The U.S. lobby in 'Combat Mission'

[mensch]

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

I have never killed a tank with the rifle grenades (couple halftracks though)... but I have had lots taken out by German panzerfausts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange, I have magaged in my year and a bit of CM playing (ok after the 1.12 patch) to take out a multitude of tanks with rifle grenades Light AFV are a sinch with them all of them in the 1m to 35m fire range. Off the top of my head here is what I have taken out with these wonderful "Merikan" Panzerfausts.

All German type Half-tracks

Hotchkiss

StuG's and StuH's

Wespe

Hummel

Mark IV's

and my favorate Hetzer (side shot)

now either I got a sup'd up version of CM or I am just plain lucky. Most of these kills were with American Airborne or Glider troops and Vets mostly I think the Reg's just suck so I almost never take Reg Para's

I would argue to that the German Panzerfaust 30's are almost useless since they rarely fire and when they do, they fly off bad like a butterfly on LSD. The 60's and 100's work like a charm and they fire them at resonable ranges.

On the other side (Commonwelth stuff) I have never ever in my gaming time KO'd a tank even at close range with Gamont (sp?) bombs or Engineer charges... if anything a Immobile or shocked the tank. This is where the PIAT shines in my eyes, quiet deadly and almost dead accurate with a Vetran crews.

I am personally ticked off in seeing a normal bloody sherman take out a Tiger head on at 800m!! first shot!! if I had a dime for ever time I have seen that I would have uh... Two dollars and fifty cents!!

[Darwin]

Saw a panther get toasted by one in Valley of Terror

It was a Pbem game between my upstart CM trainee and a full fledged board member. Ah the joys of parenting...

[Bruno Weiss]

Brian wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>*SIGH* I do wish people would read the history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Brian for clarifying that minuscule technical point. Actually I did read the more important part where Germany and Japan surrendered in complete ruin. (The Italians kept surrendering, they just weren't sure who to surrender to).

So much for their vastly superior technology aye?

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Brian wrote:

Thank you Brian for clarifying that minuscule technical point. Actually I did read the more important part where Germany and Japan surrendered in complete ruin. (The Italians kept surrendering, they just weren't sure who to surrender to).

So much for their vastly superior technology aye?

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Whiney Sigh* Just to add to this off topic. The characterization of the US using their code breaking only for revenge and other idiotic things while the British used it in a much more useful manner is just a little balderdash thrown out to fool, you Bruno. The US and Commonwealth worked very closely together on all communication issues. US breakers broke and used the German U-Boat codes to catch patrolling submarines and reroute convoys in the Atlantic. They found and sank convoys in the Pacific using broken codes. They also conducted strategic threat assessments that after the war turned out pretty accurate, all from signit.

In addition, and this was a sign of American material power on the ground, they assigned RDF/sigint groups all the way down to the level of corps artillery, and conducted artillery fires based on multiple point radio intercept -- a technique which would be perfected by the 1960s. By breaking local codes they would be able not only to locate a radiator in space, but tell what that radiator likely was attached to.

*scratches rear and puts up keyboard*

[Panzer76]

Yeah yeah, the Americans were great, the british were great and the germans were great. So, can we now all be friends and stop this somewhat stupid discussion?

Nation X was better in Y than nation Z discussion seldom provides something interesting other than nationalistic "pride".

I think the "author" is quite pleased with the result of his post...

[Slapdragon]

Actually, it is very useful, because it will expose a coward in our midst. I have e-mailed Brigadier Dunphie in the UK to determine if, indeed he really placed a message on this board. The poster should realize that their IP address was recorded, and that posting using a stolen identity is possibly slanderous.

At the very minimum, if and when the Brigadier replies to me, I will be able to put his reply here and clear his name, in case anyone thinks a scholar actually believes any of that drivel.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

I close assaulted an Elite Panther G - and took it out from the front with the first rifle grenade! Don't underestimate close assaults

CDIC

[MSBoxer]

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

[/qb]

Indeed this was one of the most profound differences between how ULTRA and PURPLE intercepts were used by the two allies. The US used its intercepts for revealling exercises like revenge (shooting down Yamamoto) while the British used their's to very carefully craft their responses to Axis movements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would class the most decisive battle of the pacific war as trivial and "revealing" "revenge". I have never heard of MIDWAY refered to in this manner but all 396 of my sources may be wrong. Perhaps it really wasn't the pivotal battle that turned the tide in the Pacific. If you are more interested in the ETO how about the intellegence that led to the persistant bombing raids on PENEMUNDA or the development plant for the ME-262. Were these revenge exercises?

Sorry, I just can't stand inaccuracies held up to support opinions.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>*SIGH* I do wish people would read the history... Indeed this was one of the most profound differences between how ULTRA and PURPLE intercepts were used by the two allies. The US used its intercepts for revealling exercises like revenge (shooting down Yamamoto) while the British used their's to very carefully craft their responses to Axis movements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrogant poppycock. The Axis certainly did break Allied codes, of course.

Japan broke high level Chinese codes, which was known to the Americans and British. For this reason the Allies often refused to divulge info on objectives to the Kuomintang, contributing to China's complaints of not being treated as an equal.

