My life is ruined!

[Mark Gallear]

Just got CMAK (The US version) – well the other day – not recovered yet. I am suffering from this thing here –

25026.BMP

It should be limited to the odd Stuart but it gets everywhere. It is badly affecting my suspension of disbelief that CMAK is the most realistic wargame experience ever. (Ok that was CMBB). It appears for the British Besa tank MG, and 15mm Besa and even the .303 Vickers MG (Despite there being a nice picture of one, which appears occasionally.) If I didn’t know better I would think this was some American insult to British “grogs” like that WG thing. :mad:

OK it’s a superficial thing and I making a fussy about nothing and I’m just making myself look silly.

Therefore, I will delve a little deeper and find out how realistic it really is then, after all, they filled the CD and worked very, very hard.

Lets start near the beginning with December 1940, with the British as a test case. (Well I’m just a standard player from Britain, nothing special, not a grog or anything.)

LINKS:

http://www.oneofmany.btinternet.co.uk/html/army_structure.html

http://www.militarytablesoforganisation.com/

http://www.oneofmany.btinternet.co.uk/html/army_structure.html

George Forty British ARMY HANDBOOK - helps occasionally!

Infantry

Divided realistically into Infantry and Mechanised (even though they don’t get trucks, maybe they should as it is the Desert and you can hardly walk that far.)

The standard 1940 Infantry Battalion has Bofors AA guns – what!!!

These are at Divisional and Brigade level and should be like this right through the war – the infantry did not even want the 2pdr at this stage. (OK, we got some doctrine to come out at last).

Realistically it has got the Carrier Scout Platoon. (Left over from the mechanised experiments of the 1930s.) The infantry would use the Brens from the Vehicles and take them with them when they dismounted. To accommodate this the system has had some fixing Universal Carriers coming in different versions with “Bren Carrier”, Boys AT rifle version, that carry less infantry and an empty version for carrying infantry (They seem to be holding the Bren and have not put it on the AA mount.) I applaud this work around but the problem is CM is basically a QB points game – I have to buy British and want to defend. I would want to dismount the scout platoon and hide the carriers in the rear – no, I have to buy them or buy more single companies, which is more expensive. I think the Axis player has a bit of an advantage on me!

(I think the ATR carrier is a bit iffy – Carriers were used with the Boys AT in the 1930s organization and the idea was given up on, but many vehicles had one of these fitted – it is hard to believe the poor foot soldiers had any left.)

Recon Assault Platoon – not a bad way of showing the British Army method of putting a patrol together. Why eight men? (Somebody mod the original Thompson with the drum mag!)

Where are the Vickers MGs? It was British practise to put them in a separate heavy weapons Battalion. What about a Vickers Company, buying them singly is going to be expensive and gives the axis player an advantage.

Prior to 1941 there was a shortage of Mortars in the commonwealth forces – what’s the rarity like just 10% for the 3inch Mortar singly and indirect compared with 80% and 50% for the 25pdr. Units had only 1-2 compared to the official TOW of 6.

2pdrs were in short supply after France and they used something called the Bofors 37mm Anti-Tank Guns, apparently Portéé on trucks even this early. I always thought it was the 40mm AA gun. The 2pdr is present with a rarity value of just an extra 20% . This would have been used by Royal Artillery formations not the infantry.

(The 25pdrs, which were sent to France, were put on the 18pdr mount, so they must have been removed from service, but some were still in service in this part of the world. Battlefront gets a tick at last. Apparently some South Africans Battalions got there hands on obsolete 18pdrs and used them as AT guns and replaced them later with captured German 50mm AT guns! You get the 2pdr – but can buy the 18pdr. I suppose that’s a tick, even though it’s copied from a wrong British formation!)

Armour

Wide choice, not going to bother checking the slope for a 5% error. I’m sure Battlefront got this right .

Lets look at the “Platoon” organization - why are the CS tanks in troops of three? Squadron practise was to convert two tanks to CS by removing the 2pdr and replacing it with the 3inch gun. They were part of the Squadron HQ with the Squadrons commanders tank. (A standard vehicle) This Squadron organization goes right through the war, as does this slight howler.

(When are we going to get Squadron HQ or Company HQ tanks or wherever the Yanks call them in CM? I want to field a full Squadron now that we are in the Desert.) Why are the CS tanks considered rare, they are present in every Squadron?

Vehicle – the recon boys in their ACs and scout cars.

