Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 Slappy, what do you mean by "centipede"? The term is unfamiliar to me in this context. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Slappy, what do you mean by "centipede"? The term is unfamiliar to me in this context. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you ever watch a true centipede or a millipede, you will see that as they start moving, some parts of their body don't get the message at the same time as other parts, and the legs actually move in waves. This is moving like a centipede. If you look at the whole creature, it moves as one, but its legs start out a bit confused and need a bit get get in step. The term is used in convoys, because a comvoy will seem to centipede unless it is handled well. That is because the first truck starts, the second follows, the third is asleep and takes a bit of time, the second creeps up on the first, the first slows down for the third, the third creeps up on the first, and instead of everyone moving in step, they accordian. Infantry do this to in a very limited fashion. In fact, the centipede or accordian effect is most noticeable in route marches where unikts are not in step and start to spread out and bunch up on each other. This is a natural arrangement, and many things in nature do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: It's always bugged me a little bit that Allied tanks penetrating bocage do not create an opening that can be exploited by following non-tank vehicles (and personnel). Michael (Just felt like getting that off my chest. Thank you. )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another good point. I'd suggest, particularly if fitted with a "prong", the resultant gap would be passable at least by other tracked vehicles or even semi-tracked ones. Wheeled ones I believe would still have too much trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 In a mad effort to bring the thread back on topic... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is a good current compromise, followed by a proposal for a 4 level system: 1) Defeats Wheeled Vehicles 2) Defeats Light Tanks / Halftracks 3) Defeats Tanks (takes a dozer 1/2 time) 4) Defeats Dozers Here I would have a vehicle have to work on an obstacle for a set number of turns, to represent battering through it, with the final an an obstacle with a hole in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a workable alternative to the present situation, which is IMO rather silly. I was just reading David Fletcher's "79th Armoured Division - Vanguard to Victory" where he makes the point that AVRE's were used to demolish beach obstacles - the inference which can be drawn by other comments in the same book, that the AVRE's Petard was utilised to do the same against obstacles inland from the beach. I'd suggest a slight modification to your rule - with an addition that the removal of a given obstacle can be achieved with x hits from a petard or y hits from normal HE rounds from guns of => 75mm in calibre. BTW, the above book has an excellent picture of an armoured D8 dozer removing a burning wreck (unspecified and unclear from the photo) from a road, during an advance. So obviously the vehicles were used quite a ways forward (which is perhaps why they armoured them). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps other items could be rated in this scale also, so a dozer could knock down a building maybe if it was light enough or weak enough, assuming that this was done tactically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why limit it to only dozers? Tanks were well able to enter buildings - another facility which is not included in the game. I'd merely suggest that dozers are more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 Centipeding is known as "accordion effect" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Michael emrys wrote: It's always bugged me a little bit that Allied tanks penetrating bocage do not create an opening that can be exploited by following non-tank vehicles (and personnel). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that with the engine re-write and smaller terrain tiles this can be included. I'd guess a tank would make about a 5-6 foot gap in a hedgerow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Centipeding is known as "accordion effect" here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, that is the other term I have heard for it. I have also heard it called "ass kicking" as in you accidently kick the ass of the person in front and get your ass kicked from the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: This is a workable alternative to the present situation, which is IMO rather silly. I was just reading David Fletcher's "79th Armoured Division - Vanguard to Victory" where he makes the point that AVRE's were used to demolish beach obstacles - the inference which can be drawn by other comments in the same book, that the AVRE's Petard was utilised to do the same against obstacles inland from the beach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Petards were used to demolish roadblocks and blast holes in bocage, going from the 1945 history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The term is used in convoys, because a comvoy will seem to centipede unless it is handled well. That is because the first truck starts, the second follows, the third is asleep and takes a bit of time, the second creeps up on the first, the first slows down for the third, the third creeps up on the first, and instead of everyone moving in step, they accordian. Infantry do this to in a very limited fashion. In fact, the centipede or accordian effect is most noticeable in route marches where unikts are not in step and start to spread out and bunch up on each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the clarification. This is the effect I was trying to achieve with my suggestion that the unit closest to the HQ would move off first with more distant units following after a slight delay (1-2 seconds?), one after the other as they are further from the HQ. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: I'd guess a tank would make about a 5-6 foot gap in a hedgerow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is the width of a Sherman or other tank fitted with hedgerow cutters? I would have thought it a little more than that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: What is the width of a Sherman or other tank fitted with hedgerow cutters? I would have thought it a little more than that. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A cullins unit on a Sherman, according to Ezell, is at least 2 meters wide or longer (they were hand made). Images of cullins holes and testimony from tankers show that the cullins gap was not perfect because the tank often left a hump that hand to be moved over, and this slowed the tanks and exposed the lower glacis. Better than nothing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Wheeled ones I believe would still have too much trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may be right, there might be too much debris remaining. Does anyone know of any account addressing this issue? I feel certain that leg units should be able to walk right through with no, or only a very slight delay in game terms. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Why limit it to only dozers? Tanks were well able to enter buildings - another facility which is not included in the game. I'd merely suggest that dozers are more efficient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was hashed out at the very beginning of the game's design. The reason tanks are not able to enter buildings in the game is that, at least in NW Europe, a substantial number of buildings had basements and the ground floor would not support the weight of a vehicle. I don't know if this is planned to be changed in CM2. Presumably, a higher proportion of buidings in Russia were cottages without basements, but I am willing to be corrected on this point. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Thanks for the clarification. This is the effect I was trying to achieve with my suggestion that the unit closest to the HQ would move off first with more distant units following after a slight delay (1-2 seconds?), one after the other as they are further from the HQ. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This would not be a bad way of simulating the accordian effect in troop movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Petards were used to demolish roadblocks and blast holes in bocage, going from the 1945 history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While i am quite willing to believe that a petard would demolish a roadblock, would it also clear the resulting debris? In other words, was it found sufficient for opening a hole that, say, wheeled vehicles could make it through? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: While i am quite willing to believe that a petard would demolish a roadblock, would it also clear the resulting debris? In other words, was it found sufficient for opening a hole that, say, wheeled vehicles could make it through? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not sure about this. For example, hollywood has given tanks the ability to drive through any structure, but battlefield accounts show that tanks mostly get stuck in all but the smallest peasant shack. For a petard, the bomb may black the block, but it may leave enough crap to still need a dozer to clear. Obviously, more research is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: While i am quite willing to believe that a petard would demolish a roadblock, would it also clear the resulting debris? In other words, was it found sufficient for opening a hole that, say, wheeled vehicles could make it through? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How long is a piece of string again? To be honest, I doubt that they cleared it completely. It was probably as much a friendly invitation to the potential defenders to bugger off as anything else. I would suspect that after petarding it, first infantry and then tanks went through it gingerly, and after the first troop it would be okay for wheeled, because all the constituent elements of the late roadblock would be the size of a badly mishandled cigarette match. But often roadblocks would just be outflanked too. That was SOP for Recce units anyway. One lot pins the roadblock defense, the other outflanks it. Thereafter you wait for the dozers, and chase the defenders to the next village. Lather, rinse, repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: One lot pins the roadblock defense, the other outflanks it. Thereafter you wait for the dozers, and chase the defenders to the next village. Lather, rinse, repeat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's how I see it too. Of course I'd prefer to put the defenders in the bag if possible. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: That's how I see it too. Of course I'd prefer to put the defenders in the bag if possible. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. In my understanding, Recce was not strong enough during the break-out and the 'Swan' to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hon John Howard MP LLB Posted October 4, 2001 Author Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: PS Hurry up and call that election will you?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry - that is not for the public to know until it is needed. If I told you now I would have to arrange for ASIS/ASIO to "terminate" you ! But then given given thier track record they would probably "do" me .... (Don't make plans for November unless you can vote absentee/postal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hon John Howard MP LLB Posted October 4, 2001 Author Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Indeed. In my understanding, Recce was not strong enough during the break-out and the 'Swan' to do that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> British doctrine on recce (and it is still current AFAIK) was for the recce regiments to "discover" routes, road condtions, etc as well as any enemy dispositions NOT to fight for possesion (hence their equipment and organisation was structured "flight" not "fight"). Fighting was left to the "heavier" units. Most continental (ie German) doctrine revolved around siezing the initiative from the enemy and if need be fighting him for position of particular bits of ground. Hence the British relying on compartively lightly armed/armoured vehicles without much organic supoort while the German Aufklarungs Abtielung was almost an "all-arms" entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: British doctrine on recce (and it is still current AFAIK) was for the recce regiments to "discover" routes, road condtions, etc as well as any enemy dispositions NOT to fight for possesion (hence their equipment and organisation was structured "flight" not "fight"). Fighting was left to the "heavier" units. Most continental (ie German) doctrine revolved around siezing the initiative from the enemy and if need be fighting him for position of particular bits of ground. Hence the British relying on compartively lightly armed/armoured vehicles without much organic supoort while the German Aufklarungs Abtielung was almost an "all-arms" entity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Congratulations! You got that right! BTW, I think the American practice fell somewhere between the two, but more closely to the British model. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Petards were used to demolish roadblocks and blast holes in bocage, going from the 1945 history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup and "Black Rat Red Fox" by Delaforce also talks of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Yup and "Black Rat Red Fox" by Delaforce also talks of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would you be willing to provide us with a précis of what it says, Simon? If we ask nicely? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Congratulations! You got that right! BTW, I think the American practice fell somewhere between the two, but more closely to the British model. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> American reece was heavier than the British (Patton At Bay) but did not equal the recon in force of the Germans. American reece in fact relied much more heavily on air photos, and ground reece became almost screening forces. This was good and bad. The US were better at getting photos to the guys in the trenches than any other country than the world (for no other reason than they had more men assigned to photo recon than other countries) but reece was much less formal and effective than the Germans, and about on par with the British (Rear Echelon: US Fact File). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts