LemuelG
-
Posts
327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LemuelG
-
-
I'm all about the direct-firing light mortars, bring em in after you've got fire superiority and deliver the coup de grace from an angle which those damn hedges can't defend. Waiting X minutes wont do.
-
You can see in this VAAR (I have linked to the specific time) that any complaints about the in-game M1 are not entirely justified by the actual, in-game results: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhbIdXtYUyY&feature=player_detailpage#t=810s
Case closed.
-
And yet we have no problem ensconcing into history the notion that US paratroopers paddled across the river in broad daylight into the muzzles of the guns, while the British made tea.
Don't put words in my mouth mate, I'm just speaking up against a clear-cut hatchet-job on a good general, I would never dream of slandering any of the fighting men.
You ignore the fact that there was every possibility that any bridgehead made by the lightly-armed paras would get forced back by the German forces in the area. You say that XXX 'made up' the delay, but that doesn't change the fact that they were delayed, and considering the fact that by D+1 the 1st and 82nd were effectively fighting for their survival XXX was needed much sooner than the scheduled time.
The failure to capture the bridge promptly was nullified completely by the tactical situation that actually developed, one which the planning did not seem to account for (landing your guys practically on top of enemy armoured formations.. for one).
Gavin was following the orders of his superior who was with him in the field, as commanding officer of the AB corps, Browning was responsible for the tactical decisions (not saying they were incorrect). You got the wrong guy.
-
Ability to disable or remove individual radios when designing a scenario. Please
-
That is what drives me bonkers about the whole thing, "conventional wisdom" is to say Monty was rash and threw away lives because he was too pig headed.
For me it was the 82nd Airborne .....
"How did you go at the bridge mate? "
"Bridge? which one is that ?"
"The big one, the highway bridge, y'know.. in town ?"
"Oh that one ... yes ummmm goooood ... we're ahh ... we're working on it "
"WHAT ?!"
Instead we are sold some line of crap about British tanks finally crossing the bridge and then stopping to make tea.
There's a difference between thoughtful critique of command decisions, and armchair-generals disgracing themselves by needless slander of brave men who laboured under the most trying of conditions.
Why wasn't anyone dropped on the objective, if it's immediate capture was so vital? If it was a case of Gavin failing to recognize the objectives required, why didn't his superiors step in and over-rule his supposed oversight?
Gavin was not even the senior officer on the scene - what of Browning? The Corps commander, who's HQ's bungling led to him being out of contact with 1AB for two days.. newspapers in London knew more about what was happening in Arnhem than he did. Browning, who personally ordered Gavin to consider the capture and retention of the Groesbeek heights to be his primary objective (probably pre-occupied by the reports of German panzers refitting in the area) - and just as well when the Germans attacked through there in >regimental strength and nearly broke through. You should be praising the 82nd for not only eventually making good on their objectives (in spectacular fashion), but for holding the line against the odds while XXX was still running behind the clock.
Accept it, like Monty did, it was his foul-up
-
Not seeing it myself, if the shooter is firing at your ideal rate the section will be out of ammo in a matter of minutes. I've had numerous scouts gun down 2-4 Germans solo, and they were sure as heck shooting more than one round every 2-3 seconds, no doubt about it - gun WAI.
-
In this case I'm gonna sit back for a while, whine about the lack of engineers, and hope one of my sister-companies has more success! This game has made me terribly adverse to casualties... what happened to me, I used to be so ruthless
-
I played a hair-raising ten minutes of this last night. I appreciate the defender's (seemingly) liberal amount of TRPs, within five minutes my starting road was being hit by howitzers, more scenarios should light a fire under your ass in this way.
I wormed a few scouts far enough forward to discover the first clutches of defenders, and had an interesting four-minute firefight with three of my guys behind a low wall and three defenders on the first floor of a house, and I doubt any of them would have been ungrateful for the protection offered by these oft-maligned positions; one of the Germans got potted through the window after a couple of minutes but it stalemated once the German MG un-suppressed with no further casualties.
For reasons I wont elaborate on (spoilers) I wasn't too keen on reinforcing or advancing any further, I just couldn't make my guys do it (I might go back and wait - yawn - for my support to arrive, then I might not). I fear this one has crossed the line into sadism, though some may like that
-
Not saying I agree with him, but if we WERE to say Gavin was at fault for failing to take Nijmegen Bridge I expect a lot of folks might have preferred that someone else have been in command. As we are so waaaaaay off target of the original post and this sounds like a pretty interesting one (for me anyway as honestly I haven't heard much debate on Market Garden beyond what I have read) how about a new thread specifically on Market Garden?
Yeah well, the thread has gone in interesting directions, might as well run with it I reckon - and frankly I think it's really mean-spirited to dump on the 82nd for what happened at Nijmegen - s*&$ happens, they took the bridge eventually (and lost a lot of guys in a frontal assault over the river in broad daylight, such was the haste) - if the plan couldn't absorb that delay then it was fatally flawed from the start, way too risky and guilty of a gross under-estimation of the enemy. Say they had taken the bridge, but then been pushed back by the panzers (surprise) which rolled up the next day, same result. (why mention the delay with the Bailey bridge at the Son, or a thousand other things, that just gets in the way of a good scapegoating)
-
I don't really think about it, it's a kind of blood-lust. Then again, I haven't lost yet - so who knows how I truly feel about it?
-
A good commander takes the shortcomings of his subordinates as his own.
Gavin should have ensured that the primary objective, the Nijmegan Bridge (not certain bridges), was captured. All else was secondary. Failure to do so doomed 1 Abn and the Operation as a whole.
Hmm, where's this axe-to-grind come from? Surely you're trolling? I suppose you have an obvious candidate in mind, in place of Gavin? If Gavin wasn't the right man, at the right time, who was?
Any commander of any army of any nation at any point in history would have been happy to have a Gavin-led 82nd on their OOB, except you. Mr Perfect.
-
Another size wall and bocage would be pretty good, in between the two we have. And it would be nice if 'hunting' infantry kept a very low profile, in the classic hunched posture we've seen in a million contemporary pics. Low walls aren't high enough to protect anyone unless they're lying down, high are too tall to peek over - seems like we're missing a happy medium between them.
-
I'd be glad to see a bunch of new map objects and buildings, still not enough types (for an ideal world). And guys, no more 'humour', please
-
What use is a manual written before the M4 even made it's battlefield debut? The bow-gunner cannot operate a radio he is unable to access.
And isn't adorable that it refers to "crushing power"? Nice
-
if i show up to a formula1 race and have an f1 car that can beat yours (read sherman) but then find it impossible to race because your pit crew has;
tyre spikes
caltrops
sabotaged my spare parts factories
has a sniper in a helciopter gunning for my driver
has all the other cars on the circuit blocking for him
then its not really an indication of how grand poo bah your car is.
But if you still think you won the race.... I cannot think what that may be called.
Enough with the pitiful excuses for a fatally flawed vehicle, do you know why Shermans were run by everything from aircraft to bus engines? Because the W.allies prioritized production of other war material over tanks, like aircraft and trucks - the very things the Germans neglected when so much of their production was geared towards the manufacture of amateurishly-designed boutique Panzers. Oh, so now there's a nasty plane wrecking your supposed tactical superiority? Enemy troops driving circles around ya with their fancy motor-vehicles (as opposed to horse-drawn carts or foot-slogging)? Wonder why?
W.allied armour was quite capable of taking on the vaunted Panther, on those extremely rare occasions it even made it to the battle. The 75mm Sherman is more appropriately compared to the short-barrel Panzer IVs in terms of weight and designed-purpose, a shame the Germans folded before the Centurion ever hit the field - could have spared the world decades of smug Nazi-botherers hyping German uber-Panzer-tech beyond all connection with reality.
-
US Army tank crewman 1941-45: European theater of operations, 1944-45 By Steve Zaloga, Howard Gerrard
States that the loader was required to "assist the commander to operate the radio." Pretty logical given that it was in the turret.
The Firefly did delete the bow gunner in favour of more ammo but I am fairly sure the British hull gunner was not the radio operator either.
