Firefly Use in British and Canadian Troops

[rexford]

When playing CM, do players adher to historical proportions of Fireflies per troop, such as one Firefly for every three 75mm Sherman up to a certain date, and then two Fireflies per troop (with two 75mm Shermans) between certain dates as Fireflies become more common (or 75mm Shermans become cannon fodder).

Do players also attempt to maneuver tanks as a troop, keeping them together for tactical purposes?

When we play CM we try to organize and maintain troop identify and proportions, and we were wondering what aproach others follow.

Thanks.

P.S.

We noticed that German gunners seem to automatically "see and find" the Firefly the moment it comes into view. Would ALL of the Germans be on alert to spot that tank and announce it to the world?

It is not obvious that a Firefly and several 75mm Shermans facing a PzKpfw IVH group head-on, at 500m, would have the Firefly stand out to am obvious degree.

From what we have read the Fireflies would sometimes hide in the background and come out to play as soon as the Germans started a firefight that the 75mm guns weren't up to.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Rexford

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

We noticed that German gunners seem to automatically "see and find" the Firefly the moment it comes into view. Would ALL of the Germans be on alert to spot that tank and announce it to the world?

It is not obvious that a Firefly and several 75mm Shermans facing a PzKpfw IVH group head-on, at 500m, would have the Firefly stand out to am obvious degree.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit confused by your post which seems to ask the question and answer it too

Several accounts etc make mention of fact that the Germans did target the Fireflies as they realised their potentcy but just how easy that was in battlefield conditions is questionable.

Ken Touts excellent series of accounts includes several references to Fireflies being used 'in the background' ie in hidden/covered/ambush posistions partly due to their being targetted.

In fact he credits the Fireflies of a British unit (Name escapes me at present)with destroying Wittman and accompanying Tigers on 8th August from just such ambush posistions.

To be honest I cant say I have noted the CM AI targetting Fireflies as priority over and above other Allied Tanks ?

Cheers

[Redwolf]

I don't use Shermans that often, but with my Cromwells I try to get 3 or 4 of them with a mix of 75mm and 95mm guns.

That is not really what you asked for, but it might be an interesting datapoint, because I often do it for games on the tournamenthouse ladder, which is usually known for "competive", rather than "historical" unit selection.

Still, it is remarkable that I had quite some success with this formation. A whole platoon operating tightly together turned out to be a big advantage several times. The Cromwells are very fast and have fast turrets, so -combined with the fact that CMBO vehicles do not obscure view- it is very easy to get 3 guns on the same target before a shot gets off.

On tournamenthouse.com you rarely face Panthers or Tigers and few real tanks overall, so the few 95mm hollow charge rounds can count as a lame Panzerjaeger weapon in this platoon.

If people were running around with more Panthers and Tigers and games would be more points, I would probably mix Shermans as you say, and move them as a pack. The only question is whether I could live with the comparably immobillity of the Shermans.

[Ex Bellator]

I've read (can't remember where as usual) that Fireflies we're intially given to troop commanders, then it quickly became standard practice in Normandy for the troop commander to exchange it for a regular 75mm Sherman, and give the Firefly to another tank crew in his troop.

The reason given was that the Fireflies were getting hit much more often as they were priority targets, so it seems that in RL the Germans could identify them readily enough and forced this change of crewing policy on their enemy. I'm not sure if I would have relished being given the Firefly in exchange for my regular Sherman.

IIRC the unit which destroyed Wittman and his platoon of Tigers was the Northamptonshire Yeomanry. He didn't even see them according to reports, as he was moving along a road engaging targets on the opposite side, when they opened up on him with their Fireflies. I believe one of Ken Touts books gives the full details.

[Michael Dorosh]

Of course, the mod grogs will tell you that great pains were taken to camouflage the gunbarrels of Fireflies with gray and white paint and a variety of camouflage schemes so that they might be indentified as 75mm tanks from average distances.

I think the inability to buy tanks in troops is distressing - I did purchase a fairly historical force to play a battalion level game against Slapdragon - but I went for an all Firefly force.

It was a mistake, since they did not have HE or smoke shells, which would have been available had I also purchased regular Shermans. Sometimes gamey purchases just don't pay off.