The standard British Armoured Car in 1940 was the Morris CS9/LAC. Where is it?

The problem with the Morris was that the British Army had only ordered one Squadron in the Army reorganization of 1938 and almost all were lost in France. The 1924 and 1920 pattern Rolls Royce Armoured Car was brought out of mothballs. A troop of one Morris with two Rollers making up the numbers in an AC troop. The 11th Hussars took the turret off and built up a square box and armed it with a Bren and Boys firing forward. The RAF took the armour body off fitted to a Fordson 4x2 chasis, altred the turret to take the Boys AT rifle and put on a WW1 Lewis gun on an AA mount. Later the swapped the Vickers for a Bren – I suppose they must have been a bit worn.

We are still in 1924 with a US .30 calibre icon for the Vickers!!!!!!

(Source: Janes World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles. The Complete Guide.)

The Daimler Scout – certainly existed at this time in the British Army and had been used in France, so you can guess it was rather in short supply to send to the Desert. Rarity factor in CMAK – no change!

Where are the Morris and Humber Light Recon Cars that were to arrive in a few months to do the work of the Daimler scout?

Moving on to March 1942 with Rommel making an appearance, we get the Marmon Harrington II AC. This South African made armoured car takes over from the Morris and Rollers. (I have a source which says the MK 1s which were single drive were issued because of shortages of MK IIs.) It came with two Vickers one in the turret and one in the side but was soon modified with the Vickers moving on top of the turret, a Bren on an AA mount was added and a Boys ATR, placed in the turret. The commander could only fire one at time. Is it me or has that Boys been on viagra, it looks huge. Where is the Vickers, I know you can do pintle mounted MGs on halftracks. Icons show .30 on AA mount – a long stick thing for the Boys and that .30 for the Vickers again! This replaced those Rollers but they still there!

Links

http://www.geocities.com/marmonherrington/

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/southafrica/ArmoredCars.htm

Moving onto November 1941 and Operation Crusader – you get 2pdrs in the Infantry Battalion – you got to be kidding me!

You now some period mods – M-Hs with captured Italian 20mm and 47mm guns. They took the turret off and put the gun at the front. However, the Battlefront model just looks the same. Some Squadrons managed to have one of these for each troop HQ – seen photo of this. (Half a tick Battlefront, although they may originate a bit later than this like around May 1942?)

The long obsolete Vickers VIB has yet to go from the Armour list. Where is the AA version?

The 18pdrs have yet to go from the artillery.

It’s May 1942 and the Gazalla Battles. The Grants appear – big tick. What is the evidence for the British use of the White Scout Car at this time? Recon Tows only show it in any numbers for the 1944 battles? Although it is in my D. White Blitzkreig AFVS?

It is now October 1942 – El Alamein.

Still the 1941 Infantry Battalion - but at last gets the infantry gets the 2pdr, so tick. Enough 6pdrs for Royal Artillery. Deacon, yes but where is the 6pdr Portéé?

Some ticks here Priest, Humber III have arrived. THE LEE!!!!!! OK, there are records of the Lee been bought by Britain in large numbers and it was used in 1945 in the Far East but show me pictures of it in the Desert. My Vanguard The Lee/Grant Tanks in British service states categorically no Lees in the Middle East. They all were sent off to the Colonies – where they did not see active service.

The six Churchills present are MK IIIs not IV or V! They are not even very rare! They should disappear again after the battle for a long while. (No I'm not sure when they return either. )

Sherman III and II? Will look that one up – of the top of my head think almost all Sherman II with a handful of Sherman I i.e. one or two. Weirdly, no change on rarity on Sherman III and 40% on Sherman II!

That 20mm AA gun is still about and I’m not sure it was there in the first place.

Its now March 1943 and Tunisia.

It was common to have Vickers in the Battalion structure now - er no!

Daimler and Humbers are available but the only Marmon-Harrington are still in the list – should be long gone by now.

Stuart Recce and Kangaroo APC (sounds a bit Australian to me!) – what’s the evidence for this. Taking turret of Stuarts happened in 1944 for D-Day certainly but now when the gun is still effective?

Sherman III – yes big tick.

Crusader MK I in service still. British tank losses were not that bad then!

Loads of Churchill types (apart from the III) – not sure any were in use with British units at this time?

Still no Vickers Lt AA MK II, which was still in service.

June 1944 – fall of Rome.

