Major Tom

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If one considers the Germans killed their 6 million or so in roughly a decade (600,000 per year) versus the 100 million [i doubt this number myself] over 600 years or about 167,000 a year. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, so it would have been ok if the Germans would have spread out their murder then... Seriously though, the duration and exact numbers of killed (some people don't think 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Jewish Holocaust) is irrelavent. Even if just 10 million Africans over a period of 1000 years were killed directly through the slave trade it would still be a dreadful holocaust. Actually, the Western slavers took a REALLY acurate count of those who died during the slave voyages alone, and this number is astounding. Most slaves were worked to death during the first few hundred years of African slavery in the New World, and it wasn't until England blocaded African slave trading in the Atlantic that the Slavers decided to breed their own slaves instead of importing new ones. PS. What makes you do you doubt this number anyway?

Being a close foreigner (up here in Canada) we are a little more objective toward the History of the American Civil War, which I have studied extensively both personally and educationally. These silly terms like 'War of Northern Aggression' and the 'War against the Evil of Slavery' are pure propaganda. They both speak the truth, and are both filled with lies. The North did however have the benefit of fighting for the side of greater morality. States rights are not important, if its existence depends on individual rights to be ignored. Indeed, the average Slave in the South was treated inumerately better than a Jewish person during the Nazi rule, but, their lives were still pretty horrid. Yet, what is still majorly ignored in the history books is that more than 100 million Africans lost their lives in the 600 years of slavery (not ALL America's fault!). Kind of makes the scale of the Jewish Holocaust seem insignificant and a little less organized! PS. Even after the Missouri Compromise, which broke the rule that a new slave state cannot exist above a certain paralell, the South still felt threatened enough to leave the union. This was done so that the South will have an equal say in the US Senate (each state had 2 senators) even though their population was drastically smaller. So, it was about the South's ability to act independently, HOWEVER, if the South and North were both slave free, then there would have been no argument over state rights, or, an American Civil War. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 08-27-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bryan: Stop being an @sshole and go to "One more time." Maybe you'll like it if you're open minded. Sheesh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HAHAHAHAHA, open minded, never seen so much Hypocreaceae in one satement in my life! By your logic, the US soldiers who participated in the Vietnam war were all evil for supporting a corrupt and murderous dictatorship. Pure crud! PS. Yeah, what does Al Gore know of being a President. He hasn't done Cocaine! Actually, his background appears to be fiarly conservative rather than liberal. As a conservative individual who over generalizes and modifies history to justify his own bruital ancestoral history and to give reason for his hatred of people different from himself.

Well, it seems the total sum of Dr.Brain's rebuttles comes to... "I know you are, but what am I." I have heard no valid argument based on anything but heresay from your ancestors and loose statistics. A few stories told to you are full of bias and embeloshing. That happens with ANYONE retelling a period of time in their life that was so important to them. In a way, ranking the Germans as pure skum, 'Krauts' if I may, allowed the Allies to kill them without having nervous breakdowns thinking themselves as murderers for killing actual human beings. You call everyone else ignorant, but, you make no effort to 'enlighten' us by posting actual FACTS that the German military complex was inferior when compared to the British, Russian or American military complexes. Frankly, what you say isn't new, it is remaniscent of 1944 Allied propaganda. I'm glad that the Allies won, but, I am not willing to state that we, as, the victorious Allies, are anything close to saints.

Every year each nation gets a new levy of troops when the young come of age. Not every German unit was made up of children and old men in 1944. Yes, there were some poor divisions in 1944, but, there still were many great units left. How else could they have defended France for 6 months in 1944 when they took it in 6 weeks in 1940! They reached Moscow in 6 months, and it took the Russians 2 years to reach Berlin! Once the Normandy stalemate was broken it was relatively quick movement to the German border. However, breaking out of Normandy was a tough and bloody affair for both sides and, fighting across the Rhine still took a very long time and effort. Was Omaha a cakewalk? Operation Goodwood? What about Market Garden? The Bulge?