[Redwolf]

I fell into the HE trap as well. Before (up to?) September there is no HE for the 17 pdr. But you paid less points which you could have invested in MMG carriers or so.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

When playing CM, do players adher to historical proportions of Fireflies per troop, such as one Firefly for every three 75mm Sherman up to a certain date<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we're talking QBs or DYO here, the truth is that Shermans themselves are a rare sight, in my expirience. This is because they have serious problems with the ubiquitous (in CM games) Hetzer and JPz IV/70. Also, most models of Sherman are overpriced for their effectiveness (the + armor and wet models jack up the price, but add very little to survivability). IMO Shermans are only a cost effective QB purchase when you are playing Short 75 rules, in which case they are very worthwhile (the cheap, basic models, that is).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do players also attempt to maneuver tanks as a troop, keeping them together for tactical purposes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The better players will at times. Most do not.

[Andreas]

Lorrin, hi.

Firefly noticeability: the gun stood out. A lot. It had a muzzle brake and was longer. Also, once the Germans knew that the Firefly was there, they would look out for it and kill it first. So yes, I think that is realistic. Attempts to camo the gun were made, by painting the front half in some free-wheeling camo scheme. Later on, this was not kept up as much, judging from photographic evidence.

At least one Regiment in 8th AB (I think) was the only unit to not do the 3:1 split. They went for a one Firefly troop per Squadron approach.

Tactics. If German heavies were encountered, all tanks would retreat to cover. Then one 75mm tank (troop OC) would rev up, break cover at full speed, and dash like mad past the German tank. The German heavy would start to turn its turret to engage, but the traverse was slower than the speed of the Sherman. When the turret has traversed far enough, the Firefly would break cover and try to knock out the heavy. This is of course a high-risk lifestyle... I was told this by Paul Mace, Troop OC in the East Riding Yeo, 10/44-01/45. He would be in a 75mm Sherman, because he did not want to order one of his tanks to do the dash, and the Firefly was needed for see above. I commented that his crew must have been truly loving this self-less attitude of his. He just smiled.

I normally don't play with tanks, so I can not really comment on what I do. Hope that helps.

[JasonC]

I can offer some data pulled off the web about UK tank breakdowns at various times. I also have some comments below on overuse of rare and peculiar British armor items in CM. The Canadians are slightly different from the Brits, incidentally.

At the time of D-Day, there weren't enough Fireflies to give 1 for every 3 75mm Shermans. Armor divisions had only 36 each, and some formations had only 22. Compared to 75mm tanks, the Fireflies were only about 1/7 to 1/9 initially, or enough to give the 1 per platoon mix only to around half the formation, with the other half pure 75mm. The Canadians were essentially in the same situation as the British formations at this point.

By the end of 1944, the portion of Fireflies has risen significantly, to more like the doctrinal one per platoon. The British formations had about 1/4 Fireflies, or mixes of Fireflies and other upgunned tanks in the case of some of the formations using Cromwells (a few Challengers, some 95mm). The Canadians had comparatively more Fireflies available, 3/8 of their available tanks. That would be enough for 1/3 in the platoons and a few to spare in the higher command tank groupings.

Incidentally, by this point the Poles had less than their share of Fireflies, but got a portion of US built 76mm Shermans instead. Some platoons could have 1 Firefly the rest 75mm, others could consist of US 76mm Shermans entirely. Poles only, mind.

By the end of the war things hadn't changed for the Canadians - they still had 3/8 Fireflies. The Brits are mixed, with some formations upgraded to Comets, some split between Comets for part of the formation and Cromwells stiffened by upgunned tanks (for the rest (95mm, Sherman Firefly, a few Challenger), some like the Canadian Sherman mix.

The main change is from the Normandy ratio to the more doctrinal "enough Fireflies" ratio by midway through the campaign, and the concentration of the 76mm US tanks on minor allies, and Brit built tanks on British, formations.

It is also worth noting that the 95mm gun variety tanks were quite rare overall. They never had as many as 75 95mm Cromwells fielded at once, and the normal figure is more like 50. 95mm Churchills are almost as rare. The CM practice of taking 95mm tanks in quantity as special AT weapons for their HEAT, is certainly not in evidence.

