M Hofbauer

what some people are overlooking here IMO is that AT mines weren't used to bag the occasional vehicle by a cleverly placed hidden AT mine. "Herr Oberleutnant, I am sure if we place a nice little AT mine right at the map edge corner, where there is only one passage through two patches of wood, we can bag us a Churchill..." "yes nice observation Obergefreiter Dreckarsch...we only paid 30 points for that minefield and if we can get a 200+ tank with it that would definitely improve our battle win score..." back to reality. Minefields were used as integrated parts of whole defenses, not as singled-out chances-to-kill. If you want to deny the road to the enemy, make a roadblock. If you want to kill some vehicles, put up a PaK or some Panzerschreck or some scratched-together group of ad-hoc tank hunters armed with Panzerfausts. Minefields are used mainly to block and funnel enemy advances. Thus they are used together with other weapons. As I said before, the german SOP insisted upon minefileds to be created in a way that they were covered by friendly fire: "(...) auf jeden Fall müssen die Minenfelder durch Feuer überwacht sein. Bei ungenügendem Feuerschutz ist das T-Minenfeld feindwärts durch S-Minen zu sichern". IOW, to put a single minefield onto some patch of road is almost gamey. Rather, they formed one link of a defense that was out to hold the line, not win a game by score. Daisy chain mines work very well for me on roads. Scott could you please relate what causes you to evaluate their effectiveness differently? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

