There is no such thing as "Blitzkrieg"

[Michael Dorosh]

Here - I'd appreciate some actual thoughtful replies, if that is possible, rather than dictionary definitions which really don't address the basic issues of

a) what "is" Blitzkrieg, aside from the erroneous concepts fleshed out after the war

did the Germans really practice it in 1939-1942?

Typical of the contemporary reactions was that of a staff officer with...the British Air Force in France; in his diary he made the following entry for 19 May (1940):"News that the panzers are in Amiens. This is like some ridiculous nightmare....the Germans have taken very risk - criminally foolish risks - and they have got away with it. The French General Staff have been paralysed by this unorthodox war of movement...(emphasis added)...

...From such beginning evolved the myth of Blitzkrieg. It is easy to understand why the misconception rose in relation to the campaign in Flanders and France, which had been fast, furious and decisive, and in which modern weapons had been prominent. The exploits of the panzer divisions were considered remarkable, and it proved easy to construe them to be the result of a revolutionary, coherent system of warfare practised with supreme efficiency...But the (French) campaign was no such thing. It has ... been shown that the German plan was firmly based on the traditional concept of Vernichtungsgedanke, in which decisive manoeuvre and encirclement by the whole attacking force, supported by the Luftwaffe's dive-bombers, were predominant; the proposals for deep, unsupported thrusts by mechanised formations, were not only actively discouraged, they were positively feared...

Some of the examples he gives are the halt on the Sambre and Oise on the 17th, and the famous halt at Dunkirk. He goes on to talk about panzer operations in Russia, saying "Swift though (the German) method of war was, compared with that of the enemy, it fell far short of Guderian's theories. The organised velocity of the armoured idea gave place to the initially powerful, but ever-fading, punches of the modernised Vernichtungsgedanke."

Perhaps Andreas is correct in his assessment that "Blitzkrieg" existed, if one applies a specific definition to it. What the Germans did not do, however, Germano-worship to the contrary, was come up with some revolutionary new way of waging war - as seemingly amazing as the armoured advances were, the infantry were there - as always - doing what they had always done. The infantry of von Manstein's corps had moved 75 miles in fewer than 5 days, and my 22 May had covered 300 miles on foot. The infantry were in many cases marching as far as the armoured units - 197th Division is reported in Cooper as th have "gladly submitted to tramping thirty-five miles a day". XXVI Corps averaged 21 miles a day - while Guderian's armoured group averaged "only" 40 miles a day. The invasion of Normandy and Brittany went forward without a single German tank on a 270 mile wide front. Operations chief of 6th Army noted "Even after the panzer group (in this area) had been taken away, events proved that infantry attack was still possible without tank support - thanks to the way that the infantry had been trained, to well-controlled supporting fire, and to infiltration tactics. Widely dispersed threats created openings for concentrated thrusts."

Did anyone have any quotes by German commanders that would suggest they were doing anything extraordinary, revolutionary, or blitzkriegie?

[Gpig]

Granville Island Pale Ale?

[Abbott]

Here - I'd appreciate some actual thoughtful replies, if that is possible, rather than dictionary definitions which really don't address the basic issues of

That was a thoughtful reply you sour pussed old coot! I posted my opinion, what makes it un thoughtful? Because it differs from yours? Sheesh, you opened a thread and asked for comments. You didn’t say only comments that agree with you and your copy of Cooper’s bible. My explanation was I know what blitzkrieg is. Thousands of people know what blitzkrieg is. Many people on this forum will give you almost the exact same definition I did. Blitzkrieg does exist according to my copy of Webster’s and many other resources.

[ June 09, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Abbott]

Blitzkrieg,

In the early days of WWII, the German army seemed invincible, driving wedge after wedge into Poland, France, Scandinavia and the Low Countries. Europe rapidly learned the meaning of Blitzkrieg. Those early German victories were partly the result of surprise, but they were also the result of the Nazis’ highly sophisticated use of tank warfare…

Maj. General F.W. Von Mellenthin. His book is based on his personal experience as an officer of the German General Staff. He was in Africa, Russia and Europe. (This guy alone trumps Cooper and his conservative and slow moving British officers, who appear to still be pissed at being so easily out fought).

“their advance was almost criminal”. Give me a break, the British were out fought and were lucky to see Dunkirk alive, don’t tell me they are still pitchin’ a fit about it. I also don't buy anyone who believes and I will add correctly believes that the German's fielded some fine troop formations is "German worship".

