Louie the Toad Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I can hardly wait to command those Italian CV/L33 machine gun tankettes. What a rush! I think their armor was 1 mm. Or maybe it just seemed that way. Feel free to correct me. Seriously, this is going to be fantastic. Sand between my toes.... Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: As Gordon said, Fireflies did make it to Italy. They were used by, for example, 2(NZ)Division. I'm not sure if all the various marks and models made it though. I'm sure at least the Firefly IIc did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 New Zealand Fireflies in Italy: A 17-pounder Sherman from C Squadron 20th Armoured Regiment during final drive through the Po Valley. This is the VC version of the tank. Note the countershading under the front half of the barrel. A Sherman IC Firefly of 18th Armoured Regiment crossing a Bailey Bridge in Italy in 1945. Note the use of counter-shading in white under the front half of the 17-pounder barrel. Both images are from the 4th NZ Armoured Brigade page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Bugger all! What about the Greeks, man? What about the Greeks? [ April 11, 2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipez Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Third Combat Mission with same Engine.. by the third version would come out, I was really hoping for enhanced graphics engine.. you have to admit that the engine has seen its best days.. Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward for this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitz Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Great news about this game and that I can order it direct from BFC. OK so I have read all the posts regarding French troops, dust, Wadis, Greeks etc. etc. but nobody has asked the really important question! Do the commonwealth troops in the desert get to wear those really big, baggy shorts (i.e. "Stanley Mattews Cup Final" types)? I would be so angry if this was'nt the case I would have to think about not buying this thing (for at least a milli-second!) Fitz P.S. Greatcoats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 You mean shorts like the guy standing in front of hte tank above, or like any well dressed young chap on the street these days??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 i am sorry but i don´t think that battles in the desert will be that interresting. 8.8 gunning down hundreds of allied tanks....maps that are too large to few .... and to buy a game just because multi turreted vehicles ???? BTW where are the arabique troops ?? Oi ! skolman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Im sure CMAK will have many fans, and for those of us who doesnt look forward to desert combat, there is also Italy or Crete. But, for me personal, this will be the first CM game Im not 100% sure I will buy. It just doesnt interest me much, and Im tired of the western front after CMBO. Bur Im sure there will be many (esp Amis and Brits) that will be looking forward to playing with "their own" forces again, with the CMBB engine. But hey, its all good as long as the CMX2 engine is being worked on also! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bboyle Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by Skolman: i am sorry but i don´t think that battles in the desert will be that interresting. 8.8 gunning down hundreds of allied tanks....maps that are too large to few .... and to buy a game just because multi turreted vehicles ???? BTW where are the arabique troops ?? Oi ! skolman Well, I don't necessarily think it needs to be that way (the 8.8 gunning down part). It happened in large part because British tank and combined arms doctrine was faulty and they paid the requisite price. Alan Morehead's book on the North African campaign, while written from a journalists viewpoint, is very enlightening on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by bboyle: ]Well, I don't necessarily think it needs to be that way (the 8.8 gunning down part). It happened in large part because British tank and combined arms doctrine was faulty and they paid the requisite price. Alan Morehead's book on the North African campaign, while written from a journalists viewpoint, is very enlightening on this topic. Do tell! What was wrong with British tank and combined arms doctrine? And how can we avoid their mistakes when we have the Brits? BTW, did the British tactical appraoch change? Looks like the got the hang of how to attack by the time of El Alamein--but I don't really have a detailed knowledge of the tactics of that battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Yeah by El Alamain they got it right - in a WW1 kind of way! The problem with British combined armes was that htere wasn't any in theearly part of hte war. The tanks went haring off on cavalry charges on their own, and hte infantry got over-run as they lacked AT support - orrather they only had hte typical early war paltry TOE of AT guns. The NZ division had a running fight with 8th army over armoured support, eventually solved by attaching a Brit armoured brigade to the division itself, and in Italy by convertign a couple of NZ brigades to armour - the Division ended up with somethign like 5 or 6 Brigades IIRC, 25,000 men and over 12,000 vehicles by the end of the war!! But other commonwealth infantry divisions (ingluding Brits) weren't so lucky as to have the undivided attention of hte politicians at home, and units like the South africans and Indians often completely lacked armoured support when they needed it most because the tanks supposedly assigned to them were swanning off somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bboyle Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bboyle: ] Do tell! What was wrong with British tank and combined arms doctrine? And how can we avoid their mistakes when we have the Brits? BTW, did the British tactical appraoch change? Looks like the got the hang of how to attack by the time of El Alamein--but I don't really have a detailed knowledge of the tactics of that battle. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: Looks like the got the hang of how to attack by the time of El AlameinIn my humble non-grog understanding: No, they didn't quite get the hang of it. El Alamein is the first place in Rommel's advance which was unflankable- ocean on one side, impassable mtns on the other. During the advance, (here's the flammable part), I believe the allies relied too heavily on WWI ideas; Rommel did not. In fact, the allies fell for the same "tricks" not once but over and over. Too bad for R, Hitler was unwilling to send more than a smidgen of supplies to Africa, and R was largely on his own. At one point, at least half of R's tanks were captured tanks. By the time R reached El Al, the defensive line set up there and the campaign was given to Montgomery, who was intent on winning no matter what- for the allies to suffer one more loss to R was intolerable, and M personally considered losing to R intolerable as well. So, although by the time R reached El Al and made a weak attack, M decided to wait and build an overwhelming force, although he surely had one at that point, R being so extended and depleted he could have been pushed over with a feather. M reinforced, R did also, but of course M could bring much more to bear than R, who had lost even more in the way of supply when the island of I-Forget-Its-Name was finally secured by the allies, so when M finally decided to go swarming in, he had no problems, like picking up a carton of milk you think is full but turns out to be empty. Grogs feel free to correct me, Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikib Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scipio: Well...we had Gebirgsjäger in CMBO, too. And the only time they fought on the whole western theartre and the CMBO timeframe was once in the alps, and I guess it can be discussed if this wasn't part of the Italian theatre anyway... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are mistaken - two Gebirgsjägerbatallione (~1,000 men each) fought in the Vosges mountain range during the September battles. Not the Alps, and definitely not the Italian campaign. Can we please have some historical Gebirgsjäger and Jäger squads instead of the 'super' SMG heavy units we have in CMBB and CMBO?????? Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Yeah by El Alamain they got it right - in a WW1 kind of way! And the tactics used by the British Army in 1918 would be bad in what way? Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: The problem with British combined armes was that htere wasn't any in theearly part of hte war. The tanks went haring off on cavalry charges on their own, and hte infantry got over-run as they lacked AT support - orrather they only had hte typical early war paltry TOE of AT guns. The Cavalry, having recently been mechanized, may well have continued the British Cavalry tradition of "charging at everything". The Royal Tank Regiment, however, certainly regarded co-operation with infantry as their main role. Remember that in the British Army in WW2, "Tanks" and "Armour" are not the same thing. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: [qb] Yeah by El Alamain they got it right - in a WW1 kind of way! And the tactics used by the British Army in 1918 would be bad in what way? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: The NZ division had a running fight with 8th army over armoured support, eventually solved by attaching a Brit armoured brigade to the division itself, and in Italy by convertign a couple of NZ brigades to armour - the Division ended up with somethign like 5 or 6 Brigades IIRC, 25,000 men and over 12,000 vehicles by the end of the war!!4th NZ Brigade was shattered on Ruweisat Ridge in July 1942 in a poorly executed attack (the promised tank support arrived two hours after dawn. The German tanks appeared at dawn. 'nuff said). It took no further part in the NA campaign, and was subsequently converted into an Armd Bde. This left 2(NZ)Div with only two bdes, so various other bdes were attached to make up numbers. For much of the defensive phase at El Alamein, it was a bde from 50th Inf Div (UK) IIRC. For the offensive phase, and most of the subsequent campaign to Tunis, it was 9th Armd Bde (UK). 2(NZ)Div moved to Italy in Oct 1944 with three bdes - two infantry and one armd. It kept this formation until Feb 1945 when it raised a thrid inf bde by re-roling the Div Cav Regt and the MG bn to leg inf. The third bn for this new bde was provided by taking the motor bn from the armd bde. So, for the last 5 months of the war in Europe 2(NZ)Div had three inf bdes, each with three inf bns, and one armd bde, containing three armd regts. See Mike Doroshs' CM:AK website for a listing of dates and names for the main units in 2(NZ)Div. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: ... Likewise, I think a game that covers Italy would still miss the Cromwell, Comet and Challenger, ...... and, IIRC, the British used the Thompson rather than the Sten as the section SMG in the Med, so there may be a slight difference in section firepower there. Regards JonS [ April 13, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Yeah by El Alamain they got it right - in a WW1 kind of way! And the tactics used by the British Army in 1918 would be bad in what way? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppe Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Hot Damm! My hopes of an "M3 Lee" in CM may finally be on it's way! Always wanted to relive one of my favorite war films "Sahara". Thanks Big Time and Battlefront! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Debating Monty's tactics is hard to resist. I've always wondered if the negative views expressed about him don't derive a lot of their energy from his undeniably "pain-in-the-ass" personality. During CM days, a lot of forum members wanted to rank him at the top of the "Ten Worst Military Commanders" list--which is hard to justify for a general who, in the long run, actually won most of his battles. Still, maybe he deserves all (or most?) of the criticism. Arguably, his best single battle was the one he rarely gets individual credit for, the Normandy Invasion. There his meticulous planning paid dividends and an up-the-gut approach by overwhelming force was perhaps the only way to go. Meanwhile, the Fortitude deception plans (and the fortuitous bad weather) achieved enough misdirection that he actually benefited from strategic surprise, as well. And the British invasion beaches seem to have benefited from a better overall tactical approach than the American beaches, especially Omaha, where the pre-bombardment and troop delivery were both to some degree botched. Yet Monty's silly claim that he would take Caen on D-Day, and his later bludgeoning treatment of the followup battle, sapped much of the D-Day credit away from him. I think we see the drawbacks on Monty's over-meticulous approach in the Rhine Crossing, which was a "let out all the stops" attack that in particular got a lot of excellent airborne troops unnecessarily killed. Here, the Germans knew he was coming and made the paratroopers pay the price. Meanwhile, the Ami First and Third Armies seized Rhine crossings on the fly, both earlier and at considerably lesser cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Found a summary of Free French Forces, for those who are interested in such things. Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bboyle Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 So the big question is....if the Allied player uses good tactics do we get ahistorical results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts