Pre-battle Recces

[JonS]

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

... Whilst the "tank" was unstable, desperate times dictate desperate measures. It was directly comparable to other such developments in the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941 and Australia in 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy did that thing suck. Not one of our proudest moments ...

But then again, look at the area it was to be used in. Most people would agree that the M4 wasn't the right tank for NWE, yet in the Pacific it performed yeomans service because the Japanese had limited AT capability and low quantities of their own armoured vehicles.

In this environment the Semple would still have sucked, but not as much as if it had had to go up against any of the German marks. It might even have been moderately useful. "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

Regards

JonS

[Tread Head]

Yes, reminds me of the Ole' 90 foot General....

ever play micro armor?

[Thermopylae]

As to the attackers knwoing defensive positions, well then you have to incoporate defenders knowing attackers positions...its not bloody likely that they magically materialized at the CM jump off points without being observed by a dug in enemy with OPs....and of course pre-emptive defensive fires that the battalion commander would call at long range (especially Americans). But there have also been about 10 threads on the topic. i reccomend a search.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

As to the attackers knwoing defensive positions, well then you have to incoporate defenders knowing attackers positions...its not bloody likely that they magically materialized at the CM jump off points without being observed by a dug in enemy with OPs....and of course pre-emptive defensive fires that the battalion commander would call at long range (especially Americans). But there have also been about 10 threads on the topic. i reccomend a search.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its obvious there has to be a bit more thinking about pre-battle/operation requirements.

Defensive barrages, pre-attack bombardments are indeed something else which should be considered.

Just as should be surprise and camouflage.

[Andreas]

Some real world occurences:

'The village is lightly defended, no Panzers'. Briefing from Brigadier Essame to OC 7th Hamps for operation Jupiter. The village in question is Maltot. 7th Hamps got very badly shot up, and 9th RTR had their worst day of the campaign, with A Squadron losing most of its tanks and 64 KIAs. (source: 'Tank tracks' by Peter Beale, formerly OC 9th RTR)

During the initial battle for Antwerp, the best maps to be had by 11th AD were 1:300,000 maps. Using these, the German defenders were thrown out of the park where they were dug in. (Moulson: The battle for Antwerp)

Goodwood - wouldn't it have been nice if GOC 11th AD had been able to use his infantry to protect his tanks? I am sure he would have loved to. Unfortunately they were busy elsewhere, 'par ordre de mufti'.

'The position is held by some non-German units without supply. They will most likely give up when they see you' (Alex Bowlby: Rifleman Bowlby's war) The position was held by a Wehrmacht unit in strength and well-supplied. Bowlby's company had heavy losses, and he barely managed to get out after the 'every man for himself' command had been given.

I could easily find more of this type of stuff.

Bottomline is that pre-battle recce was often faulty, and/or insufficient. Maps were plentiful in Normandy, and a problem thereafter. Commanders could not pick and choose. I agree with Michael on the purchasing system.

I currently have a scenario for testing which will go out with the next Der Kessel update in October, in which I have just indicated the defender's positions on the map. Based on pre-battle recce. You can do all that in canned scenarios - whether you can do it or not in a QB is really no skin off my nose, I think it comes down to personal taste. I am just a bit surprised at the realism claim that is held out here for having that info.

[Michael Emrys]

Even in QBs the player has a considerable amount of knowledge about the map before he sees it. Rural, farming, village or urban setting tell a lot once you learn the system, as do the amount of tree coverage and hilliness, and even the season and weather conditions. Based on all that information, I can pretty well figure out what kind of map I'm going to be looking at and what kind of force will best prosper on it.

Are there ever surprises? You bet. Just as in the real campaign.

The kind of complaints I'm hearing in this thread are of the class that were heard even before the game came out. Some people want a game that reflects their fantasies about how wars get fought and realism go to hell. Well, that's one way to approach a game, and plenty of games get produced to fit that appetite. CM happens not so much to be one. Tough ****.

Michael

[Marlow]

As a neutral party in the Slapdragon/MP wars, I do have to say that you have repeatedly shown that you really don't know what you are talking about. The Bob Semple business is just the latest example.

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

The reason why the "tank" named after him was abandoned was more because of the sudden influx of both American troops and American AFV's.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the reason the BobSemple was abandoned was because it really, really sucked.

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

Whilst the "tank" was unstable, desperate times dictate desperate measures. It was directly comparable to other such developments in the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941 and Australia in 1941. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this:

look comparable to the real tanks that the UK (Matilda, cruisers), the U.S. (Stuart, Grant) Sov. Union (T-34, KV-1) and Australia (mostly British, but the Sentinal was under development) had in the same time period? Get real.

