Allied use of Schutzenplatte?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

this thing is still going on and actualy getting worse? hehe, ok i think it's time everyone had thier warm milk and took a nap.

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

3. Australia's army liberated the Pacific by itself. It repeatedly had to bail out the hapless Americans though.

<hr></blockquote>

That reminds me of the parodic (Monty Python?) skit someone posted here in the CM forums, about the Australians being the first into Berlin & Tokyo & the whatnot (and bailing out the bumbling Yanks along the way too). Was that you who posted that, Andreas, or was it Simon Fox or even someone else? I'd love to save a copy --- it was pretty funny. But my earlier forum searches haven't availed.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Spook:

That reminds me of the parodic (Monty Python?) skit someone posted here in the CM forums, about the Australians being the first into Berlin & Tokyo & the whatnot (and bailing out the bumbling Yanks along the way too). Was that you who posted that, Andreas, or was it Simon Fox or even someone else? I'd love to save a copy --- it was pretty funny. But my earlier forum searches haven't availed.<hr></blockquote>

T'was me. Might have been on the General Forum.

[Spook]

You're right --- I was looking in the wrong forum. I finally found the post in the "General Forum" threads and saved a copy. Muwahahaha.

[Slapdragon]

Some of the problems that Brian faces is understanding what is good research. This includes using facts to present his position while being aware of limitations in the data he finds. I think part of the solution is to present an idea to BTS as a demonstration of how to convince BTS that something should be included in future games, while realistically recognizing the limitations of your own findings.

As a demonstration, I would like to take on the task of convincing BTS that a canister round should be included for the US and Commonwealth M3 / M6 series of 37mm cannon.

My first realization of the availability of this round came when I read Tregaski’s “Guadalcanal Diary” and his mention of the M3A1 being an incredibly deadly antipersonal weapon, especially at the misnamed battle of the Tenaru (Alligator Creek) and the fight with Ichicki on the coastal flank of the Marine bridgehead. Other mentions of the 37mm mounted on the M3 light tank seem to credit it with unusual capabilities that do not seem to jell with the blast characteristics of the M63 HE shell then available (although this shell fired from a rapid fire 37mm hopper loaded cannon could be deadly to infantry, it is to much to ask that 10 rounds fired per minute could cut “swaths” through Japanese charges at close range.

To confirm the use of this round in these battles and further prove that it existed, I went to look for alternate sources of information. Tregaski is a good source, but as a journalist he may not know the difference between a M3 and a 105mm howitzer. What he tells us is that something was deadly, fired from tanks and canon, and that something was instrumental in stopping several Japanese attacks.

The availability of a canister round for the 37mm series of canon is testified by a technical document called, “37mm M2 Canister”, published in 1941, but there is no reason to connect the technical design of these rounds with their employment in battle by US forces. One secondary source quotes, “Projectiles available to Grant crews included the US APC M51 (APCBC-T), AP M74 Shot (AP-T), HE M63 (Shell), plus an M2 canister round with 122 steel balls packed inside.”

(http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/grant/grant3.html) which seems promising, but is not cited, nor is actual combat use included.

However, we find that Guadalcanal’s Edson’s ridge, where Major Edson of the 1st Marine Division made his famous stand is still littered with steal balls from 37mm canister rounds. (http://www.gnt.net/~jrube/then&now/revisited95.htm )

Luckily, the Marine Corps own histories come to our rescue with an extensively cited book. In at a passage say:

“By this time Ichiki had assembled his force on the brush-covered point of land on the east bank of the river, and all was quiet until 0310 on 21 August when a column of some 200 Japanese rushed the exposed sandspit at the river mouth. Most of them were stopped by Marine small-arms fire and by a canister-firing 37mm antitank gun of the 1st Special Weapons Battalion.

