Where did all the funnies go?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

What makes you say that? Going by the stats, the ARVE is based on the Mk3/4. In the game it has the same armour as the Mk6 which is basically a Mk4 with a 75mm gun. In fact it's armour is undermodelled since the ARVEs were uparmoured at the time of conversion, but that's another story. As for the other marks it would be best to consider the Mk7 in the game as representing both itself and the Mk10. The same applies to the Mk8 and the Mk11. Most of the earlier Mk3-5 were uparmoured over time to a similar level to the Mk7 or converted to other vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the initial AVREs were all based on MK Is ? D'uh. Hmm, back to checking the old sources again.

[Slapdragon]

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

Yet they didn't make it the most common variant of the AVRE but rather the least - based on the Mk.VII Churchill - indeed, you have the Mk.VIII included in the game, perhaps the rarest of all Churchill variants to have ever been produced.

I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added. However, I'd also agree with you that perhaps the designers decided they wanted to place more emphasis elsewhere in the game, like modelling the Lynx or the Jumbo Sherman...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, you were wondering when I would make an appearance. "The wicked flee when no man pursues" to quote one of my favorite books.

First off -- Hof has been civil to you.

Second off -- present some true to set up times. When people said, "I saw a XXX rush in an set up a bridge in 30 seconds on a tape" I started to wonder so I looked up the engineering text, (WW2 Combat Engineering in the ETO, published by the US Army) and figured out you were talking based on very little knowledge of the subject. The ARK needed to have a presurvey done of the place were the bridge would go -- which would take several minutes at least if it is just some engineers pacing off the ditch, OR you would have to start the scenaro with the Ark allowed only to lay its bridge in one spot.

Next the ARK would move in under cover of smoke -- it was not a tactical weapon in that it did not move in under AT fire, it was assumed that the area was already covered by the guns of the tanks. The Ark would spend several minutes in a CM:BO board doing this. Added to a smoke bombardment we have maybe 5 minutes. Next depending on the arc type it would deploy the bridge. This could be relatively fast -- they were working on getting the mechanisms better. A group of engineers were almost always needed, except in perfectly preprepared sights, to seat in the bridge. The process of bridging took from 5 to 25 minutes when it did not fail all together (sometime the arc could topple, bog, or possibly sink if the survey screw up and the sight was a mushy mess.). So, now the battle can begin, 10 - 30 minutes past when the game started assuming that the initial foot survey was assumed to have already been done.

Next for fascine carriers. Same deal with them only they were more tactical. They did not carry the fascines into battle. In fact, if the other guy was anywhere close they usually blew the fascines because any sort of fire could catch the fascines. Your budle of sticks however were deployable in the length of a battle -- so they would be more likely to be coded. It is just they were never really designed to be used under fire, but to allow tanks to catch up to infantry which had already passed the low ground. (This was in fact the use of the Ark).

The flails were never really used on the front line. Instead, they cleared parking assembling fields and road sides for mines behind the advance. AT mines were usually cleared by Engineers at the front. Your "bundle of sticks" is a lot of coding that may or may not have been used tactically in the front line company level battle. It may have been a case of getting 100 other tanks, or the fascine carrier on the AVRE. Choice went to the other tanks. Remember, these guys are not politicians, they have to deliver something not just talk pretty, and they have to base what they deliver on facts and not just opinion polls or whoever bought dinner last night. This, after all, a simulation.

Again, this is not to say there is no need for the funnies, but before you go off an a nationaliist jag you need to read up on some of these things, do some home work. The simulation would require that designers read some of the same things I did and ask: would this thing ever show up? The Ark, probably not. The fascine carrier, maybe. The Flail, maybe not unless you had lots and lots of time on your hands. Present this data in a clear way removing the invective and speaches and you get somewhere, and the designers hear you. Whine about how put down the commonwealth is, and they don't.

Germanboy makes a good point with the Buffalo, and other LVT models. Units designed to tactically swim bigger bodies of water would be nice, and were used under fire right up front. I wonder how many crossings were actually made with them in ETO?

[John Kettler]

(robotic voice intones)

Error! Error!