Incidentally, in CM the 95mm tanks get 3-4 rounds of HEAT each on average, with up to 2/3rds of Cromwells and 1/3 of Churchill 95mm getting little or no HEAT ammo (0-1). One fellow asked elsewhere whether the 95mm HEAT is overmodeled, and it is a good question. I'd say probably yes.

The Brits give 110mm at 30 degrees for the penetration of this round, which fits CM's figures, but they also claim up to 120mm penetration for 105mm HEAT, when the Americans give much lower figures for that round. CM penetration numbers for 105mm HEAT are consistent with the US figures, not the British ones. The Brits give 105mm HEAT better numbers than 95mm, but marginally so, while CM gives 95mm HEAT significantly better performance than 105mm HEAT. Which is to say the least counterintuitive.

There may be differences in the armor tested, or in what was counted as penetration, or in average impact angles vs. particularly flat ones, since HEAT is known to vary considerably with the impact angle achieved. My guess would be that the Brits were testing what the rounds could do with the flattest hits (least glancing, moving the explosive jet away from the armor plate), while the US figures probably reflect average impact angles. Which would mean 95mm HEAT in CM is overmodeled, 105mm HEAT is undermodeled.

Regardless of the armor penetration question, the 95mm is undoubtedly overused in CM QBs, and its HEAT ammo overused in particular, in CM. In reality the 95mm tanks were very scarce and were mostly used to chuck pure HE at enemy infantry. They were nothing like as common as Sherman 105s were in the US forces, for example, which were available in numbers with another digit.

Multiple 95mm tanks used for their HEAT as AT weapons, would be about as common Jagdtigers. Personally, I'd recommend limiting 95 use to one tank in a QB, or issuing them with pure HE (edited) in scenarios, because of rariety and the likelihood the HEAT is overmodeled. If the one 95mm taken in a QB doesn't get much HEAT, tough.

When the Brit forces wanted good tank dueling ability in the real deal they brought up Fireflies, not hordes of 150mm front armor Churchills with magically effective 95mm HEAT. Doing otherwise is really exploiting the lack of a rariety system and quite possibly a modeling weakness in HEAT penetration analysis.

For what it is worth.

[rexford]

Thanks for all the good replies. Just what I was looking for.

[Andreas]

Jason, skimmed your post. When you say 'units' with a mix of Cromwells/Comets, what exactly do you mean? If you are talking Brigade, you are right. Below that, I don't think there was mixing. The only Comet equipped units in 21st AG were the three Regiments in the Armoured Brigade of 11th AD, AFAIK.

Regarding the 95mm Churchills/Cromwells, you are spot on. These tanks were held on a strength of about two per squadron as infantry support. They were in Squadron HQ, AFAIK, and were present in Recce Rgts (Cromwell equipped, e.g. the SAR w/Shermans had none) and the tank regiments, because that is where you would expect to need them. They were not intended to be used to fight tanks.

[Andreas]

Actually, bugger that. The Recce Rgt was not part of the Armoured Brigade, so the only mixed unit would have been 11th AD.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I can offer some data pulled off the web about UK tank breakdowns at various times. I also have some comments below on overuse of rare and peculiar British armor items in CM. The Canadians are slightly different from the Brits, incidentally.

At the time of D-Day, there weren't enough Fireflies to give 1 for every 3 75mm Shermans. Armor divisions had only 36 each, and some formations had only 22. Compared to 75mm tanks, the Fireflies were only about 1/7 to 1/9 initially, or enough to give the 1 per platoon mix only to around half the formation, with the other half pure 75mm. The Canadians were essentially in the same situation as the British formations at this point.

By the end of 1944, the portion of Fireflies has risen significantly, to more like the doctrinal one per platoon. The British formations had about 1/4 Fireflies, or mixes of Fireflies and other upgunned tanks in the case of some of the formations using Cromwells (a few Challengers, some 95mm). The Canadians had comparatively more Fireflies available, 3/8 of their available tanks. That would be enough for 1/3 in the platoons and a few to spare in the higher command tank groupings.

Incidentally, by this point the Poles had less than their share of Fireflies, but got a portion of US built 76mm Shermans instead. Some platoons could have 1 Firefly the rest 75mm, others could consist of US 76mm Shermans entirely. Poles only, mind.