The Marines opened up with everything they had. Machine-gun fire sliced along the beach as the enemy sloshed ashore, canister from the 37mm ripped gaping holes in the attack, and 75mm pack howitzers of the 3d Battalion.” (Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal: History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War Two. Vol. I: Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal by Lieutenant Colonel Frank O. Hough, USMCR; Major Verle E. Ludwig, USMC; Henry Shaw, Jr. p. 291)

Further the official United States Army history of that campaign confirms the use of 37mm canister shot, as can be seen in this passage, “The defending battalion had emplaced a 37-mm. gun, protected by machine guns and rifles, to cover the q.5-yard-wide sand bar. As the Japanese drew near, the 2d Battalion opened fire with rifles, machine guns, and the 37-mm. gun which was firing canister. A few of the Ichiki Force succeeded in crossing the bar to overrun some of the 2d Battalion's positions which were not protected by barbed wire. The majority were killed or wounded by the defenders' fire. The few who had crossed were prevented from reorganizing or extending their foothold by fire from the positions which the 2d Battalion had been able to hold. G Company of the 2d Battalion then counterattacked and drove the enemy survivors back across the river. The Ichiki Force installed itself along the beach east of the river mouth….To conclude the engagement before dark and to destroy some obdurate enemy machine gunners at the west end of the beach, a platoon of light tanks, supported by infantry, crossed the sand bar at 1500 and with 37-mm. canister and machine-gun fire attacked the Ichiki Force survivors and destroyed them. Two tanks suffered light damage, but by 1700 the engagement had ended. The attacking Japanese force had been destroyed, and Ichiki committed suicide. Japanese casualties numbered almost 800; only 130 survived.”

Miller, John. (1949). UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II: The War in the Pacific – GUADALCANAL: THE FIRST OFFENSIVE p. 96-98 CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY

The use turns out to be pretty universal in the Pacific, as can be seen by this quote from an oral history of a survivor of the 27th Division at Butaritari (Gilbert Islands)

“The 1st Battalion's troops were also clearing the pocket northwest of the west tank barrier. The heaviest fighting took place in a coconut grove in the middle of the island, where a group of Japanese fired on a platoon mopping up a former stronghold. Four Stuart tanks assisted the infantry by spraying the treetops with .30-caliber machine-gun fire and 37mm canister shells. The four tanks had been firing for five minutes when a Navy dive bomber, its pilot mistaking the west tank barrier for the Japanese-held east tank barrier, dropped a 2,000-pound bomb near them.” http://www.pacificwrecks.com/people/veterans/garrett/part6.html

Again, we find it used at Tarawa by Marines also (Hammel, Eric, and John Lan. (1995). BLOODY TARAWA. Pacific Military History. evidence that the M2 was used in the Pacific in several campaigns, it was deadly, and it could be used in both tanks and the M3 anti-tank gun.

However, and this is a big problem, I cannot connect it with ETO, The Eastern front, or the Med yet. Luckily when I began to look, stuff started to come out about the use of the M2 canister round in Europe. First, I was sent this great website, which showed several logged uses of the round by Calvary units in the ETO. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/museums/kng/635TDB.html

Then I found more stuff, including a quote in the Presidential unit citation for the 275th AFA Battalion of page 28: “During the day a force of approximately 300 German infantry infiltrated through the wooded area between RODT and POTEAU and gained the position area of the 275th Armored Field Artillery Battalion. The 275th held its ground, and diverted on battery to direct fire at point blank range while continuing to execute fire missions with the other two firing batteries. The situation became critical, and it looked as if the artillery battalion was to be overrun until light tanks from the 87th Cavalry Squadron arrived. Opening fire with 37mm canister and machine guns the tanks drove into the German Infantry killing and wounding many of the enemy and putting the remainder in flight.

