Bullethead

Check6 said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prairie grass fires (only when dry, I suppose) are actually just about impassable to men because of the density of flammable material and resulting intense flame and heat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. I'd put this in the same category as a burning brush tile and make such things impassable. But pastures don't have grass nearly that thick--the livestock eats it. Because grass tiles in CM seem to represent pastures, I think they should be quite passable to both men and vehicles. Burning pastures around here are, anyway. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as for tanks - I know that I would drive through any kind of flames more than six inches high with the greatest hesitation. I think the grease on the treads would catch very easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember, this grease has to stand up to pretty intense friction heat just from the tank moving under normal conditions. And even if it did catch fire a bit, the next revolution of the track will press it down into the ground and snuff the fire. Anyway, I've seen a number of AFVs drive through grass fires with no ill effects. Same with firetrucks, for that matter. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

CavScout said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why can't your tanks drive through flames? I understand it with infantry... but tanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I, too, question this, spending as I do a fair amount of time dealing with grass, crop, and brush fires As discussed in the Burning Fields thread, grass and non-ripe crop tiles should pose little or no movement problem to even infantry. Ripe crops would be a problem for infantry, but not, I think, to tanks. The reason for this is that with these types of fires, the fire is confined to a thin ring around the point of origin. For short plants like grass, growing grain, and post-harvest stubble, the fire ring is small enough for men to walk through or jump over with no problem. And tanks could smash right through the bigger fires in ripe grain fields. I didn't say this in the other thread but I don't see it being a problem, and I've seen enough combat film footage of this happening. In such situations, the time of exposure to the flame is only a couple of seconds, so the heat wouldn't get to the crew or do more than scorch the paint of the tank. Burning brush and tree tiles, OTOH, are a different matter. In these tiles, the entire tile would be burning at once. This would be pretty much impassable due to heat, lack of oxygen, and presence of poison gases, even for vehicles. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

At this point in time, I don't think there were many, if any, panzer units following the official TO/TE completely. I do, however, have the TO/TE for the 17th SS Panzer's recon battalion as of 6 June 1944. Don't know how typical (or even how accurate) it is, however. Anyway.... 1 armored car company of 4 x 234/1 and 3 platoons each with 2 x 222 and 3 x 221/1 3 scout companies each with the following: 1 x Schwimmwagen for the CO 3 platoons of ?? Schwimmwagens 1 weapons platoon with 10 x Schwimmwagens, 4 x HMGs, and 4 x 120mm mortars 1 AT company with the following: 1 Kubel for the CO 3 x 75mm ATG, 3 x 75mm lIG, 6 x trucks, and 1 platoon of engineers in Schwimmwagens 1 HQ company with some trucks, Kubels, and 221/1s ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Me for both. I remember back when the message board wasn't in this format but still in that horrible expanded thread mess. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

IPA said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. Could anyone tell me whether CM models the increased lighting effects of burning tiles on a adjacent tiles, thus increasing visibility for these areas during night turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Dave said, I don't think there's anything in CM that increases local light level. Hopefully there will be in the future, however. BTW, does that IPA handle of yours mean India Pale Ale? That's my favorite type of beer. AAMOF, right now I'm drinking a 20oz draft pint of IPA I made myself. 7.5% alcohol straight out of the side of my fridge ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I still think http://nuttysites.com/rodent/ is more frightening ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Probably the most momentous anniversary date of the 20th century. August 6th '45 gets a lot of votes, but if it wasn't for today's date 61 years ago, it would never have happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the 20th Century, personally I vote for the day the Kaiser gave Austria a "blank check" back in 1914. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Mark IV said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You may wish to expound on the spread of building fires, as well. As it is, they are either fine (not burning at all), or completely engulfed in flames. The apparent effect is of instant Hollywood-style mass combustion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did this a couple months ago in another thread, with the able assistance of our other resident firefighter, Echo. Do a search on the word "flashover". But I'll summarize briefly. Basically, flashover (defined in that other post) is the point when a small fire in a room (such as a piece of furniture) suddenly causes the entire room and everything in it to burst into flames at once. This happens because the ceiling and walls of the room trap most of the heat of the 1st fire. There are MANY variables affecting how long it takes for a given room to flash, but in general it's not long at all--only a few minutes. And once 1 room goes like this, usually the attic quickly follows (even if several floors above), and then the adjcent rooms cascade along. So in a few minutes more, the entire building can be engulfed and starting to collapse. Now, understand that the point just before flashover is the absolute limit to what fully equipped firemen can survive, even with their suits and air tanks and hoses. Well before this point is reached, the room and most of the rest of a small building will be uninhabitable for unprotected personnel. This is due to smoke, poison gases, and INTENSE heat. So if you take 5 minutes as an average time for a typical room to flash (a figure often cited but by no means an absolute), then about 1/2 that time or less is a reasonable guess as to when non-firemen have to evacuate. So, for these reasons, I don't have a problem with the way CM buildings burn. As I see it, various prior hits have started small fires earlier in the game, even the same turn. When the building ignites in CM, then, it's reached the uninhabitable point. Which for CM-sized buildings will usually only be a couple minutes after the 1st small fire starts. Sure, in real life there wouldn't be all the flames just then, but there will be in a few more minutes. The important thing is the game effects, which accurately reflect reality. Troops have to leave, and LOS is blocked by serious smoke. BTW, Hollywood building fires are total BS. They show unprotected actors running around in plain view between little jets of fire and a few falling, unburned boards. Yeah, right. In real life, you usually can't even see the fire itself very well even from a few feet away, due to all the smoke. Naturally, you can't breathe without an air tank, either. And that smoke is HOT, so you have to have a suit on. So basically, forget everything you've seen in movies about unprotected guys running around in fires. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some distant future, Fire-Smart CM might have the bulding catch fire a section at a time, with corresponding increases in LOS blockage and casualty-producing ability as the fire spreads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd rather see "CM: Engine Company", where instead of soldiers and tanks you have smoke eaters and big red trucks . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The backblast from a 'zook is a fearsome thing, but will rarely ignite an entire building instantaneously with immediate catastrophic loss of life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, this goes into the fires from prior hits building up thing. I mean, how many times does a schreck hit with the 1st shot? So just assume that the earlier shots started some small fires that have built up to the evacuation point by the time of the last shot. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Daveman said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Geez, sounds like they'll have to add FireAI to the game just to handle all that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think so. Movement and LOS effects would depend on terrain tile type and time of year just like they do now. As for "spread", BTS is already going to write code for that at some point anyway. On that issue, I was just suggesting that instead of creating a bigger area of burning tiles in grass and grain fields, the burning area should move across the map. That is, the fire starts in tile A, then tile B ignites and tile A goes out. The main new thing, I think, would be replacing burnt-out tile A by a new tile type, an ash field, just like dead buildings get replaced by rubble. Ash fields should have the same movement effects as grass, provide no cover to troops, and have only a small LOS effect from scattered, lingering hotspots such as smoldering cow pies. IMHO, field fires advance fast enough to warrant this treatment within CM's scale. Even a light breeze can move the fire front downwind at a rate of like 1 tile per turn, or even faster, depending on the dryness and size of the plants. So in just a few turns, you could convert a large grain field into ash. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Madmatt said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having fires spread is not currently implemented but is on the 'List' for future inclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, in this case, it might be a good idea to re-examine the tactical effects of burning fields before BTS puts too much work into this feature. My position is that the game should distinguish between different types of outdoor fires because they have different effects. My main point is that I don't think most burning grass and crop tiles should totally block movement or LOS. This is because of how such fires work. I base my opinions on my experiences as a rural firefighter. When a field of grass or crops burns, the fire spreads outward from the point of ignition in an expanding ring. This ring is very thin compared to the total area of the field--it's exact width depends on many things, especially the size of the burning plants--so the result is that only a tiny fraction of the whole field is burning at once. Both inside and outside the ring, there is no fire to speak of. Hence, there is no reason why units shouldn't be able to exist in the vast bulk of the tile's area. The question, therefore, is whether units can cross through the ring of fire to make use of the rest of the tile's area. There are 2 main cases here: short plants (grass, young grain, and post-harvest stubble), and tall plants (ripe grain). For short plants, the flames seldom get above knee level in height and the width of the fire ring seldom exceeds 1 foot. Nor is the fire of uniform size around the ring; there are usually long segments of relatively large (max size shown above) and small (match-sized) fire around the perimeter. Thus, vehicles and troops have no problem crossing the ring of fire almost anywhere they choose--I do it all the time w/out needing special clothing. Any detours required to avoid the bigger patches of fire would be smaller, I think, than the scale handled by CM in 20m tiles, so could largely be ignored. Thus, burning tiles of short plants should not impose much, if any, movement penalty. Taller plants like ripe grain, however, are a different matter. While the fire forms a ring just like that discussed above, the flames are much bigger and more intense. Thus, it is hard or even impossible to cross through the ring of fire. So while the vast majority of the tile might be free of fire, getting to it would be a problem. Thus, having burning tiles of tall plants be total movement blocks IMHO would be OK. That's the movement effects, now for LOS effects. In general, the bigger the fire in the field, the more it and its smoke block LOS, but all burning fields seem to be pretty smokey anyway. So IMHO, burning short plants shouldn't totally block the LOS, but should impose a pretty serious degradation, while burning tall plants should be a total LOS block. So in summary, IMHO fires in grass and short crop tiles shouldn't impose much if any movement penalty, but should create a decent smokescreen effect. Tall crops, OTOH, should block both movement and LOS, at least for the duration of the fire. I believe CM could handle these distinction because IIRC it already tracks the height of grain fields for seasonal LOS effects. Now on to the spread of fire in pastures and grain fields. It seems to me that the taller the plants, the faster the fire spreads by itself. Thus, fields of short plants burn slowly but ripe grain takes off. Adding wind greatly increases the speed of spread downwind but slows it significanly upwind and to the sides. Spread downwind is aided by flying sparks starting new fires outside the main ring. Thus, IMHO on calm days, short plant fires shouldn't have much chance of spreading, but tall plants should. Add wind and both types should have a very good chance of spreading downwind, especially tall plants, but not much chance of spreading in other directions. One more thing about the spread of grass and crop fires. "Spreading" isn't really a good word for the process, because it implies that more and more tiles become totally engulfed. But what really happens is that the ring of fire advances over the ground. IOW, you have unburned plants, then a thin strip of fire, then an expanse of ashes. So if the game determines that the fire has entered a new tile, the original fire tile should no longer be burning because the fire front has moved on. The foregoing concerns only fires in grass and crop tiles. Brush and tree fires are different and should, IMHO, continue to burn and block movement and LOS for the duration of a CM battle, regardless of spread to adjacent tiles. DISCLAIMER: All the above are merely musings to help a game approximate reality. Nothing herein should be construed as definitive statements as to real life fire behavior and safety. All fires are dangerous--stay away from them. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If a square section of a field catches on fire wont the entire field eventualy burn?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gawd, and I just spent all last night fighting a hay fire.... But to answer your question, in general the answer is MAYBE . Depends on conditions and especially on the wind. That is, if the wind is going N-S, the field probably won't burn much E-W. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Paul Lakowski said, RE: trunnions behind the mantle not being armor: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm afraid that's not quite right, no matter what you put in the way of a projectile will effect its penetration even if this is mild steel it still contributes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By the time the projectile reaches this "mild steel", it has already penetrated the armor. The "mild steel" is part of the guts of the tank that the armor is there to protect--in this case, the gun's trunnions. If these get hit, the gun is hosed, even if they stop the projectile. Plus you'd probably have fragments of armor, shell, and trunnion bouncing around inside the turret. So the result would be "gun damaged" at least and probably some crew casualties. Fangorn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Couldn't the small space with 200 mm armor be modelate as a "strong spot", in the same way the "weak spot" shots are? Would that be hard to code? (I don't know anything about coding...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look at the post above in this thread about the effects of various test shots against a Tiger. You'll notice one of them hit the bottom edge of the mantle, i.e., one of the "double thick" areas. Result: shell deflected down through the hull roof doing extensive damage. I've also seen a Tiger in a museum that had this exact same thing happen to it in combat. So the "strong spot" at the bottom of the mantle seems to have been more a liability than a help. As for the "strong spot" on the top, that would result in some good bounces over the top of the turret I'd think. However, this Tiger in the museum also had such a hit. And in that case, it was also detrimental to the Tiger because armor and shell fragments took out the unbuttoned tank commander. You can see some nicks in the cupola near the top where other fragments impacted. OTOH, if the TC was buttoned, he wouldn't have this problem. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

