M Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fieldmarshall: I AM WORKING ON IT DAMN YOU! HOLD UP!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> a hold-up ??? you sum kinda gangsta or sumpthink?

In a recent battle against the AI in some heavy woods in winter, a regular Bazooka team of mine slouched all over the map (they were the only AT asset available) and managed to kill no less than *three* Pz VIB.

1:0 for Warphead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: As to what is or isn't CM2, I have no idea, nor do I really care that overly much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> then pray tell what is it you are looking for? why are you here? as to your personal choice of focussing on infantry - that is exactly not what BTS tried to do. such an emphasis on correct portrayal of infantry combat would foremost have required individual soldiers and non-abstracted small arms fire. which it was BTS' explicit intention not to do. among others their main reason was CPU power required to display that at the game level (battalion) the game was placed at. at the scope level where CM was placed to be played at, one bren more or less does not make a lot of difference, whether it's on tripod or not. a single tank however is a small element that does have a fair role in such a game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I wonder if there isn't something like this already in the game but invisible, as I think perhaps it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> a good commander tries hard to know very well the strengths and weaknesses of the people under his command. his job is to try to employ the personnel in a way so as to maximize their strengths and minimize their deficiencies. maybe in reality he wouldn't always know all of them. but if you're going down that lane, don't forget he wouldn't be hovering around the battlefield with a 100% omnipresence and terrain knowledge either.

A very very commendable, splendid idea. It would move the game away from generic "Sherman M4A1, type regular" tanks to more individualized units, which is a realistic and fun thing to do. For example, Tanks with "regular" quality would still retain a certain "regular" standard but with a few traces of personality here and there, just like it is implemented already with the HQ units. I'm all for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by highlife: Nice pics. Odd that the first site is about the Pz Rgt GD but that is a "Das Reich" Tiger with Kursk markings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> how about them having sort of a close encounter of the third kind with the german language ("Seite in Deutsch") or their "Tiger1 E"... [ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bad Monkey!: Maybe I'll see about working my idea out a little more and giving it it's own thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you go ahead and do that. I'm with you on thisone, it's a great idea.

I really really like this idea.

Michael, of course you had already stated the same (training equipment not equalling frontline service equipment), even before Brian nonetheless clamored on in is original notion that they would always use what they had during training. I thought I had referred to that post but apparently forgot. Maybe he will get it this time around (doubtful). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: As to the absence of the M16, thats a problem for the American proponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> great, so you even admit you are not interested in realistic portrayal in CM, but exclusively on the portrayal of british forces in CM. Brian, on said british armor item in CM - the vehicle is so obviously mysterious in itself (leaving aside the portrayal in CM) that one does not need a timeframe to single it out as such. Just take a glance at the vehicles available. It will strike you as odd. If you are unfamiliar with british armor then simply check each of them. You will quickly find out which one we are referring to. And you would definitely attain legendary status on this board, regardless even of your poor performance so far, if you would indeed manage to achieve the feat to produce a definitive, conclusive, convincing pictorial evidence on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [QB]Militaries do not waste time training their soldiers on equipment which they do not intend to use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> reality check. you are very wrong there, my friend. *epecially* in WW II the armies didn't train their soldiers on the new frontline equipment, but on the obsolete, second/third line equipment, because the top-notch equipment would go to the front, not to training. this applies to all branches, bomber pilots / bombardierstraining on older planes, tank crews given their basic training on old types, and riflemen doing their boot-camp with old stuff. to a degree this still holds true todayx but it especially holds true for WW II, where the newest vehicles and equipment were needed at the front; maybe today the modern armies try hard to do the basic training on the front-equipment (but still een today in many units the boot camp and basic miliotary training is done with the G-3 in the german army, while the real infantry then uses the G-36, an altogether different weapon; wghy? because for training purposes it suffices to use the old, readily available and therefore cheap, 40-year old G-3). but in ww2 the armies didn't have the luxury< to train their huge armies on the same equipment they would later encounter in their service units: to quote yourself: I'd also suggest that if you're going to apply late 20th century tactical doctrine to the matter, you're losing sight of what the game is meant to be doing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [QB]I'd say it reverts back to its normal firepower - remember, the Bren can still be utilised as an LMG, unlike MMG's. Indeed, I'd also suggest that if the unit chooses to abandon its tripod and leave its assigned pit, perhaps to take part in a counter-attack or advance to contact, it would merely revert to being a normal rifle section and that is a key point - the Bren can abandon its tripod. I've noticed that the mythical "HMG42" cannot convert to an LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> meeeep - wrong again. the candidate has no points so far. the MG42 can be put onto the tripod and taken off just like that. there *is* no HMG42, just a regular MG42 put onto tripod in an HMG role.

forget it. [ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Next there is the confusion over uber-Tigers. One fellow still doesn't see anything unbelieveable in the idea that an average Tiger is killing 17 tanks per outing without loss, and thinks if they killed 2 each without loss in one engagement they'd be busted out of the panzer service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would be interested to know exactly *who* said those words, and *where*.

Ben, your information is no doubt interesting and useful, thanks! To clarify: they were being set up because the british forces during that time became static for a considerable amount of time; the tripod-brens were not *used* (=in combat) but were set up would have been used if the british would have been subjected to a german attack. Correct?