We find canister again at Battle of the Bulge:

“At Monschau the 1st Battalion of the 752d Regiment carried the attack, apparently aimed at cutting between the Monschau and Hofen defenses. As the German shellfire lessened, about 0600, the cavalry outposts heard troops moving along the Rohren road which entered Monschau from the southeast. The grenadiers were allowed to approach the barbed wire at the roadblock, then illuminating mortar shell was fired over the Germans and the cavalry opened up with every weapon at hand-the light tanks doing heavy damage with 37-mm. canister.” (Cole, Hugh M. “THE ARDENNES:BATTLE OF THE BULGE” CMH Publication 7-8, Page 89 (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_5.htm)

And again with the 14th Calvary Group:

To assist them, powerful searchlights stabbed through the fog guiding their attack. All they had to do was follow the beam. Unfortunately, the beam also silhouetted them against the snow. Untrained and led by inexperienced non-commissioned officers, Schonborn's men stumbled through the morning mist towards Manderfeld. As they came into range, the cavalry outposts extracted a fearful toll. Automatic weapons and canister rounds hurled through the fog, ripping holes in the attackers' ranks. (Judge, D.J, Colonel. CAVALRY IN THE GAP: THE 14TH CAVALRY GROUP (MECHANIZED) AND THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE

http://users.skynet.be/bulgecriba/Cavalry.html)

According to http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/stag/stag3.html around 10% of a Staghound’s ammo supply was canister. This supports a 1943 document which shows that 9% of the 37mm shells going to the Med where “37mm, M2” (Service of Supply in World War Two. (1949), Presidential press reprint.)

Now I propose to BTS that next time around the 37mm get a canister round at around 10% of the round loaded for action for ETO and the Med, and maybe even Russia and British use. I have strong evidence for ETO, less for the med, and none for Russia that it was ever used. I have no real data on how effective it is (yet), but I know it was pretty effective.

Now I open this up to others to suggest other citations, come up with a model for how deadly these things are, or possibly prove I am completely wrong.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Spook:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>(although I've still yet to see records of a Universal carrier with such a device, or a few other odds & sods smaller Allied tracked vehicles, as they can in CMBO in post-June '44).<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm... I thought we patched that behavior out? If not, then I am sure it has something to do with inflexible code. In some ways the system deals with "classes" of vehicles, such as tracked, half tracked, and wheeled.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I have to qualify, however, the "clear as day" point #3, because IMO, it isn't quite as clear to me in having a "huge impact" in my prior readings. <hr></blockquote>

At the tactical level, I would say without question it was huge. There were ways to get through hedgerows prior to the cutters, but they were far more laborious and dangerous to employ. The cutters allowed a degree of flexibility and spontinaity that was quite difficult to acheive prior to this time period. Since the German tactics, in part, were based on having time to react to breaches... this presented a rather huge problem for them.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But I am inclined to add that the steady attrition of the German frontline troops, the much improved Allied tank-infantry coordination & combined arms by July '44, expanded Allied aerial interdiction, and the Allied logistics buildup all had comparable impact in helping the German lines to collapse post-COBRA.<hr></blockquote>

Totally agree. Sooner or later the Allies would have broke out of Normanday, one way or another. But the cutters almost certainly made it sooner and with fewer casualties. One has to wonder what would have happened if the cutters had been available from the get go.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The point of the matter is that if "field mods" for Allied vehicles were applied on a widespread, diverse scale, then it shouldn't be overly surprising that some Allied gamers would like for some such mods to be accounted for in some way. <hr></blockquote>

Vehicle mods were common for ALL nations. The Germans had put crap all over their tanks long before the US/CW forces did. In fact, many of these mods came with the vehicles from the Eastern Front (such as T-34 track lengths attached to hulls).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Even if a field mod was to improve an Allied tank's survivability to smaller ordnance by only 5-10%, some gamers would still like to see the option.<hr></blockquote>

Of course, if this could be proven to us we would add it. But we are inclined to dismiss most mods as adding nothing to the survivability. In fact, we are suspicious that sandbags actually increased the effectiveness of the PF (not that it needed it!). And many of these mods decreased mobility and increased mechanical problems. Remember, we don't like to give units special benefits if we can't also simulate the downsides.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The trick is --- how to? First off, per your earlier point, what were the measurable benefits of such field mods, supported by reports or even tests? Without that, trying to account for applique protection could get to be a dart-throwing exercise of no value and wasted time.<hr></blockquote>

Exactly

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>One "measurable" practice that does comes to me for me is the 1944-45 practice of welding added plates to the hull & turret sides of M4 tanks at select locations (not the entire side). The benefit? Probably minimal against the more powerful German ordnance and shaped-charged weapons, but against smaller ordnance, it may had made some difference. <hr></blockquote>

Correct. And this is something which is, believe it or not, fairly easy to account for. Pretty straight forward once some basic facts are known. Unfortunately, CM's armor modeling isn't as detailed as it needs to be to correctly account for whatever benifits this might have offered. When the game engine is rewritten that will all change.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Again, asking BTS to account for every version of applique armor protection, and accounting for same in a relatively realistic way, would be asking far too much. But I would be concerned about seeing a fully dismissive stance taken now on Allied vehicle applique protection in entirety.<hr></blockquote>

I was not thinking of field modified welded/bolted armor when I made my previous post. This is, in my opinion, an entirely different matter when compared to bedsprings, chickenwire, logs, sandbags, etc. The former is something that is obviously beneficial (even if it didn't do much) and fairly easy to account for with some basic facts. The latter is just... well... pretty much impossible to pin down.

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

so your comparing the effectiveness of american equipment on the japanese and expect the same results against germans?? the sherman looked state of the art in the pacific theater, just because it shined there, does not mean that suddenbly it's better then a stalin tank. the japanese army was ill equiped, right down to small arms, all of it was terrible. want a good laugh? take a look at the pistols they were issued.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously!

Lost in all this brouhaha is the really interesting questions of when, who and how frequently.

In reality of course the best answer to 'bazooka' toting Jerries is to Besa the buggers and every hedge, copse, wall, house, hole they could be hiding in. Unfortunately you area fire is really point fire at the moment which somewhat restricts this really useful prophylactic technique.<hr></blockquote>

I shall never again take you seriously, agree on Besaing the buggers (although I believe that Aussie tank crews would just rip their throats out with their teeth, spit it into their helmet, and make a nice stew from it), and that area-fire could warrant a closer look.

The interesting questions are not lost - they are just not answered by the person toting chickenwire as an add-on worth modeling. I have been asking them from the start. *shrug* Maybe Brian has the super-duper special edition of Delaforce's work with all the answers in it...

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

so your comparing the effectiveness of american equipment on the japanese and expect the same results against germans?? the sherman looked state of the art in the pacific theater, just because it shined there, does not mean that suddenbly it's better then a stalin tank. the japanese army was ill equiped, right down to small arms, all of it was terrible. want a good laugh? take a look at the pistols they were issued.<hr></blockquote>

Iron Chef, you make a good point that effectiveness against the Japanese is no measure of effectiveness against the Germans, except that we are not talking about the Sherman and its 75, but the 37mm AT gun and the 37mm armed tanks and ACs of the allies, and the above cites show the use of 37mm canister to devestating effect on German soldiers. How devestating? Well, that is one of the problems with the data I presented, it is so far not technical enough to define the shot pattern of the round, the range, the covereage density, or the stopping power of the ammunition. For my argument to be successful myself or others would have to dig this data out.

Of course, instead, I could just *sigh* and say BTS is ignoring me because it has been almost two hours since I posted my treatment of the 37mm, obviously they are hiding from me, and they hate the US and are so dumb they did not add the 37mm canister round to the game.

That argument, as Andreas and Steve pointed out, is juvenile.

Let me add another critique of my work just to throw some water on my own test proposal. What is my idea was great, but the engine just could not handle that addition right now, and it may not be worth adding it in for the next edition of CM that covers the Med. Then i would have to show that those rounds where used often enough, and had enough effect, to warrant BTS time modelling their effects.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

well at least your not being juvenile about the whole thing, i wouldnt doubt that what you state is true, as the americans did excel at infantry support, constantly pulling out all the stops.

[Slapdragon]

The saddest thing about this whole thread was that Ogadai basically asked a reasonable question from a reference found in a book, and other ran it up the flag pole of nationalism. His simple question was, "how wide spread?" The answer was, "lots of random occurances, probably was not worth a damn in battle".

[Ogadai]

So, Steve, your problem is not necessarily with what Brian posts but rather the manner in which he posts?

