Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    To be honest, that was back in game engine version 1. Some lessons don't ever get "un-forgotten" though. EDIT: The presence of trees or other obscurants partially blocking LOS, but not LOF was the contributing factor to the previous observation. I learned quite a few lessons as a result of that earlier experience:
  2. 2 points
    Sequoia

    The patch?

    Time to announce Battlefront's secret project- Combat Mission: Battles of the Third Age.
  3. 2 points
    Michael Emrys

    This guy is worth a watch

    I've noticed that much of what gets posted on YT shares that characteristic. The self-descriptions of the items consists almost entirely of superlatives; the item is the "most" this or the "fantastic" that. And then when you open it, it falls completely flat. It has gotten so that I simply avoid anything with "amazing" or "top ten" in the title. Michael
  4. 2 points
    Since you asked nicely:
  5. 2 points
    Ivanov

    This guy is worth a watch

    Did he wrote that is his memoirs after the war? If so, I'd take it with a big grain of salt. During the war, at the end of 1944 he said that the war would be lost, if the Upper Silesian Industrial Region was captured by the Soviets. BTW even by the end of 1944, none from the upper echelons of the Nazi elites, was seriously considering, that Third Reich would be defeated. Even the supposedly rational Speer was "working towards the Fuhrer", convinced that there could be a bloody draw, which would convince the Western Powers to ally with Germany against the Soviets. At some stage Himmler was even trying to suggest Hitler, that maybe a separate peace with Soviet Union would be possible. No rational thinking there in any case. It was really the failure of the Ardennes offensive which persuaded those who could be convinced, that there would be no German victory. According to Kersaw, half of German military dead were suffered during the war, died during the period from July of 1944 till the end of the war. Also half of the bombs dropped on Germany by the Allies account for the last nine months of the war. The efforts of Speer assured, that the Second World War agony would last for as long as it did. The historians still study and debate this issue and they are very far from drawing the final conclusions. That's why a random guy from Youtube, who claims "it was oil" sounds so ridiculous. Ps. You really gotta love Dr Citino.
  6. 1 point
    Someone posted this on CoC, and I wanted to make sure it got posted over here pronto, It's a four part lecture series which I've NOT had the chance to watch. Can therefore say nothing omne way or the other about it. Regards, John Kettler
  7. 1 point
    Michael Emrys

    The patch?

    That beats me; I've only read it twice in forty some-odd years. But I've been thinking that it's getting to be just about time for another go through. BTW, Netflix is currently streaming a version of The Fellowship of the Ring. I noticed that they cut several scenes from the running, including some that I regard as very important. But for all that, the running time is still nearly three hours. Bring a sandwich and a six-pack. Michael
  8. 1 point
    This has a lot of pics showing live ones, broken down ones and quite dead ones, too. It's got a song I never heard before as the video soundtrack, and I like the melody, yet have no idea what's being said. All I can tell is that it's German. Judging from this, it would appear the creator of the vid knows the Axis History Forum well! The thread has a considerable amount of info in it. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=153725 This clip from some British show has a brief piece of far footage of some in convoy, as well as some good stills and commentary. Regards, John Kettler
  9. 1 point
    I have had shockingly bad experiences using machineguns in the deployed role inside buildings. See my AAR against John Kettler. (Warning, photobucket debacle.) Trying to get a deployed machinegun to fire on a target led to the gunner rotating, undeploying, moving, then deploying again, all while an entire company of infantry casually strolled past his Line of Sight. By the time he was set up to fire again, the opportunity was lost. Yes, deploy and pack up are different. But if you are deployed in one direction, then try to deploy in another direction, you pack up for 14 seconds, then spend 2.3 minutes deploying again. In my opinion, it is far better to remain semi-deployed at all times, unless you are planning to use the building as a semi-permanent position, or you absolutely need the elevation provided.
  10. 1 point
    Woot. A point of clarification, however. You stated that you did not want to deploy your two HMG teams in Casa d'Antonio because you wanted them to have freedom of maneuver within their respective buildings. Well, you -did- mention the 2.3 minute DEPLOY time. That's an estimate of how long it takes to setup in the buildings. So, yeah, it could take longer. To Deploy. Underneath that Deploy time listing is something labeled "Pack Up". That's showing 14 seconds. So, you could have depl oyed the machineguns (and gotten all the ROF/LOS benefits, if any), and the packup time of 14 seconds would've been the only delay incurred to move them from one floor to another (or to the other side of that floor). They would've then been in the "semi-deployed" status. I would highly recommend always using deploying when initially setting up in a building. FWIW. (I just want to make sure the different time penalties for deploying and packing up are correctly noted.) Also, as evident by the chain-reaction spotting/firing which unzippered your defense, setting covered arcs is always a good idea. Delete 'em later if you want. The units will still spot, they just won't fire. That may've preserved some of your firepower. Or not. Waiting for the next installment.
  11. 1 point
    no, they are pretty trashy for everything. cool to have in the game, but useless to have since CM's scope doesn't involve the type of fortifications that would make them useful. even flame tanks are a let down with maybe the exception of the Crocodile.
  12. 1 point
    +1.....Next round's on me. Felt the same way about the .50cal vs 40mm Strykers, unless something had really annoyed me, in which case it's AGL death, or if I was really cross, 'The BTR Of Doom!'.
  13. 1 point
    General Jack Ripper