Slapdragon,

I suggest you look at how the Anzio breakout started as the sharpest possible rejoinder to your "no flails in combat" argument. Two flails in rapid succession died at the hands of a Panzerschreck team while trying to clear mine belts to permit the advance to begin. It was only after that little problem was dealt with that the attack could actually jump off.

If flail tanks being blown up one after another by RP 43 projectiles at the start line of a major offensive isn't "flails in combat" then I don't know what is. I believe some digging will also find Scorpions (Matilda based flails) at El Alamein doing pretty much the same thing while trying to get through the "Devil's Garden" there.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

(robotic voice intones)

Error! Error!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually do have a few references to flails in front-line combat as well. One that springs to mind is from the Rhineland battles, where the TCs of the flails were taken out by snipers, because they did not bother to check with the flatfeet before starting to clear.

But regarding the use of the other funnies, I am still to be convinced about fascines and bridges being laid under fire. I'll check tonight with my sources.

[Kingfish]

Didn't the Canadians use flails during the initial assault of Totalize?

[Andreas]

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

Didn't the Canadians use flails during the initial assault of Totalize?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but if memory does not fail me here, not in a CMBO battle setting. The battles were for strongpoints, and the flails were clearing the main path, IIRC.

[Slapdragon]

Good going -- this is what I mean by evidence. My book has a reference to flails which says, "most use of flails was not under fire" but finding a bunch of cases that they were used under fire is important -- means they are more likely to be useful in CMBO. Next question is, what was the scope of there use. Were they used in the tactical battle (I assume a Creck getting them meant yes) but what and how did there use come down.

[Slapdragon]

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

Yes, but if memory does not fail me here, not in a CMBO battle setting. The battles were for strongpoints, and the flails were clearing the main path, IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I meant, however, if they did get used in more than just one or two settings (no need to be common, just not -- oh yeah, I heard they did that once) then even if one countries flails did not get used, they could have been./

[REVS]

Kim Beazley, you great big wuz! What do you really stand for? What's your policy? Betcha have none...

Man on man, one on one. I've got a Puppchen, I'm 400 metres away; you've got 115 points to spend, what are you made of, you great big guzzler of Swan Lager?

Do you know how few people know of you, and that other new recruit to the CM website, John Howard, BA LLB, MP?

And do you think anyone east of Auckland will have the foggiest who you are?

But back to the central question, you large blob. What've you got to face down ma Puppchen? Rollback?

[Triumvir]

No, no, you lot don't understand. Totalize and North Africa were not _combat_ because there were no American troops there. As for Anzio, that was obviously not combat either because the flail tanks were _in_ the assembly areas on the beach and behind the actual advance of the infantry. Often as far as 15 feet behind. Isn't that right, Slapdragon? 8)

On a more serious note, while flail tanks may not have been heavily used on the average front lines -- as in leading the typical movement to contacts and hasty attacks -- they were, along with all the other funnies, most definitely used in deliberate attacks. Rightly so, as that was, after all, their raison d'etre.

CMBO doesn't model deliberate attacks or defences very well because obstacles count towards the maximum number of units available. To get the right kind of force/space ratio for a deliberate defence, along with the appropriate obstacle belts, you need to set up a in an 800x1600 map and spend about 2000 pts on nothing but minefields, barbed wire and roadblocks -- and then spend 500pts on the actual units. The attacker should get about 2500 pts in total units too.

[Slapdragon]

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

No, no, you lot don't understand. Totalize and North Africa were not _combat_ because there were no American troops there. As for Anzio, that was obviously not combat either because the flail tanks were _in_ the assembly areas on the beach and behind the actual advance of the infantry. Often as far as 15 feet behind. Isn't that right, Slapdragon? 8)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn Tri, I have been trying to get that beach tile to show up on my map designs, and it just wont. And hell, when I set my date to 1942 in CM:BO, I don't get nuthin. Can you help me fix my game?

[Triumvir]

Yeah, BTS doesn't represnt Anzio or North Africa! Damn it, what's wrong with them!? Oh, but whoops; Totalize _does_ come under CMBO's rubric.

Perhaps if you looked at the other two paragraphs instead of concentrating on the one that does a little gentle leg-tugging they may present a better picture as to wmy views on why funnies aren't represented?