British Infantry Battalion got 6pdrs and Vickers – looks about right! What about a few PIATS?

Got choice of ACs and recon vehicles but the Universal Carrier with Boys ATR!

Tanks – hard to believe a Sherman troop with 4 tanks (well sometimes are the Guards in Italy) – an Infantry Churchill formation with 4 tanks, yes I will believe that!

If Churchill I was used in Italy rather than converted to III or III CS, it would have been a CS vehicle in pairs. I suspect all the Churchills with 95mm guns were in Normandy but I could be wrong.

Valentine XI with 75mm gun in a troop formation, no as HQ or AO for some scout and artillery formations. It is rare but only at 30% level in game.

Now moving on until May 1945 as far as game will take us.

Standard Infantry battalion has PIATS – ok believe that but WASP Flamethowers!

Sherman 1B with 105mm – big tick. You have to buy a troop of 4 not a CS section of 2!

Firefly has appeared but not in a proper troop formation of two standard Shermans with one Firefly or Sherman with 76mm gun.

No AA Crusaders seem to have appeared yet, and should have disappeared as well. We have only Staghound AA used in some Recon Squadrons of ACs. Presumably we only have that because its American! Thanks Battlefront.

In conclusion - Yes, CMBB really was the most realistic wargame ever made ! Joking aside please, please, pretty please, fix or do something :mad: !

Many of the errors are organisational or icon based which should be easily fixable. Not even checked to see if the hidden unit icons are the right way round yet :eek: !

[MikeyD]

Calm down boy, calm down. That is, you see, a 'generic' machinegun icon.

That's the problem with generic stuff, they still have to look like SOMETHING, so no matter what they look like they will always not look like something else. Take the generic anti-tank gun icon for example. Should I be upset that it still looks like the Russian 45mm gun, or is it just a 'generic' icon that coincidentally looks like a Russian 45mm gun?

[dugfromthearth]

I feel sorry for you.

I have no real interest in the historic accuracy but I lament that the map editor doesn't let me put sloping water (so I can't have rivers coming down hills).

So I know how annoying some missing element can be that screams out at you "this isn't right".

you can always hope for a patch.

[Harv]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Just got CMAK (The US version) – <<snip>>

Well there's your problem. You should have ordered the British version which has the US OOB intentionally screwed up to ruin the lives of Americans.

Thankfully nobody cares about the Canadians, so that OOB is correct in every way.

Glad I could help.

Harv

[rune]

Check your sources, some are incorrect.

Here on the Marmon-Harrington

Here is a letter received from a South African Army Officer who disputes the coloring scheme as shown above. It would not be the first time that TANKS! has found printed books to be incorrect. Since he was highly knowledgeable about the Marmon Herrington, I have included it here with minor editing.

In 1938, the government of South Africa ordered the developement of two types of armored cars. Work proceeded slowly until the outbreak of WW2, at this point all work was quickened. Just like the Australians, the South Africans proved themselves exceptional at doing great things with an almost non-existant automotive industry. Orders swelled to 1000, and with only the existing prototypes to work with, finished examples were produced within months. The armored cars were produced by importing Ford truck chassis from Canada, Marmon-Herrington 4 X 4 transmissions from the USA, and armament from the UK. Local assembly was done in railroad workshops and local steel mills.

Model 1 - was a 4 X 2 drive arrangement. The unit was used in action against the Italians in East Africa. These units made a poor showing and were thereafter confined to training only.

Model 2 - known to the British as Armored car, Marmon-Herrington - was a full 4 X 4 car. This model was used extensively in reconnaissance during the North Africa campain. Usually, this was the only vehicle available in any numbers for that purpose. The car was considered by the troops to be under armed and under protected. Local modifications were usually made consisting of extra armor plate and heavier guns. Some going as far as mounting the Italian 20mm Breda cannon, German 37mm cannon, 45mm cannon, and the British 2 pounder. These local modifications were considered successful and some of the changes were added to later models.

Model 3 - incorporated the British 2 pounder as a main cannon as one of the produced models. Others mounted up to 4 Bren guns. Still others served as command and repair vehicles. The Japanese were quick to use this car whenever they captured one.

Model 4 - never went beyond prototype. This unit was heavily inspired by the German 8 wheel armored cars.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

As for the 18 pdr being phased out by Crusader? I have to&es with the numbers of them being used, for example:

1st South African Anti-tank Regiment, 16-18 pdrs and 48 2pdrs.