ok, here is my findings on the "Kilt captures german PzDiv with 23,000 soldiers"-story. I would like to thank the people who helped me with this (even though they'll probably not read this), namely M.Binazzi, S.Orchard and Michi. Thank you very much. First, the question of any Panzerdivision who might be involved in this. S. Orchard wrote: "Well the 9th Pz.Div. took that route Northwards through France on its way to the invasion front but it certainly wasn't captured. The 11th was the other Pz.Div. in Southern France but it took a more Easterly route and it wasn't stopped either. The story of 'Das Reich' is of course well known and is obviously a non starter. Couldn't find any reference to the div.comd. mentioned either. I don't doubt the guy took some prisoners but the amount and unit/units is another question. Reminds me of the allied tendency to call all German tanks Tigers." I looked through what little resources I had and could confirm that no tank division surrendered at that time and place. So, no Tank Division. Michi reported that he found no Major General ELTOW captured with 23,000 men from a tank division in August 1944, but found a story about a Major General ELSTER who surrendered with his group of ca. 28,000 soldiers while onm the retreat in August/September 1944. He contributed the following from the german book "Der deutsche Rückzug aus Frankreich 1944"; by Joachim LUDEWIG I took the liberty to translate this german text into english: ------------------- The soldiers of the Feldkommandantur 541 (field command staff office 541) of Major-General Botho ELSTER, which had the longest distance to cover, cleared the towns of Mont de Marsan and Dax in the southern end of the corps area (LXIV. Army Corps, General Sachs) only on 22nd/23rd of August 1944. The withdrawal of combat units and the ordered "push of mobile forces" into the direction of Dijon meant for the three march groups of LXIV. Army Corps that they were effectively robbed of any protection. To Major-General ELSTER the situation for the last march group, which was under his command, seemed "totally impossible/hopeless". The 159th Infantry Division had been taken out of his group "Süd" (south) and it took with it most of the vehicles, weapons and ammunition. In briefings held on the 1st and 2nd September 1944 in Poitiers ELSTER made clear that under these conditions he found it pointless/senseless to continue the march of his group which numbered 28,000 men. His "argument", which carried little credibility, was that the road designated for the withdrawal, running along Châteauroux - Bourges - Nevers - Dijon, would be "under control of three regular french armies", but this did not convince some of the officers present in Poitiers. Colonel Bauer, who had already fought his way from Pau to Poitiers with his group of 10,000 soldiers, strongly disagreed with ELSTER's suggestion (=of surrender). At least parts of Col. Bauer's group later eventually reached Dijon. ELSTER, however, undertook negotiations with representatives from the FFI and surrendered Sptember 10th to General Macon, the american commander of the 83rd US Infantry Division, who had specifically been brought to the area for the act of surrender. ELSTER had eventually reached his decision (to surrender) after he had been assured that the capture of his forces would be done by the americans and not by the FFI (free french). --------------- apparently, ELSTER lead a retreat column of german soldiers, mostly staff, support, navy crews etc., during the german withdrawal from the bay of biscaya. M. Binazzi related this: "The history of the so-called "Elster Column" refers to the evacuation of South-West France in late summer 1944, all the troops being split up in three different "Marschgruppe" (*marching groups). Two made their way through and reached the German lines, while Generalmajor Elster's group (made up of various troops, among which the Marinebrigade (*navy brigade) Weber (made up of U-Boote crews) and a lot of "administrative" troops, customs officers, RAD (*Reichsarbeitsdienst, = forced/conscripted labor service) personnel and others had to surrender to the Americans (he would not indeed surrender to the FFI who were quite frustrated as they had done the biggest part of the job). A number of photographs have been made of the "official surrender" scene, and a few have been published in Heimdal's album "the Kriegsmarine in France". The "Elster column" was made up of some 20.000 men, with 2000 horses, 1000 horse-carts, 375 lorries, 600 smaller vehicles, 300 machine guns and a large quantity of ammo. The column also included two high ranking officers: Generalmajor Botho ELSTER and Konteradmiral (*rear admiral) Karl Weber, former C-i-C of the Bordeaux arsenal, who was in charge of three regiments: Marschregiment Badermann, Marschregiment von Pflugk-Hartlung, and Marschregiment Kühnemann. There also was a Marineregiment (*navy regiment) Gebauer with three battalions. Most of the men in the Marinebrigade were U-Boote crews, personnel of the naval base and Italians of the BETASOM." that's about it. In conclusion, IMO it seems what happened was that the "Crack Tank Division of Major General Eltow which surrendered to a kilt bluff" was in fact a retreat marching column of roughly over 20,000 rear-area supply, staff and other, navy crew, personnel, neither very combat-worthy nor especially combat-eager, headed by a General Major Elster, who didn't see any point in prolonging this and was ready to surrender to the allies. It might very well have been that the scotsman in the article was present and involved in the negotiations Elster had with the free french (since the scotsman said he was with the french this seems to fit). Now,this all seems like a blatant falsification of historic facts. It doesn't do credit to the brave men which suffered through the hardships on both sides, most of all it lessens the _real_ achievements which Macpherson himself, who probably _was_ involved in this somehow. Now, if it was a german newspaper/TV programme I knew what I would write/email to the author and the superior of the author of the BS-story. However, I'ld be hard put to explain to the scots why it bothers _me_ where I don't even get to see the show. (this whole story reminds me strongly of the BULL**** OR NOT? - investigation show on the B-flick "amazone women on the moon", the sequel to kentucky fried movie IIRC.) ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

DCC63 / coop, I am at a loss as to what the link you provided has to do with the story here??? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

David, you are missing the point about the bible. every christian child is taught in elementary school that you are NOT to read the bible literally. Those are all metaphors etc. based maybe remotely on any actual events. Which is exactly the difference to the hogwash journalists constantly produce, because they claim to have the truth surface in their articles etc. And people are falling for it. They read newspaper / watch news and think it's objective and error free. It isn't, not by a long shot. I will now prepare to compile the info I have so far into a megapost, a post that will make even my other posts pale in size. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

BUMP? you mean it's not enough that you start this thread, no you have to bump it even? so tell us o wise one whats in this stupid "email undeliverable" thread for the rest of us? (Hofbauer contemplating one of those threads for each of the PBEM email failure notices he has so far...hmmm....whoa....) ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

commissar, funny, me too, couple of months ago. a four-in-one. went surprisingly well, but on the first day I threw up about a quart of blood...really it seemed like much more than a quart but it was probably less... get well soon Badmatt ! ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

is it more like trance, tekkno, or country? or did you - in honor of someone who died today 30 years ago - play it on an electric guitar, with your tongue? seriously, what kinda music is it? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

it doesn't look good for british journalism it seems. this is what I found so far: There was NO Major-General Eltow, never ever anywhere within WW2 germany, and the "unit" in question surely wasn't one of -to quote the yellowpress article- "Hitler's crack Panzer Divisions". Like I had hinted earlier, this was the easiest to disprove because only a handful were in france at the time, and none of those ever got any close to that story. However, there was an incident that might very well have been the litle grain of truth behind this grossly inflated war story. The person in question was a General Major ELSTER, and his "unit" were 28,000 staff, rear area support personnel and navy crews which were retreating through france in August 1944 through the area described. ELSTER was thinking about surrender and indeed did so after some negotiation with free french units they met along the way. Full story of what really happened, if that is indeed the story behind the newspaper article, tomorrow, if anyone's still interested. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Steve, don't mean to sound condescending but thought I might as well clear that up. you wrote: Perhaps the pins weren't long enough to poke up through dirt and inbetween the stones? obviously there's a misunderstanding here. the shearing pins Scott talked about were not poles sticking out of the mine to detonate it when it is bent - although such detonators existed (Knickzünder 43) that's not what he meant. (Knickzünder were mostly used in high snow or high grass etc., since otherwise they were too obvious/identifiable/conspicuous; they did have the advantage however that *any* messing with the detonator rod would detonate the mine, so you wouldn't need the tank to hit the mine with the track, it would work too if the front hull bent the detonator) he was referring to the litle pins inside the mine that hold the detonator pin from striking the detonator cap, roughly speaking. At a set force onto the protruding upper pressure plate, the shearing pin would break and the pressure of the tank onto the protruding pressure knob on the top of the mine would push the detonator into the assembly and detonate the mine. obviously, by choosing pins of varying strengths you can customize the needed force needed for detonation. as I have outlined above, however this is not how most german and some american AT mines worked, instead they used a strong coiled spring to keep the detonator inplace, and the detonation pressure would be determined by the force of that spring. non-customizable. I also dare to say that IMHO I think there wasn't too much customization going on with the american mines which used shearing pins either. The reason is that there isn't much place for variation in the system, and, this is the real reason, for an AT mine you would always want the maximum of required detonation pressue, so you would always use the strongest pin. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