I trust I remember reading somewhere in Heinz Guderian’s memoirs that he disobeyed orders and kept his panzers rolling forward. Guderian, his officer’s and men had seen the effect a fast penetrating drive into the enemies rear areas had on the opposing commanders troops and psyche. And Guderian refused to give up that advantage. Many volumes mention the same thing over and over from different officers and different formations. There is no doubt the German people produced fine soldiers and effective far thinking officers. To admit to that is not German worship but historical fact. And as previously stated if we all know what the word means and can explain it to you with almost no variation, then blitzkrieg does exist.

Is that thoughtful enough for you ya rat bastich? Or do you want to break it down line by (yawn) bloody line and go over and over it? Don't make me re-read all by books, I'm a busy man and have no desire for a grog bash. You won ok? We will pretend that the word blitzkrieg (crap, I slipped), we will pretend that the word does not exist.

Did anyone have any quotes by German commanders that would suggest they were doing anything extraordinary, revolutionary, or blitzkriegie? [Wink]

Yes, I have another blitzkrieg quote here;

Operations chief of 6th Army noted "Even after the panzer group (in this area) had been taken away, events proved that infantry attack was still possible without tank support - thanks to the way that the infantry had been trained, to well-controlled supporting fire, and to infiltration tactics. Widely dispersed threats created openings for concentrated thrusts."

I bet that seemed like the "B" word to the opposing commanders!

I spit in Cooper's direction!

[ June 09, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Guest ExplodingMonkey]

Ugh! I hate the hard-core grogs on this forum!

It's too bad some people in here are so self righteous and thin skinned that they cannot even take a tiny bit of joking criticism. Aside from one arrogant individual with an over-inflated sense of self worth and his cronies that think he can do no wrong, this is a pretty good group of people in here for the most part.

I really used to enjoy getting involved on the BF forums. Now I remember why I left in the first place. I guess I’ll just have to go back to thanking the modders for their selfless contributions and lurking for new CM news.

Andreas,

I never insulted anyone. I said the thread was silly (as in can not be taken seriously), and pointless (as in ineffectual or having no purpose). I never said, “This thread is f---ed up and Dorosh is a dip s--t for starting it,” did I? Just because Dorosh decided to insult me does not mean that my statement is then considered an insult by default. I’m pretty sure it is possible for him to sink to the level he just displayed without any prompting at all. In fact, I’ve seen him do it in here for years. Athlete is right in that regard; disagree with him and you are labeled a moron. What I said initially were my opinions that we’re meant in a fun and sarcastic manner. If neither of you understand that, there is nothing I can do about it.

Jeeze.

[K.A. Miles]

Three cheers for the ExplodingMonkey! You tell 'em!

OK, I'll shut up now.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athlete:

There were Christians that refused to fight Gladiators because they believed that God commanded them not to commit murder. Subject to this OPINION, (or interpretation of the facts),

What facts? Are beliefs now equal to facts? Did God appear to these christians and leave some incontrovertible evidence of a) his visit and his command?

I believe a dancing green space monkey told me tonight that I should not go to work today. Do you think my boss will accept my opinion based on that 'fact' as right? I think not.

The rest of your reasoning is necessarily wrong, since it starts from the wrong premise that beliefs are somehow the same as facts.

As for the US and Switzerland - quite apart from the practicalities, neither of them had an agreement to defend Poland with Poland.

As for the bit on Rabbi Ziegler, say hello to him - is he the person who will help you find proof on pre-war atrocities against Germans in Dresden?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

a) what "is" Blitzkrieg, aside from the erroneous concepts fleshed out after the war

did the Germans really practice it in 1939-1942?

Blitzkrieg in the understanding of 35-40 is the lightning campaign, not the lightning war. When post-40 it transmogrified into lightning war, it became something different. It also failed.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Perhaps Andreas is correct in his assessment that "Blitzkrieg" existed, if one applies a specific definition to it.

The philosopher in me would like to point out that while it is certainly possible to discuss concepts without first agreeing a common definition, there is little point to it, unless you are a French philosopher, in which case happy deconstructing.

While I would like to give Abbott a break, I can not do so. The risks the Germans took were (in conventional military thinking at the time) criminally insane. That they got away with it does not mean that they were sane risks. The idea of the lightning campaign was based on a high-risk, high-reward approach. In Russia the insanity was exposed, and the house of cards that Hitler built collapsed. What would have happened if the French had managed to get their act together at e.g. Arras, or even earlier in their Sedan counter-attacks?

Mellenthin wrote after the war, and is not the most reliable chronicler anyway, but he is probably closest with what he says. The quote from 6th Army is basically saying "we can still do what we did in 1918, and it still works. Yeah!" Nothing Blitzkriegie about it. As for explaining it with almost no variation - a quick scan through this thread will show that this is not true. In fact you yourself have used two different definitions in one post - Mellenthin is clearly talking about the operational level, i.e. the lightning campaign, and that is pretty much spot on. While the 6th Army quote is talking about the tactical level. Something completely different.

Nobody is denying that the Germans fielded some high-quality formations with very good commanders. They would not have lasted until 1945 had that not been the case. But a lot of these commanders rose up the ladder because they were prepared to take the criminally insane risks. They also seem to have had trouble to comprehend the importance of logistical support, or seem to have thought that rapid success can overcome logistical shortcomings. Rommel is the perfect example for this - instead of going for Malta (sane), he went for Egypt (insane). Manstein also committed some serious errors early in Barbarossa due to a willingness to accept (too) high risks, one of them leaving 8.PD pretty wrecked.

What the Germans did is the equivalent to investing in junk bonds. It may go very well for a while and net you a lot of money. But if you don't know how to quit while you are ahead you are going to be in a lot of trouble at some point. That point came outside Moscow, Tikhvin, and Rostov in late 1941, and at El Alamein in 1942.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I bet that seemed like the "B" word to the opposing commanders!

I spit in Cooper's direction!

That may be the most salient point, though - it was the enemy that defined the word - and whose definition crept into the lexicon - not the Germans. That infantry advance was possibly no different from what the Canadians did in the last 100 Days in 1918, or what the Germans did themselves in 1917. Nothing new, in other words.

EDIT - as Andreas pointed out in his post.

Now, now, Abbott - we've "known" each other a long time, I like you far too much to want to "bash" each other. Don't give up, I think this is interesting, and not about "winning." So much more fun to have someone intelligent to argue semantics - ExplodingMonkey just bores me - should I even bother to read his last post?

[ June 10, 2005, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[athlete]

Somehow the saying that an opinion can't be wrong equates to the inability to reason. That's interesting, since I would argue the converse.

Sorry, my bad; perhaps a poor articulation. I agree with you. What I meant was that my view that an opinion can't be wrong is based on the caveat that the person has some capacity to reason. i.e. if people want to use the extreme examples of ludicrous 'opinions' then okay, opinions can be, well, stupid/wrong I guess; but those examples are usually not opinions as much as they are incorrect facts.

Your hypothesis that you could hide behind a pint and not be hurt by incoming tank shells is wrong. (Although, that said, in Canada we'd be loathe to shoot at someone if it meant risking injury to an innocent brewsky).

I think 'opinions', at least in the way that I mean to use the word is something that cannot easily be determined based on the facts available.

As for your two extremes, I think practically everyone on the face of the planet, or a finite distance above and below, would fall between the two extremes.

Yeah, that was my point. Just trying to point out that throughout the range of extremes there are opinions that aren't necessarily wrong, and those that are calling me, or inferring that I am a Nazi because I don't agree with every decision that the allies made from 1918 to 1940 are, in my opinion being a little harsh.

I realise I'm doing a bit of 'Me-too' with what Andreas is posting, but at no point have I come close to implying that anyone is a Nazi, pro-, neo- or otherwise. Merely that some of the stuff you are citing apparently comes from people who are. Thus it is important to realise that their view on things may not be entirely... balanced.

Oh, I realise that, and believe me, nobody would ever accuse me of being easily swayed by anecdotes. That's part of the reason that Andreas hasn't gotten an immediate response to his request for proof of Polish persecution or atrocities against Germans. My standard for evidence is high. I have in fact pictures, eyewitness accounts and a judicial inquiry, but all of the sources are German, and that won't fly for evidence. The problem of course is that since 6 years and a global war passed between the time that the alleged atrocities were committed, and it's not likely that the allies, and specifically the Russians who occupied the area after WWII were going to investigate Hitler's claims against Poland, good evidence is hard to come by.

Hitler was adament that bad things were happening to Germans in Danzig for over a year prior to the decision to invade. He makes reference to it in a communique with England in September. Problem is that everything he said had to be taken with a block of salt, or at least that is common opinion. I also understand (though can't find them), that there were formal protests from Germany to the LoN from as early as 1937 about treatment of ethnic Germans in Danzig. When I have evidence one way or the other that satisfies me, I'll be happy to share it; AND I won't feel bad if I come back and say, "well, I can't find anything to substantiate the claims; maybe it didn't happen" because it's all part of the learning process.

