Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?

[Meach]

But we still love you in spite of your confusion.

Michael

HAHAHAHA

I wonder what kind of look I would get if I ordered fish and chips in a US restaurant and what on earth would I get delivered to the table. One good thing, Coke is Coke no matter where you are in the world

A beef patty is a hamburger, which contains no ham? Y'all just trying to add to my confusion now. And the mind boggles at chipped beef chips.

[Battlefront.com]

Fortunately for you, what we call "fish and chips" here in the US is identical to what you get in your neck of the heath. However, generally there is no newspaper involved.

Hamburger supposedly comes from the German meaning "from Hamburg", though it is thought to be an American invention (remember, at one point 1/4 of all Americans were of German ancestry). In Germany the closest traditional dish I can think of is Hackfleisch. The Germans can be so damned literal

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Do you suppose Frankfurters (meaning the citizens of Frankfurt) ever eat frankfurters (meaning the sausages commonly found in hot dogs)? And if they do, is it cannibalism?

Michael

[wolf66]

Do you suppose Frankfurters (meaning the citizens of Frankfurt) ever eat frankfurters (meaning the sausages commonly found in hot dogs)? And if they do, is it cannibalism?

Michael

I believe Frankfurters are not called "Frankfurters" in Frankfurt - they are called "Wiener" (Vienna = Wien) and in Vienna they are called Frankfurters ... OK ?

[Redwolf]

Hamburgers != Hamburger in Germany. One is pronounced the American way and the inhabitants of the city are spoken roughly like "hahmbuhrgers".

They do say "Frankfurters" in there in Hamburg, though. As Hamburgers know, Frankfurter Würstchen are not the same as Wiener Würstchen, it's just that the culinarily challenged Hessians can't tell .

[Michael Emrys]

Boy, everybody has it in for the Hessians. They ever do anything right?

Michael

[Paper Tiger]

Hmm... sausage grogs!

[zwobot]

Boy, everybody has it in for the Hessians. They ever do anything right?

Hessians have the very best dialect in Germany, see Badesalz

[Meach]

Just try asking for Haggis!!

[Michael Emrys]

Just try asking for Haggis!!

Why on god's green earth would you do that? I mean, unless you are a totally twisted, sick pervert or something. Haggis is fit only for clogging drains, and why would you want to do that?

Michael

[Meach]

Haggis is good, mm'kay?

[Scipio]

Haggis is good stuff. Nearly as good as Pfälzer Saumagen. If somebody want to talk about British biological warfare, let's start with Black Pudding or Mash&Pie.

[flamingknives]

You can have so much fun with black pudding though.

Before anyone gets ideas, you wait until a foreigner is tucking in then lean over and tell them what it's made from.

[Meach]

I believe they call it blood sausage in Norway....there's a hint, kids.

[pamak1970]

Trafficability

Movement of tanks was generally confined to the roads. The

roads are of rough but heavy construction and have crushed stone

bases. Roads, except in mountain areas are built from 5 to 20

feet above ground level and have 45 to 60 degree shoulders.

Mountain roads are narrow and winding,with many sharp curves and

steep grades, and have no guard rails or fences of any kind. In

many instances bridges of insufficient strength had to be bypassed

which was generally not difficult in the south. But bypassing

often presented formidable problems in the north, where ravines and

and gorges of considerable depth had to be crossed.

Unfrozen rice paddies could be crossed where there was a firm bottom a

foot or so below the sludge , provided that the tanks were not

steered in the paddies, but prior reoonnaissance on foot was necessary

to determine the depth of the sludge. Tanks could go from

one paddy to another if the intervening dikes were not more than

2 to 3 feet high; higher than this, the tanks would dig In, become

mired, and often throw their tracks. The rice paddies could

be traversed when frozen provided the tanks did not follow in each

others tracks, which might cause the solid surface to give away.

In an attack demonstration, one M26 managed to climb a 2,000-foot,

30.degree slope consisting of terraced unfrozen rice paddies, but

the tank threw both tracks making a slow turn near th8 top.

In the north, light snow and considerable ice were encountered;

these caused tanks much traction trouble. Tanks equipped with the

T81 and chevron-type, steel tracks had great difficulty with skidding

and sliding, particularly when trying to negotiate bends.

Tanks sometimes kept one track in the shallow ditches of the mountain

roads to insure staying on the road. Ths Tank Company of the

17th Infantry, in a road march from Chori to Pungsan, climbed

4,600 feet in 11 miles, with many deep bypasses of 50 to 500 feet.

The first tank took two and one-half days to make this trip. Another

platoon of the same company had to shovel ice and snow off

the road in order to negotiate a mountain pass.

The 3rd Reconnaissance Company,'with rubber-tracked M24's

found the performance of these

vehicles on ice and snow much better than steel tracked vehicles

such as the M39. All units had to be careful to prevent an accumulation

of frozen mud and snow behind the drive sprocket, which

caused many tracks to be thrown."

Under the above conditions and in a period of 4 months , X coprs armor units experienced

(Figures in parentheres indicate total losses)

Cause..................Prior to wonsan landing...............After Wonsan landing

Mech failure...........46(1)..............................................54(26)

Tank fire.................4(2)...............................................0

Infantry attack.........0...................................................3(3)

TERRAIN..................3(1)..............................................17(17)

Mines......................9(1)................................................1(1)

AT guns...................4(2)................................................3(3)

Mortars....................1(0)................................................0(0)

Tactical abandoment...0....................................................6

PS (tactical abandoment from other parts of the document seems it does not imply cases of bogging down)

Also in page 73 when there is a detailed break down of casualties by unit , it gives only one instance of "terrain casualty" as a result of "bridge failure".

From the same document

"These figures show the different conditions which confronted

tank units in the two areas. In south Korea, 10 percent of the

tank casualties became total losses;

In northeast Korea, 65 percent

were total losses. This was caused by lack of spare parts,

the great distances separating many tank units from their ordnance

supporting units , and the tactical situation. Many units could

have recovered, repaired, or evacuated tanks had sufficient time

been available. Many of the terrain losses, a large Item, could

likewise have been recovered. It is noteworthy that only one

mine casualty occurred in northeast Korea, and that only seven of

the losses resulted from direct enemy action. The 100 eases of

mechanical failure reported are broken down in Table II."

Of course it is quite likely that those types of reports do not capture the cases of mired vehicles recovered by other tanks for example of the organic unit. I assume those "terrain casualties" were of the type where it was nessesary to call special recovery vehicles which recorded the "job" and became available as a statistical number of studies like the one presented here.

Still , it gives an idea ( minimum thershold) of terrain casualties under the ciscumstances described above.

The way i see it, terrain casualties in this case is a big percentage.

mech failures appear in about 100 cases (and of course again we are talking most probably about serious enough mech failures which require special action outside of tank crew corrective actions).

terrain failures appears in 20 cases.

There are similar data for other units and that is why i pointed the link so that members can dig into it and try to establish a rough idea about trafficability and tank losses.

By the way, there is another link in a US (modern) manual which gives Probability of traverse of certain types of terrains. However it does not link this probability to factors like distance traveled). It basically treats the terrain as either negotiable or not depending on soil characteristics, moisture and so on. Since the measurement of such characteristics inserts a measurement error, this creates a probability (together with the vehicle characteristics) regarding the ability to traverse the terrain by the examined vehicle).

I did not post this link cause i do not think it is very helpful (although it appears at first glance to give the "ultimate answer").

However after close examination it is obvious that under this treatment the probability of traversing a certain type of terrain is the same regardless if the length of the path is 10 or 100 miles.

[Noltyboy]

Why on god's green earth would you do that? I mean, unless you are a totally twisted, sick pervert or something. Haggis is fit only for clogging drains, and why would you want to do that?

Michael

Oi we shall have less of the haggis baiting!!!

[TempV]

A new company/battalion level wargame is under developement now: [commercial link deleted]

Developers are Graviteam who did T-72: Balkans in Fire and Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942. Personally I liked Steel Fury very much (it's really authenic tank sim which is rare thing nowadays and it's one of best sims ever made) so I'll look for their new project. Pity it seems there won't be multiplayer mode for the first release of Kharkov 1943.

[Apocal]

I am doubtful that K43 will depict batttalion-level combat well. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if they pulled it off. But I agree fully that K42 is the best "old-school" tank sim since... ever. I thoroughly enjoyed peeking out over the top of my commander's protective plate trying to spot ATGs, other tanks and infantry. And it is hand's down the best depiction of actually being inside a vehicle in rough terrain I've seen.