The Germans were also reading British naval codes, and for a time had the upper hand in the SIGINT war when the 4th wheel was added to their own naval encryption, creating a situation where they could read British traffic but the British couldn't read theirs (Feb. - Dec. '42).

Those who were reading their history would naturally give full credit to the Polish, who after all gave the key to Ultra to the British.

They would also know that the Americans decided to drop the atomic bombs based on decoded intercepts which revealed that the peace party in Tokyo had lost the argument, and that the war was doomed to continue. This was a decision of fairly weighty strategic import. They would know that the American strategic bombing of Japan was shifted to forestall the suicide airborne invasion of the Marianas, and that strategic bombing targets were evaluated before and after based on decoded messages.

Intercepted Japanese naval transmissions were used at Midway and elsewhere to win battles and sink shipping.

American use of decoded signals against the Germans included the shifting of reserves to meet the Mortain offensive, and the June-July '43 raids against refueling U-boats, for which great pains were taken to conceal the source of information.

It is well-known that America shared its breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code with Britain in early 1941, while the British failed to reciprocate with Enigma until months after the US was in the war.

Keep reading.

[Bruno Weiss]

Right you are Slap, and no, I ain't fooled. A feller has to get up earlier than that to put one over on ole Bruno. (This could turn into a reasonably enjoyable debate despite it all). The Italians didn't break or steal the US Diplomatic code either, (I wasn't there ofcourse), but my read of it is that the Germans infact could not break the diplomatic code but rather that the German Embassy in the US was closely monitoring the newspapers and that the essence of the diplomatic messages passed along from the Brits in Cairo, had a way of making it into the press. Just as Jack Anderson, rest his soul, carried on such a tradition of publishing otherwise classified material in our more modern times.

{Peers through the periscope for another target} Ah...

Originally posted by Major Tom:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the US just sat on their a$$'$ while the UK/Commonwealth fought Hitler for 3 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah-hem, this begs for yet another clarification on "over-there" as opposed to "over-here". Which the US drove the point home to the British the second time around in 1812.

My conversations with numerous neighbors in the Mid-Atlantic American region, and as exposed in the many books I claim to have written, but ofcourse no one has ever heard of, is that the US was appauled by the invasion of Poland, however it was, to this country's viewpoint, "over-there", not "over-here". The US having just bailed out the UK and France in WWI at a hefty cost in terms of dollars, if not life and limb, and was fairly tired of playing referee to the European local squabbles. (Kinda like MadMatt).

Now the British, in a knee jerk reaction to Neville Chamberlain's shameless attempt at an appeasment of Hitler, then muster up the courage to declare war on the Germans for their invasion of Poland, without so much as a paper airplane capable of doing anything about it. As if bluff and bluster alone were going to scare the Germans off.

So, the Brits pick a fight with the big bad wolf and then come running for help from big brother when they get their walnuts caught in a vise. And big brother was supposed to just up and enter into the fray, once again bailing everyone out from the first shot fired? I think the lesson there is, don't pick a fight with someone bigger and badder unless you know something they don't.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Is there anyone who has actually played CM who would say that rifle grenades represent an "impressive tank killing capacity"?

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, I would. I've managed to lose a JgPz IV lang & a StuH 42(late) to rifle grenades in the last few games I've played. They're certainly not useless by any means.

It was my understanding that only the Springfield rifle had the correct attachment to allow rifle grenades to be fired and yet the Springfield rifle is not modelled within the American squads (only sharpshooters). No doubt one of the grogs here will correct me if I'm wrong on this "fact" about rifle grenades and whether they could be fired from an M1 rifle.

Regards

Jim R.

[Maximus]

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

On the other side (Commonwelth stuff) I have never ever in my gaming time KO'd a tank even at close range with Gammon bombs or Engineer charges... if anything a Immobile or shocked the tank. This is where the PIAT shines in my eyes, quiet deadly and almost dead accurate with a Vetran crews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I agree. The Piat seems to be very accurate for what it is. One little scenario that I like to play from time to time is "Bombardment" because it has some Churchill's and since Felgrau has made this new Hi-Res Churchill. *SLAP* Uh, oh yeah, well anyway, the scenario has thick fog and is a British attack on a town up on a hill. I played the scenario the other day and I took out a Marder II with a Piat from at least 150m away and up hill. In thick fog to say the least.

Now as far as Rifle Grenades go, there is this other scenario "Crossroads" I play from time to time where I like to move my infantry over to a woods line where I know the German reinforcements pop up where I can ambush some with rifle grenades. This scenario has about every German AFV in it and I can take out several with them. Of course, I have to damn near close assult them to get my little infantry to fire them.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Errr, I would. I've managed to lose a JgPz IV lang & a StuH 42(late) to rifle grenades in the last few games I've played. They're certainly not useless by any means.

It was my understanding that only the Springfield rifle had the correct attachment to allow rifle grenades to be fired and yet the Springfield rifle is not modelled within the American squads (only sharpshooters). No doubt one of the grogs here will correct me if I'm wrong on this "fact" about rifle grenades and whether they could be fired from an M1 rifle.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the M1 had a GL attachment. In fact, the M1903 attachment was at best very rare by 1944, although it started the war as the only game in town.

I will post a picture tonight.

[Marlow]

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[The_Capt]

Well he was a troll...a very intelligent sounding and well written troll but a troll none-the-less.

[Cybeq]

I don't know what everybody is getting all riled up about. 'Ol C. Dunphie is obviously a dim-witted slouch. He obviously does not own CMBO. He obviously does not play CMBO. Therefore his opinions on the matter are irrelevant. He wandered in one day, perused a few old threads, and jumped to some outlandish and outrageous conculsions. In doing so he stirred up a hornet's nest. Let's all just simmer down a tad.

P.S. His book sounds interesting. Too bad we can't trust the information contained therein.

[jgdpzr]

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

Well he was a troll...a very intelligent sounding and well written troll but a troll none-the-less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would beg to differ on both intelligence and writing skills. For example, "this game derives from the U.S.A." is poor English. The game is created by people from the United States, but that does not make it a derivative of this country. Furthermore, he demonstrated questionable intelligence with the fundamental premise of his post.

But a troll? His subsequent absence speaks volumes.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I don't know what everybody is getting all riled up about. 'Ol C. Dunphie is obviously a dim-witted slouch. He obviously does not own CMBO. He obviously does not play CMBO. Therefore his opinions on the matter are irrelevant. He wandered in one day, perused a few old threads, and jumped to some outlandish and outrageous conculsions. In doing so he stirred up a hornet's nest. Let's all just simmer down a tad.

P.S. His book sounds interesting. Too bad we can't trust the information contained therein.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not condemn the book until we know if the Brigadier actually wrote the e-mail.

[Andrew H.]

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

I would beg to differ on both intelligence and writing skills. For example, "this game derives from the U.S.A." is poor English. The game is created by people from the United States, but that does not make it a derivative of this country. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, one meaning of "derive" is "originate." It's rarely used in this sense in the US; it may be British English. (It sounded strange to me, too, so I looked it up.)

[lcm1947]

As I've mentioned before and will now I strictly play or should say command only the American's in the game and I have never taken out a tank with rifle grenades. Now I have with bazoooka's but not rifle grenades. On the other hands German's always take out my tanks whenever I get too close and it really doesn't have to be that close either. As a matter of point this is one of my pet peeves, well that and not being able to make a tank turrert rotate independent of the hull but that's another subject and sounds like will be corrected in CM2. Anyway back to the point, so I for one agree that the original poster is all wet at least on this one point. I also think that this original poster is probably one of our own beloved, well liked, respected, looked up to and well behaved - oh oh , sorry I was thinking of the guys at another forum. Anyway, let me be the first to say - It's not me.

[Bruno Weiss]

Well maybe he was an imposter, or some lurker that thought he spotted something from the outside looking in, or maybe a prankster who enjoys the inevitable tooth nashing after tossing a bone over the dogpound fence.

Ain't nobody worked up though, well least I'm not. This discussion is tame compared to some of the tooth and claw brawls that have taken place over even less meaningful substance. Besides, what else do we have to do until CM2 comes out, and we can return to the more typical barroom brawls over really meaningful issues like bashing BTS over the Snorkskimobile43a solitary prototype that was cut from the game due to lack of time, or a blood thirsty battle over the finding of some obscure training manual that says tank crews always cleaned and oiled the barrels before turning the turrets.

Now, as the German player, I can attest to having lost armor left and right to the cotton picken PIAT's. Just a couple games back, two of my armored units were picked off in succession "pitta-bing, pitta-boom", by some Canadian PIAT. Although on one occasion I did see PIAT rounds bouncing off my Panther nicely, but unfortunately occupying the crew while a Sherman to its rear flank calmly swabbed the barrel out and then transformed the technologically superior Kitterkat into litterbox scrapings.

And them bazooka's. What can you say. I've never seen any real threat to infantry from the panzerfausts, but turn a zook lose on German infantry and they drop like flies. I've lost MarkIV's to zooks at distances that had to involve a radar guidance system.

Hmm, could it be, Lard forbid, that perception is in the eye of the beholder.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Errr, I would. I've managed to lose a JgPz IV lang & a StuH 42(late) to rifle grenades in the last few games I've played. They're certainly not useless by any means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then what are you doing driving your tanks so close to US infantry? In a year of playing CM I've yet to lose a single vehicle to rifle grenades or panzerfaust. You just have to be carefull to always use an infantry screen.

Its a moot point thought. Rifle grenades can and did take out German tanks on occasion. They seem to be modeled pretty well in CM.

[Major Tom]

I find it funny that two people used my 'america sat on their a$$es' remark, and actually used it seriously. Interestingly enough, you left out the rest of the message, that sated that anyone who took part in this UK/US bashing was just an idiot falling into this Troll's trap. Little did I realize that he was so smart as in you guys were so easily trapped into his net to use my condemnation of him and his acts in the very thing I was condemning.

[Bruno Weiss]

It gets deep!

[Clubfoot]

Feast trolls! Feast I say!