    This guy is worth a watch

    The real question is when did he say it, and in what context? Did he mean ALL armaments production, or FUEL production? Did he honestly think that Germany still had a chance of winning by 1944, but that chance was lost because of the loss of oil production? The main complaint against the YouTube historian and these types of conversations is the tendency to remove historical fact from the context in which it is placed. Is it necessary to have petroleum in order to make steel? Is it necessary to have petroleum to generate electricity? Can your railroads not run without it? Do you need oil to maintain a human workforce? What production was effected by the loss of oil? How severe was the effect? Were alternatives to petroleum available? Did it effect some production, but not others? Context is important. It could be, that the attack on the oil fields came at a critical time. That the loss of even a few months of fuel production had a key effect at the front, and turned the strategic situation for the worse. Perhaps a major enemy offensive kicked off at the same time as the raid on the oil fields, and thus the forces were lacking operational fuel to save themselves? Maybe the loss of oil production had some other effect, such as the loss of industrial chemicals? If you're going to cut and paste a sentence fragment and base an entire argument on it, go ahead, but you've got a long way to go before you convince anyone. By 1944, Germany had already lost the war. We know it. They knew it. Everyone knows it. What possible difference could have been made by the survival of the German oil industry?
  14. 1 point
    JoMc67

    Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    Ahh, and a Very Good Comeback, Indeed...Yes, it will be a Mess of an X-Mas.
  15. 1 point
    Lethaface

    This guy is worth a watch

    Address the arguments I put forward if you want to argue with my reasoning (that's what discussions are about). Just to be clear: I mean TIK all the best and am happy people enjoy his video's. He does come up with arguments from other (more nuanced) studies, but he presents them in a poor way. At least that's my opinion, I found his video's not worthy of my time while I am interested in the subject. That's not a personal attack. I don't challenge that oil was an important factor. Trying to single out oil as the single reason Germany lost the war isn't the same as professional historians spending years studying and debating how important the availability of (vast resources of) oil actually was as a strategic factor when waging a global war. TIKs video is trying to make a bold claim to attract viewers. In the video's than he presents a bunch of supportive arguments towards his claim, but it doesn't excel in critical thinking (imho). It's a biased plea towards a simple answer for a complex question. I can advise on the book 'Asking the right questions, a guide to critical thinking' with regards to this matter. In my first post I asked a question: if during 1937 or so, Germany happened to discover an oilfield the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves right inside Bavaria, would that have won them the war? Please address that question if you believe that Oil is THE factor why Germany couldn't win any war against the allies. If I was to make a bold statement like that and post in on youtube, I'd first ask myself a couple of these questions. It's not just this video in which he performs this type of presentation. Clickbait is bad. How would you feel if you bought a book for it's title only to discover that the inside of the book doesn't correspondent with the cover, title and preface? At least, the claim on the cover isn't properly substantiated in the book. I would feel 'fooled'. That's why I compare him to politicians that do the same: make a bold claim, present some supportive evidence and voila: a new 'fact' has been born. Some politicians like to rinse and repeat their own 'supportive evidence', while calling anyone that presents different evidence 'liars', 'ridiculous', etc. Asking the 'well how about X' question, without actually addressing the counter evidence is a common tactic as well. Now TIK's video's are quite innocent when compared to state propaganda, but it's still misinformation in my book. Regarding winning or losing wars: (limited) wars are a state of affairs invented by humans. Someone once called them 'the continuation of politics by other means'. Wars are started by groups of people, or factions, that decide that they have a grudge with another faction, to be settled by violence. Usually wars end when one of the parties decides it's been enough and negotiates a ceasefire or surrender. The existence of matter doesn't win or lose wars. Failure to grasp the implications of the availability of matter can sort of lose you a war, or better render a decision to start a war as a stupid decision. In which case the reason you lost the war would have been incompetence; why start a war you can't win? A factor isn't the same concept as a reason. That might be semantics, but to me it's important especially when you claim to have found some spectacular reason for a well known event, that has been researched, documented and discussed for decades, like Germany losing WWII and their access to oil. Regarding Speer: I can think of a motive as to why the guy in charge of Germany's entire armanents and war production said that the Allies oil campaign meant the end of German armaments production. That means that he wasn't responsible for the failure regarding outproducing the enemy ;-) That's just pure speculation though, there's people on this forum that probably have more insight into this subject than me. Just to be sure: I don't think I have a monopoly on wisdom and I may be wrong. If you spot any fallacies in my reasoning, please let me know so I can learn.
  16. 1 point
    Michael Emrys