SENTINAL

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Andreas]

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

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You better be careful using that line - when I used it last time a collection of Antipodeans went after my scalp. The Aussies thought I was insulting them

[Andreas]

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

As a neutral party in the Slapdragon/MP wars, I do have to say that you have repeatedly shown that you really don't know what you are talking about. The Bob Semple business is just the latest example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That maybe a bit harsh. Anyone who ever went to Bovington might have the 'armoured' lorry with the concrete pillbox on the back in mind when seeing the Bob Semple. The Brits at least did not dignify that thing with a name, but it existed briefly after Dunkirk. As did Vickers armed motor boats on the Lakeland lakes in Lancashire. The Homeguard had some weird equipment. Just don't treat the Bob Semple as a serious tank proposal...

I can not comment on the Soviet-Union and Australia.

[The Commissar]

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

I can not comment on the Soviet-Union and Australia.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the Aussies, but the Soviets sure did try out some weird-ass crap. Anyone remember the name of that thing which was based on a KV design, and was like 60 feet long? It combined a Katyusha and 3 Gun turrets of various calibres (I think). I believe 3 or 4 were made, all of them being destroyed in horrific accidents. There's a pic of it somewhere on the forum.

[Marlow]

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

That maybe a bit harsh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably. But the guy really makes me want to pull out my hair with some of the tripe he posts.

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

Anyone who ever went to Bovington might have the 'armoured' lorry with the concrete pillbox on the back in mind when seeing the Bob Semple. The Brits at least did not dignify that thing with a name, but it existed briefly after Dunkirk. As did Vickers armed motor boats on the Lakeland lakes in Lancashire. The Homeguard had some weird equipment. Just don't treat the Bob Semple as a serious tank proposal...

I can not comment on the Soviet-Union and Australia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he was saying that all countries had their own share of bad ideas brought to life, then I overstated my case. However, if he is implying that the Bob Semple represents the same level of development as was found in contemporary (1940 and 41) Allied tanks, he is very wrong.

[JonS]

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

...if he is implying that the Bob Semple represents the same level of development as was found in contemporary (1940 and 41) Allied tanks, he is very wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took it to mean that in '40 & '41 the Commonwealth, and then Russia and the Commonwealth were on the ropes. And finding themselves in this position had to take seriously ideas and approaches that would otherwise have been ignored. The Semple is one such, the Blacker Bombard (not a tank) is another.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

As a neutral party in the Slapdragon/MP wars, I do have to say that you have repeatedly shown that you really don't know what you are talking about. The Bob Semple business is just the latest example.

look comparable to the real tanks that the UK (Matilda, cruisers), the U.S. (Stuart, Grant) Sov. Union (T-34, KV-1) and Australia (mostly British, but the Sentinal was under development) had in the same time period? Get real.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, where did I claim that?

I mentioned that it was comparable to other emergency efforts made in those nations to put armour on virtually anything and refer to it as a "tank".

The British efforts to put armour onto farm tractors, in 1940 springs to mind, as do the "Terror Tanks of Odessa" - tracked tractors mounting MG's and light tank guns used around Odessa in 1941. In Australia there were the Kirsch Improvised Armoured Car, the Dingo Scout Car and Rover Light Armoured Car - indeed, the Rover was semi-officially known as the "mobile slit trench".

As I said, desperate times create desperate measures. Do you think they'd have abandoned it if there weren't better vehicles available and the threat was greatly reduced?

[Michael Emrys]

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

Do you think they'd have abandoned it if there weren't better vehicles available and the threat was greatly reduced?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that the Kiwis (at least in my own personal experience) are a sensible people, I think its tendency to want to lie down in the midst of its duties would have proven sufficient reason for them to quietly set it aside regardless of whatever else may or may not have been available. There is, after all, such a thing as "a danger to one's own side".

Michael

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Given that the Kiwis (at least in my own personal experience) are a sensible people, I think its tendency to want to lie down in the midst of its duties would have proven sufficient reason for them to quietly set it aside regardless of whatever else may or may not have been available. There is, after all, such a thing as "a danger to one's own side".

Michael

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, then in your opinion they should not have adopted the barometric fuse used on 3in mortar rounds? I cannot remember the correct designation at the moment but it had a tendenancy to be quite lethal to the users as well as the enemy - if dropped the difference in barometric pressure was sometimes sufficient to set the round off.

I can think of several other, similar weapons which quite often proved as dangerous to friendlies as to non-friendlies.

One uses what weapons are available. If the Japanese had suddenly appeared off the coast of New Zealand and it was not possible to get better vehicles through, I'm fairly sure they'd have tried to use what was on hand.

[D'arcy Montague]

Beazley, what planet are you living on? Dorosh, German boy and the rest of the lads are right.Armour Arty and intelligence were not on tap as you seem to mistakenly believe.

Aerial photographs, Prepatory bombardments, Accurate maps and time for a nice leisurely reconaissance....

Well, wouldn't that be nice. Then we can all sit down in the langorous afternoon sun to enjoy a nice game of bridge, with our tea and scones.

[Spook]

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

SENTINAL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the photo's camera angle, that's not a bad-looking tank (first time I've learned of it). I'm not sure of what the available space is within in the turret, though.

