Magpie_Oz

LOL @ Baneman

No they had their tanks along ok the Italian 10th army was fairly well equipped. The big thing was they fought using a "fortress" mentality that worked well against the Ethiopians but wouldn't cut it against a modern army. The British counter offensive quickly surrounded these forts, which were poorly placed and not mutually supportive, and the defenders had little option but to surrender. Also the Italians did not realise that they heavily outnumbered the Allies, over 2 to 1. The Battle for Bardia for example saw an Australian Division of 16k utterly defeat the garrison of 45k. It was a hard fought battle but the poor quality of Italian leadership meant the the defence was not coordinated and could be torn apart in a series of determined assaults on isolated positions.

No problems mate, I see that many of the posts are tongue in cheek Sure the Canadians, NZ and Aussies were all considered some of the best troops in the Commonwealth but the reasons for that are as varied as the soldiers themselves. In short they were generally in better physical condition, had better training, had better officers, better motivation than many of the enemies they faced. The M13/40 was a reasonable tank for it's time, it's main failure was that it did not keep pace with developments. They could face the early Cruiser tanks on an equal footing, but against the later M3's ......... The Italian poor showing in the first operations of the desert war was mainly due to incompetent leadership rather than poor soldiers.

That would be the wife telling you that it is time to get off the computer

How about something that simulates incoming fire? Like an electric shock through your chair when a bullet passes close ?

- Grabs Fetchez by the collar - Actually mate I was going to suggest the easiest thing might be to do some research into The Battle of Kapyong. This was a battle, ironically again close to ANZAC day, during the Korean War where an Aussie, Canuck and Kiwi Brigade successfully defeated an attack of a Chinese Division. It makes it fairly plain, people are people and soldiers are soldiers and particularly within the Commonwealth there is no good, better, best.

So how exactly are the rankings determined ?

Taking the faces of their victims ...... Is that the reason for the mysterious lack of hobo's around Battlefront HQ ?

Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP's) have been around awhile and are functionally much the same as the hollow charge weapon. An EFP uses explosives to form a plate of metal into a solid, high speed, slug an hollow charge on the other hand forms a super fast jet of molten metal. A hollow charge will penetrate thicker armour but an EFP has better beyond armour effects. EFP's are used sometimes in cluster bombs where their lesser penetration can be offset by attacking the top of armoured targets. I cannot see how a dual missile system would ever "fool" an APS. It seems that the current APS's destroy an incoming warhead by firing a "blizzard" of projectiles in it's general direction rather than trying to shoot it down like the Phalanx CIWS. Two warheads one behind the other would simply both be shredded. As for the mine type idea, well we already have mines laid by artillery which is more or less the same thing. It is also very hard to automatically target something to land in front of a target, i.e. aim it so that it will "miss". Bear in mind too that as has been mentioned as an AT weapon gets more sophisticated it becomes more expensive and heavier which reduces the 2 main advantages of these weapons.

Looks more like to me the loader is: ".... take the train back home then grab a bus , then when I get to Dusseldorf I can look up Helga and maybe then we can..... wha? ... sorry what was that about shells ? "

I was thinking the Horch 108 but now I read above it sure looks like the Stoewer is more likely

Always found that once a thread turns personal the opportunity for informed debate has passed so that's it for me on this one.

Nope, certainly not anything from Battlefront or any of the fan produced stuff, and I have it by the Gig-load And for what it is worth I have never been much of a fan of randomly created maps, I much prefer the painstakingly crafted accurate maps that those with far greater skill and patience than I have generously donated to the community as a whole.

I am serious, in fact we can find even more convenient short hand, like for example we should just say Australia and take that to include NZ, PNG, and Fiji as we all use the same stuff. and Pout is a great additive we can put that right up there along, "everyone knows that....." and 60 years of usage" and "it is because I say it is" and other such persuasive arguments as to how the Commonwealth is structured.

Well of course you are all right. I don't know what came over me. Of course the Polish. Belgians, Luxembourgers, Czech et al should all be referred to as "Commonwealth" and why not? The might sound a bit funny, but they all look the same and have the same stuff so why bother differentiating them? I agree the French should not be distinguished from the Americans, they have a close affinity and share the same gear too. In fact given that the Americans themselves are actually a Dominion, if we overlook that little hissy fit they had in the 1770's, so really they are part of the Commonwealth. Ergo the French are Commonwealth too, so come on in! That will make the American Commonwealth's first battle in North Africa a bit confusing as they will be fighting against the Commonwealth Vichy French in North Africa and trying to meet up with the Commonwealth 8th Army forces coming in from the East but I am sure they will work it out. IN FACT given that there were a substantial number of GERMANS, about 10000, who served in the British army it leads us to see that Germany is really part of the Commonwealth as well so the module with the SS in it is quite justified as being termed "The Commonwealth". Then too there were considerable numbers of Soviets who served with the German Army so I guess the USSR is part of the Commonwealth as well ! The Italians are of course considered Commonwealth, being as they were fighting along side their Commonwealth German Allies. Finally and of course quite obviously there were numerous ethnic Japanese who fought with the US Commonwealth forces so they get a guernsey as well. So really when it comes down to it what we call "World War 2" should really be the "Commonwealth Civil War" and in fact CM should not stand for "Combat Mission" but "Commonwealth Module"

You are free to insist what ever you want just as I am equally justified in ignoring your rubbish. There is no problem in saying "the SS were fighting the Commonwealth forces" if they were fighting the UK or Canadian forces. The use of the term Commonwealth, or more correctly Dominion, is fine in that instance for the sake of brevity. The only time when it becomes a problem is when all of the other ones you list who were NOT dominions are lumped in as Commonwealth as it is belittling the identity of those countries who continued to fight along side the Commonwealth forces after being conquered. As for Virginia and Pennsylvania? well we are talking about THE Commonwealth not just any commonwealth. By the same reasoning we could claim that Pennsylvania and Virginia are part of Australia as we are a commonwealth as well.

HA HA I see what you did there, you got my name and changed it a bit and made a funny. LAUGH ! ?? I almost did I had a real smirk at that one, well no it was more of an eye roll really ....... but when I think about it it was more of an eyebrow raise, you know like when someone says something really lame and you feel really embarrassed for them?

The Centaurs were originally meant to provide direct fire onto strong points on the beaches from landing craft, but I think maybe someone worked out that the chances of hitting something from a bobbing platform like an LC was pretty slim so instead they were landed on the fore shore. The degree markings on the turret were to be used while in the Landing Craft. As there were 4 Centaur to a boat the could easily align each other to the same target by simply matching the bearing of their turret to the number they can see on the tank that has the target, that is why the degrees are back to front. See how 180 is at the front of the tank? Well if you looked at the tank and saw 180 you knew the target was behind you so you would have to turn your turret around 180 to see it, consequently if you saw 45 degrees you would rotate your turret to 45 degrees (relative to your own hull) and you would be looking at the target. The tanks could be targeted by observers on ships who could spot targets for the tanks as they were expected to be within a smoke screen. It is not really indirect fire "unsighted fire" is probably a better term. Once the decision was made to land the tanks rather than have them at sea the degree marks and artillery scopes on the tanks became redundant. The Centaurs were attached to the Royal Marines for fire support as they had crap engines and were not expected to leave the beaches. As it turned out the Marines kept them along for a bit to help out in the bocage fighting until they were withdrawn back to Britain after about 2 weeks "in country"

- long range transmission from Sod - Collingwood supporter.........hmmmmm not as such no - Sod communications portal closed -

I don't think that the holding of the rifle in that manner would have really been a taught thing, more just most people found out that it is a convenient and comfortable way to carry the weapon. Other similar weapons had differing points of balance and so they were carried differently

Actually if it was white hot it would be at about 1200 Degrees C which would make it plastic if not molten and not a plate. Back to Sod for me !

Right from the outset the concept of the US Tank Destroyers was that they were highly mobile anti tank guns. The idea being that towed AT guns would be quickly overrun but the mounted guns could quickly relocate as needed. I guess that is why they have a substantial recce and security element as they would operate in some instances like cavalry, selecting new firing positions as required etc. and yes the commander was more of a battery commander than a tank commander so he would act as such and not be actually in charge of one of the TDs. The concept never really worked and the TD's often found themselves having to be tanks which is a shame really, the M18, M36 and the British Achillies (M10 with a "man's" AT gun" are actually some of my favourite tanks from WW2

"Now, as an SSN, you only have one thing to do. SOD OFF!" To my mind I am simply following SOP as laid down in post #1, which states i have to SOD OFF, not stay sodded off. So I figure if I simply comment and then sod off I am golden and will not have to face the ignominy of revealing the fact I have no idea how to put an Email in my profile. BAND BY THE CENTRE, COMPANY BY THE RIGHT OFFWAAAAAAAARRRDDDDSS SOD !

What's wrong with it ? well it is far too orange for a start

An excellent film, showing the correct technique for nut scratching as adopted by most western forces post ww2, although I hasten to add that depicted here is more of an adjust than a regulation scratch but more than likely that is because it is only a training exercise.