pelilu(sp?) was among the worst cases of this, and was needlessly invaded. He allowed his family hertiage in Manilla to control his thinking. This IMHO was worse than Market Garden, which at least would have made a major contribution had it succeeded. Inchon may have been an amazing success, but his decision to fight all the way up to the Yalu River turned a finished war into a 3 year bloody stalemate that should have never happened. While I may consider Monty to be an OK general who doesn't quite match up to his image, MacArthur was a pure and simple idiot most of the time, with only occasional spats of brilliance. He is definitely far below Monty in ability, as far as I am concerned. -Hans

I notice that the CDV site also has some screen shots I hadn't seen before anywhere else. Nice ones, too! -Hans

Hmmm, next time I go to my old national guard armory I should take my camera with me. They have a PTRS in the museum case there, they are impressively large. -Hans

The Panzer IV chassis is mostly just a lengthened, widened version of the Panzer III chassis and a stronger drivetrain. This extra size allowed things such as more armor, larger turret, etc. The Stug III was based on the Pz III chassis, and a Stug IV is nothing but the upper structure of a Stug IIIG mounted on a Pz IV chassis to increase production of Stug's. Easiest way to tell the difference is the number of road wheels and return rollers. Pz III has 6 road wheels and 3 return rollers per side, Pz IV has 8 road wheels and 4 return rollers. -Hans

Pistol Ports, I want Pistol Ports! If my tank crews can't take their MP40's and M-1 Carbines and M-3 Grease Guns and MG-34's with them when they abandon the tanks, I at least want Pistol Ports! Ok, now that I have that out of my system, time to depart.

You have put my opinion into better words than I ever have. 100% agreement. The training quality I will also agree with, as well as the popularity with the troops. For all these reasons is probably why I find him to be so similar to General McClellan from the US Civil War. (what do they call that in other countries anyways?) -Hans

Hodges crossed mostly by luck, the original planning had been to expect no bridges to be standing. However they were ready to move to exploit the situation if one was managed to be captured. Patton's was more due to the speed of his advance, the Germans didn't have the time to fortify or even move in front of him to block a crossing. By the time they could react, the bridgehead had been established. IIRC, Patton crossed at a shallows and not even over a bridge. From everything I have seen, the US commanders were totally shocked at what the Bocage was. They had been told to expect little stone walls like in the Northeast US, not major earthen berms. The ad-hoc solutions such as Rhino's and such shows more of a reaction than prior planning. The solutions would have probably been the same, but would have come ashore with the troops rather than a costly advance until equipment and techniques were devised. Good point, I don't know how far up the chain the information went. I know it was 1st Army that ordered the recon flights due to reports of enemy activity, but I don't know if Monty himself knew about it. -Hans

I'm not the biggest study of Monty, though I do have my opinions on him. To me, he seemed to over-plan a lot and focus too much on a single course of action without alternatives. Too many grand schemes, Take for instance Goodwood, the crossing of the Rhine. The basic methodology was to stop, mass troops and equipment, and launch a massive assault. It was led with a 1,000 bomber raid on the defending areas followed by a large area artillery barrage and the actual assault was a massed crossing with just about everything that could be assembled. To me, this is about as brilliant as the massed assaults on the Hindenberg line in the first war. While successful, such an attack is always a costly matter. It also left little flexibility should the assault fail. This was the problem with Market Garden, a lack of flexibility. From the moment the British Airborne landed, there was absolutely no other course of action than to just hammer foreward. in the worst case scenario, which did happen, the unavoidable delay by XXX Corps meant a horrible toll on the Red Devils at and around Arnhem. Without the incredible stand by Frost's battalion, and the miracle at Eindhoven bridge, it probably would have meant the total loss of the division and the Polish brigade. While it was a brilliant idea at the core, there were a lot of "What if's" that never seemed to have been asked or just plain ignored. His usage of intelligence sources is hit and miss. In North Africa, he seemed to have an amazing grasp of how important the Ultra intercepts were. The manner he directed the attacks on shipping showed that he recognized the value of the targets, but also knew how important it was to protect the information sources. In every case it was made to appear a random scout aircraft located the convoys, and in some cases they were deliberatly allowed to proceed, all keep the Germans from knowing why the convoys were being discovered and attacked. However in Market Garden there was no excuse for not knowing about the SS Panzers so close to the drop zones. I also wonder why British and Free French were unaware of the bocage in Normandy. For the French, it was their country, and you would think they would know the landscape of their own nation. The BEF had been in France only 4 years earlier. At least the US Army had the excuse of not being in France for 26 years, and even then were never really in the Normandy area. I dunno, but thats my Monty opinion. Let the flaming begin! -Hans [ October 28, 2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