[Slapdragon]

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

From the photo's camera angle, that's not a bad-looking tank (first time I've learned of it). I'm not sure of what the available space is within in the turret, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sentinal was a great tank. The last version of it was ready for a 17 pounder, and may have gotten into service before the firefly. It turned out not to be needed, and too expensive to manufacture compared to just using Shermans, but it was an amazing vehicle.

[Brian]

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

The sentinal was a great tank. The last version of it was ready for a 17 pounder, and may have gotten into service before the firefly. It turned out not to be needed, and too expensive to manufacture compared to just using Shermans, but it was an amazing vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Slappy it was the ready availability of the M3 Grant/Lee which destroyed the Sentinel program. It was simply too expensive to manufacture, so the industrial resources utilised to build it were instead turned over to the manufacture of aircraft within Australia, rather than tanks which could be supplied much more readily from US stocks.

Australia never adopted the M4 Sherman. We did though, end up with an interesting series of hybrids, by the end of the war. M3 hulls with M4 automotive and suspension components. We used both Grants and Lees - again, interestingly most of the Lees had their small cupola removed in an effort to lower their already massive silouhette.

We also produced our own 25 Pdr SP gun, the Yeramba - based on the M3, as was the Sexton (originally if one traces its ancestry back far enough) but it didn't enter service until after the end of the war - unusually, it was designed to be armed with either the US 105mm Howitzer or the 25 Pdr, although in the end, they all carried 25 Pdrs.

As it was, the Australian Army decided that the M3 was simply too large and too heavy for effective use in the SW Pacific and instead utilised Matilda II's, instead, of which we produced a series of our own "funnies".

BTW, the AC III proved that a 17 pdr could be carried in a turreted tank, by mounting twin 25 Pdr's as a proof of concept vehicle. It was the results of those tests which convinced the British to build the Firefly.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague:

Beazley, what planet are you living on? Dorosh, German boy and the rest of the lads are right.Armour Arty and intelligence were not on tap as you seem to mistakenly believe.

Aerial photographs, Prepatory bombardments, Accurate maps and time for a nice leisurely reconaissance....

Well, wouldn't that be nice. Then we can all sit down in the langorous afternoon sun to enjoy a nice game of bridge, with our tea and scones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all have read about the inaccuracy of maps - at Buron in July 1944, the HLI of Canada were attacking towards high ground that didn't even exist - their maps were wrong. The situation was worse in Italy.

One could argue that in certain situations, the pregame setup allows the attacker too much knowledge of the enemy terrain.

As always, it is not something one wants to generalize - there were situations, too, where counterattacks, etc., were made into terrain very familiar to the troops/their commanders, and so the pre-game setup should indeed reflect that.

Would be interesting to see if Partisans in CM2 get some sort of bonus for setting up in familiar ground. Might be a feature to add to all future CM games - familiarity beforehand. Then during the setup phase, you set your troops up, and afterwards, the terrain outset your setup area is altered by a varying degree - to reflect the accuracy of your maps and skill of your reconaissance troops.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Might be a feature to add to all future CM games - familiarity beforehand. Then during the setup phase, you set your troops up, and afterwards, the terrain outset your setup area is altered by a varying degree - to reflect the accuracy of your maps and skill of your reconaissance troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now THATs an interesting idea, the first really constructive-creative post in a long time, now after all something good might come out of this thread after all.

[Eumundi]

They have a Sentinal at the RAAC museum. In good condition too.

[JonS]

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

... at the RAAC museum...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the one at Pukapunyal(sp?)? I went there earlier this year while on a short holiday. Nice museum ... I was especially interested in the Crocodile they had there...

{edited because I just noticed how bad the spelling was }

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague:

Beazley, what planet are you living on? Dorosh, German boy and the rest of the lads are right.Armour Arty and intelligence were not on tap as you seem to mistakenly believe.

Aerial photographs, Prepatory bombardments, Accurate maps and time for a nice leisurely reconaissance....

Well, wouldn't that be nice. Then we can all sit down in the langorous afternoon sun to enjoy a nice game of bridge, with our tea and scones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crochet, actually, old chap.

However, you appear to have mistaken what I'm saying - that essentially before a battle starts, apart from the verbal or written briefing notes that a commander is given, other sources of intelligence are provided.

I'm not claiming that that intelligence, what ever its source, should be 100% accurate but rather that before playing a game, a player is expected to "purchase" his forces (or accept what the AI throws up), and deploy them almost completely blind.

Such a situation would only exist, I'd suggest in meeting engagements or hasty attacks/defences. In deliberate attacks/defences, both commanders would have some idea about the terrain they are going to fight over and would make plans based upon that knowledge.

However, even that is denied to the players by the game sequence/mechanism.

[JonS]

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

Crochet, actually, old chap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:eek:

Surely you mean Croquet? Messing about with string and fiddly knots making tea-cosies is hardly a martial activity.