    This guy is worth a watch

    Well sure. Without fuel the Luftwaffe cannot fly, which would have been a serious concern for Galland. Michael
  17. 1 point
    General Jack Ripper

    This guy is worth a watch

    U.S. Lend Lease became law in March 1941, and the first shipments of over 300,000 tons of supplies (in 1941) began on June 22. Granted, the total amount of Lend-Lease to the Soviets in 1941 was very small, only about 2% of the total wartime shipments; 1942 amounted to about 2.5 Million tons, or about 14% of total. The British delivered weapons in 1941 on the back of American credit, in fact, almost all British supplies sent to the USSR were paid for with American credit. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ssd?id=mdp.39015004950914 1. I've heard it took until early 1942 (February or March) to get production up to the levels of 1941 before the factories moved, but I haven't seen anything specific yet. (Citation Needed) 2. Post-war, the Soviets had an almost fanatical censorship campaign in place which systematically devalued the contributions of the other nations in WW2. It got so bad that battle records of campaigns were literally burned in order to cover up the full scale of Soviet defeats early in the war. David M. Glantz has written extensively on this topic, and an interesting yet abbreviated lecture for the U.S. Army War College is on YouTube: 3. I think the evidence is conclusive that Germany did not plan for a campaign against the Soviet Union lasting longer than one year. I'm reminded of an anecdote from Vietnam I once heard: In the basement of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense wanted to know how long it would take to win the Vietnam War. So they compiled all statistical data they had available, fed it into a supercomputer, and went home for the weekend while they waited for it to spit out the answer. When they arrived Monday morning, the computer had spat out a card with one sentence on it: "You won the war in 1965, but the enemy also gets a vote." 4. I think it's relatively simple. Hitler and the Nazis did not possess a rational worldview. In fact, Dan Carlin recently released a video where he speculates the overall reason Germany lost World War Two is because of the Nazis themselves: I know Dan Carlin is not a historian, but he makes a very compelling argument. Based on my own reading of Mein Kampf, I have to agree. Hitler was not a rational individual. It has been said elsewhere in this thread, but I agree completely. Wars are not fought by individuals. If they were, we could simply mobilize our wargamers to command legions of unmanned weapon systems and conquer the world... > I disagree. The Germans acted quickly to secure the Balkan oil fields specifically because they knew the blockade would not end. After their experience with the British blockade in WW1, I refuse to believe they would not anticipate such an eventuality from happening again. Things like "The Turnip Winter" will stick in the memory of people for generations. > Indeed, and when you see things like the Detroit Tank Arsenal ALONE out-producing the entire German Tank-Building Industry during WW2, you realize oil alone is not the deciding factor in that equation. Overall, the Germans did not fully mobilize their economy and industry towards war production until 1942. Hitler was adamant about not encumbering the German population with things like rationing and shortages like they faced in WW1. Like I said, "The Turnip Winter" tends to stick in the minds of the people who went through it. As far as manpower goes, where do you get the idea the Axis and Allied manpower were close? They weren't even in the same hemisphere. Even a simple wiki search shows the extraordinary gap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Historical_context > Is it oil, or is it the fact the United States had vast amounts of natural resources, food, strategic minerals, steel production, etc. and simply gave it all away with the understanding that the cost for everything would only be counted after the war was over? It wasn't just war materiel that got sent through lend-lease, but things like raw steel, coal, oil, gas, food, etc. Meanwhile, Germany had a chronic inability to fully mobilize and take advantage of the strategic resources and production facilities they took over. Not planning for a long war led them to simply disregard the ideas of re-tooling captured factories for war production until it was too late. French factories mostly sat idle in the occupied territories, and while Germany did take over the entire Czech tank force, they made relatively little use of the excellent arms production facilities available. If every scrap of resources had been put towards the war fighting effort from the very beginning... well, we'll never know the answer to that question... > From June 1941, to the end of 1942, the Soviets produced some 30,000 tanks, and received several thousand lend-lease tanks. Which is at least four times as many as the Germans produced in the same time period. Just because your enemy doesn't have as many tanks, is no reason to not produce them in staggering numbers. Even in June 1941, the Soviets had a 2:1 advantage in tanks, and made ruthless efforts at increasing production all throughout the war, to the point they used substandard metals and far looser tolerances than were seen as standard in the western nations. "The Red Army categorized tank readiness in five categories, from 1 to 5, with 1 being new and 5 being retired for scrapping. In the western military districts that bore the brunt of the 1941 fighting, there were 12,782 tanks, of which 2,157 (17 percent) were new (Category 1), 8,383 (66 percent) were operational with minor maintenance issues (Category 2), and the rest (18 percent) in need medium maintenance or capital rebuilding." - Zaloga, Steven. Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II (Kindle Locations 1491-1494). Stackpole Books. Kindle Edition. Weapons production is a question of DOCTRINE, not statistical analysis. Soviet doctrine emphasized the use of light, highly mobile artillery, and so they built large numbers of mortars. Soviet doctrine also emphasized the breakthrough role of tanks and mechanized infantry, and so they build many thousands of them too. http://armchairgeneral.com/deep-battle-the-vision-of-marshall-tukhachevskii.htm > When the vast majority of your major industrial base is powered by coal, which the Germans had in abundance, then the lack of production of war materiel cannot be summarized as: "They didn't have enough oil." The Germans needed oil for OPERATIONS, not PRODUCTION. If World War Two is a battle of production (as has often been stated), then the Germans did not lose it because of a lack of oil. They lost it because they didn't want to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a fully mobilized wartime economy. At least, not until it was clear they were losing, and then their utilization of forced labor tells a clear and understandable story. Not only did they lack production, but they also lacked manpower. They couldn't meet the manpower needs of the military, and also run their factories at their maximum rate. They had to utilize forced labor to ensure their production could meet it's goals, and even then, a chunk of their dwindling production capacity was spent on projects that would not prove to be of any benefit. Vengeance Weapons for example. Their incompetence in the realm of strategic planning is obvious. Compare Germany to the United States, which had a clearly defined production plan, immediate and effective national mobilization, a well-organized industrial base, and highly competent businessmen and army personnel in charge of planning, design, development, and production. But this brings me back to the Dan Carlin video I posted up above: Why were such incompetent people in charge of the German war effort? Because of the Nazis... Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Thanks for the thread, it went down well with lunch.
  18. 1 point
    The Steppenwulf