Since CMBO doesn't do deliberate attacks very well, there's not much point in creating engineer vehicles whose only purpose is to support deliberate attacks through obstacle reduction; not particularly far from your position.

[argie]

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

(WW2 Combat Engineering in the ETO, published by the US Army)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap, is that work on line? Or is one of those paper thingies you must paid for?

[Brian]

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

Second off -- present some true to set up times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British Training Pamphlet, "Engineer training 1945"

Hidden in the depths of the chapter headed, "Engineer tactics, support to the Armoured Division" was this information:

Deployment Times

Churchill ARK Mk.II (UK Pat) - 3-5 minutes

Churchill AVRE with SBG Assault Bridge - 3-5 minutes

Churchill "Great Eastern Ramp" bridge - 3-5 minutes

Churchill bridgelayer No.1/2 bridge - 3-5 minutes

Churchill bridgelayer No.3 bridge - 3 minutes

This did not take into account time spent on preparation nor on approach marches. Rather it discussed the time taken to deploy the bridging equipment for planning purposes.

Slappy, you appear to be confusing the pre-battle preparation times with actual deployment times.

The same publication suggested that time taken to deploy a fascine would be "less than 2 minutes".

As to where you got the idea "they did not carry the bundles into battle" I have no idea. Everything I've read indicates the vehicle carried the fascine of the cradle mounted on the front of the vehicle How else did they get it to where they wanted it?

As to your other claims WRT flails, others already seem to have demolished your theories there, Slappy. I'll just note that the above pamphlet notes that they were intended to be used to "lead the advance by clearing a lane across enemy minefields" - as they did most notably to my knowledge in North Africa where they were first developed.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap, is that work on line? Or is one of those paper thingies you must paid for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argie, I will likely be going to DC next week, let me see if I can get you one from NARA, or at least a photocopy. I will charge you 10 pesos if I can get the copy at all.

[Slapdragon]

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

Yeah, BTS doesn't represnt Anzio or North Africa! Damn it, what's wrong with them!? Oh, but whoops; Totalize _does_ come under CMBO's rubric.

Perhaps if you looked at the other two paragraphs instead of concentrating on the one that does a little gentle leg-tugging they may present a better picture as to wmy views on why funnies aren't represented?

Since CMBO doesn't do deliberate attacks very well, there's not much point in creating engineer vehicles whose only purpose is to support deliberate attacks through obstacle reduction; not particularly far from your position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on Tri, I was pulling your leg right back!

[Brian]

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

Ah, you were wondering when I would make an appearance. "The wicked flee when no man pursues" to quote one of my favorite books.

First off -- Hof has been civil to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all know you use a different definition of the word "civil" as you do so many others, Slappy. Hof hasn't been civil to Kim, he's been damn rude IMO.

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

Again, this is not to say there is no need for the funnies, but before you go off an a nationaliist jag you need to read up on some of these things, do some home work.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe I have, Slappy. I've quoted from the relevent Training Pam on the matter. It was designed to inform the Engineer officer of the capabilities of the various "funnies" which were under his control.

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

The simulation would require that designers read some of the same things I did and ask: would this thing ever show up? The Ark, probably not. The fascine carrier, maybe. The Flail, maybe not unless you had lots and lots of time on your hands. Present this data in a clear way removing the invective and speaches and you get somewhere, and the designers hear you. Whine about how put down the commonwealth is, and they don't.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Kim has already answered your childish views on how you believe he, I and others do not believe "how put down the commonwealth is", Slappy. What we are talking about is the historical accuracy of the game, not seeking to give one nationality a vast advantage over all others, as you claim.

I have produced some data and I have given its references. You've produced your's and the two do not seem to compare, purely because you are talking not about actual deployment times of the vehicle, themselves but rather their preparation times.

As I would like to see these vehicles used in the game, they would be "one-shot", you aimed/released them and was it, they would then basically remove themselves from the game (if not armed as in an AVRE) and their bridge/whatever would be recoved after the battle.

Of course, their use would have to include the radical idea that you do actually get to recce the ground before a battle, instead of simply purchasing your equipment blind, as one does now.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

As an aside to this glorious debate, I note that Churchill AVRE were used in Korea and served until about 1960 or so in the British Army.