Germanboy Vs. Major Tom, round 4 or 5 (?) November 1944, A Company of the Regina Rifles advances supported by a light screen from the 7th Hussars. The terrain is not in our favor, however, the German outpost line of LMG's is easily penetrated and destroyed. The sole casualty is a soldier who broke his ankle and is sent back to the rear. The troops form up for the main attack through the woods to the South. 2 Platoons will enter the woods directly with the third screening the tanks from enemy Panzershreck teams rhumoured to be in the area. Disaster strikes fast as two of the Platoons stumble through two well placed minefields! Casualties are minimal but the troops are now under fire from machine guns in the centre woods. The tanks move up to take out this menace to the infantry. As the Shermans engage an enemy assault gun is spotted nearby and the tanks move to engage. Suddenly the Assault Guns is identified as a Hetzer, and the Sherman II lets off a shot at the same time as the Hetzer, the Sherman's shot bounces off the thick armour but the batch of shells in the Hetzer were of the same quality that sank the HMS Hood a mere three years ago. With the tank in flames and the crew retreating off the field the Sherman V and the Humber scout car withdraw to better positions and are going to make a flanking attack on this new threat. The flanking move works very well, however, the turning speed of the Hetzer is as fast as the flank speed of the Sherman V which is quickly dispatched, soon followed by the Humber. Lucky for the crews the Hetzer was not accompanied by any infantry formations, and PIAT's move up to attack this vulnerable unit. Unfortunately the Hetzer retreats the the German centre position before the brave AT gunners are in place. With the loss of the armour the attack must take place through the forest, away from the devestation of the Hetzer's 75mm. The first objective, being the south forest, is easily secured. Two platoons advance northward in concert with a barage of 3" Mortors and covering fire from the 2" Mortors and Vickers HMG's. However, the enemy was prepared for this assault, and as the 1st Platoon reached the centre forest they were ravaged by close fire from half of a FJ Platoon. Casualties were high as the 2nd Platoon joined in. However, as the attention was drawn away from 3rd Platoon the opportunity was taken for a quick dash through the forest to potisions overlooking the Germans. With these secured, along with a few empty German foxholes occupied the 3rd platoon awaited the attack by the savagers of the 1st and 2nd Platoons. The Germans attempted to roll up the line but were stopped after the combined fire of all two remaining squads of the 3rd Platoon in better positions, along with the heavy close bombardment of the 3" Mortors held off the enemy attack. The remaining 5 Squads (total of about 3 full squads) of 1 and 2 Platoon were forming up for a counter attack when the Hetzer reeled its ugly head in an attempt to push the 3rd Platoon from their holdings. 2 PIATs were rushed in from 2 different flanks. The first group was cut to ribbons by the Hetzer while the other was placed in a prime position 35m from the Hetzer facing its puny rear armour. However, the German forces unexpectidly surrendered, due to the auto-surrender feature and the Canadians were saved from a grueling fate. Actually, this was a very close game which I considered lost after my 2 Platoons were virtually annihilated by Germanboy's spectacular Airborne Troops. I really overestimated the ability of British/Canadian Squads to take care of themselves in close quarters vs. good German units. They did behave valiantly and inflicted a number of casualties. I used my Shermans very badly against his Hetzer, allowing him to pick them off one by one (they were close to eachother, but, I was never able to have 2 guns vs. his 1) plus, I am always better in using my infantry than aromour. All and all I would have to give the victory to Andreas, he certainly outplayed me in this game!

Well, we are living in weird times. Not only do we suddenly get all this fancy new technologies and cool games, but, we are in contact with people from around the world! Undoubtedly we will encounter people with 'strange' outlooks on live and history. Sometimes these directly conflict with other people's morals. Unfortunately NOBODY had the clear picture of the true outlook on current and past events, but everyone thinks that THEY do . Some people's opinions inflame other peopls, and their responses further inflame others. This is what happens when you get a bunch of people from vastly different places together in one place. If you are looking for a solution, then how about restricting everyone from talking to anyone else with a different opinion. This is a bulliten board about a game representing a historical aspect. There is no possible way to avoid disagreements, gameplay wize, or realife wize.

Thanks RMC, that was an interesting read. I think that I am going to give up on debating, too many people sitting on high horses defending their opinion by ignoring the facts.

Personally I don't care for what is in a person's profile. Beating France in 1940 was a brilliant feat. Belgium was also a tough opponent. The German army just wasn't lucky, it had a very skilled high command that was gradually destroyed by Hitler. In France, the Germans fought head to head with many good Allied formations (1st UK Armoured, 51st UK Infantry, 1st French Army, etc...) and made a great showing of itself. Sure, it didn't annihilate these strong allied forces, but, brilliantly outflanked them and defeated them without having to destroy them on the battlefield. In Greece the Germans faced a well trained and highly motivated Greek and Commonwealth army. The battles were fierce. In Africa the Germans had to fight with indifferent allies and severely outnumbered even with these allies. In Italy, they held off vastly superior forces without causing much drain on other fronts. The early war wasn't a pushover. The war with France so severely demoralized the German population as they assumed it would be a stalemate as in 1914-18. The best French and British units were as good as the best German units at this point in the war. The numbers were fairly equal, and were even slightly against Germany both quantity and materially quality wize! Germany fought the battle of France very well, against many tough opponents. Sure, if you grab up all of the German units, mix them together and average out their experience level it will be very poor when you compare it to the allies, but, other than the USSR, Germany had the highest number of combat troops mobilized. There were maybe slightly more than 100 US Divisions, around 130 Japanese Divisions, 100 French Divisions, against 300+ German divisions. Sure, with this many formations you are bound to have pathetically armed and motivated forces. If any of these allied nations had to mobilize as much of their population that Germany did their general quality level will also drastically fall. Even Russia didn't mobilize as large a percentage of troops (when compared to their population) as Germany did.

