Claymore Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 Since the search command is kaput I will rely upon the CM minions and their memories of past discussions. What was the result of the argument to include Hetzers in the ALLOWABLE under Short 75 rules? I recall that 1) FK believed it should be 2) its side and rear tissue-like armour compensated for the 60/60 upfront. If I am in error, please set me on the path of correct think. Cheers Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 See this link. MrSpkr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted April 18, 2001 Share Posted April 18, 2001 Claymore, the mere fact that the likes of me was able to take out four of your Hetzers in our last PBEM is proof that they're vulnerable under short 75 rules Now where's my turn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasToast Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 I think the thread you are thinking of is here. Don't even think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 19, 2001 Author Share Posted April 19, 2001 Offwhite, Unless you used an alias and email address that were completely different than your BTS profile, we have never crossed swords. And...nobody ever flanks my Hertzers. Ever. Charles..ah...Texas Toast, I had already sent my purchase list to our third party when I posted this message. No Hertzers...and I don't need'em for the likes of you. Cheers Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 Murray, I see you've blocked out the painful memory of "Hetzer Hill" and my Greyhounds! You're right about the e-mail though; I've been using my work addy for our games. I sent you the latest turn of our hilltop battle last week; I've got a lot of fallschirmhamsters to avenge before time runs out! Let me know if you need it resent. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 19, 2001 Author Share Posted April 19, 2001 Mark you dog! I wondered if the "m" and "p" in the email stood for your moniker. Ah yes...the carnage of "Hertzer Hill" shall live in my memory for a long time. Seems to me like at least two of those fellows were immobilized before you scooted around back of them with your Greyhounds. Can't be held responsible for guy that can't move don't cha know. Besides I won that game fairly convincingly, while our latest is completely up for grabs. I was far far far too aggressive with my infantry and you spanked them nicely for their commander's poor judgement. Please resend your turn's file. I believe the question at hand was "in the face of no infantry left to hold the highground, can my three M4(76)s and M8 suffice?" Beware of my flanking infantry though! Excellent game now but it's too bad the first 20 turns were so dull. Cheers Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 What I'm wondering is why (except for Clamore's first post) are you guys misspelling 'Hetzer'? :confused: (I know, I know. But it's a slow night and I'm down to picking really tiny nits.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: Since the search command is kaput I will rely upon the CM minions and their memories of past discussions. What was the result of the argument to include Hetzers in the ALLOWABLE under Short 75 rules? I recall that 1) FK believed it should be 2) its side and rear tissue-like armour compensated for the 60/60 upfront. If I am in error, please set me on the path of correct think. Cheers Murray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The side and rear armor would be the only reason. By the by, my copy of the Short 75 rule has the Hetzer on the "excluded" list. I also checked the RD ladder site (go to Combat Mission section), where they have it posted. http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/ It is excluded. [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobH Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Murray, in producing the "updated" Fionn Kelly 'Recon', 'Short-75' and 'Panther-76' Rules for Rugged Defense recently, I was in communication with Fionn about the question of the Hetzer. Fionn stated to me: "Well, at one stage I was thinking about having it in. Then I decided, no, it shouldn;t go in... Kind of like how the Tiger wasn't in but now is except in reverse." The reference to the Tiger in the above quote is obviously in connection with the 'Panther-76' Rules which now allow the Tiger. So no, the Hetzer is NOT included in Fionn's Official Short-75 Rules. Of course, there is no reason why you should not include it in a game if you wish by mutual agreement with your opponent, but Fionn does not accept it under his Short-75 Rules. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 20, 2001 Author Share Posted April 20, 2001 Thanks Robert, There was something in my memory which approximated FK's decision process, but it required clarification. Cheers Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts