Ex Bellator Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Very interesting stuff Heinz. However I am initially confused by El Alamein was another when the Armour refused to lead, much to the disgust and contempt of the the Diggers and Kiwis followed by I did say Infantry lead at El Alamein :confused: I had a quick look at Barrie Pitt's take on the action you described. Apparently Strafer Gott left everything to the NZ Brigade commanders and for some reason didn't get involved himself. Kippenberger subsequently admitted to some poor planning. When 22nd Amd Bde hadn't shown at the rendezvous at dawn, Kippeneberger had to resort to going back and see what happened. When he found Lumsden, Lumsden said he had already told the Bde commander to be there at dawn and ordered them up again which they did so immediately. What we have is a classic case of bad planning and communication breakdown, not 'gutless' tankers. It's interesting that your NZ vets had that perspective, when the common (and German) perspective of British tankers in the desert is the opposite. In true cavalry style they usually 'galloped at everything' and were often poleaxed on German AT defences as a result. Gutless is not a word I would use for them ever, but badly led possibly. I'm afraid your Lt Bauer who put the Kiwis at the head of Supercharge is wrong as well. I'm sure you know that this was not the main Alamein assault but a subsequent operation, but it was the Scots and English of 151 and 152 Bde which led the attack. There was one Btn of Maoris attached to them which may be the source of your confusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I can asure you the contempt within the drinking circle was at the leadership never at the indiviual Tommy, as for Lt Col Bauer, his book is general, but being a Swiss, gave a differnt slant on views. Both in Mellenthin's Book and Rommel wrote reports/articles [in Desmond Young's 'Rommel'] on their enemy's prowess or lack there of, both aren't good on English Generalship, as Bayerlein said ..'I do not think General Patton would of let us get away so easily' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Actually, Bauer, Heinz, and Rex are all correct with regard to Supercharge. 2(NZ)Div was in command for the operation, and had 151 and 152 Bdes under command to do the fighting. 28(Maori)Bn cleared part of the way forward, and covered the right flank, while Kiwi sappers and AT gunners advanced with both bdes. 4 and 6(NZ)Bdes were held back so as to be available for subsequent exploitation. I think Monty 'gave' this one to Freyburg as he (Monty) felt that the Kiwi command structure and staff would be best able to cope with it. BTW, Heinz, with sqn were you with? Regards JonS [ July 17, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Geez this is going back decades ,6th Feild Squadron, Petone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 hehe - it's a small ol' world. I was at Pattie St for ... a few years too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
togi Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Hi all, I want to learn one thing is it possible in CMAK or we have to wait CMX engine that is to add a new window in the game showing the platons and their status(3 men, total amno load, firing-pinned). This window also must be used as short key to select entire platoon or it's remainings. Best Regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Where are the freakn game shots man?! Has Bf forgot about us? They used to always throw a bone here and there, but with "smack" they just drop an announcement and then bail. Wassup wit dat?! :confused: [ July 18, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Any word on the release of a CMAK demo? I remember seeing something in the CMAK thread, but it said that demos were released when a game went gold, and that doesn't make any sense to me, why release the demo after the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 The game going 'gold' is not the release, it happens before release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Aussies raised armour, but was only used in the Pacific. No. Australian divisional cavalry units equipped with light and cruiser tanks were deployed in the Western Desert. Most famously perhaps was 9 Div AIF's cavalry squadron equipped with Crusader Mk.II/III at El Alamein. You really do need to purchase that book, I think, Jon. [ July 19, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by Rex Bellator: British and Commonwealth units were thoroughly mixed on many occasions, as for production purposes (for better or worse) it was agreed that Commonwealth nations would provide Infantry Divisions and the British all the armour. In another example at Tobruk it was a real mix, with Aussie infantry supported by British tanks, guns and MGs. The only "thorough mixing" was perhaps in Indian Army units where typically one British battalion was deployed with two Indian ones in the infantry brigades, while invariably British armour units were utilised, rather than Indian ones. As others have noted, Tobruk was the exception, rather than the rule as far as Australian units went. Indeed, there were several quite (in)famous exchanges between Tom Blamey, CIC AIF and his British successors (Wavell and Auchinleck) over the deployment and use of Australian units. The British view was that Australian divisions could and should be broken up to be used in penny-packets. The Australian view, based upon experience in WWI was that the AIF was a national army and hence a cohesive force which should not be broken up. The Australian view prevailed, purely because Blamey could appeal back to Canberra and have his opinions backed by his national government. Under the agreement struck between Canberra and London on the use of Australian forces, Canberra had the final say and made it very clear. Particularly after the attack on Malaya when it recalled the Australian divisions home from the Middle East. So my question is how will CMAK reflect this when it is purchasing Allied forces? It would have to be a bit like the CMBB AI purchasing Romanian infantry and German tanks, which the current system does not handle. Any thoughts? Shouldn't be a need, as it was