Henri

The pause command is always executed at the beginning of the move regardless of when it was given in determining waypoints.It is not possible to have a unit pause in the middle of a bunch of waypoints. Henri

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the TV network asked BTS to pay because they are getting free advertisement! Henri

LOL. Interesting post, Jason, but it was Sun Tzu himself who made that statement Henri

Actually I'm quite a bit older than you... I'm sorry that my message offended you, and I guess I'm partially responsible for that for posting on the tips forum that Fionn agreed with Pillar in your current debate.I didn't expect you to claim that Fionn agreed with you, and now I am in the embarrasing situation of having to speak for Fionn who is banned from these forums. True, Fionn told me to quote him if I wanted, here is the email he sent yesterday in his usual outspoken style : Interestingly enough ScoutPL has already been onto me telling me how wrong my view is ( even though officers far superior to him in rank have no problem with my representation). It's no problem though. Feel free to quote me if you want. What I was trying to say in the message that you mention is that there is room here for discussion of differing points of view, especially since those differences exist among military experts within the US. I apologize if this went over as smug or insulting to military personnel for whom I have the highest respect. And if I am right in saying this, then there is no big problem in whether or not there is a difference of opinion between you and Fionn, or between you and Pillar, or between you and me I appreciate the articles that you write on how to fight, because I think that I am open-minded enough to appreciate instructions on how to fight, whether they agree with my preconceptions or not.Contrary to Fionn, I cannot call upon my win/loss record to support my position Henri

I think comparing the two methods for the same map is a good idea, but I don't think that actually playing one game is really going to prove anything. And if so, Fionn has already shown the validity of Pillar's approach by beating the pants of most of the professional soldiers playing the game. But one could argue that all this proves is that Fionn is a better player than the people against whom he played. And they might be right... For my part, I believe that there is more than one way to skin a cat; anyway, the debate between Pillar and ScoutPL is a reflection of the debate still going on in the US military about the limitations or advantages of maneuver warfare, and, among other things, the "decisive battle" syndrome. (See Leonhard's book for details). I don't expect the debate to be completely resolved soon, but I find it interesting that CM is a good enough simulation to warrant such specialized discussions. Henri

As CavScout and others have posted, it depends on the period and on circumstances. During a breakout operation, clearly infantry cannot lead the fat-moving tanks, but the tanks' protection in such a case is their speed and lack of enemy AT capability behind the lines. In the early years, since Blitzkrieg was a new phenomenon, the defenders were not equipped to deal with large armored breakthroughs by means of infantry, which was not widely equipped with AT weapons. By 1944, the Allies and the Germans were quite familiar with German infantry AT capabilities, and generally did not lead with tanks except when they expected only light resistance such as during Patton's breakout.However there were exceptions, and on occasion many tanks were lost when tanks raced forward against unexpected AT defences. One example of leading with tanks was Rommel's successful tactic in France and Africa of attacking with his whole motorized assets moving forward as fast as possible while firing, with the idea of disrupting the enemy's formations before they could organize them into a cohesive defence.On occasion he did this with a whole division. Of course against a prepared defence in depth such as the Russians' at Kursk, this would be suicide. In CM, I would say that if you are fairly sure that there is no AT capability nearby , there are circumstances where moving the tanks forward ahead of the infantry can pay off.But if you guess wrong -scratch one tank. Another exception is where a MG pillbox is spotted: approaching infantry would be cut to pieces, so it is often necessary to bring up a tank to kill the pillbox, with the infantry overwatching in case enemy infantry shows up to threaten the tanks. The further away from the pillbox, the better. Henri

Are you sure? I don't see how a demo charge would help to clear a minefield.Although I haven't done it myself, my understnding is that the engineers have to stand next to the minefield for a turn or two. Henri

I don't want to get into the mode of speaking here for Fionn and being the intermediary between you and him; I only mentioned his opinion because he is well known to be one of the very best players of CM, and as anyone can verify by reading his postings on the usenet war-historical forum or his AARs, he supports breaking up squads and using them for recon and determining avenues of approach on the fly, and he explicitely criticizes the US doctrine of using pre-panned avenues of approach.Just one recent quote about US recon doctrine: "A doctrine which throws away the ability of lower-level commanders to use maneuvre warfare to attack the weakest portion of the enemy position in full knowledge of enemy dispositions and, instead, accepts the fact that with only 2 or 3% of its total troops allocated to reconnaissance operations it is possible for its forces to attack into the enemy strength and does nothing about this situation isn't a doctrine I want to adhere to." (Fionn on Usenet) Henri

That's not possible of course, since Fionn has been banned from the BTS forums. I'm afraid if you want to discuss with him, you'll have to go to the usenet war-historical forum. Henri

