Major Tom
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Major Tom
-
-
Johnno, you vote for Doris, er, Stockwell Day? I don't want to get into a debate on the better system (US or Canada) but I will defend our system over that of the American one any day. Maybe it is just that too many Canadians are considering that acquiring money and material goods is the sum value of the success of a society, but, I still hold that success is measured only by the accessibility of necessities to its lowest member. In Canada you don't have to worry about affording medical treatment or a good education, although you can't spend quite as much money on luxury material goods.
Regarding 'Canada' and the War of 1812, you also forgot America's 1st Invasion attempt of Canada, ie. during the American Revolution. The US Managed to capture Montreal, but were totally defeated in an attempt to capture Quebec. In one action, 30 French Canadians defeated 300 American Troops during an American attack during a snowstorm. Another 400 were totally annihilated after entering the city, waiting for the 300 that were defeated, getting surrounded and destroyed by British and French Canadian Militia.
During the War of 1812 (or the 2nd Invasion attempt), the first action, the capture of Detroit, where 5 000 US troops surrendered to no more than 1 500 Canadians, British and Iroquois troops without a fight. Regular British troops were in such short supply that Canadian Militia made up a significant part of the British force in Upper and Lower Canada. The second invasion of Quebec met similar disaster at the hands of French Canadians as well. And the British units in Canada were not the veterans of Europe. These only came to North America in 1815, after Napoleon was finally defeated.
Just as a side note, Canadians actually had to give back occupied territory to the US at the end of both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 because of the treaty. Just think, vast tracts of Illinois and New York could be Canadain, but who would want Buffalo or Detroit?
As reasons for the US going to war against Britiain, yes, it was due to pressing some US nationals captured trying to break the blockade of French occupied Europe, and the reasoning for this was that England still considered these sailors as British subjects, just under rebellion. And I wouldn't try and push some sort of moral superiority about this being compared to slavery, it was much more rampant in American plantations than in the high seas. Although I find both systems deplorable.
Both sides fought pretty well in this engagement, with defeats and victories all around. (the US fought brilliantly on Lake Erie among other actions) However, I do believe that generally the US did get a thrashing.
Lacky, Canada had an even smaller military and fleet and stood up pretty well to two American invasions.
We didn't get rid of the UK entirely, we still keep close ties, out of a sense of loyalty to what England has given our nation. Our 'freedom' as you call it, wasn't bought, but earned (freedom from what? Freedom from being governed by local elite instead of distant elite?). It was actually gained after the First World War, as we debated in Parliament to see if we would actually go to war in 1939, with morality winning out. In fact, Canada was the first nation to declare war on Japan, even before the United States! -
---- SPOILERS ----
Just in case anyone wants to go and see this movie with an open mind, and free from spoilage, don't read the following rant.
---- SPOILERS ----
Rant mode on
I just saw a preview for the upcomming movie "Pearl Harbor". I knew it was going to be bad when the first half of the movie preview showed some top American actor (who I think starred in U-571) and some actress were romancing around. When it finally gets to the battle scenes (I figure that the attack will only be secondary, or even tertiary to the plot!) I was dismayed that they refused to use CGI for 100% of the battle scenes. The IJN Carrier shown was just an Essex class in a bad disguise, I am pretty sure they used some modern Burke class frigates portraying ships being hit, and they had some dual air cooled 0.5" machine guns (which were never used in the USN as dual mounts or non-water cooled!), among other problems. When they decided to use CGI it was brilliant (the shot of the deck of the Arizona getting hit by that 800kg bomb was chillingly accurate, and the raid on Wheeler Field was also very well done!).
As someone mentioned in an earlier rant, Disney didn't want to do a movie where America loses at the end. I realized how they would get this done by noticing that there were a few shots of B-25's in the preview. The only time that B-25's were used before mid-1942 was during the Dolittle Raid. How they are going to end the film, is, seeing the B-25's fly over Tokyo and drop bombs on old Tojo and flying off into the sunset.