I'll have to look into Brit usage of the P-70. I know that US pilots found it useless as it couldn't go high enough to intercept anything it was sent against. Kinda like the Bleheim, they found that slower light bombers converted into fighters was a seriously flawed idea. Unfortunately they found out by trial and error rather than common sense. I know the British had used a lot of Beaufighter MK VI's as nightfighters, and sent some to us to use in North Africa. Later on those were replaced by the P-61's and Mosquitos. Hmmm.... -Hans

It may be a question of tactics rather than the game. It sounds like you are only using one square of mines in a fairly open area, which won't have much effect. Try not to think of them as something that will cause casualties, but instead will force your opponent to do things that you want him to. Easy solution is to purchase more than one "Land Mine" square and place them next to each other to cover more territory. This will cause more casualties as they stumble into multiple minefields. Also, since you know they will eventually go around it, make sure to plan it so they go where you want them to. Then, because you have a good idea where they will be going, make sure to have something appropriate waiting for them. MG's, AT guns, infantry....whatever is right for the type of thing that is coming at you. If it's infantry, try adding some barbed wire to slow them down in the kill zone. Toss in a TRP and some mortars for added effect. If it's tanks, also use a TRP to increase the odds of killing before they can react. Also, pay close attention to the terrain you are using them in. If there is a really nice looking batch of tree's that you KNOW your opponent is going to send troops in, it's a perfect place to put the mines. Either he will take casualties by staying in the mines, or it will deny him from going to the good terrain where he wants and will stay in the open longer. -Hans

The A-20 really found it's role not as a bomber, but as a heavy ground attack aircraft. In may respects it was used in the pacific in much the same way the P-47 was used in Europe. Later versions mounted numerous 20mm guns in the nose to penetrate through the foliage that a .50 cal was considered too weak to be effective. The A-26 Invader (not related in any way to the B-26 Marauder), was an extension of the A-20 design that was supposedly a devestatingly effective aircraft in that role. The P-70 was a night-fighter conversion of the A-20 that suffered from too low of an operational ceiling and was mostly useless in that role. After a short attempt to use them in combat they were sent back the states as radar trainers, and we acquired some Beaufighter's to serve the night-fighter role until the P-61 Black Widow's came into service. -Hans

The unfortunate part of that is the fact that the Marine Corps were the ones gaining all the amphib experience and never contributed to any of the European landings. While they were developing specialized hardware, air support doctrine, fire support doctrine and all sorts of valuable experience, almost none of it was used at Normandy. General Marshal made sure that "No Marines will be in Europe", which left all that valuable experience in the Pacific. -Hans

I am not so sure that Russia wouldn't have taken the offensive if they saw the right opportunity. Remember, they did invade Finland as a pre-emptive measure to posture themselves better for a war with Germany. They did perform miserably in Finland, but it's not like Comrade Stalin cared very much about the costs involved.

I think the fastest design still goes to the P-51. The British came to North American asking them to build P-40's.... North American said "We can do better than that, let us design our own" and in less than 100 days the P-51 prototype flew. -Hans

1. Most definitely YES. Remember, Japan had already begun their war in 1935 with the first invasions of China. They had been planning an attack on the US for decades. Having one less combatant to fight against would have only moved up their timetable. 2. Absolutely! See above regarding Japan vs. US. Hitler expected to invade Russia if the UK was still in the war or not. The fact he DID attack with Britan still a threat shows he was ready to attack in any situation. 3. Other Possibilities? I believe that US Troops would have been dispatched almost immediately to the UK upon a German invasion. More importantly, the US Fleet would have still been intact and would have been able to contribute to the naval disruption of the resupply and reinforcement of the German troops. Most likely the invasion would have been an utter failure, with Russia jumping west while the opportunity presented itself. -Hans

Personally, I had always thought that the CM engine would be a perfect format for the Warhammer40K line of games. Would be a lot easier than the rare chances I get to actually get my figures out and play. -Hans

Straight from the MadMatt's mouth. We are getting close folks, it MIGHT be ready by Nov 15th! Of course, I could be just translating this totally wrong and be giving bad info on skewed assumptions of a misread post.

Oh, the Grant/Lee series did have major shortcomings without a doubt. They were overly tall, had very limited fields of fire and were maintenance intensive. Even before they were in production it was considered a temporary design until the facilites were ready to produce Shermans. My point wasn't that the M3 was a great design, more that it wasn't as bad as commonly believed and in fact did a respectable job until more capable designs were fielded. It is an excellent case of "whats coming is much better, but we need something NOW". -Hans

Don't forget that Curtis was the first with a "Falcon", they had a series of mail planes and civilian biplanes in the late 20's early 30's. Either way, "Fighting Falcon" is a lame name. One of these days I really want to look up one French airplane with a name we have all come to love. They actually had a prototype fighter called "Grognard"!!!! -Hans