By the end of the war things hadn't changed for the Canadians - they still had 3/8 Fireflies. The Brits are mixed, with some formations upgraded to Comets, some split between Comets for part of the formation and Cromwells stiffened by upgunned tanks (for the rest (95mm, Sherman Firefly, a few Challenger), some like the Canadian Sherman mix.

The main change is from the Normandy ratio to the more doctrinal "enough Fireflies" ratio by midway through the campaign, and the concentration of the 76mm US tanks on minor allies, and Brit built tanks on British, formations.

It is also worth noting that the 95mm gun variety tanks were quite rare overall. They never had as many as 75 95mm Cromwells fielded at once, and the normal figure is more like 50. 95mm Churchills are almost as rare. The CM practice of taking 95mm tanks in quantity as special AT weapons for their HEAT, is certainly not in evidence.

Incidentally, in CM the 95mm tanks get 3-4 rounds of HEAT each on average, with up to 2/3rds of Cromwells and 1/3 of Churchill 95mm getting little or no HEAT ammo (0-1). One fellow asked elsewhere whether the 95mm HEAT is overmodeled, and it is a good question. I'd say probably yes.

The Brits give 110mm at 30 degrees for the penetration of this round, which fits CM's figures, but they also claim up to 120mm penetration for 105mm HEAT, when the Americans give much lower figures for that round. CM penetration numbers for 105mm HEAT are consistent with the US figures, not the British ones. The Brits give 105mm HEAT better numbers than 95mm, but marginally so, while CM gives 95mm HEAT significantly better performance than 105mm HEAT. Which is to say the least counterintuitive.

There may be differences in the armor tested, or in what was counted as penetration, or in average impact angles vs. particularly flat ones, since HEAT is known to vary considerably with the impact angle achieved. My guess would be that the Brits were testing what the rounds could do with the flattest hits (least glancing, moving the explosive jet away from the armor plate), while the US figures probably reflect average impact angles. Which would mean 95mm HEAT in CM is overmodeled, 105mm HEAT is undermodeled.

Regardless of the armor penetration question, the 95mm is undoubtedly overused in CM QBs, and its HEAT ammo overused in particular, in CM. In reality the 95mm tanks were very scarce and were mostly used to chuck pure HE at enemy infantry. They were nothing like as common as Sherman 105s were in the US forces, for example, which were available in numbers with another digit.

Multiple 95mm tanks used for their HEAT as AT weapons, would be about as common Jagdtigers. Personally, I'd recommend limiting 95 use to one tank in a QB, or issuing them with pure HE (edited) in scenarios, because of rariety and the likelihood the HEAT is overmodeled. If the one 95mm taken in a QB doesn't get much HEAT, tough.

When the Brit forces wanted good tank dueling ability in the real deal they brought up Fireflies, not hordes of 150mm front armor Churchills with magically effective 95mm HEAT. Doing otherwise is really exploiting the lack of a rariety system and quite possibly a modeling weakness in HEAT penetration analysis.

For what it is worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the question was "what do you do regarding tank troop integrity when you play CM".

Any insights on that?

[Slapdragon]

I can concur with Dorosh when he said that the ahistorical mix was also not as good as the historical mix. While I have played German players who go for all heavies, I had a relatively feeble German force of a couple of tigers, 5 PZ IVs, and a handful of Frenchies for recon. Over the horizon comes a cavalcade of Fireflies which tear apart my bunker and all of my tanks within two minutes of joining the battle.

The Flies did their thing, but then they rushed in to consolidate their victory, and a few lone heroes obliterated them. Without an HE firing unit, they were toast.

The HE is why German AT guns normally do not survive long in ambushes of US or Commonwealth Shermans.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Simon Fox]

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

I can offer some data pulled off the web about UK tank breakdowns at various times......etc etc....

For what it is worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it just goes to show that pulling a bunch of numbers off the web is no substitute for in depth knowledge. I applaud your efforts but your have misinterpreted the data. You need to fit your numbers into the brigade organisation.