He got up your nose, obviously, with some of his earlier comments. Yet, his manner is no more abrasive nor arrogant in my opinion than any of the other posters here, Andreas and Slapdragon included. They appear to be cut a considerable amount of slack, whereas he isn't. Fair? I think not.

You, Andreas are apparently just as guilty as Brian of creating arguments. I've read his postings for sometime and I have seen no evidence of the arguments you claim he has made. Whose now guilty of playing the man and not the ball, hey?

For the most part, Brian has attempted in this thread to be factual and whats more concilatory, as I see it. He hasn't fallen over himself to kow-tow to you, Steve but he has offered an olive branch. You, on the otherhand, have simply dismissed out of hand basically everything he's said. Now, I'm going to give you a blast. from your message you're just as arrogant, just as self-centred. You appear from on high, occassionally making a pronouncement. It appears you believe we should simply accept your statements as ex-cathedra and infallible. Despite upon several occasions, information being offered by several different posters on faults in your game with regard to Commonwealth or British matters upon only one occasion have you acknowledged an error in your research, in the time I've been posting here.

Now, thats out of the way, I recognise that you are under considerable pressure and working hard on CMBB (I hope!) and obviously do not have as much time perhaps as needed for the BBS. Even so, I would suggest that everybody pulls their collective heads in and calms down a little.

When I posted my original message, I was merely asking for further information about a modifcation which was mentioned in the Delaforce book. I have found the debate, interesting and intriguing. Indeed, I find some of the logic on both sides compelling, yet, I must admit I believe that some method must be put in place in the game to take into account this sort of armour modification. How, I'm not sure. All I can do is draw upon my figure wargaming days (when it was possible to model individual vehicles) and suggest that some value be given to vehicles so equipped which improves their protection against hollow-charge rounds. It is obvious though, that even if these add-ons didn't actually do anything, as some claim (something I find doubtful, in itself, going by the little I know about hollow-charge principles), players expect to see vehicles festooned with equipment and so on. Sure, that means, as some have pointed out, problems with polygon counts and so on and that has to be acknowledged.

I'm more annoyed than anything else that as usual, thanks to all concerned, a genuine question once more gets lost in the egos of all concerned. I'd suggest its time for everybody to grow up a little and stop acting like kids in the schoolyard. I'm interested in an exchange in information, not a game of "king of the castle". OK?

Therefore, Steve, Mad Matt or who ever is playing god at the moment that this thread be declared dead, null and void and everybody retire to their corners and calm down a bit.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I take umbrage at anyone taking me seriously!

<hr></blockquote>

Then I'll have to take Myitkyina*

JonS

*Obscure Chindit reference

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

So, Steve, your problem is not necessarily with what Brian posts but rather the manner in which he posts?

He got up your nose, obviously, with some of his earlier comments. Yet, his manner is no more abrasive nor arrogant in my opinion than any of the other posters here, Andreas and Slapdragon included. They appear to be cut a considerable amount of slack, whereas he isn't. Fair? I think not.

You, Andreas are apparently just as guilty as Brian of creating arguments. I've read his postings for sometime and I have seen no evidence of the arguments you claim he has made. Whose now guilty of playing the man and not the ball, hey?

For the most part, Brian has attempted in this thread to be factual and whats more concilatory, as I see it. He hasn't fallen over himself to kow-tow to you, Steve but he has offered an olive branch. You, on the otherhand, have simply dismissed out of hand basically everything he's said. Now, I'm going to give you a blast. from your message you're just as arrogant, just as self-centred. You appear from on high, occassionally making a pronouncement. It appears you believe we should simply accept your statements as ex-cathedra and infallible. Despite upon several occasions, information being offered by several different posters on faults in your game with regard to Commonwealth or British matters upon only one occasion have you acknowledged an error in your research, in the time I've been posting here.

Now, thats out of the way, I recognise that you are under considerable pressure and working hard on CMBB (I hope!) and obviously do not have as much time perhaps as needed for the BBS. Even so, I would suggest that everybody pulls their collective heads in and calms down a little.