Dorosh is Dorosh. Ever as blunt as a pencil that's half worn down.

Andreas is a beastly Germerman, and as such he may be a little bit sensitive about people bringing up such things without solid backing from things other than some rightwing nutjobs. Or he might be swilling champagne in Paris and feeling drunk and belligerent.

Yeah, open, honest and direct (i.e. blunt) I like, but hurling insults I could do without. It's just juvenile and detracts from one's message.

[Abbott]

Now, now, Abbott - we've "known" each other a long time

Mike . I was poking a bit of fun at you and may have been a bit out of line if you were not in the same jovial mood. I appreciate your graceful attitude.

--

Mike we are basically arguing that Blitzkrieg doesn’t exists to the point that armored warfare was used as a breakthrough technique. I understand your claim but disagree. I claim that any formation including the infantry could be used in the roll, tactically, grand tactically or strategically. While some maneuvers were "criminally insane" for military thought of the period, I see them as "far thinking" and on the verge of modern tactics.

Andreas I believe you and I are saying about the same thing and just not using the same words. No surprises as many of us know how well you know your subject, which I readily acknowledge to the point where entering a debate with two such as you and Mike is a stretch for me. I am aware of the difference between tactics and strategy. I believe blitzkrieg can be practiced on several different levels and as above, so many know the meaning of the word that it is difficult if not impossible to claim it out of existence because of the mechanics used.

[ June 10, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athlete:

Hitler was adament that bad things were happening to Germans in Danzig for over a year prior to the decision to invade. He makes reference to it in a communique with England in September.

Where?

Communication from the German Government

to the British Government

Handed by Joachim von Ribbentrop, Minister for Foreign Affairs,

to the British Ambassador (Sir Neville Henderson)

at 11:20 A.M., September 3, 1939

The German Government have received the British Government's ultimatum of the 3rd September, 1939. They have the honour to reply as follows: -

1. The German Government and the German people refuse to receive, accept, let alone to fulfill, demands in the nature of ultimata made by the British Government.

2. On our eastern frontier there has for many months already reigned a condition of war. Since the time when the Versailles Treaty first tore Germany to pieces, all and every peaceful settlement was refused to all German Governments. The National Socialist Government also has since the year 1933 tried again and again to remove by peaceful negotiations the worst rapes and breaches of justice of this treaty. The British Government have been among those who, by their intransigent attitude, took the chief part in frustrating every practical revision. Without the intervention of the British Government - of this the German Government and German people are fully conscious - a reasonable solution doing justice to both sides would certainly have been found between Germany and Poland. For Germany did not have the intention nor had she raised the demands of annihilating Poland. The Reich demanded only the revision of those articles of the Versailles Treaty which already at the time of the formulation of that Dictate had been described by understanding statesmen of all nations as being in the long run unbearable, and therefore impossible for a great nation and also for the entire political and economic interests of Eastern Europe. British statesmen, too, declared the solution in the East which was then forced upon Germany as containing the germ of future wars. To remove this danger was the desire of all German Governments and especially the intention of the new National Socialist People's Government. The blame for having prevented this peaceful revision lies with the British Cabinet policy.

3. The British Government have - an occurence unique in history - given the Polish State full powers for all actions against Germany which that State might conceivabley intend to undertake. The British Government assured the Polish Government of their military support in all circumstances, should Germany defend herself against any provocation or attack. Thereupon the Polish terror against the Germans living in the territories which had been torn from Germany immediately assumed unbearable proportions. The Free City of Danzig was, in violation of all legal provisions, first threatened with destruction economically and by measures of customs policy, and was finally subjected to a military blockade and its communications strangled. All these violations of the Danzig Statute, which were well known to the British Government, were approved and covered by the blank cheque given to Poland. The German Government, though moved by the sufferings of the German population which was being tortured and treated in an inhuman manner, nevertheless remained a patient onlooker for five months, withour undertaking even on one single occasion any similar aggressive action against Poland. They only warned Poland that these happenings would in the long run be unbearable, and that they were determined, in the event of no other kind of assistance being given to this population, to help them themselves. All these happenings were known in every detail to the British Government. It would have been easy for them to use their great influence in Warsaw in order to exhort those in power there to exercise justice and humaneness and to keep to the existing obligations. The British Government did not do this. On the contrary, in emphasising their obligation to assist Poland under all circumstances, they actually encouraged the Polish Government to continue in their criminal attitude which was threatening the peace of Europe. In this spirit, the British Government rejected the proposal of Signor Mussolini, which might still have been able to save the peace of Europe, in spite of the fact that the German Government had declared their willingness to agree to it. The British Government, therefore, bear the responsbility for all the unhappiness and misery which have now overtaken and are about to overtake many peoples.

4. After all efforts at finding and concluding a peaceful solution had been rendered impossible by the intransigence of the Polish Government covered as they were by England, after the conditions resembling civil war, which had existed already for months at the eastern frontier of the Reich, had gradually developed into open attacks on German territory, without the British Government raising any objections, the German Government determined to put an end to this continual threat, unbearable for a great Power, to the external and finally also to the internal peace of the German people, and to end it by those means which, since the Democratic Governments had in effect sabotaged all other possibilities of revision, alone remained at their disposal for the defence of the peace, security and honour of the Germans. The last attack of the Poles threatening Reich territory they answered with similar measures. The German Government do not intend, on account of any sort of British intentions or obligations in the East, to tolerate conditions which are identical with those conditions which we observe in Palestine, which is under British protection. The German people, however, above all do not intend to allow themselves to be ill-treated by Poles.

5. The German Government, therefore, reject the attempts to force Germany, by means of a demand having the character of an ultimatum, to recall its forces which are lined up for the defence of the Reich, and thereby to accept the old unrest and the old injustice. The threat that, failing this, they will fight Germany in the war, corresponds to the intention proclaimed for years past by numerous British politicians. The German Government and the German people have assured the English people countless times how much they desire an understanding, indeed close friendship, with them. If the British Government hitherto always refused these offers and now answer with an open threat of war, it is not the fault of the German people and their Government, but exclusively the fault of the British Cabinet or of those men who for years have been preaching the destruction and extermination of the German people. The German people and their Government do not, like Great Britian, intend to dominate the world, but they are determined to defend their own liberty, their independence and above all their life. The intention, communicated to us by order of the British Government by Mr. King-Hall, of carrying the destruction of the German people even further than was done through the Versailles Treaty is taken note of by us, and we shall therefore answer any aggressive action on the part of England with the same weapons and in the same form.

[roqf77]

dont mean to but into the argument between andreas and athlete. but in the cambridge perspectives in history book i bought i believe it says that the so called atrocities perpetrated by the germans was nothing more than a vague pretext for an invasion.(no iraq war jokes please or i will have to hit you with a licence plate).

Something along the lines of german soldiers dressed in polish uniforms posed a staged attack against a so called german radio station putting already dead german citizens bodies in the radio stations. fake histories were created for these bodies, an thus a pretext for war was created. But this was a matter of weeks before the invasion. the book was called hitler chamberlain and appeasement. Although it may also be in chamberlain and the lost peace.

[roqf77]

and in reponce to dorosh it could also be what the british did in 1916 and finaly in 1918. and what the germans did in 1914 too. plus to a small degree what general pershings us troops did in 1918 too. and what the ai does to me every time i play cm wasted.

[athlete]

Originally posted by roqf77:

dont mean to but into the argument between andreas and athlete. but in the cambridge perspectives in history book i bought i believe it says that the so called atrocities perpetrated by the germans was nothing more than a vague pretext for an invasion.(no iraq war jokes please or i will have to hit you with a licence plate).

Something along the lines of german soldiers dressed in polish uniforms posed a staged attack against a so called german radio station putting already dead german citizens bodies in the radio stations. fake histories were created for these bodies, an thus a pretext for war was created. But this was a matter of weeks before the invasion. the book was called hitler chamberlain and appeasement. Although it may also be in chamberlain and the lost peace.

You are not interupting anything.

Yes, this is a common notation in history, regarding the bodies at the radio station. I'm not sure where it originates, but I'd be interested in finding out.

[Wicky]

1939 August 10 Alfred Naujocks, a young SS secret-service veteran and member of the SD since its founding in 1934, is personally ordered by Reinhard Heydrich to fake a Polish attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz near the Polish border. "Practical proof is needed for these attacks by the Poles for the foreign press as well as German propaganda," Heydrich tells Naujocks. (Alfred Naujocks, sworn affidavit, Nuremberg, November 20, 1945; Shirer I)

Link then search for 'Naujocks'

[ June 10, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by roqf77:

Something along the lines of german soldiers dressed in polish uniforms posed a staged attack against a so called german radio station putting already dead german citizens bodies in the radio stations. fake histories were created for these bodies, an thus a pretext for war was created. But this was a matter of weeks before the invasion.