Well, I don't know if anyone really pays attention to anyone's opinion but their own, but, there is merit in just about every argument. The use of Nazi type names, and glorifying SS commanders might appear like pro-Nazi sentiment, but, the vast majority (100%?) are ANTI-NAZI. You can respect someones actions AND STILL disagree with their political motives. Germans and Nazi during WWII become the same thing to many people. However THIS OPINION IS WRONG. It is just like saying that all of the US troops that fought in the Gulf War were Republicans (becuase the Republican party was in power then). Quality wize, the best of the best in Germany were better than the best of the Allies. This was probably due to the fact of a LONG military tradition (not necessarily blind devotion to Hitler). There were some great Allied formations, but, these never managed to be better than the best of the German formations. Sure, there were many cruddy German formations, worse than the worse Allied units.

The British lost a lot of TC because of the relative close ranges in France when compared to Africa. Yes, I know that many of these kills occured at long range in CM, but, these ranges are relatively short when you consider those common in North Africa. What is being used to kill these TC's? Artillery, long range infantry/hmg fire?

I think the problem arises when people assume that soldiers are exactly like politicians. Soldiers don't necessarily always believe in the entire reason for fighting in a war (ie. most Germans didn't believe in the Nazi superace having a manifest destiny to rule the world) and did it mostly because it was their duty, for their families, and for their fellow soldiers. I always find it amusing when certian bad documetaries, or newscasts mention some German attack in WWII stating... "The Nazi's invaded France in..."... It wasn't the Nazi's who invaded, it was the GERMAN ARMY that invaded!!! I bet only 1% of those who invaded France in 1940 were actually a part of the Nazi party! You don't say that the Democrats landed troops in North Africa in 1942, you say that the Americans landed troops in North Africa in 1942! Many people assume German=Nazi, even that SS=Nazi (not ALWAYS so). It just happened to be that the Germans were fighting for the greater evil, directly or indirectly.

The number of votes something gets doesn't mean that it should be included in the game, or it would be the best possible solution. Possibly 90% of people would like to vote in civilians running around the battlefield, but, it shouldn't go in because it is a-historical. Historically, crews DID exist after they left their tanks. They should be left in the game, but, they should not be a high target priority. The threat level of crews should be drastically lowered to the point of invisibility when it comes to AFV's. They should virtually ignore these groups, as, they are of no threat to the vehicle at all, barring a scouting purpose (that is what your accompanying Infantry is for!). Even in battle, troops focussed more on advancing troops than retreating troops. Why shoot an already defeated enemy in the back when a fresh one is coming at you? Tank crews are of little use, and I usually withdraw them anyway (they are worth more points alive and retreated off the map then occupying a victory flag) since they are usually leaderless, weak in weapons and ammo, and start already broken or severely shaken. My 'solution' would be... AFV's, AT Guns and Artillery ignroe Crews. and Infantry treat Crews like any other threat.

Before this thread gets closed up, let me add my few words of discouragement I have tried this scenario with a few of the different patches, and found it difficult to inflict the casualties that Wittmann (SP) historically did on the British. First it was because of the slow turrets moving forward after a vehicle darts around (maybe these vehicles should be started off immobile?) then it was because the turret wasn't moving around to the centre (as a target would appear over on the other side). However, the only way of correcting this would to be having Ambush markers immediately overule any extra threat that appears against this vehicle/infantry. But, what if a BIG threat appears from the rear, like an enemy tank? Possibly this could be solved by having the Ambush markers overuled if the threat is imminent. Then there is the possibility of some unknown infantry appearing behind the tank, which is hereby ignored, and they turn out to be an Infantry AT group and knock out your tank. Of course this could be solved by not sending in a lone tank unsupported (I agree that Ambush markers should be of prime importance unless a greater threat, not a mere annoyance like a halftrack, appear on a different flank) Everyone give Lewis a break. Lewis give Battlefront a break. Problem solved.

Actually, most of the French P.O.W.'s remained so until the end of the war. In fact, the were only sucessful in sinking an old battleship, and possibly a destroyer or two. The major loss occurred at Toulon, when French forces in Africa sided with the Allies, then the Germans invaded the South of France, and confusion reigned. There was no real resistance, as, the French Army and Navy was just as suprised as the Germans regarding the Alliance with the Allies.

Barring the equipment inconsistencies (if you try enough you can ignore these things I have to say that this was one of the best war movies I have ever seen. It was holywoodish in ways, but, gruesomely true in others.

