Where did all the funnies go?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

I was surprised to find that only two of Percy Hobart's funnies are included in the game CMBO - the AVRE and the Crocodile.

Where'd all the others go?

Indeed, perhaps the one most sadly missed are the variously bridging tanks and the fascine carrier.

Without them, the Commonwealth (and by extension the US Army, who were unable to develop their own and relied up 79 Armoured Div. for support) are extremely limited in what they could and did do about obstacles.

With the fascine carrier, most ditches, streams and other such obstacles could be outflanked and crossed. With the bridging vehicles, larger streams and rivers, as well as large craters no longer present the same obstacles they could/did.

So, why no funnies?

[Michael Emrys]

Where did all the funnies go? Well, in most urban newspapers in the B or C section. Usually about halfway in. I thought last Sunday's Doonesbury was pretty good myself.

Michael

[offtaskagain]

The standard answer is they are out of the games scope. They were generally used before an attack to get closer to an objective. CM deals with the actual assault, not the approach.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

The standard answer is they are out of the games scope. They were generally used before an attack to get closer to an objective. CM deals with the actual assault, not the approach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, I'd have suggested that in fact they facilitate the assault and were, according to all the accounts in many cases used during it.

I have seen British Army training films (most notably a very rare title called "Men in Armour" produced in 1945) which detailed the way in which the funnies were utilised, including film of training exercises conducted by the RTR. Fascines and Bridging tanks were definitly intended to be utilised in the assault.

BTW, anybody who believes that fascine carriers approached obstacles and halted before dropping their fascines is sadly mistaken. As shown in that particular film, the driver of the fascine carrier approached an anti-tank ditch at the highest speed possible, blew the restraints, touched his brakes and then pushed the fascine into the ditch and crossed it, without pause.

If the game is intended to dipict the assult, then why doesn't it allow for the possiblity of outflanking marches and pre-assault bombardments?

[Andreas]

Despite what you saw in a training movie, I somehow doubt that the bridge-layers and fascine carriers were used extensively in a CMBO setting, I'll go and check my copy of 'Churchill's secret weapons' again though. The one I miss most is the Sherman flail. Then again, defenders don't have trenches, and mine-fields are not as common, so hey.

While fascines were used to get across anti-tank ditches, and bridgelayers to get across small streams, one should remember that there are no ditches and small streams (the CMBO water tile is 20m, the Valentine bridgelayer could bridge 18m, IIRC), so it could be argued that you don't need them.

Pre-assault bombardment - you can do this in prebuilt scenarios, I have started to experiment with it, and a combo of briefing nudges, green/conscript FOOs and TRPs should induce players to use them in that way.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Despite what you saw in a training movie, I somehow doubt that the bridge-layers and fascine carriers were used extensively in a CMBO setting, I'll go and check my copy of 'Churchill's secret weapons' again though. The one I miss most is the Sherman flail. Then again, defenders don't have trenches, and mine-fields are not as common, so hey.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suggest that the RTR would have portrayed accurated how they intended their equipment to be utilised in a film they were showing to their own troops/commanders. Showing your own troops/commanders fantaties tends to have bad results in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

While fascines were used to get across anti-tank ditches, and bridgelayers to get across small streams, one should remember that there are no ditches and small streams (the CMBO water tile is 20m, the Valentine bridgelayer could bridge 18m, IIRC), so it could be argued that you don't need them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How representational is that, though? Like the Bren on a tripod, the 25 Pdr ROF and other things, it appears yet once more the British/Commonwealth are not being portrayed historically.

Such obstacles did exist - be it a canal or a stream or an anti-tank ditch they were more common across most of NW Europe than I believe the game's designers really realise. More often than not, they could be crossed relatively easily but upon occasion the steepness of the banks, the depth of the water, etc., precluded crossing.

I'd suggest that the mere fact you can only make only water obstacles which are uncrossable (except by infantry, if you use the ford tile to represent a shallow stream!), except at bridges, is a bit artificial IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Pre-assault bombardment - you can do this in prebuilt scenarios, I have started to experiment with it, and a combo of briefing nudges, green/conscript FOOs and TRPs should induce players to use them in that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I look forwar to their release then. I'm surprised that they were not included in the game anyway, as part of the preparation phase.