(this post has been written up in several hours of offline work in the meantime several posts have been made to this topic; I will post before I read through them) Scott, since you seem so obsessed with this issue I will try to add something in the hopes that it will make you just a little bit happier, and just for *you* I looked at the matter. I am aware of the concept of using small pins of different strength to customize the required detonation pressure (weight) of the mine. However, it is my understanding that the german WW2 mines largely did NOT work that way. The german mines detonation pressure was determined by the force of the spring that would push against the detonator pressure plate surface. Therefore, the german T-Mines of WW2 had certain discriminate fixed detonation pressures for each type depending on the spring-plate construction. The original T.Mi. 35 already detonated under a weight of 90kg. German manuals pointed out that a heavy soldier of that weight would already set off these mines. The T.Mi. 35St fixed this and increased the pressure to 210kg. The later T.Mi. 42 also required 210kg, the l.Pz.Mi. needed 250kg. The T.Mi. 43 finally introduced a new no-spring mechanism which simply pushed the staged mushroom-type detonator assembly into the mine in a way that you described, at a force in excess of 320kg. Now it is important to understand that the late-type T.Mi.43 never reached the usage of the T.Mi.42, instead the T.Mi.42 continued to be produced and used as the standard T.Mi.; 1943 saw the production of roughly 4.8 Mio type 42 over 2.2 Mio type 43; in 44 it was 4.3 Mio type 42 over 1.3 Mio type 43. I went to check on the good guys. similar to the germans both versions existed. The M4 AT mine used the no shearing pin, spring-type construction, whereas the US M1A1 standard AT mine had a design as you described, with two shear pins holding in place the detonator in the armed condition. The difference to the germans is that with the americans the M1A1 AT mine was the standard AT mine, not the M4. So far for the mine types. Now, for tactics. The german manuals do not call for T-Mines to be dug in into paved roads. Use of T-Mines on paved roads was limited to the so-called "offene Verlegung" (open laying/employment) of the mines, which basically means the mines were put onto the surface, just like that. It was usual that in such a manner on paved roads they were not used as single mines, but almost always as so-called "Schnellsperren" (quick barrier), which to you americans is known as daisy chain mines, or "Rampensperre" (a substitute for the regular Schnellsperren, the mines were simply fixed onto a wooden plank). I have looked through everything I have on that subject and nowhere saw the embedding of mines into paved or cobble-stone roads. I do have found some pictures showing T-Mines being embedded into dirt roads however. I think two reasons account for the non-use of the practice of digging in mines into paved/cobble stone roads (just my take): a) it would have been a very tedious process there weren't too many such roads around. the CM manual specifically advises scenario designers to be very conservative in the use of paved roads. indeed there weren't too many. c) the german tactics for employment of such mines stated that the mines were to be under fire cover from friendly forces. in such situations, mines laid _onto_ the paved surface would serve just as well as dug-in ones, because neither can be cleared. Again, I think that the way BTS handles this is well in line with the impression I got from looking into this. all the pics with mines on roads showed daisy-chain, openly-laid mines. I am not saying your suggested digging-in of mines wouldn't work. It might very well work, and I think it might even have been done occasionally in WW2. However, in general, the large majority, it wasn't, instead it was handled the way BTS modeled it in CM. have a beautiful day, M.Hofbauer btw: including your very own thread within the three links I provided to you was an attempt at humor. I know that nobody will find my jokes funny, but as long as I personally think they are, that's ok, because I can laugh over it *g* ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I'ld be happy to help you fray but frankly I'm not sure what you are referring to? "army, ss,grenadier" ?? if you are talking about the service branches available to the axis player, those are Wehrmacht Heer - regular german army. steel helmet , Mauser 98k, fieldgrey uniform, the archetypal german WW2 soldier. Waffen-SS - not part of the german army, the armed branch of the nazi party (NSDAP); they were however used just like army. I am not touching the question of W-SS and warcrimes with a 10-ft. pole here. Generally, they are on an average usually regarded to be of slightly better qualiry than average Wehrmacht. Fallschirmjäger - paratroopers. they were not part of the army, but of the Luftwaffe. the army however had some air assault units too. usually considered to be crack fighting units, late-war Fallschirmjäger sufered quite a loss in average quality from losses and low-quality(little training etc.) replacements etc. Ever after Crete the german paratroopers were essentially used as crack ground forces. Gebirgsjäger - mountain troops. trained, skillful infantry with special training for fighting in mountainous areas. equippped with special clothing, ski, snow and ice shoes , special guns that could be broken up for transport by mules etc. Due to the dedicated training they received, they were not only mountaineers but overall good soldiers. When there were no mountains around, they were used as infantry. Volkssturm - the home defense guard established in germany in late 1945. sionce every able-bodied person had been drafted into any of the numerous services, only the very ill, very young, and , especially, the very old were available to make up the loccally organized Volkssturm units. They had no uniforms only armbands identifying them as regulars, members of the german armed forces. Their equipment was poor, and so was their general combat quality. CM is ahistorically in that it allows use of these troops as early as June 1944, many months before the Volkssturm was created in reality. IMPORTANT: it doesn't matter for CM what service your units are from. Apart from different weapons, a "regular" Fallschirmjäger squad will perform just as good or bad as a "regular" Volkssturm. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I has something in the same category happening here when a round aimed at a Hellcat missed it and landed smack in an M3 HT standing a bit behind it. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

first, I'm not your pal, pal. mate, maybe. second, your profile's registration date doesn't support your fact that you have been around longer than me. However I concede to you the benefit of doubt that your profile was one of the erased ones, because I do remember you from before that time (if I remember anyone from back then). I admit that you may have been making _more_ enemies _faster/earlier_ on this board than me, but I am not sure about who's been around longer. I wasn't the first one here, but I sure was around when the whole thing started, blue-on-white thread-ordered message board and all. third, even if you had been here longer, doesn't matter, I can S E A R C H anyone here asking for it. fourth, all that long time membership as a board member obviously didn't teaqch you to use the SEARCH function correctly. just a cursory entering of the words "paved" and "mines" brought these three links already: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000315.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007863.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010624.html your issue is adddressed there, down to the point of cobble stones etc. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I reek some serious BS here. Journalists + old vets are a deadly combination. They both compete for falsifying and glamorizing any actual event. I will look into this. There weren't too many PzDiv around in the respective timeframe and location, so adding the other factors of some GM Eltow etc. I will uncover this charade It will not be a pretty sight! ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

S E A R C H ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

pzvg, I assume are you are "putting it on" when you go to your local bank to cash a cheque? well I think it all depends on what "german helmet" the original poster was referring to. If he was referring to the admittedly considerably large "horns" on the WW I helmet, then you are of course right, both with your opinion and with your quote. However, I was under the impression (=might be wrong) that he was referring to german WW II style helmets, where the most visible stubs are those reinforced ventilation openings. If he was indeed referring to WW2 helmets, then I think your post might have been misleading/misunderstandable into thinking that the WW2 knobs would be facepiece lugs. thanks fernando and teamski for the excellent pics! but I think you should emphasize that these are not WW2, before some unsuspecting FNG stumbles in here and comes running out of this post screaming "BTS! I want those dastardly-mean-looking steel plates on my german soldiers! why are they not in the game, eh???!!" David Aitken, the Pickelhaube is more of a cliche. Yes it was used, and widespread, but only early in WW I. It's something like everybody (outside this board) seeing Tigers as _the_ german tanks rolling all over WW2, even into Paris 1940. Jadayne, WW2 pilots usually don't wear helmets for shrapnel etc. protection (although I have some pics of german BoB bomber crews donning the M35 steel helmet, they modified them themselves to fit the radio gear under it, it looks cool to see a Do-17 cockpit with a bunch of unshaven, steel-helmet wearing crewmembers !), that protection was usually afforded by the bulletproof glass front shield, and the armor plate headrest. Consequently, the Kamikaze pilots too only wore the regular leather caps with goggles, methinks. Some of these aircraft had an open cockpit, and the others could be flown with an open cockpit. Under these circumstances, the headgear would protect you from the elements of wind etc. Bosco/pzvg, I wasn't suggesting anything, my interest in this is genuine. Confucius lived, what, quite a bit B.C., right? well, the roman author that I was referring to lived around 0 B.C., give or take a 100 years. So it is impossible that one read the other's statement. Although it is a universal proverb/truth, I find it amazing that they nevertheless said something quite similar, don't u think? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I think no explosions clear minefields. Artillery doesn't, and I am pretty sure that satchel chrges don't, either. The engineers clear the mines in a silent, unnoticeable way. I admit that realistically, close nearby high-blast explosions should set off at least the antipersonnel mines. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

pzvg, if you quote then please do a complete quote. TM-E 30-451, Chapter IX, Sec. I., 3. Field Uniform "a. Headgear. (1) Steel helmet. The present steel helmet, M1935, is used by all branches of the German Armed forces although some World War I helmets as well as Czech and Italian helmets are still in use. The M1935 is a smaller and lighter version of the World War I helmet, from which it can be differentiated by the absence of facepiece lugs which characterized the old helmet. It comes in five basic sizes, which weigh from 1.8 to 2.7 pounds. Two ventilation holes are furnished at the sides." (emphasis added by me) on a side note, this is one area where the "The Handbook on German Military Forces" shows that it is not the infallible bible that many people seem to believe it to be. Actually, the M35 was discontinued since 1942 and superseded by the M42. There was even an M45 model, I think, and a late experimental helmet which resembled the distinctly odd-looking post-war east-german steel helmet. However, of course they are correct in the above caption in their description of the M35 which was the standard steel pot until 1942. as regards the issue at hand, the M42 featured the same reinforced ventilation knobs and the absence of facepiece lugs ---- (btw pzvg are you sure your sig. is from confucius? that would be most interesting, because an ancient roman author coined a most similar phrase, "si tacuisses, philosophus fuisses" (if you had remained silent, you would have remained (regarded as) a philosopher). Don't remember if it was scipio or who else, it's been quite some time since I had that in school.) ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ) [edited for typos] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-18-2000).]

