Other Means
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Other Means
-
-
Losses? Did the Red Army have losses at all, with one "victory" after the other?
No. Nazis 0, Russians 1.
Nazis exit history as beaten, honourless obscenities.
-
BTW, this might come in handy when talking about "legal" levels and "safe" levels:
-
There's a non-linear relationship between German manpower and firepower that’s not present for the Americans. If they lose a man, as long as the LMG is in operation, their available f/p stays much the same. If you lose half the men from an American squad, you’ve lost roughly 50% of your f/p.
In a fixed position where you're not lugging around a lot of ammo then the Germans can keep putting a lot of rounds down-range while the units facing them attrite. Great for defending. Of course on the offence where you have to lug all those heavy boxes around you end up with very little ammo depth.
And of course, if the LMG goes down they're lost until it’s re-manned.
They also have short range specialists that can dominate if being closely assaulted – so controlling the range is vital for the Americans. Keep to a range where you can whittle them down before you assault and you can get the advantage. In RL, this must have been almost impossible to do –even if they thought to do it.
There's also the matter of getting men to fire. Although SLM isn’t gospel, being the person in a German squad with the LMG, you'd be expected to fire by all your mates, so probably would.
-
d/w - since we've heard no more about this, shall we assume that was scaremongering as well?
-
Surely putting each rod into some kind of moderator (like Boron) sleeve would have done nicely - wouldn't have needed to be open to the elements.
Also not building the generators on the bluffs above the plant in a tsunami zone is tremendously short-sighted.
Profit first, as usual.
-
I do know Jon. It would be all over the news. It's not. No one is hurt. There has been a bad industrial accident but apart from a worker killed in a crane during the tsunami, no-one is dead.
Or do you have some special facts you're not sharing with the group?
A lie is a lie. You can´t have thousands of people working without protection under extreme radiation conditions without most of them dying as a result. Please spare me any weaselly lawyer definitions of how those thousand deaths don´t count because of some arbitrary definition somebody thought up.And the truth is the truth. The statement is 56 dead. There's dead and there's alive. You can't really get clearer.
-
I'm not scaremongering, read my posts again. I've made no statement for or against nuclear power, and I'm also not trying to pretend I know what the hell is going on over there. Any scaremongering you've 'read' in my posts are your own internal projections.
OM is trying to paint a rosy picture that despite a very substantial nuclear incident, coupled with an absolute dearth of analysis or studies, longitudinal or otherwise, that there have been no health complications due to the various spills/releases of radioactive materials. That is an absolute stament, not a comparative one.
I don't think that's true, even in the direct sense which the burned workers represent, and I'll be astonished if those two or three are found to be the only ones once the Japanese move beyond Response and into Recovery. Then there's the indirect health consequences, such as the farmer who committed suicide after his farm was quarantined due to contamination.
Well if you know of more, do tell. I'm sure you're not just basing your argument or prejudice.
-
What exceptions? The workers standing in radioactive water have been released from hospital as they're fine.
-
;1242130']Graphite is not a coolant but a moderator in nuclear reactors.
That only 56 people were killed in Chernobyl is a soviet propaganda lie.
Let´s see how old the workers at Fukoshima get.
I´m not necessarilly against nuclear power, but as long as the pro side displays shocking ignorance and plays down actual problems that occur and have occured I think it would be better to do without.
It was used as a coolant as well, I believe. Could be wrong - willing to learn, imagine that.
The 56 number wasn't given by the Soviets.
If you read the links I've posted you'll see the workers have got a great chance of zero happening.
-
Apparently the reason Chernobyl was so bad was
a) there was no containment vessel (I have not words) and
the used graphite as coolant. Nice, flammable graphite. That's what took radioactivity to 30,000ft. The meltdown in Three Mile Island melted...an eighth of an inch into the containment vessel.
Also, as a little "ta da", nuclear workers tend to have a lower instance of cancer than non-nuke, even taking into account income etc.
{edit - BD you posted as I was writing.}
A friend of mine works for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was his job to go and inspect a lot of reactors when the iron curtain came down. He said what he mainly found was people who were reasonably well trained but just didn't have the resources. He'd say to them "You know you're running this to the ragged edge" which was met with "We know. What are we supposed to do?".
-
TBH d/t, I don't know what you're trying to assert with this Des Moines example. It's a bloke-down-the-pub argument.
Personally I can't wait for septicaemia to be in fashion - lovely.
Meanwhile we've got an ever increasing population who use ever increasing power. On my desk I've got an iPod, a mobile phone, a laptop and a lamp. Now the laptop may use less power than a desktop from the 80s but there's more and more gadgets being used by more and more people - and they're not going to give them up.
Go nuke!
-
We're comparing the danger of nuclear power. It's far less dangerous than almost every other human activity.