I also find it strange that again and again we find Slapdragon on the defendant's table when it is obviously a discriminate group of cognitively challenged antipodes from the southern hemisphere who are either banned, use multiple personalities, use fake identities and/or generally troll around.

yes, wheelbase. or rather, lack of a decent one, at that and I see I wrote "british". dang, believe me, I meant to say "french", and I could have sworn I had typed french, not british. ?!? time to go to bed, I guess

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> JasonC: M Hofbauer noted that most of the German AT weapons at Kursk were 75mm, so it is not surprising that they got most of the kills. Quite, and my point rather exactly. He just didn't extrapolate the uber-Tiger tale to see it is incompatible with this, if we are meant to draw any overall lesson from it. If we are not, if it is an anecdote and known to be exceptional (at the high end), then its is fine. It is perfectly believable that 2 Tigers KOed 16 tanks on one occasion, of course. (But actually they claim 34, which is distinctly less believable). What makes the use of it an uber-Tiger tale is the insinuation that this is perfectly typical, everyday performance - 17 kills per vehicle per outing, without loss (curiously, in -both- examples - 1 vs. 17, and 2 vs. 16+18). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry but I think you are still wrong, even though you try to throw smoke and shift your position. back to your original previous statment which still lacks logic: if there were hundred Pz IV killing 80 T-34, and one Tiger killing 20, then the Tiger still would validate the uber-theory, even though the example perfectly fits your statement. again, your above new statement is *also* wrong, namely because such feats (single Tigers killing over a dozen T-34s on some occasions) are hardly ever heard of from Pz. IVs, or from Shermans (Korea), or from Shermans vs. Pz IV, or from T-34 vs. Pz. IV et cetera perge perge. Tigers did it not do that regularly but on a frequency so as not to call it absolutely single incidents, and with a frequency that would create the uber-status which you are disputing here: there's a reason why enemy tank crews had specific fear just for the Tiger. They (allied tank crews) were neither stupid nor cowardly, and I hope not that you are trying to make them out to be for being Tiger-phobic. in other words, tio use above example again, if there were hundred Pz IV killing 80 T-34, averaging between 1 and 5 kills per Pz IV, and there was also one Tiger killing 20, and five braindead deafblind Tiger crews which didn't hit anything at all, then this example would still validate the Tiger-88-uber-theory, even though the example perfectly fits your new enhanced statement. Or perhaps you can relate a similar vehicle which created a similar amount of incidents with such kill ratios from the same time period such as the Tiger I to support your argument above (but please not other german cats as they are exactly at issue here)? But I guess you'll probably just throw another Nebelkerze and withdraw to appear again from another location with another new statement. btw sorry if I sound harsh, it was a long day....

the picture doesn't show.

Michael, thanks for the info. well, according to what people told me, the Iltis would tip over pretty fast, too. pretty short.... ahm...(don't know the proper name for it) axis, you know, it's pretty slim and pretty high. actually I didn't know that bombardier was a canadian company. I somehow had the remote feeling it would be british, no idea where I got that notion from. funny to see you still have those weird round caps as part of your uniform. I still have mine back from decades back, from childhood when we sometimes had canadians doing exercises and setting up in our village. I traded a coke or something for the cap. I used it as a flying hat when flying gliders, and I still use it when i go into the woods or work outside. It provides shadow yet it doesn't obstruct view.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: My condolences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL.

hey M. Dorosh, I saw to my surprise that you use the Iltis. Are these original new canadian issue or handed-over used german ones? The german army phased them out and in retrospect the Iltis was considered much of a blunder. I had always liked the Iltis because it looks incredibly sharp for a jeep, but everybody else said they were rather poor cross-country - wise for a jeep. Seems you're the one to ask for your personal opinion. Have you driven the Mercedes replacement (IIRC Wolf), the previous Munga, an american Mutt or Hummer, a russian GAZ or something for comparison, and how would you rate these vehicles? We have to keep in mind the Iltis cost a fraction of it's replacement in the german army. Funny to see the canadians kept the german name for the vehicle. translated, Iltis means polecat, or fitchew, or somefink (i guess you knew that). [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Jeff, although I do not know it intricately I am *sure* those campaigns done by these people are a *great* campaign game and add atmosphere and increased fun to the game in a multiplayer environment. That's the catch. I do like h2h, too, though it's been a while now that I've been playing that way. I cannot subscribe to such an undertaking in temrs of commitment neccessary. I would like something remotely like that - even much less sophisticated - to play vs AI. Just a step up from the current operation type we have now (at least the statistics work now since the last patch).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian : But at the same time, effectively you're saying, "Hey, Mr.Veteran, we can't find any records of that happening - therefore you must be mistaken!" Whereas the veteran knows what he did and that it did happen. Whose incorrect, the veteran or the written record, Spook? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> both are far from infallible. the veteran will say that he saw a Tiger, and he will even be convinced that it was a Tiger. that still doesn't make a Pz. IV a Tiger. (Slapdragon tried to say ssomething similar in essence yet far more complex and elaborate so I thought I would give it another shot by putting it in a nutshell). therefore, a draw.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mulga Bill: Nor is it someplace where you can run away and hide in the corner, with your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes, chanting, "Can't hear you! Can't see you!" Mr.Slapdragon, I asked you to show us exactly how much you do know about Commonwealth military organisation by asking a very basic question. You've failed to answer it - either by choice or by ignorance. Ignorance is not a crime, if admitted to, Mr.Slapdragon, nor will it diminish you in our eyes. It might actually enhance you. Wilful ignorance does nothing for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTFL. Mulga you're a hoot. Remember when you started this whole issue with you and Brian claiming that funnies were oh so much more numerous than the obscure, rare-as-rocking-horse**** Puppchen? Well I gave you the figures for the Puppchen and called you on your preposterous statement. You still owe me an answer, hundreds of posts, many threads and your n-th re-incarnation later. Instead you give us that post above. Simply hilarious.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I urge you to take a renewed closer look at the german field guns and the truck.