Rant mode off
-
The Germans started developing the Tiger I before entering Russia. If it was inspired by the T-34 and KV-I then it would incorporate all of the innovations in each of these vehicles (ie. sloped armour, Christie type suspension). The Panther and King Tiger was Germany's response to encountering Russian tanks. The Tiger I was so far in its development when the Russian armour was encountered that it would waste valuable resources trying to incorporate all of the lessons learned. The need for a heavy tank preceeded that of a perfect tank.
-
Actually, the British had around 150 Cruiser tanks (Marks I-IV) in the 1st Armoured Division. These tanks were equal if not superior to the most common Mark III and IV tanks in the German inventory. The Mark III that saw service in France in 1940 was only equipped with a 37mm Gun, leaving the British with the 40mm Gun having the largest and most effective AT weapon mounted on a vehicle. The 40mm managed to still take out the latest German armour until 1942, albiet not at long ranges.
The Mark III and IV's equipped with 50mm Guns or Long Barrelled 75mm Guns along with extra bolted on armour were yet to be seen. German tanks were about as unreliable as Allied ones as well, however, seeing that they were advancing they could repair any broken down tank while the allies had to spike them.
The British also had about 300 of the Vickers Mark VI tanks, with the Mark VIC having a 15mm Gun. These were comparable to Panzer Mark I and II tanks (armed with 2x MG's or 1x MG and 1x 20mm).
23 Matilda II and 37 Matilda I tanks of the 4th and 7th RTR savaged Rommel's 7th Panzer Division and an SS Division (T-something?). A pretty good feat for such small numbers. Only an improvised screen of 88mm AA guns and lack of timely support by a French Light Mechanized Division caused the British attack to hald. Rommel stated later that he thought that he was up against 5 British Tank Divisions. British tanks were also generally equipped with Radio. It wasn't until 1942 when the Matilda II lost its title as queen of the battlefield in Africa.
When the Germans met heavy allied resistance on the attack they had the ability to call on an air force that had total air superiority to knock out whatever foe was in front of them. Just like the Allies in 1944, the Germans in 1940 were fighting with slightly inferior equipment but had the benefit of air superiority and the initiative of the attack to move the odds in their favour. In fact, it was encountering superior Allied tanks in 1940 that led to upgrading the Mark III to a 50mm gun, the addition of extra armour, and the development of the Tiger I tank.
A typical French Armoured Division contained 2 Battalions of Light tanks (R-35's) and 2 Battalions of heavy tanks (B-1 Bis). They were severely short of Infantry (only 1-2 Battalions). The French Light Mechanized Divisions were better suited, and probably better organized even than German Armoured Divisions. They contained 2 Battalions of Light Tanks (H-35 H-39) and 2 Battalions of Medium Tanks (S-35) Plus 2 Battalions of Armoured Cars/Scout Tanks, along with a Brigade of Infantry. These DLM's had great success against the Germans in Belgium, unfortuantely they weren't in the Sedan region in May 1940.
-
I do concede that not every battle will be just the US attacking Japanese pillboxes, or that they will perpetually have overwhelming odds. Yet, as was noted, it will mostly be an infantry vs. infantry battle, with only one side posessing AFV's if at all. Sure, not every battle in Europe was fought with AFV's, but, combined force battles occurred with a lot more frequency than in the Pacific. Personally, I believe that other theatres of war (Korea, Arab-Isreali, etc.) would be better modeled by CM than the Pacific War. However, that is just my opinion.
-
The early war in Europe was my first focus. It drew me as nothing in popular culture was based around it (ie. few movies). It was interesting to get beyond the simple assumptions about Germans being all round the best fighters with the French always surrendering. In comparison with the last four years of the war, the first two were extremely 'humaine'.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Tom, I suggest you go read some detailed accounts of the actions on Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Then read some about the Burma campaign and the fighting in other exotic locales. Try reading about the Chindits.
I have never heard anyone make the claim that the PTO is boring who actually has spent any effort in learning something about it first. This is not meant as a slam on you, but I would be willing to bet my last dollar that you know relatively little about the PTO, at least compared to what you know about the ETO.
Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to have misquoted me a few times. I never said that the theatre was boring. I find it quite interesting and have done a lot of research on it. HOWEVER, I do not see CM as the ultimate means of replicating a Pacific style game of the entire theatre. I am also interested in the Normandy landings, which I also believe aren't something that CM models well, or, is worth modelling at the tactical squad scale.
Did I say that there were no possible actions of a CM type battle in the Pacific theatre? NO. I said that Burma/India, New Guinea and Guadalcanal made up for some interesting battles in CM, where forces on both sides were virtually equal. However, I do not see the Island Hopping campaign as something to be optimally modeled by CM. Since the majority of actions in the Pacific were island hopping or the Japanese form of Blitzkrieg where the defender was usually totally outclassed and outnumbered that modelling an entire tactical game off it, and keeping it close to historical, will result in many repetitions.
And I have read many books on the Pacific theatre, and I consider myself very well versed. I have written many well received papers about the Pacific War, dealing with this subject that the war can be divided up into three basic parts. A Japanese happy time, a relative static period in the Solomans and New Guinea, and an American happy time. This may be general, but, it fits. Just because my opinion on the Pacific War differs from yours does not mean that I am not educated in it. Please, before you start hurling accusations of ignorance and making this debate personal, read my posts before you post.
By the way, I was very involved in reworking the Matrix Games patch for the 1992 "Gary Grigsby's Pacific War". I don't claim to be an 100% expert, but I am definitely not a novice.
-
I agree to an extent that the Pacific War would be an interesting addition to CM, but, I still hold that TACTICALLY the Japanese were vastly overwhelmed in just about every battle after 1943. The Germans were STRATEGICALLY overwhelmed, which isn't always reflected in CM. Yes, every one sided scenario isn't always destined to end with one side being the victor over the other, but, this is only one of a few. Primarily, these battles would be between isolated and static Japanese defenders vs. invading and totally supported US Army and Marine forces. Whereas, in Europe from 1944-1945 there were many more effective attacks and counterattacks by both sides throughout the campaign. The war in Europe was much more fluid and stable then the war in the Pacific.
Remember, even by 1945 the Japanese still had a hard time knocking out Sherman tanks!
-
Actually, I think that the AI models AT guns pretty well. In another post, Steve was responding to someone about euqestions regarding AT guns being too vunlerable to everything in the world. Steve mentioned thaty it might be due to incorrect placement. Many people assume that AT guns are good for close range shooting, while in reality, they are best used for longer ranged killing. The closer to the frontlines they are the closer they are to enemy infantry. The AI positions its guns near the back of the board, as, this is the farthest they can go. Maybe the map was just too small for the AI to use AT guns effectively near the front lines.
Also, notice that just about every mention states that a bunch of AFV's were lost to these groups of AT guns. Sure, they might not have stopped the slaughter at the frontline, but, they performed pretty good as a rearguard.
-
The Pacific War theatre will also not be as tactically interesting as one in Europe. There were only a few engagements in mid 1942 where both the Allies and the Japanese were on even footing. Before and after this period one side invariably had overwhelming numbers and quality, deciding virtually every tactical scenario before it started. There was no doubt wether or not the US would secure Tarawa, Iwo Jima or Okinawa. They were able to place more troops with better equipment and total support against poor numbers, equipment and virtually no external support. Imagine the Germans, without their good tanks, without any sort of effective AA defence, without a variety of squads (the Japanese relied primarily on Rifle squads), without any sort of heavy artillery, without air support, perpetually on the defence after 1942, and always against an enemy backed by 16" naval gunfire, air support, tanks and a variety of external equipment.
Outside of a few engagements on New Guinea, Burma/India and Guadalcanal one side will be totally outclassed by the other.
-
Actually, many Allied formations did receive uniforms for the winter of 1944. I am currently working on a mod for a British/Commonwealth winter uniform mod.
-
Yeah, I can't find any reference to Canadians using Infantry tanks after 1942. We had some independent Armoured Brigades, but, no independent Tank Brigades. Seeing as Canadian and British forces constantly intermingled the attaching of a British Tank Battalion would not be out of the question for a Canadian Infantry group.
Regarding Dieppe, it is a poor commander who blames his failures on his troops. There were many factors to why Dieppe failed, place a crack US Marine force in the place of the 2nd Canadian Division and they will suffer the same losses and failure. The troops were fine, the plan was flawed.
-
Just did a little more reading in the dates and stuff, and it I did get the entire timing thing wrong. Yes, Monty did delay the clearing of the scheldt, which allowed for the Germans to pack in about the remnants of 3 Divisions (where it was otherwize undefended). I guess he really screwed up here, and us Canadians had to pay for his mistake. I condemn him for this action, but I still stand by my statement that he wasn't 100% useless.
In regards to Lord Dreaman, well, I have posted a few facts that state that Monty did actually, think on his feet, fight an extremely modern war and taking opportunities when he saw them (market garden WAS an opportunity). Condemning an operation that failed was just a total waste from the beginning is rediculous. War is a risk, every operation is a risk, just because one failed doesn't mean that it was a waste. In retrospect, things could have gone better, but, they didn't have the benefit of this that we do. Have you actually read of any of the accounts on Monty's actions? Seen a biography of him? Or have you just got your incling of the guy from the 'Patton' film? He is far from perfect, but, also far from incompetent.
In regards to my statement of the Patton vs. Monty debate arising every time one is mentioned, AbnAirCav, well, I was actually answering a few posts at a time (not just yours!), sorry for including everyone's statements into one post.
-
It is interesting that everyone seems to have to be either pro-monty or pro-patton. Frankly, one is a true historian if you can see the virtues and vices of them both. They both had great success and both had failure. They both took risks and had lucky and unlucky periods.
To say that one is totally worthless while the other being totally Godlike is, well, reading only a portion of history.
The attack at El Alemain was NOT 5:1, it was more like 2:1. 100 000 Axis vs. 250 000 British, 500 Axis Tanks vs. 1 000 British tanks. The British had 5:3 air superiority. Not quite 5:1 odds, not even the 3:1 odds as seen as the optimum for an attack against such a well entrenched enemy. Also, this victory was so complete that it completely destroyed Rommel's chances of regaining a position in Libya.
Many other Allied battles were won through using decryption technology. Midway, the Soloman Islands, Normandy, etc... So stating that Monty succeeded through having this information is correct, BUT, he was just one of many Allied commanders to do so. And his victories should not be deminished because of it.
Falise, well, there are many reasons why it failed. Strong German resistance, incorrect RAF and USAAC bombing (many British/Polish/Canadian bridgeheads were bombed out by our own heavy bombers), etc.. Also, Patton didn't break out of Normandy, he exploited the break out. Monty was in the field since the Normandy landings, so, his career was 'tained' by the Normandy stalemate, unlike Patton. I doubt Patton would have done much better had he landed on D-Day.
Market Garden, well, every risky plan can fail. Some succeed and the planners are called geniouses (like my previous mention of MacArthur and Inchon). When they fail, they are called incompetent. The Market Garden plan could have easily succeeded, had certain freak incidents not have happened. If the SS Panzer Korps had not been detailed to Arnheim, then the British Airborne could have easily secured the Bridge and held it until relieved. If this suceeded, then the entire German industrial region would be under allied control by the winter of 1944, and there probably would not have been a counterattack at the Bulge.
This is comparative to blaming General Wavell for losing North Africa to the Germans in 1941. All of his previous actions were ignored (defeating 250 000 well equipped Italians with only 40 000 British). Certain situations, bad timing, and odds play against commanders.