You know, if you really want to be hard core about fighting "the flinch", get yourself a flintlock. With it taking a good part of a second after trigger pull for the bullet to start moving, you simply MUST eradicate every trace of flinching to have any hope of hitting the target. The worst problem is a pan full of powder going POOF right in your face, the smoke from which totally blocks your sight picture, again before the bullet starts moving. I learned to shoot on a flintlock and it really helped me later in life. BTW, somebody mentioned 60 rounds for 1 bear? Where were they hitting? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Gawd, sorry I missed that. You know, for some reason I'm reminded of GMF's story "The General Danced at Dawn" ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

DesertFox said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would be the data being produced by the Brits while examining Tiger [Chassis No. 250570] plus this scan of a sketch out of the original Tiger turret manual be sufficient to convince you that there was something behind the mantlet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This cross-section drawing through the mantle shows exactly what I'm talking about with the "picture frame" on the turret's front and the mantle covering the big hole for the gun assembly. From top to bottom through the front "plate" itself, this drawing shows: 1. the top part of the "picture frame," 2. a thin, horizontal, curved, rearward extension of the mantle that served as a bearing surface when the gun elevated, 3. a big armorless gap containing the gun cradle and gunner's sight mount, 4. the lower mantle extension similar to that noted above, 5. the bottom of the "picture frame". Note that the big, armorless gap (looks cylindrical in this cross-section due to the elevation bearing surfaces) takes up between 3/5 and 2/3 of the vertical extent of the turret's face. IOW, the mantle is the only armor over most of the vertical extent of the front of the turret. Also note that this cross-section was taken through the gunner's sight opening, which is only about 1/4 of the way inboard from the outer left edge of the turret's face. As you can see, however, the big, armorless gap extends further outboard, very close to the outer edge of the turret's face. It does the same on the turret's right edge. Thus, the mantle is also the only armor over most of the horizontal extent of the turret's face, as well as the vertical. I don't see any "chevron" of armor there at all. Are folks referring to the triangular members in the center of this drawing? Those are not armor, those are parts of the gun cradle and sight mount. If a shell goes through the mantle and hits this thing, at the very least you have a GUN DAMAGED result. Sure, it might stop the shell from reaching ammo stored further aft, but if this goes, the gun cannot be aimed or elevated. I also question the mantle's supposed "thick place around the gun". This is an oval area with its major axis horizontal. This looks very similar to the front-end view of the armored box around the gun tube of the PzIVs, and for the same reason--it covers the ends of the recoil and recuperator cylinders mounted beside the gun's barrel. The cylinders of the Tiger's guns were located at the trunnions, part in front and part behind, so didn't need an external box of armor like on the PzIV. However, because part of them stuck out in front of the trunnions, there had to be a recess in the rear side of the mantle for them. You can see this in top views of the Tiger--the gap between the mantle and the "front plate" is much wider in the middle where the gun is. This gap was bigger here so you could reach down in between the mantle and the front "plate". It enabled you to get to the front ends of the cylinders for maintenance, and to the back ends of the bolts holding the mantle to the gun tube. But this alone would have resulted in a thin area in the mantle around the gun. So the Germans compensated by adding more metal in this area on the front side of the mantle, resulting in the raised oval "thick area". But because the rear surface of the mantle was milled out to make a recess for the cylinder ends, the over-all thickness here was about the same as that elswhere on the mantle. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 08-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was there a suddden need for even more feeble and incompetent tank than Sherman?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah. Production of the M3/M5 series ended in 1944, so they were getting pretty much used up before the war ended. Hence the need for another target... er, recon vehicle ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Ariel said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh! I just noticed is a Vets thread! Where to post the Greens and Conscripts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Ariel said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even presidents?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, but for some reason the season for them is never open, so it's kinda moot ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Seems to me there are ways to simulate the effects of illume rounds without having to deal with dynamic lighting. Personally, having come to CM from PITS, I think CM's graphics are fine as is so don't need the frills if the effects are right. So how about something like this? You order an illume mission and the mortar keeps firing illumes to keep the light going constantly. You fire the illumes at a point on the map. At this point appears some TRP-looking marker visible to both sides that only lasts as long as the illumes burn. Then within a certain radius of this marker, an LOS exists, subject to all the usual LOS problems plus other penalties for being an illume. So between you and the illume's area would be like dead ground due to a terrain fold--you can't see into it, but you can see beyond it. Of course, doing this would make for a huge increase in the number of LOS checks needed during the execution of a turn. Perhaps too many for current top-end hardware? I have no way of knowing. Assuming this is possible, it would also require allowing mortars to fire blind anywhere on the map. Which would be cool for other weapons as well, such as the much-discussed MGs doing FDF into smokescreens. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd like a recommendation from anyone here who knows anything about guns on what good accurate rifle is for civilian use. I'd prefer something with a large round too (not a .22 calibre rifle).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the .30cal rifle family can kill anything in North America. Anything bigger is overkill unless you go to Africa. So you're talking .30-06, .308, and maybe .270 or 7mm. My own favorite caliber is .270, which is a .30-06 case necked down to 7mm from 7.62. It gives a flatter trajectory while still having essentially the same size bullet for Canadian big game. As for the rifle itself, most are available in a wide range of popular calibers. I prefer bolt actions for hunting and my favorite of these is the Remmington 700. This is an extremely accurate weapon. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Before everybody gets carried away thinking the Tiger should have it's armor thickness doubled on the front turret due to the mantle, take a very good look at the cut-away photo DesertFox posted above. As you can see, the Tiger's turret really didn't have a "front plate" per se. Instead it had more like a picture frame on the front of the turret, with a large rectangular opening in it. This rectangular opening was needed for the front ends of the recoil and recuperator cylinders, which were attached to the sides of the gun barrel. Besides the ends of these cylinders, the rectangular opening in the turret's face also contained the gun's trunions and their mounts, which were not armor. The bottom line is, over most of the front of the Tiger's turret, the only armor was the mantle itself. The only places where there was a double thickness were around the edges of the mantle, where it covered the front "picture frame" of the turret face. So for the most part, the Tiger should NOT have 200+mm on the turret front. And for those places where it really did, I'm sure the random factors in the hit resolution routines produce enough bounces to cover that aspect. So the question, it seems to me, is really whether the front of the Tiger's turret should be rated for the thickness of the "picture frame" or for the thicker mantle. Because the mantle is what's going to be hit in most cases, let's use it. But considering that the mantle wasn't solidly attached to the turret structure, and thus couldn't transfer loads to the rest of the tank very easily, I don't think that it should get the benefit of its full thickness. So how much less? Given the mantle's varying thickness and lack of structural support, I think 100mm for it is close enough, especially given all the randomness and variables CM deals with. Thus, I see no reason to change the Tiger's turret front thickness in the game. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