"c" Battery 73rd Anti-tank regiment, RA (less 1 troop) 4-18pdrs and 12-2 pdrs.

Nafziger's OOB of the battle of Sidi Rezegh

British machine gun battalions were redesigned into support battalions which were then broken into brigade support groups. Each group had 12 Vickers MMGs, a heavy mortar company with 8 4.2" mortars, and an anti-aircraft company with 16-20mm AA Guns. Suck support groups saw action in North Africa. Nafziger The British Armies of World War Two, an Organizational History, Volume Two, British Infantry Divisions.

As for the Stuarts being used as troops transports, same volume from Nafziger states they WERE used since there was a glut of them and the tank was no longer in use. This pertains to the South Africans and is found on page 31.

Just things I found that disagrees with your sources. I don't have the British Tank Divisions, but maybe I can go to the library and dig that one out.

Ahhh, at the end of the book, the South Africans used the following formations which was based on the British:

2X Armoured Regiments each with:

Regimental HQ

4X Sherman Tanks

11X Stuart Recce Tanks

3X Sherman Observation Tanks

1X ARV

1X Assault troop with

6X Sherman 105mm Tanks

3X Squadrons, each with:

Squadron HQ

4X Sherman 76mm

4X Troops each with:

3X Sherman 76mm

1X Troops with

3X Sherman Fireflys

Nafziger, Pg 31 of the Volume 2 mentioned above.

Just some sources that state they way it is, is correct.

Rune

[Mark Gallear]

MikeyD does every country have the .30 cal MG graphic? I have pointed out a few places where this is shown when the correct graphic does exist and is used on other vehicles. How hard would it have been to do a Besa graphic for all the British and common wealth vehicles? It would be correct for the US Army, does it have it for the DAK or Italians, I have honestly not looked? (It would not be right for Canadian Churchills! )

I made the point that when I looked at a vehicle and the icons shown were wrong it gave the impression that the modelling of its real factors could be in someway wrong. Please fix.

I did make some deeper points than this. Please read all of my post.

A fairly sensible reply from rune - saying my sources are incorrect and lists a lot of info on the South African army to counteract my points on the British Army !

[Here is a letter received from a South African Army Officer who disputes the colouring scheme as shown above. It would not be the first time that TANKS! has found printed books to be incorrect. .....

.....

Model 4 - never went beyond prototype. This unit was heavily inspired by the German 8 wheel armored cars.

I can agree with more or less the whole thing apart from the part on the Model 4. The established wisdom is that the Model 4 was used by the South African Army. Britain did not need it as it was now able to make its own ACs in numbers. Are we taling about a version 5? A picture of the IV it is shown on this site - it does look to be in service !

AS for the comments on M-H 2, I gather it was well liked, (well compared to a modified 1920 Roller anyway.) It gave the British Army an idea of how useful the AC was.

My points on the Marmon were mainly on the icons for its weapons, its 3d modelling and been in service far to long in the CM oob.

As for the 18 pdr being phased out by Crusader? I have to&es with the numbers of them being used, for example:

1st South African Anti-tank Regiment, 16-18 pdrs and 48 2pdrs.

"c" Battery 73rd Anti-tank regiment, RA (less 1 troop) 4-18pdrs and 12-2 pdrs.

Nafziger's OOB of the battle of Sidi Rezegh

This is mostly about the South African Army I mentioned that they were used by "some" South African Battalion’s after they were dropped from British Army use.

Ok, a mention of a British unit still with them 4 examples, if true should we think about its rarity factor. Got to wonder why and where the ammo was coming from - 25 pdr was been made in plentiful numbers by this date. You may have proved me wrong though. Well done Rune.

Cannot comment on Nafiger book - not seen the book is it for the British Army or South Africa? Seen the authors site - its a thin, cheaply made paperback thing. The only info on the site is very general as to units and he is not seen as an established expert like Forty or Hogg - who get it wrong from time to time, (well loads really but not as much as CMAK seems to be doing at the moment) as I will admit so do I – I’m not expert either.

British machine gun battalions were redesigned into support battalions which were then broken into brigade support groups. Each group had 12 Vickers MMGs, a heavy mortar company with 8 4.2" mortars, and an anti-aircraft company with 16-20mm AA Guns. Suck support groups saw action in North Africa. Nafziger The British Armies of World War Two, an Organizational History, Volume Two, British Infantry Divisions.