When I posted my original message, I was merely asking for further information about a modifcation which was mentioned in the Delaforce book. I have found the debate, interesting and intriguing. Indeed, I find some of the logic on both sides compelling, yet, I must admit I believe that some method must be put in place in the game to take into account this sort of armour modification. How, I'm not sure. All I can do is draw upon my figure wargaming days (when it was possible to model individual vehicles) and suggest that some value be given to vehicles so equipped which improves their protection against hollow-charge rounds. It is obvious though, that even if these add-ons didn't actually do anything, as some claim (something I find doubtful, in itself, going by the little I know about hollow-charge principles), players expect to see vehicles festooned with equipment and so on. Sure, that means, as some have pointed out, problems with polygon counts and so on and that has to be acknowledged.

I'm more annoyed than anything else that as usual, thanks to all concerned, a genuine question once more gets lost in the egos of all concerned. I'd suggest its time for everybody to grow up a little and stop acting like kids in the schoolyard. I'm interested in an exchange in information, not a game of "king of the castle". OK?

Therefore, Steve, Mad Matt or who ever is playing god at the moment that this thread be declared dead, null and void and everybody retire to their corners and calm down a bit.<hr></blockquote>

Ogadai, I think you truly missed the point of BTS and other's posts. Very much everyone is interested in exchange of information, but Brian makes everyone mad (and has become the butt of considerable amount of joking which is very unfortunate) because he accuses BTS of being anti-commonwealth while at the same time using some very poor methods to try and prove a point, all the while claiming that anyone who does not listen to that point is somehow demented and troubled. He demands changes to a game with no evidence to back him up, or very poor evidence, or worse, made up evidence, and he acts like BTS is somehow bound to reply to his every whim. This is not calculated to win any support, convince anyone of anything, or for that matter do anything but devolve every discussion he enters into a flame fest. Believe me, I am involved in two other discussion groups about this game, both very heavily moderated, and neither group has these sorts of things going on in them. I might also add that Andreas is a valued member of one of these groups as are many others who are greatly respected here, and conversations can get heated, but at least data is exchanged.

I agree 100% that your original post was perfectly acceptable, a nice post, and an interesting topic, but you need to read posts critically here. The first stone thrown was Brian's. Now, part of what you would have found out was that most of the add ons did not have any real world effect, where short lived, and not universally applied, or in the case of sandbags and concrete, actually hurt armor protections instead of helped it. Still, that is lost because of the post on page one which batted out something about Sturm Tigers.

It is laudable that with the above post you are trying to make peace, but the blame should not be laid on BTS's door step. However if you talk with Andreas, Diceman, Vanir, and the rest of the old timers you may find that they are actually very knowledgeable and excellent teachers. At least I have learned a lot from them.

[Simon Fox]

We don't really need an extended analysis of what's going on here, it's perfectly straight forward. Brian was a bit of a git in his originally post (doing a bit fishing I fancy) and the 'orrible nasty little nick chameleon hadn't had 'is weeties or somefink and leapt in boots 'n all. The predictable happened with the usual crowd of sycophants and hyperbolists clambering aboard the bandwagon and a jolly good time was had by all.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

We don't really need an extended analysis of what's going on here, it's perfectly straight forward. Brian was a bit of a git in his originally post (doing a bit fishing I fancy) and the 'orrible nasty little nick chameleon hadn't had 'is weeties or somefink and leapt in boots 'n all. The predictable happened with the usual crowd of sycophants and hyperbolists clambering aboard the bandwagon and a jolly good time was had by all.<hr></blockquote>

Heck, even Simon knows a thing or two when he has had his proper medications and is not trying to mix Fosters Lager and teacher's Scotch into a new and wholly Australian drink combination.