Another problem I have is the way so many of the scenarios simply lump all the units into a all to often tiny form-up area and then the first few turns I find all too often I'm sorting out units into proper formations. As the location of many of the units are locked, this has to happen at the start of the battle rather than before it, as it should.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In addition to Germanboy's points, there is also the fact that BTS simply did not have time to include every vehicle in the ETO. Plus, bridging vehicles and the like would have required special coding to work properly.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

In addition to Germanboy's points, there is also the fact that BTS simply did not have time to include every vehicle in the ETO. Plus, bridging vehicles and the like would have required special coding to work properly.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe so but they included a lot of stuff which according to my sources was a lot rarer than the funnies - the Puppchen for example. The Jumbo Sherman for another.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Another problem I have is the way so many of the scenarios simply lump all the units into a all to often tiny form-up area and then the first few turns I find all too often I'm sorting out units into proper formations. As the location of many of the units are locked, this has to happen at the start of the battle rather than before it, as it should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Play scenarios that get good ratings at the Scenario Depot, and rate those that are crap, and over time the quality should go up.

Regarding the statement of the Commonwealth being undermodeled - *shrug*. Finns think Finns are undermodeled (and they are not even in the game), and some think Germans are undermodeled, and Americans think Americans got shafted, which to me says BTS got it pretty much right.

Even people I really trust on the Commonwealth stuff (like Simon Fox IIRC) say that it was difficult to say how common the tripod-mounted Bren was. I have never seen a picture of it, or heard of it being employed, and I own a fair range of Commonwealth books.

As Vanir says - BTS did not have time to do everything. They needed to get the game out at some point, it was already six months late, and one my most beloved funnies (and a truly crucial one for the Scheldt battles) is the Buffalo. I eventually got over it.

Anyway, since a fascine carrier or a bridgelayer are nothing but AVREs as modeled in the game once they have dropped their load, you can say that they have been modeled as vehicles, albeit not with their special abilities.

Open ground is not just open ground - in the background, the calculation takes into account shallows, ditches, etc. Not small streams, but I really don't know how important that is for the modeling in the game. I live in north-western Europe BTW, and I don't feel the game is artificial at all. Many maps are (particularly auto-generated), but with some knowledge of the terrain, and some abstractions in terms of cover, you can create realistic and good-looking maps. It is very easy.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Maybe so but they included a lot of stuff which according to my sources was a lot rarer than the funnies - the Puppchen for example. The Jumbo Sherman for another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, but like I said, rarity wasn't the only factor in deciding what went in and what was left out. Some rare units went in simply because they use the same basic model as more common units (Jumbo, Puma, ect.) so were easy to implement.

The one omission BTS has recieved the most grief about is the US M16 "Meatchopper", a fairly common vehicle.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

I'm surprised that they were not included in the game anyway, as part of the preparation phase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An ideal game in an ideal world would have no doubt included many things that are absent from CM. It has been reliably reported that suggestions were still being made by the playtesters when Charles felt he had to call a halt and freeze the design and send it out the door. Virtually any complex and innovative product is like this.

Rational and constructive criticism of the game is justified and usually well received, but if I may say so, your tone--which seems to be drawing nigh to outraged incredulity--is not entirely helpful.

On the other hand, I feel fairly confident that if you are willing to provide unlimited funds to BTS, they might be willing to design any game to your specifications.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another problem I have is the way so many of the scenarios simply lump all the units into a all to often tiny form-up area and then the first few turns I find all too often I'm sorting out units into proper formations. As the location of many of the units are locked, this has to happen at the start of the battle rather than before it, as it should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a number of problems in this area (well, here we are in that imperfect world again, aren't we). I was just thinking tonight how often in QBs I am obliged to begin my forces in terrain that I would not choose to defend or (if the attacker) would not choose for my start line. It's often impossible to have my FOs in locations with good LOS. If I have vehicles, there may be no good covering terrain for them to wait behind until they are called for. And so on.

This is not to say that commanders in the real world often had all that they could want in this regard, but I strongly suspect that they may have had a bit more flexibility available to them.

Michael

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[ParaBellum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Regarding the statement of the Commonwealth being undermodeled - *shrug*. Finns think Finns are undermodeled (and they are not even in the game), and some think Germans are undermodeled, and Americans think Americans got shafted, which to me says BTS got it pretty much right.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

BTS Should quote that one in the new manual!

Really like that.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[The_Capt]

Back to the original topic,

BTS has like almost every tactical computer wargame I have seen, has marginalized the Engineer battle.

In reality it is as critical as the other two pillars Direct and Indirect Fire. But as it seems most game developers have little expertise in this area, it get pushed to the side.

CMBO does model a few things which more than some games but the cost vs effect of some of the obstacles is waaay out of proportion to the negative and other aspects have been left out.

Engineering in the assault is probably as critical as your indirect fire plan in reality but in CM they get pushed into the role of "infantry with satchels". From what I have read the crew is developing the obstacles et al for CMBB and I will be interested in looking at just how much they change the game.

So I guess the short answer the "funnies" went the same place as proper minefields, crater groups, wire which can be blown, AT ditches, vehicle run up positions and various other engineer devices which are used in reality but risk throwing the game off balance if employed in such a way.

[Doug Beman]

From Beazley <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd suggest that the RTR would have portrayed accurated how they intended their equipment to be utilised in a film they were showing to their own troops/commanders. Showing your own troops/commanders fantaties tends to have bad results in the end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you familiar with how US tank crews were trained in the early years of WW2? They were told that their Shermans were the best tanks on the battlefield, etc. Imagine their surprise when they realized the truth.

Or with how Churchill championed operations in the in Med that turned out to be a nightmare of bad weather, bad terrain and bad judgment calls for the Allies.

In the years leading up to WW2, strategic air thinkers believed that heavy bombers could be made fast enough, high-flying enough, and tough enough to dispense with escort fighters. Many believed that a war could be decided w/o ground action at all; 1000+ bomber raids would quickly destroy the enemy's will to fight, if not capacity.

My point is that IMHO training/policy is never 100% identical to the real thing. WRT various AVRE/funny vehicles, can you show action reports that refer to these vehicles being used right up on the front llines, under fire? If you can make a solid case for it, do so and BTS will at least work on defending their position (if not on including them)

DjB

[Michael Dorosh]

A couple points - Bren tripods were pretty rare and useful only on the defence - since CMBO takes place in a timeframe where Commonwealth troops were usually on the advance, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for it. Perhaps for completeness they might have been included, but like many thigns in CMBO they would probably be used far out of proportion to their actual use. Like flamethrower tanks, or tanks in general, really.

As for the suggestion that training films give an accurate and realistic depiction of what was done under combat conditions - don't make us laugh! Armies routinely sell their troops on "fantasy." My favourite examples include Haig's desire in WW I to launch the first day of the July Drive in daylight so that the Germans would be terrified by the sight of sun glinting off the British bayonets. The idea that Dieppe would be a cakewalk is another good one, or the American belief that the 76mm gun would be great against the Panther. US tankers were actually taught that the 76 would be the end all, be all for them. How rudely disappointed they must have been!

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A couple points - Bren tripods were pretty rare and useful only on the defence - since CMBO takes place in a timeframe where Commonwealth troops were usually on the advance, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for it. Perhaps for completeness they might have been included, but like many thigns in CMBO they would probably be used far out of proportion to their actual use. Like flamethrower tanks, or tanks in general, really.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I find the way in which most scenarios are primarily "armour heavy" a bit of a worry, myself. I'd like to see Bren tripods included, more because they were issued and they were used, as against such oddities as the Puppchen which all my sources indicate were as rare as rocking horse ****.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for the suggestion that training films give an accurate and realistic depiction of what was done under combat conditions - don't make us laugh!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the point which was being made was that the film dipicted how troops trained with this equipment. It was how they used it, which is rather at odds in my experience with how most wargames rules dipict their use. I find it quite interesting the way its described that basically the vehicle did this at speed. It wasn't a cautious, "Oh, lets drive up to the obstacle, pause, two, three, blow restraint, two, three, wait for fascine to fall, two, three, drive across, two, three" but going by what he said, "lets keep moving and present a small a target as possible."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Armies routinely sell their troops on "fantasy." My favourite examples include Haig's desire in WW I to launch the first day of the July Drive in daylight so that the Germans would be terrified by the sight of sun glinting off the British bayonets. The idea that Dieppe would be a cakewalk is another good one, or the American belief that the 76mm gun would be great against the Panther. US tankers were actually taught that the 76 would be the end all, be all for them. How rudely disappointed they must have been!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, but again, this is not a case of what they were told but what they were demonstrated, via a film - remember in those days, there was no Industrial Light and Magic Company - the camera did not lie. Moreover, why bother to lie? Most military training films are not propaganda - they are designed to inform. I've shown as an army projectionist quite a fair number of them and they are meant to show the soldier something that cannot be more easily explained by other means.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

From Beazley

Are you familiar with how US tank crews were trained in the early years of WW2? They were told that their Shermans were the best tanks on the battlefield, etc. Imagine their surprise when they realized the truth.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're missing the point of Kim's post. This was not a case of what they were told but rather being shown how to do something. You are comparing apples and oranges.

As to their use "right up at the front lines" what the hell do you think they existed for? Do you use a fascine in the rear areas where you can safely build a bailey bridge to go over a stream/ditch? Of course not. It was designed to be a quick method of bridging a gap temporarily so that assault forces could cross. There are numerous examples of their use in NW Europe and Italy by British tank forces.

[Michael Dorosh]

It is easy to drive 22 mph to an obstacle and lay a fascine on it when you are told where it is, rehearse it for a camera 10 times, then do it at full speed.

In combat, you get only one chance - usually with smoke drifting about, shells dropping on you, etc. And the only advance notice you have may be at the O Group the night before, with a rough pencil sketch of enemy positions, or a grease pencil mark on a 1:25000 map. Or, worse, the next day, when the troop sergeant radios you and says there is a ditch "over there, reference: red house - three fingers left!" Hard to motor over at full speed and do it with movie-like precision if you have only the vaguest idea where the bloody thing is....

That is what I mean by front lines - as opposed to a rehearsed scene in a training film.

Nothing in a battle goes according to plan, or training, - yes?

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Michael Dorosh wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the suggestion that training films give an accurate and realistic depiction of what was done under combat conditions - don't make us laugh!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weeeellllll now. There was that obscure German armor training manual that someone dug up somewhere's which ended up somehow in "all" of the armor performing automaton turning of the hulls towards the targets. Muhahaha

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Maybe so but they included a lot of stuff which according to my sources was a lot rarer than the funnies - the Puppchen for example. The Jumbo Sherman for another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I'd like to see Bren tripods included, more because they were issued and they were used, as against such oddities as the Puppchen which all my sources indicate were as rare as rocking horse ****.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO what an incredibly ignorant statment...

Kim Beazley and Brian, I dare both of you...

Production figures for the 8,8cm Raketenwerfer 43 "Puppchen" are 2,862 in 1943 and 288 in 1944 (production ceased in February 1944). A second production run of another planned 3,000 was canceled and scrapped. At the end of documentation in 45 the army figures still showed a total of 1,649 active Puppchen in actual field use.

Now - let's see your figures on "funnies" and all your "sources which indicate (they) were as rare as rocking horse ****"...

btw I feel the urge to change my sig.

[Michael Dorosh]

Markus, a simple correction would have been order, I see no need for the continued lack of manners demonstrated by certain individuals on this board. If I were Brian or Kim, I think I would rather eat glass than continue the conversation any further. Which is too bad, because we are all here to learn from one another.

Can we please refrain from mocking others so blatantly? Not everyone has a catalogue of German AT weapons at their disposal, nor is everyone here the webmaster of a very detailed and well researched website devoted to said German AT weaponry.

[Doug Beman]

Brian, could you please post some examples of fascine-carriers, as well as other funnies, being used in a CM-scale action? As I said, it's not me you have to convince but BTS. Although you might want to use a more polite tone than you used above in saying "because I said so."

As for why these aren't in the game, I suggest a combo of 2 factors:

1) technical difficulty of including them. How fast would a flail tank clear its path? What was the % chance of missing a mine? How long did it take do deploy the bridge of a bridgelaying tank? (that's a question I'd like answered: how long did it take to deploy one of those? Was it routinely done under close enemy fire? What kinda manpower/equipment/other resources did it require?) Could the vehicle use its weapons while also using the flail/whatever? If so, what restrictions would be placed on turret rotation etc?

2) frequency of use in a CM-scale battle. If, from BTS' research, the use of funnies in a CM-scale battle was limited to "one example from this month, another from 2 months later," including funnies would've dropped below other factors on "the list."

And, keep in mind that CM terrain tiles are 20m wide, and there is no "anti-tank ditch" terrain tile, so the narrowest a ravine/ditch can be is 20m. Can a fascine tank deal with a ditch that big?

My questions are all honest ones; if my concept of funnies, and my education as to their use, is wrong, I want to change and be right.

As I've said, present good evidence and I'll change my tune and support their inclusion in CM2+

DjB

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Andrew H.]

I remember Avalon Hill's report of a SL beta test (or whatever they were called in those pre-computer days...playtest?)"Okay, I do an AFV overrun attack on the infantry in this hex with the flail. I'd just love to see that happen, history be damned.

Or...a companyof flail tanks, lined up shoulder to shoulder attacking a group of..unarmored flak vehicles. Yeah, baby!

:cool:

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I remember Avalon Hill's report of a SL beta test (or whatever they were called in those pre-computer days...playtest?)"Okay, I do an AFV overrun attack on the infantry in this hex with the flail. I'd just love to see that happen, history be damned.

:cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was right in the designer notes in the SL rulebook, wasn't it? I remember that quite well, too - wasn't it one of the reasons flails were not introduced into the original SL?

SL kind of benefitted from being so abstract - eventually flail attacks were "factored in" (a favourite phrase among SL apologists and enthusiasts); CM professes to be more scientific-based. Another reason for some of the interesting conversations on this board. With the abstraction in unit scale (ie ten men per squad) there is still some wiggle room for making things effect-based. If you can model the demoralization of a squad by bullets, I don't see that flails would be any different. The problem is in using the things ahistorically - how many flail tank commanders would have thought twice about attacking infantry? No way - they would have buggered off, or concentrated on their mine clearing. A CM player in a Quick Battle, however, is not so choosy...

[Ales Dvorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

So, why no funnies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a computer game.