a rare occurance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: ...Tom Blamey, CIC AIF and his British successors (Wavell and Auchinleck)...This I don't understand. How were they his successors? As you say, he was CIC of Australian forces. They were CIC of Middle East Command. Also he remained (if I've got it right) after they left. :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: ...Tom Blamey, CIC AIF and his British successors (Wavell and Auchinleck)...This I don't understand. How were they his successors? As you say, he was CIC of Australian forces. They were CIC of Middle East Command. Also he remained (if I've got it right) after they left. :confused: Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 About time to feed the chooks, an ETO for some new screenies BF.C?. Got to get into the CMAK mindset soon and start eating 'Bully' or 'Alte Mann' out in the midday sun, downunder we've got plenty of sand, sun, and the flies are as big as prunes here in Perth 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Bluebottle - If Aus and other Commonwealth units are only deployed without UK tanks and just as an infantry only force, how often do you think they will actually be used by players? I standby that CMAK will definitely need to mix UK tanks and Commonwealth infantry in QBs, it is vital that the system does this or no-one will play as Commonwealth forces and people will also get bored of facing them if they are Axis players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: The game going 'gold' is not the release, it happens before release. I thought going gold was like Aliens versus Predator Gold, like when they release a slightly tweaked edition for full price, or when a record goes gold. Ok, so, when is CMAK expected to "go gold" and have a demo released? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Originally posted by NG cavscout: You tell me, last I heard was 4th quarter. All I know is that Moon knows a pub in the Allgäu that has a CMAK alpha. Check the German opponent finder... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Originally posted by HeinzBaby: Got to get into the CMAK mindset soon and start eating 'Bully' or 'Alte Mann' out in the midday sun...Don't forget to save some horsecock for later. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Rex, I don't quite follow you with the mixing of Inf and arnour thingy, I 'm under the impression that its up to yourself or the senario designers to do that sort of stuff, I'd presume in CMAK that you'll have your various OB's listed now as in CMBB. Mixed units together at game start eg. support groups/ jock columns, or Infantry/armour units relying on each other coming in as reinforcements...mmm..thats going to be interesting, will they arrive on time.. [ July 20, 2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: HeinzBaby ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Aussies raised armour, but was only used in the Pacific. No. Australian divisional cavalry units equipped with light and cruiser tanks were deployed in the Western Desert. Most famously perhaps was 9 Div AIF's cavalry squadron equipped with Crusader Mk.II/III at El Alamein. You really do need to purchase that book, I think, Jon. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Originally posted by Rex Bellator: Bluebottle - If Aus and other Commonwealth units are only deployed without UK tanks and just as an infantry only force, how often do you think they will actually be used by players? As they were? Infantry are extremely useful for assault and defence in the desert. They suffer from a lack of mobility in the manaouvre though, obviously. Therefore you'd tend to see infantry being used, as they were, to seize and hold ground, which is their traditional role on the battlefield, afterall. Gamers don't like infantry battles I suspect 'cause there are no cool tanks zipping all over the countryside. I standby that CMAK will definitely need to mix UK tanks and Commonwealth infantry in QBs, it is vital that the system does this or no-one will play as Commonwealth forces and people will also get bored of facing them if they are Axis players. Why? The Axis made extensive use of infantry as well in the Western Desert, again in its traditional role of the seizer and holder of ground. Again, they also lacked mobility but without the infantry, it was impossible to assault, capture and perhaps even more importantly, hold strong points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Aussies raised armour, but was only used in the Pacific. No. Australian divisional cavalry units equipped with light and cruiser tanks were deployed in the Western Desert. Most famously perhaps was 9 Div AIF's cavalry squadron equipped with Crusader Mk.II/III at El Alamein. You really do need to purchase that book, I think, Jon. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 ROTFLMAO - have you ever actually played a CMBB QB with infantry over flat open terrain? If you think that infantry in the CM system can be used to 'to seize and hold ground' on a flat open map then I doubt it For the whole of the Desert War, the theory was that UK armour would support Commonwealth troops. That was the theory, I'm sure you know that practice frequently differed, but for historical accuracy and gameplay it needs to be incorporated. If there are no Desert Combined Arms actions then BFC might as well not bother with anything prior to Sicily as no one will play it anyway. [Edit] Heh - OK on second thoughts possibly not for the whole of the Desert War. When Monty took over he had the good sense to try to make Divisions fight as Divisions and not scatter the armour in all directions to soothe the infantry commanders anxieties. [ July 21, 2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Rex Bellator ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Op CRusader happened before Monty. In that Op the infantry were used to seize and hold ground. Repeatedly. They succeeded. Repeatedly. Op COMPASS happened a year before that. And the same deal - the infantry seized and held ground. You might want to find out how they managed it before writing off half the war and scope of CMAK. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.