It was not weeks, but on the day before the invasion.

Here is the story. It originated in reality - anybody who claims differently has a very clear agenda.

I shall now turn to Section (: Crimes Against Peace (Statement of Evidence V of the English Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD).

As committing a Crime Against Peace the SD is accused of having staged so-called border incidents before the outbreak of the war to give Hitler an excuse for starting the war. The prosecution, however, referred to only one border incident in which the SD is alleged to have participated. That is the alleged attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.

In this connection the prosecution made reference to the affidavit of Alfred Naujocks, of 20th November, 1945. This is Document PS-2751. The deponent of Document PS-2751, Alfred Naujocks, was heard before the Commission. On that occasion he declared that the execution of the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station was not included in the aims and purposes of Amter III and VI (Record of the Commission, Page 147 of the German text).

The witness further testified that no sections of Amter III and VI were used for the execution of that border incident in Gleiwitz and that the men who with him attacked the Gleiwitz station did not belong to the SD, Amt III (Record of the Commission, Page 150).

The witness also stated that by the term "SD men" in his affidavit of 20th November, 1945, he did not mean the members of any definite office of the

[Page 147]

RSHA; but common usage of the term "SD men" referred to RSHA members of all offices which were subordinate to Heydrich.

The witness further stated that he was charged with the execution of the border incident at Gleiwitz, not because he belonged to Amt VI and worked there, but that exclusively personal reasons made for that decision (Record of the Commission, Page 150). The witness testified that on the basis of the conversation he had had with Heydrich he had gained the impression that Heydrich would have given him that assignment even if he had not been a member of Amt VI and the SS. The order for the execution of this assignment reached the witness Naujocks not through the official channels of the Chiefs of Amt III or VI. The Chiefs of Amter III and VI had no knowledge of this action.

The members of the SD, Amter III and VI, had no knowledge that the attack was carried out by Naujocks, a member of Amt VI. Particularly the members of the SD Leitabschnitt which was in charge of Gleiwitz and the output of the SD had no knowledge of this activity, and they could not have had because Naujocks had been forbidden to get in touch with any members of the SD whatsoever in that territory.

Nizkor.org

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

and in reponce to dorosh it could also be what the british did in 1916 and finaly in 1918. and what the germans did in 1914 too. plus to a small degree what general pershings us troops did in 1918 too. and what the ai does to me every time i play cm wasted.

I agree on all counts. Send me a setup next time you're wasted, I need to win for once.

[roqf77]

cool, i will but to be honest its been over a year since ive had the net.(this is at my dads house) so when i am i will need to remember how to do it/somebody tell me.

"still its been a year" time gentlemen please rocks!!!!!!!!! sorry bout that being of topic but its just to SHEPARDS PIE!!!!!!

[roqf77]

which actualy should be from this sunday. oops forgot to mention that

[roqf77]

sorry about the off topic post again. but exploding monkeys post about colours well, he might be an idiot and copied it from somewhere but im afraid he did raise a good point about colours we dont realy see anything only the light reflecting off it and in black we infact se the absence of light. i am as d#someoff you may have guessed. wasted but sorry i do not have time to play cm.

[Panzer76]

I can understand the grogginess of debating the hulll angle of X, as it affects the game. But this, arguments of semantics... proves to me, as Steve mentioned, the limited usefulness of the grogs really. Oh well, have fun guys.

[roqf77]

true but if people enjoy it then why not????

who said this debate was to achieve anything please go back to your ivory tower where you belong!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

I can understand the grogginess of debating the hulll angle of X, as it affects the game. But this, arguments of semantics... proves to me, as Steve mentioned, the limited usefulness of the grogs really. Oh well, have fun guys.

LOL - limited usefulness when it comes to creating games? Well yes, rather. Unfortunately for BF.C I don't come to this forum for the sole purpose of Steve Grammont making money off every single thing I say. Lucky for both of us.

I can only imagine what useful things he might have gotten from you in your oh-so-distinguished posting career, naturally. Those who live in glass houses...Though I will give you "dumbest post of the day" honours.

Sorry, where were we? Oh yes, hijacking my own thread.

It's ok - I was only joking about the setup. I would probably suck when you're drunk, too.

[roqf77]

thats okay we could have a max suckage battle!!1940 brits v italians. oh wait no that would still be unfair on the person playing as th italians. okay british infantry v italian armour. wait that would still be unfair on the person playing as the italians. hmmmmmmm could there be a italy v italy game? it would be funny!