[Battlefront.com]

Ogadia,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yet, his manner is no more abrasive nor arrogant in my opinion than any of the other posters here, Andreas and Slapdragon included. <hr></blockquote>

That is your opinion and you are welcomed to it. However, I think you are the only one besides Brian himself to think that. I've been moderating this 275,000 message, 6000+ member BBS for 3 years now. I think I am in a FAR better position to judge a poster's motivations/personality than anybody here. That is, of course, just my opinion. Each person might be unique, but I have found the number of personality types to be quite small.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For the most part, Brian has attempted in this thread to be factual and whats more concilatory, as I see it.<hr></blockquote>

Why you see things differently than everybody else is not my concern. I see things for how they are and I see Brian's chip far too clearly to ignore it. In fact, in this thread he has also stated that he is not only ignorant about US forces but he actually doesn't want to learn about them. Hard for me to take him seriously when he doesn't want to broaden his knowledge. Biased posters are rarely useful posters. Brian has shown in all such debates that he is strongly biased.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> He hasn't fallen over himself to kow-tow to you, Steve but he has offered an olive branch. <hr></blockquote>

If the olive branch was offered with any degree of sincerity, it would have been taken. But it wasn't as far as I can tell. His comments in this very thread have shone nothing but contempt for us, either directly or indirectly. I can not take an apology seriously while at the same time he is accusing us of being biased, error prone, and illogical when we have consistantly shown that we are none of these things. Sorry if I take offense to calling our character and motivations into question without merrit, but I do.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Despite upon several occasions, information being offered by several different posters on faults in your game with regard to Commonwealth or British matters upon only one occasion have you acknowledged an error in your research, in the time I've been posting here.<hr></blockquote>

Then you haven't been here long enough to pass judgement. We have, on MANY occasions, acknowledged errors when they were backed up with facts. We don't care what nationality is involved, ever. I challenged Brian, now I challenge you... check out the ReadMes with the half dozen patches we put out. Note how many times we corrected things because we got them wrong.

We are certainly not perfect, but we will never say that we are in error if we have not been proven to be so. Brian's previous attempts to show our "shoddy" research work has always come up short for one reason or another, as he has absoultely come up short in this discussion. And no matter what the nationality of the possible "error" in question is irrelevant, so it pisses me off to no end to keep seeing Brian directly and indirectly try to create doubt about this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>When I posted my original message, I was merely asking for further information about a modifcation which was mentioned in the Delaforce book.<hr></blockquote>

I agree. We have had several long debates about such things before and I feel they are all worth while. I think that all of us here are just sorry that Brian imediately turned it into yet another axe grinding event. I put it to you that if Brian had not come into this discussion that there would have been none of crap that has poluted this thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I have found the debate, interesting and intriguing. Indeed, I find some of the logic on both sides compelling, yet, I must admit I believe that some method must be put in place in the game to take into account this sort of armour modification. <hr></blockquote>

Then we would have to do this on a grand scale, since to pick just this ONE, almost certainly rare modification for special treatment would be completely irresponsible of us. As I pointed out, all nations made all sorts of modifications to their vehicles at one point in time or another. Why should we just out of the blue to simulate pick ONE of these for one nationality? Then we could rightly be accused of bias, but ironically "pro-Commonwealth" bias.

You think this modification probably did something positive, but even you have no clue what that something is. We think that it either did little to nothing or was so rarely engaged that it in effect had no impact on anything. Not because we are ignorant about shaped charge physics but rather BECAUSE we do know about this and many other relevant aspects of these modifications. It is our professional opinion that these modifications have no place in the game, no matter which side employed them. And as I pointed out, the Germans were doing such modifications long before the Allies were, so if we are to add in one example then we should add them all. And that would be a tremendous waste of time.

My conclusion here is that your original post was a good one. The debate, stripped of Brian's insistance on bias and shoddy work, was actually of some worth. It doesn't change any thinking we had going into this debate, but not because we are arrogant. Rather, we have had this debate many times before and have already examined these issues in far greater depth than seen in this thread. Therefore, since nothing new was presented here our opinion obviously should not change.

Steve

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas the nick chameleon and master of hypebole:

Steve, I think you are going a bit harsh here on poor Brian. He has after all caused the history of WW2 to be rewritten as we speak. His amazing discoveries include the following:

1. the utter incapability of Rommel as a general (only good because of his intel - of course Allied generals were all geniuses, to whom ULTRA was but a nuisance, and who despised intel because it got in the way of doing the job well and is unsporting).