Rookie said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He's probably scared and heard stories about you from your opponentes..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All stories regarding my INTENTIONAL use of prisoners as mine detectors are untrue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or he is scared that some HE will be raining where he isn't. (Is that the sound of 120's falling?????)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's my guess. But I'd think he'd not be sitting in the road by that wrecked halftrack if any were really coming . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One Half of the Command Team of Kampfgruppe Shagnasty*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Considering that your half especially of the KG in question has been shagged most nastily, I think the name fits well . ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

81-83: USNR middie, served aboard DDG-12, USS Robison. Almost went to the Falklands. 86-94: USMC Arty (10th and 14th Marine Regiments). Fought in the Gulf doing counterbattery stuff. Almost went to both Iran and Korea after that. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

David Aitken said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I captured an HMG42 yesterday, and I was interested to see that although he was down to one man, he wasn't immobile. What version of the game are you using?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1.03. And the dude's info window says he's immobile. Lanzfeld said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>when I lose a Jeep w/50 cal to light rifle fire and the 50 cal is abandoned. I understand that the jeep is toast......but the weapon should be fine MOST of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How are they going to take the big ol' Ma Deuce with them when they bail? ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And my bazookas both fire-and miss. The rockets fly across the street into the buildings on the other side. My sniper dies, my HQ dies, and one bazooka dies. My surviving bazooka, fires once more at the Tiger and the building lights on fire, killing him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the laugh That beats anything I've seen. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman