Jump to content

Charlie Marlow

Members
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Charlie Marlow

  1. This was a problem for the US as well. Which is why in practice the composition of combat commands tended to become permanent even though the theory was that units would be pulled out of a common pool to form task-specific groupings.

    Michael

    From what I have read, this wasn't the practice in the US 4th Armored Division (at least according to Gabel in his paper on the 4th at Nancy). There were no fixed battalions in the combat commands. This does not seem to have adversely effected 4th AD's performance.

  2. So Boo, you got the cahonies yet to play a PBEM

    Boo, I don't think he is trying to speak Spanish at all. I think he is asking if you have found any California Honeys to PBEM with. His concern is actually rather touching, if a bit creepy.

    Maybe old Unka Stukie is into twittering and sending large e-mail attachments to strange women on the internet. Seems he may have a little Anthony Weiner in him.

  3. The results at Arracourt sort of support the French report. The Germans, with lots of Panthers were the attacker, in low visibility/short range environment where things like mobility, turret speed, and fast target acquisition would be keys (all things somewhat lacking according the the French). They also had relatively inexperienced crews (the French state that experienced crews should be used). They got their clocks cleaned.

    The environment minimized the Panther's frontal armor and firepower strengths, and would have maximized the disadvantages of the sort that the French report highlights.

  4. Yes, what is your point?

    The German Panzers won in France by avoiding the superior British and French Marques.

    And Operation Crusader was a victory for the UK in spite of the crappy cruiser tanks. As mentioned, there was a reason that the UK tank crews were happy to get the M3 Light, even with its 37mm pop-gun and the less than optimal M3 medium. And it wasn't only HE availability.

  5. While the Sherman may have had better armour it counted for little as both tanks could be destroyed by the Panther and Tiger guns out 2000m, there was a slight difference against the PzIv but only in the order of 200 metres or so. Given that most engagement ranges were around 1000m the difference is insignificant.

    Slight difference? Did you look at what Bastables posted?

    Reality check time. Cromwell's armor layout is poorly designed for a late war tank. Someone didn't do their homework.

  6. I must admit that I am going to have to break some bad habits with HTs and ACs. Contrary to what I knew from various historical sources, light armor seemed to be remarkably resistant to MG fire in CMx1. I used them for fire support all the time, often at quite short ranges. I've painfully learned the error of my ahistorical ways in CMBN.

  7. The Cromwell was as good if not better than the Sherman

    Currious as to why? Compared to M4 about the same, but faster and with significantly weaker armor (vertical plates in 1944?)

    Against more advanced M4 marks, including the firefly (much better AT gun) and Easy 8s (similar top speed (30mph v. 32mph)), there really isn't any basis for saying better, and at least some basis for arguing the Sherman is better(especially 76 equiped Easy 8s).

    Comet, I'll buy as better.

  8. One example is the first battle of the Raff - training campaign.

    In the field to the right front, the one just before the short hedgerows, there IIRC is a darker green slighly elevated spot in the middle. I couldn't give orders for one of my Shermans to move onto that location. I still have no clue as to what it was.

  9. LOL so if you are looking at mud, tall grass and a fence on the game screen you need a pic of mud, tall grass and a fence in the UI to tell you that's what you are looking at?

    No.

    I want the WORDS "mud, tall grass, fence" somewhere in the interface, so I can tell what the terrain is. Too many of the terrain types look the same.

  10. Still not understanding why we can't get a ID in the terrain. If there are multiple terrain types present, then list them all. I don't care about the thousands of possible combos, if there is mud, tall grass, and a fence within the 8m tile, then just list "Mud, Tall Grass, Fence". No problem.

    This would be of great help to me, since I really can't tell most of the open ground types apart right now. I also have real problems with low bocage and hedges. Which has significant game implications.

×
×
  • Create New...