2. German Sturmtruppen of 1918 were the equivalent of your local footy team, and just let into the British defenses out of kindness.

3. Australia's army liberated the Pacific by itself. It repeatedly had to bail out the hapless Americans though.

4. The Bren Tripod, marvel of weapons development, envy of the Wehrmacht. There is a quote by Keitel, snapped up during the Champagne reception when he surrendered to the Australian ambassador in Karlshorst - 'Vizout ze Bren Tripod, zer vould haf been no Australian Wiktorie in Normandy, mein Herr.'

5. Finally, his master-piece, the discovery of the groundbreaking role of chickenwire on the Australian tanks crossing the Rhine in 1945. With the keen sense of the outbacker, the Aussies had that itching feeling that the east bank would be crawling with Hitlerjungen wielding Panzerfaeuste. They therefore liberated lots of hens for supper (and other things, sheep being a scarce commodity in the Rhineland), and then used the now superfluous wire of their (the hens', not the Aussies') cages to make their tanks immune to the shaped charge. Thus equipped, the Australian Army broke out into the North German plain, destroying the German army on the Vistula, and liberating Berlin. Being a generous people by nature, they invited the Red Army to join the parade. But then Sergej, the driver of Zhukov, started the Cold War by nicking a Castlemaine XXX from Private Bruce. All this and more deduced from a random quote and a single picture in a second rate book.

Spengler would bow to Brian, as would Tuchman. Marshall pales next to him.<hr></blockquote>Let's not forget the nick chameleon's own fantastic contributions to historical research.

1) Absolute irrefutable proof (with photos!) that the sun did shine out of Rommels arse. Of course we won't go into why the nick chameleon had pictures of a naked Rommel plastered all over his place.

2) The British were stunned by the brilliance of German Sturmtruppen tactics in 1918 not themselves having learnt anything from 4 years of war. The only thing that stopped the Sturmtruppen in 1918 was they got a bit tired. The Germans were betrayed in 1918, the Hindenburg line was sabotaged and they just let the British march in, the '100 days' never happened.

3) Douglas MacArthur single handedly saved the cowardly aussies in the Pacific when he brought the crack jungle experts of the 32nd Inf Div to show them the way.

4) His amazing discovery that the British Army without rhyme nor reason purchased and issued large quantities of equipment for which there was no tactical use. Read his forthcoming book "The Great Tripod Scandal" for more on this disgraceful British mismanagement.

5) Let's not forget his masterpiece: the discovery that all wire type anti-heat attachments in WW2 were in fact constructed from domestic chicken wire. This stunning insight, which is contrary to all other sources, was gleaned from a single phrase from a single post in a second rate thread.

6) Finally his most important and telling contribution to this forum: "Look Mum, no editing!"

Edited because we wouldn't want to stir up the nick chameleon any more by doing so, would we? You bet we would!

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

3) Douglas MacArthur single handedly saved the cowardly aussies in the Pacific when he brought the crack jungle experts of the 32nd Inf Div to show them the way.<hr></blockquote>

This one is priceless. Personally, I hate the guy and think he was a glory hound, but then again, you and I may not have been able to do any better than the poor bastard with our back seat gen'raling.

[Battlefront.com]

While I disagree (strongly) with Simon's implication that people weren't right to jump all over Brian's trolling, I do think he has a point. And the point is that perhaps now that it is clear what Brian is up to that maybe we should just ignore him. Just think about how differently this whole thread would have turned out if everybody simply ignored Brian's trolling. Sad, but true.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I disagree (strongly) with Simon

Steve<hr></blockquote>Oh well there goes my sycophant status. No more stories for you, mate!

[Battlefront.com]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No more stories for you, mate!<hr></blockquote>

Dang! I'm going to miss those colorful Aussie stories with all the naughty language Whooops! Sorry... "colourful"

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

glory hound, yeah, but patton was the king of the glory hounds, well a tie with monty.