Patton was as a glory hound as Monty. They both hated each other so much, because they were both so similar. One is not better than the other, they just had differences of luck. The sad fact is, is they are both great military commanders, with ego's so large that they were entirely aware of what they were.
I do believe that Ike is to blame for much of the horrid situation and lenghtening of the war. He was indecisive, and unwilling to listen to either Patton or Monty on having one pincer movement at the breakout of Normandy to get into Germany well before the winter of 1944 (took the cautious broad front approach, which I guess could have lengthened the war). I do believe that he was the right individual for the command. He respected the need for Allied relations, it wasn't just a British OR American OR Canadian OR Polish OR French OR Belgian OR Dutch OR Czech force, it was an Allied force.
Actually, Market Garden probably really helped the American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Many good German formations were spent out at Arnheim, and other forces lost and cut off. If Market Garden had not have happened then maybe the Germans would have had enough resources to reach Antwerp?
The Americans could have cared less about not clearing out Antwerp ASAP, its us Canadians who had to do it. The Americans felt no ill effects, as we quickly cleared it out and made Antwerp operational. The main problems of supply were before Antwerp was cleared (ie. as the breakout from Normandy was happening). The blame for this goes directly on the head of the German commander who directed that all major ports be made into fortresses. This is the reason for the poor supply, enemy initiative, not friendly incompetence.
-
Neither Monty nor Patton can equal the propagandist impressions we were given. They both had their virtues and vices.
Better commanders were definitely available, but, never given the historic due they diserve. The British General Alexander lived up to his namesake. He was seen as some sort of British problem fixer.
Regarding Market Garden, I do not see it as a reason to display Montgomery's incompetence. There have been MANY commanders who have taken just as many risks, sometimes more, and were portrayed as heros purely because luck was on their side. MacArthur during the Korean war at Inchon took a greater risk than Montgomery and if defeated he would probably have lost the war, but, he was lucky enough to win and was proclaimed a hero.
Also, the defeat of Rommel at El Alemain was not quite as simple as many people state it was. The Germans were far from defeated, and were actually stronger than they have ever been in North Africa. By this time, practically all of the Africa Corps were hard veterans, and even the Italians were a pretty tough enemy. Sure, there were supply problems, but, Rommel always made due through 2 years of supply problems, why should this be seen as an excuse for his defeat now?
I wouldn't blame Patton for the Pershing not coming into action earlier than it did. They did have tanks that could take on the German vehicles. He took a gamble that numbers are more important than quality. This gamble, just like Market Garden for Monty, might not have gone completely 100% according to plan, but, what in war does?
-
It isn't directly fixed to the carriage. If you look closely at AT and Artillery guns, you will notice some 'steering wheels' both horizontal and perpendicular. The perpendicular ones adjust the gun up and down, and the horizontal ones adjust it left and right. It doesn't mean that the gun can rotate in large degrees, but, this can result in a large enough movement to keep a tank targetted. Also, AT guns were designed to be light enough that the crew can rotate it fast enough. Everything in CM is abstracted and we don't get to see it all (just like there are more than 1 crewmembers for an AT gun yet we see only 1).
-
I also heard he had a pretty high casualty rate as well.
-
I think that the main problem is, is that when people see 'German tank' they assume 'invincible'. I have fallen under this spell as well.
While reading through war history books, I have come accross a lot of statements saying that weapons such as the 37mm and 40mm were useless, EXCEPT at close range. They didn't say that they were ALWAYS useless, just at any extreme or medium range.
Also, the Mark IV tanks seen in CM will not be that different to the later short barreled Mark IV tanks seen in CM3 in the desert (in regards to armour). In CM3, these Mark IV re-armoured tanks (ie. extra armour bolted around the thing) were taken out by 40mm gunned Cruisers, Crusaders, Valentines and Matildas. There is only so much improvement you can do to a specific design.
Remember, the basic design of the Mark IV is 5+ years old at the time of CM. Improvements can only go so far.
