Other Means
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Other Means
-
-
Actually I knew that : )
OM you are apparently 6 but I am sure they did not allocate them on IQ's. Elmar is 18!! And I am 3831. It is kind of itrritating to have lost a serious chunk of my posts also when they did the transfer.
Well I suppose I could count them again properly whilst we await the game
Edit Other Means
2003 October
Damn fella, where'd you dig that up? Heh heh, nothing changed in eight years.
{edit}
Hang on, that doesn't sound right, I've been with the Mrs ten years and I was playing CM before that, proving, I think, that such a thing is possible.
-
Blackcat, on consideration I thank you for your offer but I think it's something I'd like to do myself. A little project for when I can look into it.
Cheers.
-
Me. Oi likes 'em big.
-
Also the video would be around 5 hours a scenario. "Whoa, cool. Let's watch again." repeat ad-infinitum.
-
It certainly feels longer. I heard someone say if you mouse-over the username top left of posts, the "u=" number gives a rough indication of when you joined.
-
I can certainly understand that.
-
Today is April 19th... and 236 years ago today the American War of Independence began at a small sleepy village called Lexington.
My how the time has flown by.
It's a fad. The whole independence thing. Pretty soon you'll all get bored of it and it won't be "cool" any more and you'll all come back to Blighty.
-
Thanks a lot Blackcat. I'll ask the family for all the data they know - which may even lead to the search being redundant.
If this is going to take you hours I won't ask it of you though. Are the records electronically searchable?
-
Can't find them. Whether that's because they're not there or the data is patchy I don't know.
I certainly remember the NCO from the regiment at their funerals though.
-
yeh just noticed that.
I could just ask my cousins but I don't think they really discussed it with them.
OTOH it's free
-
Got to pay to use that site.
-
Cheers para.
So your uncle was carried to hospital by Mr. Hind. And when he came out of the hospital, he brought your uncle home, and then your uncle married your aunt? Excuse me, but I don't think that these kinds of... relations were recorded officially.You can't judge everywhere by Finland Sergei.
-
Two uncles in the paras who fought at Market Garden. You must be a very proud fella.
Actually 3 uncles in the paras, two of whom may have fought in Market Garden.
Yes.
-
I like them combined. Keep up grand-dad.
-
My two uncles served together in the Paras in WWII.
I was told this when I was very young so I could be well out but the story was they were involved in MARKET GARDEN. My uncle William Kulke (6'3" - built like a brick outhouse) was wounded and carried from behind enemy lines by his mate, Thomas Hind (5'6" but stocky). When he came out of hospital he brought his hero mate home who married my aunt.
My uncle Will stayed in the paras after the war while Tommy became a master carpenter and sawyer.
Does anyone know where I can check any records of their service online? Even to find out my febrile 8 year old imagination filled in blanks with dragons.
Thanks.
-
Not sure about that. There was a Sgt Smith who took on three panthers and a bunch of infantry. He knocked out one of the Pathers with a PIAT from thirty feet or so, and drove off the infantry with his SMG. He got a VC.
There was also a Brit Captain at Arnhem who took on several tanks with a PIAT, killing at least one Tiger from very close range. Can't remember his name, but he also got the VC.
Both men survived too.
Actually Jeremy Clarkson's father-in-law - brave man indeed.
-
Pardon my ignorance but won't older Macs be non-Intel and so can't play it anyway?
-
Glad it is your final word and a total crock it is.
At least Blackcat can make a rational argument
Yes, watch and learn.
I only said last word on that, not ad-homs.
-
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz
Perhaps but it is not my suggestion merely highlighting what others had reported at the time. Not sure if I agree with it per se.
You didn’t state your disagreement at the time, which is why I've assumed it’s your position.
Still don't get what you are meaning and I really think you need to do a bit of research before saying such things.Victory is not a simple matter of men killed but if you insist, at Amiens The Germans lost 74000 the Allies 22,200.
A series of battles then followed that took the Allies beyond the Hindenburg Line and to victory. In all the total advance was about 40 miles or so, well within walking, muling, driving, training, flying and tanking distance by the way.
You're trumpeting an advance of 40 miles as somehow significant – it isn’t. What was significant was the fact that the German’s had been bled dry and starved for the previous four years.
My final word: WWI was won by the combined pressure of the Entente powers not by any tactical victory. Whatever tactics Monash did or didn’t create made little to no difference.
-
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the battle of Amiens did not break the German line? and his later assault on the Hindenberg line didn't work?
I'm saying those things are immaterial. At the end of the day it's about number of men killed. Did the Germans lose more men because the line at Amiens broke, or did the Allies lose more because they attacked?
Breaking a line isn't enough. It's the advance and encirclement that matters.
None arose.
-
I have never actually suggested that Monash won the war, merely that he was able to devise a way to break the dead lock.
Yes but he didn't do it did he? He didn't have the tools to do the job.
Interesting that you should bring the supply thing up, as one of the novel concepts that Monash thought up was to address exactly that problem.He resupplied forward elements by air drop as they moved forward and destroyed the enemy artillery to nullify the effect of which you speak of "out running" the guns.
Of course the assault did run out of momentum and the front re-established which is when, in line with the planning, another assault was launched in a different area, the Battle of Albert, while the supplies were brought forward and the assault continued in the initial sector.
It's not so much outrunning your guns as outrunning your supply line. While supplies were brought forward, they may have had forward supply dumps but you need a flow not a stock and for that you need motorised transport.
This is what you quoted on page 4:
The shape of the world today would have been very different had John Monash, a child of German migrants, not volunteered to fight against his parents' homeland. If he hadn't volunteered, Germany might not have lost World War 1.That sounds like suggestion to me.
-
WWI was won strategically. On the Western front the impact of any tactical commander – even your mate - was minimal. There's good reasons for this: mainly the lack of motorised transport and radio communication. Any tactical advance before the total strategic collapse – as in, against resistance - was unable to go further than a man could walk. You were attacking away from your covering artillery and, more to the point, away from your own rail-heads.
Meanwhile you were walking – walking mind – closer to the enemies logistical concentrations. As you were running out of ammo they were getting theirs quicker. You could be Archangel Uriel with his fiery sword sweeping all before you but unless you also invented the truck you’re out of luck.
Operational victory isn’t about putting together the correct ratio of combined arms it’s about keeping enough men moving and supplied with enough water, beans and bullets to not die and be able to kill what they find.
If you're doing that with mules vs trains, you're not going to win.
-
Good question , i would hope so as its spring loaded .... maybe the hated PIAT has found a niche at last
I always found the PIAT to be very useful in CMAK. Short range, inaccurate yes - but very stealthy and yes, useable from a building. Whether this will change for the commonwealth module I don’t know but I don’t see why it should.
-
Other means,
Tanks first used in 1915? Is that a typo, Mr. Means? The first use of tanks that I know about was on Friday 15th September 1916.
Sorry - developed 1915. Certainly predating Monash.
Mac version Pre-order?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Phil, you know you're only supposed to have one login.