The 36 fireflys for a Brit armoured brigade break down like this: for each of the brigades 3 regiments there are 12 fireflys. For each regiments 3 squadrons there are 4 fireflys. For each of the squadrons 4 troops there is 1 firefly. Each troop has one firefly and 3 75mm Shermans. Therefore unless it had been knocked out most british tank troop would have had a firefly in June 1944 not half.

Your point about the misuse of CS tanks is correct. They were typically available at about 2 per squadron and found in the sqn leaders troop.

Andreas,

The 3rd CLY in the 4th armoured brigade organised their fireflys into troops.

To answer rexfords question yes I typically try to operate my fireflys as part of a standard 3 plus 1 troop. But not always.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

snip...

To answer rexfords question yes I typically try to operate my fireflys as part of a standard 3 plus 1 troop. But not always.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you can't when they're dead. tee hee.

[Jeff Duquette]

From Arthur Reddish, gunner with a squadron of the Sherwood Rangers

Yeomanry “Normandy 1944, from the hull of a Sherman”.

He writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Reviewing the military situation at the end of July 1944 several of us crewmen came to the conclusion that our quick firing 75mm gun (medium velocity) was preferable to the seventeen-pounder when fighting in close country. The 75mm had a very good HE shell and this was the ammunition most in use in that type of fighting. We considered that the present mix - one seventeen-pounder tank in each troop - was the best we could have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given my druthers I would prefer a troop of Fireflys that also possessed a decent HE capability.

[JasonC]

To Simon Fox - I am well aware of the TOE. But only 6 out of 16 British armor formations available before the invasion had 36 Fireflies apiece. 4 others had 22-29 (e.g. Canadian 2nd AB, Polish AD, 8th British AB) and 6 others had none (some were "tank" rather than "armor" units, with Churchills, yada yada). Overall, they had 318 Fireflies on hand, compared to 1914 75mm Shermans and 375 75mm Cromwells. (Not counting hundreds each of Churchills and Stuarts). Which is 1 in 8.2, not 1 in 4. The armor brigades that were at doctrinal TOE also had not 108 75mm Shermans (from just 3 per FF), but 157 75mm apiece.

Knowing TOEs is not the same as knowing force strengths. It can inform ones judgement about how they operated, because it tells you what they shot for. It is not a substitute for knowing what was really on hand. If the 8th Armor Brigade had 22 Sherman Fireflies and 171 75mm Shermans, then they didn't use a uniform 1 to 3 mix of the first with the second, no matter how many times you scan the TOE.

To Germanboy -

I mean mixes at the division and armor brigade level. 11 AD, Gdrs AD, and the Polish AD all had one battalion's worth of Cromwell, while 7 AD at the time of Normandy had all Cromwell. Another example around the middle of the campaign is the 29th Armor Brigade, which had a mix of Comets and Cromwells in the fast battalion, and the usual Firefly and Sherman 75 mix in the main body.

By the end of the war 11 AD had Comets instead of both Shermans and 75mm Cromwell, but still had a few 95mm Cromwell for the fire support role. While at the end of the war 7 AD had 11 Challenger, 21 Sherman Firefly, 31 95mm Cromwell, 87 Comets, and 90 75mm Cromwells. By the end the Polish AD had mostly US made 76mm Shermans, but some Fireflies added, in the main body. The fast battalion had mostly 75mm Cromwell but some Challengers and 95mms mixed with them.

Hardly fits the idea of entirely uniform TOEs for the whole length of the war, does it? The reality is that "product transition" effects of losses in old categories and fielding of new ones, will always mean some mixing. I am sure they tried to re-equip whole sub units at a time, for training reasons, and to field uniform (or set mix e.g. 1 FF to 3 75) battalions whenever possible.

They probably tried to assign Challengers (which were quite rare) or Fireflies to all the subunits of a given formation. There is strong evidence that the pure 76mm Comets and US built 76mm tanks (not 17 lber) were at first thought of as an adequate substitute for the 17 lb and 75mm mix, and then later some units got 17 lbers mixed in too. The 95mm Cromwells are found in small numbers wherever the 75mm Cromwells are, fitting the 2 per company TOE idea. But sometimes they remain after the 75mm Croms have been phased out, and sometimes they are missing.