And what, everyone should change the way we live to achieve…what exactly? We can generate power cheaply, cleanly and safely using nuclear power.
Why aren't we?
-
Personally I am particularly keen on a hydrogen fuel economy using solar energy to do the work.
I'm keen on Scarlett Johansson, let's see what good it does us. Personally I think hydrogen fuel cells won't be the future transportable energy supply of choice and it's more likely to be carbon nanotubes.
Does Mr. Mackay consider the importation of power.Yes. Do you consider energy security to be important? I do. Especially as currently we can't store it. And why buy it when we can make it?
According to a US site an 8*4 panel in Des Moines would be adequate.8*4 what? Foot? = 32sq foot of solar panel. That's quite an expanse of heavy solar panel that can be used "sometimes". What are you going to use the rest of the time? Besides which that's a lot more dangerous than nuclear power.
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
-
More good sense from The Register.
-
This may be relevant to you interests: The double standards of green anti-nuclear opponents by....George Monbiot. Yes, hard green George Monbiot.
-
You live in London you're proposing solar power?
Renewables won't provide enough power for the UK, even if we change the whole island to gather the energy, there simply isn't enough of it and it simply isn't reliable.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
The reliability issue will mean we need gas backups, which will mean they will be as cheap as possible because otherwise they're uneconomic, which means they shove out lots and lots of lovely CO2 and we STILL pay through the nose for power.
There hasn't been a spill of radioactive material in Japan that has any health complications. Hell, even Chernobyl only killed 56 people - and that was a million times worse.
I know something about the Japanese reactors that's going to kill tens of thousands though. They're no longer producing power and will not be able to for a while - if public opinion gets too hysterical maybe never. And that's going to mean rolling blackouts in Japan and probably a huge price rise for electricity.
It's spring now. Soon it will be summer. Old people in Tokyo will either have their aircon fail when it's too hot or it will become too expensive for them to run - and this will kill them in their thousands. Tens of thousands over all the country.
And I know how the whole debate is going to turn out. For 20 years there will be no new nuclear power stations built. We'll continue giving dodgy regimes money for petrochemicals and the people living under them - who are now dying for democracy - will continue to suffer for it and hate us because of it.
Then when we realise we're running out of options we'll build them quickly and badly. Instead of steadily ramping up how many we have, learning the lessons of each as we go, we'll produce a load of sub-optimal ones - and all because the media loves stories based on superstition, an unscientific appreciation of the facts and anything that makes mankind look like we're the bad guys.
-
Didn't your other hand get jealous?
-
No thanks, I'm not a good scenarios maker. I will save my 60$+ and play Close Combat while waiting for new Achtung Panzer. RIGHT?
Does Achtung Panzer do beach landings? But sure, spend your money where you want.
-
You know you can make your own scenarios, right?
Want a beach scenario? Make one. Have HT's and some impassible terrain + some imagination = landing craft.
-
Other Means, I'll start the next turn with an overview of where we are up to the end of this turn. Will that work for you?
Nicely, thanks.
-
Any chance of an overview shot Bil?
-
The dreaded "top hit" that was arty or fighter bomber attack was in CMBB (possibly CMBO) so arty damaging tanks will happen again but as with everything else there will be a greater fidelity from not damaged to KOed.
How often did this happen in real life? No idea. But in this game I wouldn't recommend leaving tanks parked in the open in the one spot for too long.
If you have a quick look at this small AAR from Liverpool preview you can see how scary the AI is getting with mortars.
-
There are 10 types of people that understand binary.
Those that do, and those that don't.
You'd be better having 1 bit and halving your memory footprint.
-
I was actively looking for a game with more depth. Never been a wargamer but had an interest in tactics* and I wanted to see if there was anything out there. I played Close Combat a bit and enjoyed it but it never really grew. Then reading round I heard about BO.
I came and joined the forums but it was a load of old farts talking about ammo types and face hardening so I never posted much. Tried the Alpha of BO and meh - didn't get what was going on, why you couldn't give orders all the time, where the enemy was etc.
Then a few years later I was going round the same path. Read reviews saying CM was the shizz so went out and bought BB.
I played a game. No...it didn't really grab me. I put it away. But something was nagging me...
I got it out again. Tried another scenario off the CD...nah...well...wait...
So then it's 8am and I need to go to work. Phoned in sick and that was it. Hooked.
I think BN will have the initial "wow" factor that will make casual players pick it up. It's fun to see Tiger guns slew round or an MG lay down covering fire. After they've enjoyed the bling I think they'll get the gameplay.
* not that my opponents would believe me.
the used graphite as coolant. Nice, flammable graphite. That's what took radioactivity to 30,000ft.
A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
tsword_new, the units have a "memory" now, so the targeting cycle is not completely re-set by the unit going out of LOS.