The Russian document says: In seeking routes for bypassing, considerable assistance can be furnished by dismounted reconnaissance elements. They can penetrate the hostile area unnoticed, ascertain unoccupied or weakly fortified intervals, and locate convenient approaches. Following them come separate combat machines and small tank units. It seems clear to me that the recon elements here and therefore the associated small units are modifying their routes of advance as they advance, and not according to some preplanned routes previously reconned. As to breaking up his units, the commander in the above case was using whatever recon elements are available, whether some were obtained from the following companies or not is unclear, and it seems to me, beside the point. Since you seem to accept that this procedure is OK, I don't quite understand any more what your objection to Pillar's position about changing routes on the fly through recon that is sufficiently broad to find the weak spots. Does it only reside in the "breaking up of units"? BTW, on the usenet war-historical forum, Fionn said that in many games against professional soldierwhere he used recon similar to what Pillar is proposing, he lost only once. Does this mean that CM is unrealistic, or does it mean that Pillar might have a point? Henri

Just because Eisenhower was screwing his female driver, it doesn't mean that this was a generalized behavior in other armies. The Western powers did not hesitate to send their women into factories when it became necessary and most would not have hesitated to send them into combat had it become necessary. As to Russian women loking like Nikita Krushchev with long hair, I have been to Russia about 8 times, and I can guarantee that is not the case; I can also assure all that not all Russian women are blondes with round faces: one that I know is blond and could pass as a valley girl if she were younger, another has long black hair and is one of the most beautiful woman I have seen, and I have seen a lot. As to women not being suitable for vicious jobs like snipers, clearly you did not see the interview on Canadian TV last year about a Canadian woman who went to the Middle East where she served as a Sniper killing civilians walking by. She had no ties to the area except for the friend who had taken her there.She said that she did it because she had the talent.She killed something like 100 people, as I remember.Her job was to sit behind a wall and to shoot any passers-by she could spot inside the city.She did it without hesitation and had no regrets. Henri

How about the historical example I quoted the other day where the Russians used scouts and engineers to make paths through the forest in order to bypass the strong German defenses on the road, threatening to hit them fromthe rear and forcing them to retreat? How about the disposition of scouts, infantry and armor that they describe for scouting? http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-29-2001).]

Most of the messages indicating tha tplayers will courageously play on assume that after losing all their armor, they are playing infantry vs armor and tht the infantry has some AT capability. This is not usually the case.In a recent 1000-pt meeting engagement pbem on a lightly forested map with small hills, I had a Hetzer, PzIVJ, 234/9 halftrack and a company of infantry and a 120 mm mortar, in addition to som MGs an 81 mm mortars. My opponent had a company of infantry supported by two Daimler ACs, 2 Cromwell VII's and a halftrack (I don't remember which and it doesn't matter, since I knocked it out early).Note that the both my tanks could be killed by any of the four opponent's tanks and ACs. We both approached the flag with a platoon of infantry, but I plastered his infantry with my 120 mm artillery, PZIVJ and 234/9, killing a FO and routing two squads (I found out after the game).The terrain was such that I could not approach his 2 Cromwells on the left or the 2 Daimlers on the right with my AFVs without exposing my flanks, so I could only clobber his infantry until he decided to move his armor. Finally his two halftracks approached my PzIVJ and 234/9 almost frontally and first-shot killed both of them within a few seconds while they returned ineffective fire. During the same minute, as I advanced my Hetzer on the other flank to get a shot, a lucky mortar hit disabled the Hetzer's gun, leaving me without any armor. I immediately surrendered, realizing that there was no way that I could take and hold the objectives. He still had over 2 platoons of infantry to my 3, one of which had taken light losses from artillery. Although I had a slight advantage in infantry, he still had 2 Cromwell VIIs and 2 Daimlers to support his own infantry.Even had he been a whole platoon down,his infantry with the armor support available would have no trouble holding back mine.In addition, my infantry was now badly deployed, since half of it was on the wrong side of the road, being deployed there in order to attack the flags with a crossfire.In order to get to the flags, they would have to cross the road under fire from the opponent's armor.No way in relatively clear terrain without AT weapons and artillery. If anyone thinks that I surrendered too early, set up a battle with the forces remaining on a lightly forested map with small hills and try to convince anyone that you can win this with the Germans. I do agree that if one has a decisive advantage in infantry and that this infantry has AT weapons, one has a chance of holding against enemy armor, if the terrain has sufficient cover and if one is already close enough to the objectives to fight a defensive battle. IN a QB meeting engagement, this is unlikely to happen. Henri

You are kidding of course, but there are probably some here who don't know that the petrol drum incident did really happen. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-29-2001).]

SPR is a good movie, but although the Tiger tanks are more realistic, there were no Tiger tanks in the area at the time; is it more historical to have Tiger tanks where there were none than to have them represented by American tanks? There are many other "errors for cinematic effect" in the movie which, like BoB, is only loosely based on History.I will spare you the list, since it has been done before. Henri

The manner in which Russian fights against guerillas is hardly a good indication of what their battle doctrine in open warfare is, much less of what it was in WW2... Henri

Speaking of Canadian mods, I noticed that some of the armor mods have Canadian flags on them, which is a nice touch. But Canada did not have a flag yet during WW2, that came only in the 60's. Before tht Canada used the Red Ensign (a red flag with the Union Jack in the corner. Henri

Tigers are not the only unrealistic aspects of the SPR movie; another one is the officer complaining about Von Luck's 88s plastering his infantry: Von Luck was nowhere near the American sector (he was fighting the British), and the Germans did not use the 88 as an anti-infantry weapon, they had better weapons for that purpose. Another one is that the 101'st Airborne did not take 2 weeks to get together as the movie shows, they were reunited in a matter of days. In addition, as has been pointed out many times before, the whole story of the search for the "Ryan" guy is highly distorted for the purposes of making the movie more interesting. It is a good movie loosely based on History, but it is not History. Henri

I played this last night TCPIP as the Germans against one of the stronger players(50/1 record), and it is a lot of fun for anyone who enjoys tank battles. I think that the latest version (that in the #3 pak) is slightly biased in favor of the Allies, but I may be biased since I lost... Against the AI, the Germans probably have an equal chance to win. Henri

FWIW, althought I am against censorship, I think that personal attacks on eh forum should not be tolerated. It seems to me that eeryone can recognize the emotional-charged words tht are conducive to flame words, in addition to the clear insults. There is a big difference between "I think that is wrong" and "That's a bunch of bull". One method to keep flame wars down would be for the moderators to warn the offending person or persons once, and if they don't calm down, expel them from the forum for a week or two. Repeated offenders cold be expelled for longer periods. No one shuld be expelled for more than a year. To do this without resorting to censorship requires jusgment, but the moderators should have that, should they not? I would add that I don't share the opinion of some who believe that every "wrong" posting should be batted down repeatedly until it dies. Variety of opinion is a necessary part of inteligent discourse and a harebrained opinion is not going to pollute the whole CM community.Left undisturbed after a single refutation, such postings will sink into oblivion instead of heading the top of the list as a flame war. Henri

I would like to know whcih document you are quoting. It is interesting to note that the document explicitely contradicts those on tis forum who have been claiming that recon patrols never purposely drew fire in order to spot enemy positions. It would bve easier to read if you removed the extra paragraph marks ^p. here is how it can be done in a few seconds with Word: 1) Bring up the search and replace screen. Tell it to replace all double return marks (^p^p) with some unused character like # (this ensures preserving lines between paragraphs). 2) Now tell it to replace all ^p with a space. 3) Now tell it to replace all # with ^p^p. Presto, you have a document with paragraphs separated and no extra ends of line. Henri

At the risk of sticking my nose in a catfight, I would like to point out that this debate is related to the US Army "controversy" described in Leonhard's "The Art of Maneuver" regarding "recon-push" vs "recon-pull". On page 185, Leonhard describes recon-push as "...A command-push appraoch to an attack is one in which the commander ad his staff to use available intelligence to evise a route of advance (or by extrapolation, of attack) against the enemy. The commander then communicates his plan to his subordinate elements , and their role is to execute the mission in the manner chosen beforehand. All meaninful reconnaissance is performed before the unit crosses the line of departure (LD), and there is little inclination to change the plan once the operation commences." Leonhard goes on "...The recon-pull approach differs in that the Commander refrains from deciding beforehand upon one inflexible plan. Rather he communicates his intent vis-a-vis the enemy , and relies on his subordinates to conduct reconnaissance in order to find an unprotected gap in the enemy defenses." It seems to me that CavScout was trained in the former and believes that it is the only way to go, which is his right, and that Pillar is proposing the latter, which, since it is supported by reputable authorities, is certainly worth considering. It seems clear to me that Leonhard is supporting broad-front reconnaissance by company-level assets as part of a larger operation. And as some have pointed out, the proof is in the pudding, although I have no confidence in a single battle proving anything one way or the other, I find it refreshing to have more than one point of view on how to win battles. Henri

Must be, just today, my PzIV took out his second Stuart of the game. Henri

Not really, I tried that myself, and to my great surprise, found that I was one of the few members who have been around since 1999! Armed with this knowledge, I went to the Cesspool (otherwise known as the Peng thread) and accused them of being mostly wet-behind-the-ears newcomers posing as know-it-all veterans. That is how I found out that there was some year-2000 computer crash that wiped out all the member information, so most of the members from way back when had to re-register. Seems that the oldest member is Mark IV, who has been a member since the year 100, before the fall of the Roman Empire. Anyway, as a result, I have the dubious honor of being the only person who succeeded in making a statement outrageous enough to be kicked out of the cesspool. The testers' names are in the manual, but some of the REALLY early ones are not there, I guess because they did not stay until the end (no, I won't say, I promised not to tell...). Henri