Regarding the use of Halftracks and other light vehicles... I have seen MANY picrures of burnt out halftracks/scout vehicles that went ahead of the main armour and got NAILED! This was a REAL tactic, using the scout vehicles for scouting... What I remember of the 'historic' dash to the bridge in Fionn's and Moon's AAR (back in the day) is that he used it to explore the region that he had to cross. He wanted to see what was going to nail his tanks/troop carrying halftracks when they moved along. He wanted to see where the HMG fire is coming from. He didn't want to lose his halftrack, but, didn't want to lose a tank more. I remeber the movie 'A Bridge Too Far' where a British scout car was ahead of the armoured column. Why? So that they wouldn't lose a Sherman. This is what halftracks and scout cars were used for. Fionn didn't know for a certain FACT that there were AT guns there, but, he didn't want to take a risk with an important vehicle (plus, what would you do with an unarmed haftrack either!).

Well, the examples that were sited (ie. 12th SS Panzer) are probably more the exception than the rule. Everything depends on what the circumstances of the battle actually are. How many of the German troops were killed outright compared to those who died due to inadequate medical facilities, the fact that this was a winter offensive (death by cold), and that the German attack was made through wilderness (slower access to German medical facilities). Most of the accounts that I have read (barring these exceptions) result in the majority of those casualties being wounded or POW. Plus, the type of troop, and nature of the enemies take things into account. If an enemy refuses to take prisoners, the KIA level will raise up. If they are bruital enemies (Germany vs. Russia) they are more likely to either fight to the death or take less prisioners. The SS troops by 1944 were more often fanatical, surrendering less to the Allied formations. So, there are reasons for certian battles having more KIA than CM models, but, these are more the exception than the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronb: The more young people shooting in Canada, the more political support we'll have in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, listen to me or I'll shoot you Actually, a better way for young people here in Canada to get more political support is if they ACTUALLY VOTE!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: If your force is whittled down to where the infantry can't do the job then it's time to submit a cease fire request. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd have to disagree with your disagreement... There are many times where an extra group of troops to fill up the line is useful, even if you are not near the breaking point. Also, there are times when you are BOTH at the breaking point, and the strategic use of one crew can win or lose the game. I wouldn't consider this cheating, just using everything at your disposal. Plus, you must remember that a crew is good only for one use, and they aren't big killers either. About using jeeps and panzerfausts for quick and cheap kills. Well, this might not work all the time, but, it isn't a very relistic option. CM can't model troops refusing totally incompetent orders. It is a much braver tactic to sneak up a Zook or Piat to knock out a tiger than to run up with 10 jeeps carrying Zooks and confusing the Tiger AI into allowing you to kill it. Indeed, there were ideas to mount AT weapons on weak skinned vehicles, but, it was either a failure in battle, or, deemed totally inapropriate for a military weapon.

Well, a tactic I like to use is to get my armour killed off really early giving my opponent a false sense of security. Without fear from my armour they feel that they can just sweep in with their armour and infantry and take the victory points, not remembering that Infantry are powerful AT units It has worked many times, even thouth losing my tanks wasn't REALLY part of the plan

Infantry are more useful than tanks, as, they are more terrain friendly Infantry can move through forest, urban, and even clear areas relatively well. They can claim and defend areas much better than armoured forces. You can use Infantry without armoured support with better results than armour without infantry support. However, tanks and Infantry used together can be an unbeatable force if positioned and moved correctly.

Well, given enough warning Flank attacks can be easily defeated. The flanks are FAR from eachother, and difficult to support once comitted. However, the defender retains a solid defensive group and reserves can easily be shifted from one front to another. You must remember that in World War Two there was not a continuous line of troops dug into trenches. Battalions did NOT physically touch eachother all of the time. So, advancing along a flank will not ALWAYS be theoretically gamey, as, there is a good chance that realistically there are no troops on that flank. For something to be gamey it has to be unfair. I see absolutely nothing unfair about using a clever tactic to unnerve a defence. What would be gamey is to force an attacker to advance along predetermined lines of defence. What would the fun be in that, eh?

We are all caught up in historical myths, that the German equipment 1944+ was invincible stuff when compared to the Allies. Sure, Tigers and Panthers were bigger and tougher than Cromwells and Shermans, but, it doesn't mean that they will always overbear them. No armour is invincible. Hull down Tigers can be killed, even from a frontal attack given the right situation. What was the skill of your tankers? If they were poor, and the allied skill was better than the Allies could get more quality shots in, even though their shell is much smaller. I too would rather have an equivalent point numbers of Mark IV's than that of Tiger I's. More guns, mean more chances of hitting. Even the toughest of armour gets penetrated eventually.

I am waiting for the end of summer (after the start of the school year, after the time that people buy back to school computers) to upgrade my Pentium 266 64MB RAM to a Pentium 500 128MB RAM, along with a Vodoo 3 Card. I have noticed that my 266 with the 64MB goes VERY slow on the large maps, hopefully my new 500 will be a little smoother