Thankfully I just read myself some good info on all the topics at hand here....so I can pretend to be a Grog today, but am more of a G.I.T. (Grog in Training) The main difference between the Lee and Grant tanks was in the turret. The original US M3 Medium tank was called the "General Lee" by the British in their smart move of giving names to things in order to boost morale of the crews. However they felt the Lee was overly tall and had some problems. They had a new turret designed that removed the upper coupola/mini-turret. The rear of the turret was extended to add in a radio for the commander and they also fitted an internal 2in smoke mortar. The lower hull had a driver periscope added, as the US version of the tank had only a hatch with a viewing slit for the driver. This modified version was called the "General Grant". Coincidently, they only named their US made tanks after US Generals. The home-brew stuff got appropriately British names. We only picked up the trend later on with the Chaffee and Pershing lines, everything earlier got their names from the Brits. From what I have seen, the tank performed very well in combat from the outset. The rush into production made it the first western allied tank with a 75mm gun and the armor was also adequate for the time against early PzIII and IV with the short 50mm and short 75mm guns. The biggest improvement was the HE shells that the M3's could fire against AT guns. The 2pdr had only AP shells which were useless against anti-tank guns. The main drawback was slower speed and higher maintenance needs as compared to other tanks. The article I am reading states "overall, they were thought to be as good or better than the panzer IV with armour protection bagainst the 50mm gun better than that of the crusader". I know Rommell had a few comments about the shock he recieved from the introduction of the Grant/Lee series. Oddly enough this article also says that the Sherman tanks were originally called the "Swallow". No idea where THAT came from. One major positive trait the Grant/Lee had was armored ammunition storage, something that early Shermans lacked and was a major contributor to their reputation. As to the naming of Airplanes, most pre-war US airplanes were un-named, and later aircraft were almost universally named by their manufacturer. The Mustang being one of the major exceptions. The original US name for the Mustang was "Apache", however after the British name caught on the Apache name was only appied to the A-36 dive bomber version of the P-51. Curtis started the US naming trend with their "Hawk" series of biplane fighters and "Helldiver" biplane dive-bomber. The names were used for advertising of oversea's sales and company recognition with customers. By the time hostilites began, all the other manufacturers had jumped on board and gave the names to the aircraft themselves. Most companies liked to apply some type of theme to their names to aid brand recognition....Grumman had their Cats, Bell used the "Aero" prefix (aerocobra, aerocuda, aerocomet), Vought had been using the name Corsair since the late 20's for an earlier series of scout/bombers, Curtis put "Hawk" in just about everything they could. From my sources, the "Lightning I" of the RAF was a P-38F and the "Lightning II" a P-38G, while the P-38D was the first to be called "Lightning". -Hans [ October 14, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

It must be getting close. We have the new forum, new AAR posted, piles of screen shots, and they are putting the bundle pack for CMBB/CMBO on sale. I say mid/late november. -Hans

The thing that always seems to get me irked on the whole topic is the general consensus that says "German tanks were always better than US tanks and British Tanks". If you look at the late war King Tigers, then yes....we had nothing to match that. But those were the distinct minority compared to the PzIV's that made up the bulk of the Panzer divisions. The Germans were having so much trouble producing enough tanks to fit their needs that Stugs were filling up more and more of the field units because of how long it took to build Tigers and Panthers. Early in the war when Germany had most of their major campaign success, they had the far inferior tanks. In France and North Africa, the Matilda II was considered by the Germans to be unstoppable with some of the thickest armor of the period, the Souma and Char-B had the same reputation in France. Against the 38(t), Pz I, II and III a 2pdr was actually an effective main gun. Superior tactics allowed the Panzers to overcome that. Hell, for a while even the Grants and Shermans were the best thing on the field. Compared to a Pz IV with a short-75 the were definitely NOT weaklings. To illustrate this, you just need to look at the panicked response of mounting Russian AT guns in the Marder III chassis to show how desperate the Germans were for an effective AT system until the PzIV F/2 hit the desert with a long 75. The '88 was cumbersome to employ as a defensive AT gun, and close to useless as an offensive weapon. All of the involved nations had long-term design projects for super-heavy tanks that would have even dwarfed a King Tiger. But like the Montana class Battlehips, by the time they would have hit the field the war would have been done with for a long time and even then only a few would have been fielded. By late 1944 and early 1945 it was basically known who would win the war and many of the projects that wouldn't be ready in time were dropped to focus production of the designs that were ready in time in the numbers needed. German eventually made the same decision but by the time they decided Tigers were too slow to produce, it was too late to change the manufacturing over to simpler chassis. -Hans

Nice job on the A9 Cruiser. I honestly can't stand that tank, it's such a blocky ugly looking thing. Yet I find myself strangely drawn to it. To me it's the armor equivalent of a bad B-movie. Must be those sponson mounted MG's that I find so interesting. -Hans

Nice job on the A9 Cruiser. I honestly can't stand that tank, it's such a blocky ugly looking thing. Yet I find myself strangely drawn to it. To me it's the armor equivalent of a bad B-movie. Must be those sponson mounted MG's that I find so interesting. -Hans