This is not what is happening in the game, though! The quote may be partly true for one period of time. The British Army went through a number of official changes - partly because equipment shortages forced them or tactics and doctrine changed. In addition, unofficial organizations appeared in certain theatres. One of the sites I put a link to goes into this. I don't think CMAK is modeling any of these changes! Those 20mm AA guns are a bit strange never come across a source on them before.

I think this is also a big deal as it effects how the game is played, and the chances of player using the British been able to win. We need a sensible discussion on this.

As for the Stuarts being used as troops transports, same volume from Nafziger states they WERE used since there was a glut of them and the tank was no longer in use. This pertains to the South Africans and is found on page 31.

Use but the list pertains to the British Army ! (I am certainly not expert on the South African Army!)

Ahhh, at the end of the book, the South Africans used the following formations which was based on the British:

2X Armoured Regiments each with:

Regimental HQ

4X Sherman Tanks

11X Stuart Recce Tanks

3X Sherman Observation Tanks

1X ARV

1X Assault troop with

6X Sherman 105mm Tanks

3X Squadrons, each with:

Squadron HQ

4X Sherman 76mm

4X Troops each with:

3X Sherman 76mm

1X Troops with

3X Sherman Fireflys

Nafziger, Pg 31 of the Volume 2 mentioned above.

This South African squadron organization is weird - no normal Shermans at all. NO CS tanks in HQ or standard Shermans. Very hard to believe for even a WW2 South African unit. The Guards in NW Europe had an All Firefly Squadron formation by the end of the war, but the Firefly had a decent HE round.

The standard June 1944 Squadron is

HQ

1 Sherman 75

2 Sherman 75 (These would normally be modified into CS tanks but the Sherman fires HE anyway!)

4 Troops x 2 Sherman 75 1 Sherman Firefly.

The Sherman Squadron is not a good example because there were a lot of regimental diffrences creeping in from late 1944. But the above Squadron just about describes a Squadron organization through out the war. The number of troops varied over time and officially there were supposed to be AA tanks in the early to late period but in practice these were concentrated in specialist troop formations higher up the tree. (Just as well really as they seem to have gone AWOL from CMAK!)

by late 1944-1945 it could be

HQ

2 Sherman 75

2 Sherman 75 (or 105mm in Italy)

3 troops 3 Sherman 75, 1 Firefly (or 76 in Italy)

or

HQ 4 Sherman

3 Troops Sherman, 1 troop of 4 Sherman Firefly.

which is the same thing - in practise I suspect the Fireflys would normally be doled out rather than concentrated.

Still very different from a unit just with 76mm and Fireflys - where does the HE fire come from? It is Italy after all.

Are we getting any where - no :eek: :eek: :mad:

[ December 16, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[rune]

The Marmon-Harrington IV I would trust the South African on. I also contacted the South African Military museum and got pretty much the same thing.

I see you saw the RA Artillery still had the 18 pdr. Trust me, it caught me completely by surprise when I found it. They still had some 60 pdrs in use also.

The South African tank formation is correct. They had the one section of 105mms, but as a whole, were well equipped. They also had more tanks available then the normal formation. The recce I have seen in South African and I think Canadian oobs. I wish I had the volume on British tank divisions. His book on the Afrika Korp is wonderful, however. Having talked to George personally, yes, I have found some errors, but as a whole, I trust his judgements.

Steve will have to answer on the rest, as I didn't do the British. Just wanted to show that I did see sources that argued with yours. I think Africa was whatever could be found and thrown together at various points.

Rune

[Panzer_Meyer]

OMG my troops dont all look in the same direction when they fire. That's unrealistic and I want my money back.

And the MGs sounds are off cause my speakers suck. I want my money back.

AHHH GRRR!

[-E]

And why has no one mentioned the lack of motorcycle-riding horses?!?!? A bit odd they've been left out of TWO games since the issue was raised in BB.

[JonS]

For Op CRUSADER all (as far as I can tell) Commonwealth A-Tk Btys had one tp of 2-pr replaced with 18-pr.

This was done to increase the hitting power available to the A-Tk regts, as it was already felt by then that the 2-pr was becoming obselescent. I don't know if they were issued with HE in real-life (though I would hope so), but since they were scattered about the place in troop lots during CRUSADER, the effect of CW A-Tk units having a viable HE capability was probably never realised. It would seem that the experiement wasn't a great success as the 18-pr seem to have disappeared again (from what I can tell) after CRUSADER, and before the 6-pr arrived.