-
Me? I have never played a cheater in all my CM gaming (almost 1 year). The only thing that I would consider cheating for the 1st player to change in a QB is setting an Assault instead of an Attack. This just adds to the attacking force. And this is also obvious.
Cheating for CM isn't rampant. If you have a constant problem with being suspicious of other player's ability to play fair, then maybe PBEM isn't for you. PBEM is about trust. And, if they don't play fair, then don't play them again. HOWEVER, ceating in the sense of cheating to guarantee, or even get close to guaranteeing a victory is virtually impossible. You can manipulate terrain and force composition without the other player's knowledge, BUT, this does not guarantee victory.
Cheating in a PBEM game is like cheating on a school test and handing in your cheat notes with your exam.
If you have such a hard time trusting people in QB PBEM's, then why don't you just always insist of starting up the game?
-
Here's one suggestion. Attack them at the end that they can't shoot you.
-
Tiger, my post wasn't meant to be abrasive, I too hope that 1.1 will be the final patch that BTS has to do, and that it will come out really soon, but, I would much perfer having them fix everything correctly by spending as much time on it then rushing it at all. Even well meaning pressure can rush something out before it should be
-
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone here has seen or heard from my opponent. It has been six days since his troops and I have heard from 'little Andreas' and we are starting to get worried. I was informed by a slack jawed Yokle that he frequented this, er, place of intelect and recreation. If one of you should happen upon this lost soul please direct him to the battlefield. A reward of happyfaces and ill placed winks and nudges will be offered for his capture, perferably alive, although dead will certainly not change his playing style.
Thank you
A concerned player
-
I am working on revising an old computer game from 1992, and the correlation is amazing.
Unfortunately, you cannot have a bugfree patch, and have it fast. If you have a patch quickly, then it will be bug ridden. If you want a bug free patch, then you will have to wait a long while.
When you fix something in the original, you might have created other problems, that won't be discovered without extensive testing. The release of the 'Beta' patches are purely for BTS to solve this dilemma, to keep everyone happy (by releasing at least something quickly) and to discover all of the bugs within it.
Most game usually recieved 1-2 patches, if they were lucky, and these barely touched on most of the key problems. Extensive patching is a new invention, and only occurs for a few dedicated games.
The patch will take however as long as it takes. The best thing that we can do, is to point out all of the bugs that we see, and NOT to pressure them to prematurely release patches unless it is for more bug testing. We don't want to rush the final patches for CM. Releasing it before it is 100% complete will only result in more delays, and complaints of it not being perfect.
-
Wow, and everyone complains how they keep getting unlucky shots in CM, look at how close they are and nobody is hurt yet!
Historical accuracy or bug?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:
Rob: It was a surrender of convenience. I hate to tell you, but MOST wars do not end with the destruction of one of the sides.
Both sides basically just got tired of fighting for something that would ONLY benefit the French. Napoleon ENGINEERED the war in an attempt to divide the attentions the Britain...
Major Tom: Always remember, of course, that defenders fighting on HOME SOIL will always carry an inherent advantage.
Finland, circa 1940? BOOYA to the Huns, eh what?
Now, I REALLY don't want to debate the superiority of either side, (I mean Christ, both countries ARE still standing, right?!) except to say that both countries DO have both advantages and disadvantages.
No system is perfect, and I do not think any of us can say with certainty that one system or the other is in some way BETTER than the other.
Different philosophies, different ideologies.
Now, DAMMIT, can we start bashing the bloody French again?!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with you fully 100%, except that Detroit =/= home soil, and neither was Washington
Although the Americans did burn down York! So it all equals out!
Since both Canada and the United States have been, are, and will be prosperous I do agree that neither system is better, just different.
Yep, Napoleon was even thinking about recreating a North American French Empire based around the Louisianna territory. (which was sold in 1808 (?)) After the French lost substantial forces in the Carribean and needed money more than a North American Empire so they sold it to the US for a bargain.
[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-30-2000).]