Jump to content

TheVulture

Members
  • Content Count

    1,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheVulture

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the CMx1 implementation, units were immune to small arms 'accidental' friendly fire (as in CMx2), but in the kind of situation where a friendly unit was mis-identified as an enemy unit and deliberately targeted. small arms fire *would* cause casualties - the usual friendly immunity was turned off.
  2. Also worth noting that friendly fire was certainly in CMx1 - although it really only cropped up in night battles with low quality troops. But they could definitely mis-identify an friendly unit as an enemy and start firing on it, and this was an intentional feature. I don't know whether it made it in to CMx2 or not though, because I think the only night battles I've played were with modern forces, and it is far less likely there with modern unit tracking and battlefield awareness capabilties.
  3. Outright contradictions are not that uncommon when comparing descriptions of the same engagement from both sides. I remember reading about one example from the Ardennes offensive. The American AAR was basically "we were attached by a German force but held our line and drove them off." The German version of the same events was "we advanced, broke through the US resistance and proceeded on to our objective." It is hard to reconcile those at first glance: you wouldn't really expect there to be any disagreement about whether the US defensive line was breached or not. The author of the book big some more digging to resolve the issue. It boiled down to neither side understanding where the other side's lines were. IIRC the US forces had repositioned some days earlier to shorten their lines, with the effect of leaving a no man's land between the forces that neither side was aware of: both regarded it as event held terrain. The German mission was to break through in to this territory. Their advance brought them obliquely in to contact with the US line. So naturally they engaged where necessary and continued to advance where there was no resistance. On the map, they kind of 'bounced' off the US line, changing their line of advance a little which took them away from the MLR again and back in to no man's land. They interpreted this as breaking through a thinly held line in to the enemy rear. For the US forces obviously this looked like Germans engaging their line and then pulling back without achieving anything, not realising that this was more a case of the Germans passing by close in front of them rather than trying to penetrate the line the US was actually holding (because the German movement wouldn't make any sense if the Germans correctly knew the US line).
  4. Just stumbled across this thread. I did the original "Getting Ugly" for CMRT. I'll have to give your CMBS version a go: sodium bbc like it will be interesting and fun. (Just as soon as I get around to reinstalling Black Sea on my shiny new laptop).
  5. Let me just file that opinion under "I don't give a ****"
  6. Whereas where I am, "eye watering" used like that would by interchangeable with "startling", and I don't think anyone would take it to mean hilarious / unrealistic.
  7. I read a comment by a German commander recently - I think it was in "Kursk: The German View" (by Steven Newton) something to the effects that it was noticeable that Russian troops liked to position themselves in the low ground - the valleys and gulleys, aiming for concealment and infiltration, while the German troops tended instinctively to occupy the high ground with good visibility. Possibly something to be aware of for anyone who enjoys trying to play the different nations according to their historical behaviours.
  8. Unless playing as the Russians. Then it is gently discouraged.
  9. Any example pictures of what a real life balka looks like? Never heard the term before.
  10. I wrote one just before you posted this (which my tablet ate so didn't get posted) which amounted to: My cautious advance with scouts, overwatch, bounding team movement and good spacing will only be maintained whilst not in contact with the enemy. As soon as I start getting sloppy or lazy about that stuff, that is the moment the enemy will open fire.
  11. My grandparents fought in the war. My parents were born during the war and grew up in the aftermath. And for my kids, it is as distant from them as the Boer war was from me. Weird.
  12. I didn't mean that you confused the two - I meant that maybe @JoMc67 did (I know I've got the two the wrong way round before now) and was 'correcting' you when you were in fact right in the first place.
  13. At a guess he is confusing operation Barbarossa with operation Bagration, which also started on June 22 (although 72 years ago, rather than 75).
  14. Although England fans have something of a reputation for trouble making themselves and were doing a fine job of causing disturbances and getting arrested in the preceding days too in the absence of any Russians. I suspect the England fans can be assigned a decent share of the blame here.
  15. I believe that is what the TV show 'Scandal' called the Bill Clinton defense: "It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. It's old news."
×
×
  • Create New...