Sirocco spoke these words of eternal truth and wisom: I do think that the game would benefit from some kind of post-game feature, whether it's full-length movies, or a more detailed AAR, something along the lines of that in the CC series - with men recommended for decorations for their actions by their superior. The ending now just seems to be an anti-climax in game design terms, after all the tension and excitement of the actual game. Amen, amen to that. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

Vanir, again I was just relating the findings of former discussions on this and the way I recollected them. The only time I ever paid atention to tungsten use was during All or Nothing. When the german (censored) showed up (censored) in the game, I saw that my british (censored) first used regular AP with their 76, and the first round ricocheted off of the german (censored), and the second round was a tungsten which put the (censored) out of commission. So, for me it worked exactly as advertised, so I didn't worry further. Your findings however indicate that it was just chance that it all worked out that way in that game. Also, those were british. Brits do funny stuff at times in general, and their 76/tungsten is quite different from the american one, so their tungsten attitude might be different. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

Vanir, but that's exactly what I meant. Use of the tungsten is directly related to the rarity of tungsten rounds. That's what BTS had said. If there's ample tungsten rounds, they'll use them generously. If there are only a few, then they will try to bracket-use them (use AP first). I am not saying I am against or for this modeling of t-round use; I was merely stating the fact on how I thought this had been covered in the past. Btw, my point on this issue is still the same as it had always been: there is still too many tungsten rounds for allied non-TD armor. Tanks were not officially issued tungsten rounds, only the Tank Destroyers were. Any odd tungsten round a Sherman might have would have had to be aquired from their TD brothers, or by raiding into an allied supply depot. I am not saying that Shermans never used tungsten rounds, it DID occur, but IMO it was not on a level like it is shown in CM, with practically every 76mm sherman having a couple of 'em. It was the TD's job to hunt german armor, and they got the tungsten rounds. but of course that's just my personal opinion. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

Philistine, of course you are perfectly right in your assumption, but... sorry but we are talking about different things still / you still don't understand what I mean. Read my original post again. I never implied that art. 6bis is the reason why one could demand something etc. I never propagated a case of Art. 6bis in the issue at hand I only used the "legal definition" (it isn't a l.d. but it is an instance where it is mentioned in a lawbook that I expected you americans to have too) of a notoric mark, for which I didn't know your angloamerican equivalent, is mentioned, so that you would understand what institute (=that of a publicity / public knowledge - created trademark) I was talking about even if my description/words weren't the right ones. hmm I hope you understand now what I meant? ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

venting. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

need to rephrase... I was going for that part "of a mark considered by (...) use to be well known in that country" there. Now even you funny english version makes sense ) Slapdragon, you are referring to the geographical origin brands/marks (gawd it's so hard to phrase this technical stuff in english) but it goes for "pure" name brands as well. To illustrate, an example. Even if LEATHERMAN TOOL wasn't a registered trademark, it would still be a trademark as a "notoric mark" (or whatever you call that concept), because everybody knows what a LEATHERMAN TOOL is. Now, if somebody, even if he bought that name or a permission from the owner, would sell something as LEATHERMAN TOOL to the consuming public and it would turn out to be a pocket light, or a ballpen, or a hammer, then it would be a case of consumer deception because it did not live up to the notoriety/public perception of the nootoric mark LEATHERMAN TOOL, and consequently the company would be forced to abstinate from calling their product LEATHERMAN TOOL. maybe now it is a little bit clearer what I meant. Xyphorus, yes, I've actually been around here since the beginning (=the blue on white CM forum), it's generally a rather nice forum, and I've been to both. I don't go anywhere else anymore lately (little time=have to set priorities *g*). How are things over at ryan's board? ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

Philistine, I only have the german version. the part "or use to be well known in that country " is what I meant by "notoric brand". At least in the U.S., consumer fraud is generally a state-law issue you misunderstood me, it is a state-law issue here too, the (whats the official name for that paris convention now that we are at it, anyhow) PVÜ has no self-executing powers in the member states anyhow I think. I just wanted to describe the issue of a notoric brand. (hard to explain but kryptofascist is a little more remote than protofascist) ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)