TrailApe

Well the CW mob had to hump through bocage for a while also, so if any scenarios are in the early part of the campaign, expect bocage. The later operations (Goodwood etc) were in more open country - just right to allow the 88's to come into their own.

Pete - we were artillery, so I suppose they thought dopey gunners better be kept locked down when it came to small arms expenditure - I suppose the bullets we fired from our bigger pieces of kit were quite expensive. As to JasonC's points - totally agree, 7.62/.303 can go through a lot of stuff (which perhaps generates the "why are my troops getting shot when in houses" discussions that pop up on this site) and that ability to reach out has been lost with the drop down to 5.56 - which Jason correctly points out is .22 calibre - that's the calibre my sons air rifles are! Of course the plus side of that is that the 5.56 rounds are not going to go zooming through the target and crack on for another mile - doing who knows what damage - quite important in this asymmetrical warfare when the target is surrounded by non-combatants. Not sure how the rest of NATO is dealing with this dilema in Afghanistan, but I know our lot are taking a pragmatic approach and buying in a few L129A1 (already mentioned earlier by Yankee Dog and akd) to issue to the better shots of the patrol, so you have a combination of weapons that should cover most eventualities.

Never mind an Iranian scenario, with the Scottish Nationilst Party kicking off there may be a call for an Anglo-Scottish conflict scenario. Infantry skirmishes in the Cheviots (not good tank country) - looking forward to it already.

Hello Peachy. Way back in days of Yore – when I was a SAS warrior (Saturdays and Sundays) they took our SLR’s off us and gave us the SA80. We were obviously given the usual training on it, maintenance, stoppages, immediate action drills and how to put the sling on - don’t laugh – it’s a right cats cradle, especially when compared to what we had before. But apart from the training on the weapon itself, there was no revision of how it was to be used – ie aimed single round fire. Even on the section defence ranges (couple of trenches and waves of pop up targets) it was only on the support weapon that we flicked the switch and went to full auto – and that was only replacing (in our case) the L4 LMG, which had been used in the same way. Now whether that was parsimony (ammo costs money) or safety concerns I don’t know, but the change from SLR to SA80 didn’t change the method of applying fire onto the target. We were aching to put these new gatts onto full rock and roll and bust some caps, but sadly never got the chance. Now this was in the late 80’s (flaming hell – last century:eek:) and things might have changed, but at the time of the swap over it was not to use more ammo but to be able to carry more rounds. If anybody knows different - especially a 'proper' soldier, please chip in.

I'll agree with this in relation to the US sector, however when the Commonwealth module comes on line, the main aim was to attrit (is this a word?) the Panzer Divs. "Write Up" is a phrase that Monty and his pals use a lot at this time - we would probably use 'write off' nowadays, so I wonder if enemy casualties become a bigger factor than objectives or conservation of force in a scenario/campaign. Objectives 1) Kill the Kitties 2) If you can't kill them - keep them 'interested' for the duration of the battle.:confused: 3) Try not to get killed:p 4) If you do get killed - try and clog up their tracks or bleed into their fuel tanks.

Never mind sabotage by slaveworkers - If there's a vital and portable piece of kit that is hard to come by via normal procedures, if it's not looked after it will 'walk'. Your average squaddie is a bit of a magpie, so you know that wheel brace you just checked off two days ago on the kit inspection and you now need - you know the one that hasn't got a parts number stamped on it and is a real pain to get issued? The one that's really useful as it can be used on nearly every vehicle in your army's vehicle stocks?

Hello there noob I don't think you are going to get any cut and dried answers here, because the time spent on any repair will depend on many variables. For instances, from personal experience, a thrown track can take hours to fix depending on the circumstances of the incedent. Nice flat level firm ground and an experienced crew could get a track back on in under an hour. However if its a rooky crew and the terrain is muddy and on a slant - and the vehicle is stuck up against the side of a tree, it could take hours - especially if you factor in exhaustion and enemy action. And I'm just talking about an MLRS track - 'real' tank tracks are a hell of a lot heavier than we were struggling with. As for guns - well, when I was on the guns, there were basic maintenance and fixes we could do, but anything more then it was a specialist job for gun fitters. I reckon if you have a veteran crew they would be able to sort a lot more problems than a green crew - just through learning how others do it (whacking the sight bracket hard with the heel of your hand is not something you would find in a gun drill book, but if some old salt has used it in the past - you may have picked up on it)

Do not buy it. It will ruin your life. Mark my words. If you have a wife - you will lose her. If you don't have a wife - you will never get the time to go courting one. If you drink - it will cut down your consumption* as you want to be 'sharp' (*in my book that's a BAD thing)

The problem with the Yorkshire regiments (apart from the obvious one - being full of Yorkshiremen) is that a few of them don't have 'Yorkshire' in their title, obvious ones being The Green Howards, The Duke of Wellingtons Regiment and The Prince of Wales Own. Personally I think it's a cunning plan to give others a false sense of security until it's too late. Additionally, as in the Polar Bears, the Division isn't the 'West Yorkshire' Div, it's the West Riding Div, and if you don't know that Yorkshire was historically split into three Ridings (North, East and West) then you would be non the wiser with regards to their origins. And, to confuse the issue, 50 Northumbrian Div (who were first onto Gold Beach) 69th brigade were all Yorkshire Regiments. The term 'riding' is of Viking origin and derives from Threthingr meaning a third part.