    The patch?

    I've got to admit I now have more than two games (as of this evening) on hold because of poor AI behaviour that have stopped play. When veteran troops (and +2), rested and OK are in cover behind bocage but come under pinning fire, they do not run out from the bocage into the exposed field of fire - unless they first panic or at least become nervous. Pinned does not mean panic, it means pinned! Infuriating stuff!
  19. 1 point
    usgubgub

    The patch?

    I must admit that I am getting worried about this. The long silence and inactivity is unusual. Perhaps there is a deeper problem behind all of this that cannot be resolved. That would be a great shame. I find it difficult to explain what we are seeing (or not seeing) as just a bit of a sulk. I can't remember a patch taking this long after the new version release.
  20. 1 point
    Let us indeed hope that the testing will not be off course. Michael
  21. 1 point
    RepsolCBR

    Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    My hope is for CMFI-module combined with V4 patch during Q2...Anything else would be a possitive supprise... IIRC it was stated that Chris ND was initially pretty much the lone scenario/campaign designer for the upcomming CMFI module (he has since left the Company)... After reading Benparks most recent comments on the development it kind of seems like he is 'the main man' for the CMRT-module... If the playable contents for these modules is pretty much a one man job (apart from testing offcourse) it is not all that strange that things are progressing rather slowely... Designing a single scenario is a pretty big task...designing something like 10-15 scenarios and maybe 2 or 3 Campaigns is.... A somewhat BIGGER task I guess this 'hold-up' we have been experiencing will soon be over and we will se the release of a number of stuff...in a pretty short timeframe.. Happy times ahead, hopefully .
×