Fords in CMBO

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I remember my parents had a sincere dislike for Ford because he pardoned Nixon.

[Doug Beman]

There's also the possibility that BTS incorrectly chose "ford" when perhaps another word might've been better. Whatever word means "spot in an otherwise-uncrossable river where humans can cross but vehicles cannot."

DjB

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE, as well as those instances where fascines and scissor bridges were used in a CMBO setting (outside the training movie).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have references to tripod mounted Brens being utilised during the advance into Holland and during Operation Market-Garden. I also have references to Fascines being utilised in the assaults on le Havre and the Channel ports and in Italy.

I have no references to the use of the Lynx, the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind or Ostwind. Perhaps you'd care to provide them?

The point being of course, armies often have equipment that is (a) never issued but produced, ( in such small quantities that its use is never noticed, © of such insignificance that no one records their use.

As George McDonald Fraser suggests with the PIAT and its use in Burma - he's seen references which state it was never issued or used in that theatre, yet he carried and used one, as recounted in his book, "Quartered Safe Out Here".

I suspect you'd be dreadfully upset if CMBO had appeared without the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind yet you seem to get annoyed when I or others point out that these weapons were available to the British and were utilised by them and then ask why they aren't in the game or even considered in the game.

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

In the mean-time, please excuse me while I pour a bottle of Jacob's Creek down the kitchen sink, it needs disinfecting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barbarian. Of course, depends upon the year but Jacob's is considered one of the better quality, cheap Australian reds. Much better than vin ordinaire in my experience.

I suggest, if you really want to show your disdain for things Australian, do it with a bottle of Grange Hermitage or are you too cheap?

[JonS]

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

Well, at the moment we are all waiting there, with baited breath, for the numbers of tripod-mounted Brens employed in NWE...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the basis of 1 per platoon, that would be about 2,500. Roughly.

[Slapdragon]

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

Doug,

I did the work of looking through a dictionary for you:

from Merriam-Webster on: "fording/to ford"

Main Entry: ford

Function: transitive verb

Date: 1614

: to cross (a body of water) by wading

to elaborate, this refers to *humans* wading through said ford. Therefore, if humans *wade* through a body of water (by using a ford), it's unlikely to be very deep ("wading" *usually* implying a waterline somewhere at the waist).

If a ford is so deep that no vehicle, not even the most apt at fording, can cross it (a la in CMBO), then this would be a depth at which a fully combat-ladden soldier would have at least a hard time at fording, too. Hence my original post:

"IMHO footsoldiers should have a hard time "fording" a ford that not even a tank or truck can cross."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hof,

This may only be true in the United States, but according to the USGS, the mapping org for the US, a Ford is a "point with low banks, stable foundation, and easy currents, capable of being crossed by horse or humans, or vehicles with proper equipment." further, my map guide says in the history of mapping section, "fords were first surveyed to determine if they were suitable for crossing by men loaded down with packs, or horse and livestock." So perhaps the definition in the game is the older one, used as a professional term.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

On the basis of 1 per platoon, that would be about 2,500. Roughly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And very nicely contained on the platoon truck...

Would be interesting to put this one to rest, but I suspect that those fools in WW II were too busy fighting for their lives to bother recording with precision what equipment they used and how, and what percentage chance there was of killing enemy soldiers with it...

We still us SF (sustained fire) kits for the C6 machine gun.; seems to me they aren't used that often either. And I know that they are heavy on top of it. I've been hands on with a Bren tripod a couple of times - not something you wanted to carry on patrol or in an attack. I would suspect also that once objectives were taken, by the time the 15 cwts made it forward, your initial German counterattacks would already have concluded by the time you could get the damn things set up.

Not just a matter of setting it up, either, but of doing your range card, staking out your firing lanes, etc. - stuff best not done when being counterattacked furiously.

Would be interested in the reference that says they were used in Market Garden; I have not seen any reference to their use anywhere, but haven't looked very hard either.

[M Hofbauer]

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

There's also the possibility that BTS incorrectly chose "ford" when perhaps another word might've been better. Whatever word means "spot in an otherwise-uncrossable river where humans can cross but vehicles cannot."

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now we're talking.

[Andreas]

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

I suspect you'd be dreadfully upset if CMBO had appeared without the Puppchen or the Wirbelwind yet you seem to get annoyed when I or others point out that these weapons were available to the British and were utilised by them and then ask why they aren't in the game or even considered in the game.

I suggest, if you really want to show your disdain for things Australian, do it with a bottle of Grange Hermitage or are you too cheap?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You suspect wrongly, I actually coud hardly care less. Equally rightly I could tell you that you really need to rid yourself of the 'Commonwealth Persecution'™ complex. I am also not annoyed, I just would like to see some proof that these were used in the way you intend them to. Not that it matters, since the game won't be changed anyway.

I go and look up the Le Havre story tonight, can't recall that one, but my memory is going anyway, so that does not say much.

BTW, I don't have any disdain for things Australian, I just hate Australian wine. If you identify Australia with wine, the worse for you

[Sig]

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

You guys are presuming that depth of water is the only factor.

I grew up with a stream running through my backyard. I could wade across it with ease. You couldn't drive a heavy duty truck through it, though, because of the jagged rocks on half of the bottom, and the soft SOFT mud extending about 10m on either side of the creek.

Simply put, it may be problems with mud or rocks that explain why a particular ford is NOT crossable by vehicles, but IS crossable by humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. I know rivers here in Europe that have their bottom made of a deep layer of pebbles. Fordable by humans, but impossible for vehicles (even tracked ones) which would just lose traction and bog.

But it's true that the addition in CMBB of fords that can be crossed vehicles AND/OR humans will be nice. Will add variety to scenario design too.

And so everybody will be happy. O joy.

Sig

[Slapdragon]

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

You suspect wrongly, I actually coud hardly care less. Equally rightly I could tell you that you really need to rid yourself of the 'Commonwealth Persecution'™ complex. I am also not annoyed, I just would like to see some proof that these were used in the way you intend them to. Not that it matters, since the game won't be changed anyway.

I go and look up the Le Havre story tonight, can't recall that one, but my memory is going anyway, so that does not say much.

BTW, I don't have any disdain for things Australian, I just hate Australian wine. If you identify Australia with wine, the worse for you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas, I like Australian wines. I just hate Australian Whine. Seems a lots is being uncorked lately, and the vintage is definately sour grapes.

[mikeadams]

I believe the problem for vehicles is often the nature of the river bed. While it may be fine for foot traffic, it is too soft for vehicles. Obviously there will be a range and some would be able to take vehicles, but I suspect it is not worth BTSs time coding all the variations. I do know that some fords were maintained by the government and were certainly capable of allowing cars across