To the original poster -

As for the question of tactical use of tank mixes in CM, I try to use historical ones but not because I consider them particularly effective. Going just for effectiveness I'd pair a plain 75 with an upgunned AT shooter, thus 2 such AT shooters per tank platoon rather than 1, would be ideal. I always try to trail the best AT shooters behind a vanilla tank, so they can hunt already spotted enemies. The team can also use distraction tactics, send the vanilla 75 tank after a flank, etc. With only 1 out of 4 a good AT shooter, you have to be more careful with its team, and can afford to be a bit more aggressive with the 2x75 team. The power of the 17 lber goes a long way, handled properly.

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Jason et al

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

They probably tried to assign Challengers (which were quite rare) or Fireflies to all the subunits of a given formation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wandering a little off-topic but does anyone have any info on just which units used the Challenger ? I have a notion (no idea from where though) that they were used along with Cromwells in the Armoured Recon Regts.

Interesting debate

Cheers

Gary

[JasonC]

That is my understanding of the Challengers, too. They were meant to be for the Cromwells what the Fireflies were for the Shermans. But there weren't enough of them to do that fully, so some Cromwell units had them and some didn't. What I see in the unit returns is a dozen in a formation that includes a fast tank / recon battalion, then slightly off (10 here, 11 there, etc).

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner:

Hi Jason et al

Wandering a little off-topic but does anyone have any info on just which units used the Challenger ? I have a notion (no idea from where though) that they were used along with Cromwells in the Armoured Recon Regts.

Interesting debate

Cheers

Gary<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like the only unit that definitely had Challengers was 11th Armoured in its Recce Rgt 15/17th KRH (number maybe wrong). For the others, use has not been proven, AFAIK.

Jason, you number crunching regarding Fireflies and troops is admirable, but you have not put into the equation the Squadron HQ with its three tanks. There would be no Firefly in it. So that reduces the number in the Armoured Brigades from 157 75mm to 130, and then you have a further reduction for three regimental and one Brigade HQ, and you maybe very close to the 108 you would need for a 1 in 4 ratio. You really have to look at squadron make-up. Just the total numbers will not give you the right answer.

Churchills, as you said, were irrelevant in this discussion.

[Redwolf]

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

I believe the question was "what do you do regarding tank troop integrity when you play CM".

Any insights on that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least I do and several other players on the tournamenthouse ladder do as well.

As Jason said, the 95mm is a historical problem here. The CMBO round can kill Panzer IV/70 and Jagdpanther, which are very common for Axis players in such games. Therefore, it is a must in a ladder game. The 75mm is more accurate, but since it is still less accurate as the German long 75mm, it doesn't mean I gain more flexibilty by choosing the 75mm.

The bigger problem here is probably the M8 HMC, which can go on quite a rampage when chosen in numbers (two for each Pz IV), but that option is too "gamey" for me, while I can mentally take the historical stretch of the 95mm availability and HC effectivity.

I would also like to comment on the Sherman issue. I am not sure the successful part of my tactics with whole tank platoons would work with British Shermans, as they are too slow in arbitrary terrain. And the more mobile US versions are not cost-effective and not available in the usually chosen months.

[xerxes]

On TH Ladder games I prefer to limit the number of any particular vehicle (generally to 3) to avoid the uber-gamey horde of M8s or other vehicle massing tricks. Then again I always play with the smg limit in Fionns rules unless playing a specific Volks scenario.

Everyone always picking the same units is BORING.

-marc

[Redwolf]

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

On TH Ladder games I prefer to limit the number of any particular vehicle (generally to 3) to avoid the uber-gamey horde of M8s or other vehicle massing tricks. [...]

Everyone always picking the same units is BORING.

-marc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I gues our opinions are very far apart then.

For me the mix of zillons of different vehicles, usually of unrelated real-life owners is the unrealistic gamey thing.

Tanks belong into platoons, and platoons of similar tanks that is. The M8 HMC would be a problem, as both of us note, but then in real life it was an indirect-fire unit for forces that had no better indirect-fire vehicles.

Playing with a concentration of real, normal tanks is -for me- both historical and part of the play fun.

You are also turning the words in my mouth. I said I select several tanks of the same kind in a game, but I didn't say I select the same kind of tank platoon every game.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Ogadai]

I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units.

Note for Slapdragon - its merely an observation, not a criticism.