I also note that the role has continued in other vehicles based on Centurion chassis and now with the CET a specialised chassis.

The Brits must think there was something in it...

(and what of the ARV/BARV use if the "landing" phase is ever introduced?)

[argie]

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

Argie, I will likely be going to DC next week, let me see if I can get you one from NARA, or at least a photocopy. I will charge you 10 pesos if I can get the copy at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10 pesos!!!! :eek:

Oh, my...! I hate our 1 on 1 parity now!!!

Thanks a lot, Slap. I will be looking for your news on that document

[M Hofbauer]

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

Your figures were for numbers produced and numbers held, if memory serves me correctly. That does not necessarily equate to numbers issued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well your memory serves you wrong. you are free to go back and read my original post again, it's there for everybody with typing fingers faster than their memory to revisit. The last figure I gave was number of guns issued to actual army units. Which is a general number but immeasurably more than you ever provided for your funnies, whatever type.

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

As to its utility, the German army was, as Richard Overy pointed out, rather technologically "fastidious" - they often refused the workable in favour of the gold-plated - witness the Panther.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not sure what you are trying to prove with that statement. actually, if anything, you are arguing in my favor if you say that even though it might have been advanced yet unreliable and problematic it would have still been used....??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to why you think the Germans were badly off for AT weapons I have no idea. Mid-war perhaps, before the deployment of the Panzerfaust and Panzershrek but late war they were more than adequately served IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[sigh] ... well look here, the very reason that the germans took so much effort to provide their infantry with the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck was because they were so woefully short of "real" AT means in the form of SP and regular AT guns. Apparently your WW II literature collection doesn't conatain a lot of books because that is a universal (and obvious) view shared by all the books dedicated to the topic.

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

M Hofbauer, funnies were widely used. 79th AD had about 1,500 or thereabouts AFVs (...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germanboy, I know, I am well aware of the use of the funnies by 79th AR (or rather them sending their funnies to wherever they were needed), especially from my research for CC5. I never questioned their use. What I am trying to say is that Mr Beazley's presumptuous statement re. Puppchen/Funnies ratio cannot be held at all, I still have to see him come up with a production or OOB number for any type of Funny anywhere near much less in excess of the number I had cited for the Puppchen...well actually *any* number at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

As an aside to this glorious debate, I note that Churchill AVRE were used in Korea and served until about 1960 or so in the British Army. The Brits must think there was something in it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[tongue into cheek]well just because they use something doesn't mean a lot with an army that's currently using the Challenger II as an MBT and the SA80 / L85 as an assault rifle [tongue out of cheek]

again, Hobart's funnies might be fun, I'm not against them in the game (in fact I once wrote an article on Hobart himself -very intriguing career- because I was interested in the matter), but the effort needed to do them vs the use they would have in a CMBO environment precluded BTS from doing them, especially since the terrain features they are used for are not modeled in the game (and cannot be modeled using the current 20x20 tile system), and there won't be any patches, so there you go.

[edited for typos]

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Brian]

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

I thought the initial AVREs were all based on MK Is ? D'uh. Hmm, back to checking the old sources again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Fletcher, the most numerous varient which was converted to AVRE's was the Mk.III and Mk.IV. Chamberlain and Ellis also make the same point.

The real problem in identifying "which was the most common" is that the British undertook a massive remanufacturing program for all Churchills in 1943 to bring them up to standard, mechanically, with the result that you get some real odd beasts (Mk.IV hull with Mk.VI turret, etc). What is obvious from most pictures, and the production numbers that Fletcher supplies, is that the earlier marks were far more common than most wargamers realise. The Mk.IV and Mk.VI were never surplanted in service until post-war.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

[tongue into cheek]well just because they use something doesn't mean a lot with an army that's currently using the Challenger II as an MBT ... [tongue out of cheek]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[curious] are you saying that the Challenger II is, or isn't, a 'good' MBT? It's kind of hard to work out what you actually mean from what you've written. If you do in fact think it isn't a good design I'd be interested to hear why.[/curious]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I am well aware of the use of the funnies by 79th AR (or rather them sending their funnies to wherever they were needed)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am therefore sure that you are aware that the 79th was a DIVISION (79th AD) not a regiment (79th AR - about 1/6 of a division -as you wrote). I'll assume that is what you intended, and what you wrote was a not-insignificant typo.