Inf sections in a motorised recce regt only had 8 men. Though really, in CM, they should only be 7 stronmg, as one man was the driver and stayed with the section vehicle.

I don't have CMAK yet (travelling), but from what I saw of the spreadsheets that someone posted, there seems to be a number of oddities. Will comment more when I can do so properly.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Stuart Recce and Kangaroo APC (sounds a bit Australian to me!) – what’s the evidence for this. Taking turret of Stuarts happened in 1944 for D-Day certainly but now when the gun is still effective?

Which D-Day? There were hundreds of them.

Stuart Recce (with .50 cal armament) were used by Canadian recce troops in Italy; I talked with a Lord Strathcona's Horse winner at an Italian Campaign dinner last year, who was a crewman on these. They were heavily armed, with the "five-oh" MG, but also a Piat and a half-section of men. His partner won the MM at the Melfa crossing by taking out a Panther with his Piat - they were fighting dismounted, naturally.

[Mark Gallear]

You have sort of managed to get me to go off topic from the main sweeping point I was making.

Rune

The site on the Marmon-Harrington factory, which I listed on my first post (It used to be an official Marmon-Harrington site but seems to have moved to geocities now?), says a total of 936 Mark IV were built commencing in 1943. You are talking about the Mark V onwards, which were made only in prototype. I have a number of books and wargame rules listing into use and have stats. There are a number of pictures on the site of it – one in Modern African use – hard to believe for a prototype. He even lists which regiments get Marmon-Harrington ACs - Australia appears to have a major use. So no I don't believe your South African guy.

Michael Dorosh

This is Canadian usage in late 1944. I said it was used by the British Army in this period during Normandy. I was casting doubt on been used as early as March 1943 by the British Army. I could be wrong - prove it!

JonS

For Op CRUSADER all (as far as I can tell) Commonwealth A-Tk Btys had one tp of 2-pr replaced with 18-pr.

I have sort of detected that and metioned it in my first post – but that is not what is happening in the list. Should be no AT guns in a British Infantry Battalion structure before Alamein.

Looking forward to your comments, when you get the game.

[rune]

Here is the web site:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

Look up South Africa.

Rune

[Mark Gallear]

Yes, I looked already - also not consistent says this -

Impressed with the German 8-wheeled SdKfz 231, the South Africans started to develop their own vehicle in the same vein. They were designated South African Heavy Armored car Mark V and South African Reconnaissance Car Mark VI. The Mark I through to Mark IV were already planned or in existence and were 4 wheelers.

Shows pictures of theze protypes which I have never seen before. Also shows picture of Type IV - looking to be very much in service.

(The late Bruce Rea Taylor's Firefly wargames rules had this South African used AC with the 2pdr as the only listing to use the HE shell.)

Best of all it shows a picture of a type II in desert camo with the AA Bren, Boys rifle and Vickers. Battlefront please copy!

[rune]

Mark,

I was thinking about this, could be both be correct? Could it be the South Africans decided not to go ahead with the IV, while the British produced one?

Rune

[rune]

Nope, found this, on all places, a discussion about Isreali wars...

Marmon-Herrington IVF Armoured Car

The South African built Marmon-Herrington IVF was the most widely used commercially built armoured vehicle in 1948-49. Used by Trans-Jordanian Arab Legion, Syrians and Egyptians, and occasionally when captured by the Israelis.

British supplied vehicles with a 2-pounder main gun and a Browning machine gun.

Individual Israelis say they feared the fire from the 2-pounders of the Marmon-Herringtons more than the other Legion artillery 'cause the red hot shot broke up as it traveled thus forming a fire ball that came at them slowly and with a frightening roar' (Shamir, 2001).

Some of the material the Israelis captured was damaged, so on at least one occasion a captured Marmon-Herrington IVF had it's 2-pounder replaced by a French Sa.38 37mm gun from a Syrian R-39 tank.

[Mark Gallear]

Am I winning – gone all quiet on the Middle East/Italian Front?

Thought I would give this one a bump as without some vocal support from other British CM players we won’t get anywhere in the patch .

Just done a “Grogs” Scenario icon bar with a different badge for each nationality unit type in the game. (Where is the Indian Army?)

Also the US 1240 graphic for those with the CDV version and the WG and who don’t like my efforts.

Don't all rush at once - one reason I hid my announcement here!