So then, you immedeately put all towed anti-tank guns into the category - 'Guns Facing Wrong Way When Travelling' and therefore badly designed. Just because it was mounted on an tracked chassis and had a big A/T gun on it doesn't mean it was meant to operate in the role that you think it should perform. The concept was to be able to deploy a 17lber in the anti tank role more quickly than the towed gun with the added benefit of better cross country performance. The gun could not be fired when the driver was in situ (the drivers head would occupy the same space as the breachblock) So forget jadgpanzer and think of a towed anti-tank gun without the prime mover. The CM1 Archer tactic of 'reverse to contact' is not really a viable option. The way it was used in real life was to follow up on the infantry assault, and once the objective was taken, move in and deploy, thus adding a good wallop to the 6lbers of the infantry. If you get rid of any preconceptions of tracks+gun=tank then the Archer is a pragmatic solution for deploying a good A/T piece with the minimum of fuss.

Are you referring to the Archer? If so, you have the wrong idea of what that particular vehicle was designed to do. It was purely a means of getting a 17lber deployed quickly - hence it being manned by RA.

Hey Praetori - have you been watching me play? That whole scenario you recounted sounds eerily familiar.

Way back when, when Steel Panthers was the only game in town, the first option button that got dinged was "No Mines". I hates them. Unfortunately in the Normandy campaighn, the Germans had plenty of time and expertise, so mines were a real problem.

I think they are not much use as an attacking weapon in any scenario where you are on the offensive. However I've read up quite a bit on the 21st Army Group (British ,Canadians, Poles etc) since CMBN came out, and it was mainly in meeting the counter attack that they knew the Germans would throw in, that the towed 6 and 17lbers were of most use. So they were not used in the attack, but they came along with the assault, knowing that they would have to be used very shortly after the objective was taken. Obviously the 17lber gave you more bang for your buck, but it was a big heavy gun and hard to effectively deploy in a hurry (hence the development of that most misunderstood of all vehicles, the Archer) so the 6lber often had to hold the line - which given the short ranges and terrain advantages to the defender, it did ok in most cases.

Ahh I see, you doubt the veracity of the tale. No problems, just put in "Lieutenant John Gorman" into a browser of your choice and you can check on the veracity of the obituary. As for the intelligence around the Tiger II, well I don't know exactly what they knew about it, but if its bigger than the usual Tiger, you don't need to know the exact armour thickness on the mantlet etc to know it's going to be a real bitch to take on - especially in a 75mm Sherman.

Fun Story? Not sure what you mean.

Irish Guards (Armoured) The crew of that Sherman Lieutenant John Gorman - an Ulsterman Lance-Corporal Baron - the driver, a Lancastrian Guardsman Scholes - the gunner , not sure where he's from. Guardsman Agnew - bow gunner, not sure were he's from Unknown - the loader. From the obituary of James Baron (Telegraph 12/09/02) Hah, where's your tinopener when you need it?

I stumbled into the Peng thread by mistake three years ago. I've never been the same since. Do you know that feeling you get when something is wrong? Like when you are in the woods and dusk is setting in - and you hear something? Or your walking down the main street and you 'feel' crosshairs on the nape of your neck? I was totally bald when I stumbled into the Peng nightmare. I 've now got a full head of GREY hair. Look - take care - I've got to go - I think they are coming!

However, if the CatStrangler is anywhere near a Northern English unit, the bagpiper disappears and the unit gets +3 bonus points.

Aww come on mate, some of us are a bit long in the tooth for that. If a feature is not EXACTLY as we INDIVIDUALLY think it should be, then the game is fundamently flawed and unplayable. However, I'm having so much fun/elation/fear/despondancy playing this fundamently flawed unplayable game I'm willing to give BF a bit longer to get there act together. Hoever I insist on the new module having the British in RED coats (like when I was a nipper) and none of this fire and manouvre nonsense - straight neat lines and controlled volleys!

I remember coming from CMAK onto CMSF and instinctively hating those balloons. Thats was few years ago - looking back now I realise how feeble my objections were. The games is what it is - either play it or don't play it, but please don't point to other games that you like and bewail that it hasn't got the 'features' that you personally like in those other games. It's a bit like me going to watch an NFL game and moan on about the lack of ruck's mauls and line-outs.

Yeah, you press the go button then half your forces pick up their kit, dust off their trousers and charge off in the wrong direction - the one you just KNOW is covered by 5 HMG's a battery of moaning minnies and a cannon company. WTF? In the words of Snow Patrol Hit that button there, the one that just says WRONG.

I just love the Churchill tank. Can't put my finger on why, its just my idea of what a tank should be. There's no way it could be given a name that alludes to anything graceful, it's just a brute of a vehicle. I think they had it right in naming it 'CHURCHILL' after all, he was a bit of a dinosaur in political terms and quickly became exctinct when the lads came back from the war and decided to get rid of him and his ilk.

Here's a thought - with trucks and Jeeps it's totally probable that they can be un-bogged within the time frame of the game (Get out and push) however AFV's are not the most 'pushable' of vehicles are they? Could this element be built into the bogging model?

Hello DK. Not sure who Yahtzee is, and I can't guarantee that Brooker is being 100% ironic with this piece, but from his past output I would reckon that he is. Lets face it, how many of the ‘commentators’ out there even play the games that they shoot down? So at least give him his due that he’s actually played the game. From my reading of the piece (with the benefit of watching stuff that Brooker has done in the past) he’s not saying “FPS games, and the Modern Warfare series in particular is a total bundle of ****, don’t buy it and if you do you are a twat” What he’s doing is making a valid point about how he thinks the plot of these games leave a lot to be desired and this lightweight aspect is covered by having bigger and more numerous bangs (heh heh). From what I’ve seen of him, he probably has a few cans of beer on a Friday night, orders a takeaway and then lights up a Call of Duty/Halo/Gears of war and then suddenly its 1:30 in the morning, there’s noodles and hoi sin sauce all over the sofa and his wife is in the huff and there’s going to be a distinct lack of nookie that night and the chance of getting to the match on Saturday without initiating divorce proceedings is looking distant. Just my take on it.