Anyway, given that it was a divison, it begs some interesting comparisons: The Polish 'only' had an AD in NWE, yet this is shown in its entirety. They also 'only' had a single para bde, but this too is shown in its entirety - and (AFAIK) this Bde was only used in the one tragic engagement. (The Canadians had a reasonable airborne presence in 6th AB Div, yet this is ignored.) The French too, IIRC, 'only' had the one armd div, and this is represented in the game.

Your argument that the 79th wasn't large enough to be considered in its entirety(implied, IMHO, in your fixation with production numbers), is contradicted by some of the units that BTS has chosen to represent.

IMO, FWIW

Regards

JonS

P.S. I'm not suggesting that the Polish or the French units be dropped.

P.S.2 Also, I can figure out for myself how relativly easy it is to change a flag bmp and a wav file to incorporate another nationality, especially when compared to modelling ARKs and fascines, etc. That wasn't my point.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

Argie,

The two fact files I have are called T"he Corps of Engineers, The War Against Germany", and "Corps of Engineers, Troops and Equipment" -- US government publications, but I do not have a split binding version and NARA does not either. Do you have any way of ordering US Government publications in Argentina? I could look up there call numbers for you.

[M Hofbauer]

JonS,

I was referring to the "fabulous" performance of the Challenger in all the NATO competitions up until they were discontinued , the fact that they tend to loosen their loose tracks , that they still use the rifles 120mm, that it is so fast that it indeed brings back memories of the WW II Churchill , that it originally lacked a ballistics computer worth its name (see again the first point), et cetera perge perge.

I am not "fixiated on production numbers", please read my original post, I was merely responding to the (quote) "talking out of the ass" of two individuals -who were stomping into this virtual room like senseless drunkards clamoring into the next pub- regarding how common any funny was vs the Puppchen. I am not fixiated on production numbers at all, we can use numbers issued just the same (see my former posts), I am merely holding them to their original, totally unholdable statements.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

JonS,

I was referring to the "fabulous" performance of the Challenger in all the NATO competitions up until they were discontinued , the fact that they tend to loosen their loose tracks , that they still use the rifles 120mm, that it is so fast that it indeed brings back memories of the WW II Churchill , that it originally lacked a ballistics computer worth its name (see again the first point), et cetera perge perge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet, when push came to shove, in the Gulf War, the Challenger performed as well and in some ways better than the M1 Abrahms utilised by the US Army.

There's no denying, that on paper, the Challenger is the worse of the two MBT's. However, it has certain advantages over the M1 - it might lack speed but it has as good or better agility on the battlefield because of its gearbox and its diesel engine. It has considerably longer "legs" than the M1 - British units often remarked about how they would pass the M1's refuelling yet again, during the war. Its armour is as good and its gun as good (and with non-DU ammunition as well). As for its FCS - remember, its a Challenger that has the record for the longest ranged tank gun "kill" - 5,300+ metres.

Therefore I'd suggest that perhaps the NATO tank gunnery competitions are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of determining which tank is "better" - except in the artificial conditions of the competition.

Oh, and BTW, the use of a rifled gun barrel is not quite as silly as it seems - considering that the secondary round the British use is HESH, not HEAT,

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

I am not "fixiated on production numbers", please read my original post, I was merely responding to the (quote) "talking out of the ass" of two individuals -who were stomping into this virtual room like senseless drunkards clamoring into the next pub- regarding how common any funny was vs the Puppchen. I am not fixiated on production numbers at all, we can use numbers issued just the same (see my former posts), I am merely holding them to their original, totally unholdable statements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, Hogg, Chamberlain and Gander and a couple of other sources that I have all state that the Puppchen was not generally issued, nor a terribly succesful weapon. The sources might be wrong, and you might have access to different sources, but that does not necessarily mean that I or Kim are lying merely for repeating what we have read in our sources.

As to the funnies versus Puppchen - I'll lay odds that you'd have been far more likely to see an AVRE in you were serving in a British armoured Regiment than you were a Puppchen.

Out of a matter of interest, what do your sources say about the PAW-600?