Not in Kiwi crews at least. The 'Bog' is effectively a spare crewman and the first position to be left vacant in times of need. Operating the radio in a Sherman is the TC's job, the loader is expected to to be qualified as well. My great-uncle graduated from Dingo driver to Sherman loader primarily because of his experience with radio equipment; if 'loader' and 'radio operator' are listed as seperate crew-members in-game it is, in my belief, erroneous.
-
So who's good enough at math to calculate the 'real' thickness of the Sherman Glacis plate at that angle?
-
I had a sneaking suspicion that bodies and wounded lying around affected morale negatively. Is this so?
If not, it should be, how are your guys supposed to fight effectively when they see their dead buddies lying all over the position, or with some poor guy lying in their FOV with his guts hanging out crying for Mom?
-
Has anyone tried one with the wall-troopers just hiding? What about AFVs? Is a hull-down position behind a wall even worthwhile?
-
Count me in as a buddy aid enthusiast, the mere act of tending to your wounded adds a whole new tactical dimension. Fantastic addition to the game.
-
Throughout 1944, German production of barrels outpaced that of tank chassis. Engineers sought ways to make use of the extra barrellage but the double-gunned MkIV proved unpopular with crews as the radio operators did not enjoy having a secondary gunner sitting in their lap.
What? Wait.. is that StuG under there somewhere?
-
Well, considering I am the kind of player who even in a PBEM will send units to tend to the wounded just because, I can't argue with that. However I would see that as more appropriate once the tank is no longer quite in the frontline. Would I do it if it were included...maybe. I just am not sure that I would see those repair units showing up during the hour to a couple hours that I have units shooting at each other. On the other hand, being able to change a shot up jeep tire...hmmm... Armor covered arcs first!
I doubt the QB win-at-all-costs (respect, no offence to a playa) crowd will waste points on these kinds of things, leaving it up to scenario designer to decide when it's appropriate to include something like a recovery platoon - if one was designing a maxxed-out set-piece armour battle that lasts four hours and continues for days in a campaign, you might decide that it would be a totally valid addition to the scenario; particularly for the Germans, who really depend on quick turn-around to keep an attack rolling.
It hasn't happened to me... but if your guys can't change a wheel on a Jeep at least once, that's kinda broken
(edit) p.s. read it all
http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html -
I would like a movement command that allows troops to form up in a skirmish line instead of the strung out line which all the other commands use.
Agreed, but it shouldn't be a specific command, but a 'status' variable - i.e. you choose a type of formation - line, column, scattered etc, and they hold that formation for whatever movement order you give them. Yeah, this - it's pretty important - BFC I will forgive you if this gets in before bulldozers
-
Do keep in mind that a broken track due to battle damage (and yes I know that they also break without any help from the enemy as well) would likely also involve damaged wheels, return rollers, etc. This could involve serious repair work requiring several hours to perform, like overnight by a dedicated repair crew.
Michael
On this point I agree 100% - I doubt it's very likely that a Panther's inside road-wheel could be replaced in-battle, or that a main-gun knocked out-of-kilter by shellfire could be remedied; there are clearly a lot of issues which would need to be looked at, and certain abstractions applied at the time the damage is incurred. That vehicle that lost it's engine - did it cut-out because a cable was sheared, or a hose got punctured? Or is the engine-block split asunder? Sometimes it really is just a case of the repair-section (rear-echelon maybe, but elements definitely travel with the combat elements) showing up in their truck with a few spares and 'hitting it with a hammer' for an hour or so, other times the vehicle is reduced to a collection of spare-parts.
I'm the kind of player who would go out of his way to rescue a broken-ass tank even if there was no guaranteed prospect of using it again immediately, just 'cause. I'm bemused that I'm the only one who wants to see something like this, wouldn't tow-able and repairable vehicles, and things like dozers and recovery vehicles (and bridging vehicles too) be neat?
Anyway.. back to the various "in CMx1 it was better" stuff that thread was all about before.
What feature are you glad ISN'T in CMBN
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I'm glad it's not necessary to micro-manage your guys out from under the treads of friendly tanks, or out of the vicinity of blasting charges.
Friendly-fire from small arms should perhaps be in though.