Mark IV
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark IV
-
-
Argie- for an elaborate explanation of the meaning in communist terms of the end justifying the means, see:
http://www.ex.ac.uk/meia/trotsky/Archive/1936-Mor/index.html
I assume Trotsky is authentic enough to speak for the communist point of view? I would not even attempt to summarize this dance, but interested parties should read it for themselves...
[excerpt]"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified, From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.
"We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?" sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws."
PS: enjoyed, as always, my visit to Buenos Aires and the pampa. Missed you at the hotel
.[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-18-2000).]
-
GriffinCheng: Why are you risking being banned from the forum? I don't understand.
Some general points:
Nobody here WANTS a war with China. Lorak's original question was about the hypothetical tactical and logistic concerns in this very dangerous area. Addressing those is timely (and Chen has won, so even more so). This is what wargamers do, and you can bet the Pentagon is gaming this one right now.
There are 23 million people in Taiwan. This is not a joke to them or us. Whatever happens to them is a message to SK and Japan, and the rest of the world. The Pax Americana (like the Brittannica and Romana) stems from our ability and willingness to project power- Peace through Strength.
I don't think the Chinese are willing to use nukes on Taiwan, because it defeats the purpose of an occupation. Not only would they become an international pariah and risk an unacceptable escalation, they would kill the goose laying the golden eggs. They might rattle them a bit to see who blinks, though.
There is NO question of a US invasion of China.
The whole invasion hypothesis is very scary, which unfortunately is also what makes it interesting. If there wasn't a huge, sinister, nuclear power under communist rule threatening a free people with invasion, this wouldn't be interesting or scary.
Abandoning Taiwan now would amount to another democratic (small d) appeasement of a militarist belligerent, which always fails.
As for China not being communist: when they renounce communism, hold free elections, and open up their media and institutions, we'll all believe that. 'Til then, the "accommodations" they have made in the eastern provinces and the SARs are only concessions made by what remains a Marxist dictatorship; commercial zones remain the exception to the general rule, and are really just cynical fund-raisers by people whose philosophy states that the end justifies any means. Without the rule of law they can be rescinded at any time, on a whim or by a new Cultural Revolution.
I know this is not a pleasant thing to read in SAR Hong Kong but it's the truth.
-
Black Sabot: I've no idea to which site you are referring, but I found http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/Taiwan022699.html among others, instructive.
This is a really fascinating topic if you can keep it out of the flames- the potential Alsace-Lorraine of the early 21st century.
Spook: The Taiwanese are hoping to outlast the Reds in the same way the PRC hopes to outlast them- and I think with more grounds for optimism. Yes, the weight of numbers, eventually money, and very lastly technology are on China's side, but the experience of the 20th century is that anti-human systems fail. I don't think that China will be the last to figure this out (North Korea being the proverbial cellar-dweller in terms of political evolution). So Taiwan has time on its side, too, if they can hold out.
Regarding a heliborne assault, there is evidence that the Chinese have been practicing to seize Taiwanese airfields though some kind of airborne ops, which proves that they are serious about the long-term, under the current regime. I would be very disappointed in both Taiwan and the US military if such an obvious, delicate, and easily thwarted maneuver were allowed to succeed.
And on the amphibious front (don't forget the logistics necessary to sustain a successful surprise assault, and what surprise, we're discussing it in a WWII games forum!) and the general subject of whose pond it is, two words (if you count definite articles): Los Angeles. The LA class sub is very very very far ahead of anything China, or anyone else, can float, and I don't think China is going to risk a 21st century Tsushima to add a few hectares of sullen, smoking real estate to their considerable holdings. Despite impressive numbers of ships, their navy has essentially been an extension of their army and shows it. They would lose all their expensive hardware in a real showdown with little to be gained.
A militant Red Chinese leadership's chances would be far better with a freshly ensconced, blissfully oblivious Gore regime in the White House and no US political deadlines on the horizon. Give it a while.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I was the Chinese premier I'd "test the waters" by invading one or two tiny Taiwanese islands near the coast and seeing what the US reaction was.. If there was none then I might begin planning an invasion of Taiwan itself. If there was a reaction then things would get very complicated very quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we're all glad that Fionn's not Chinese
. He'd probably be slipping hordes of infantry into California ahead of time now, for an advanced ambush... wait a minute... hmmm 
.As a response to their last test, we sailed the 7th through the straits. Resolve tested, resolve demonstrated. So they will keep probing and pushing until the day we don't demonstrate the resolve.
While it's tempting to think Clinton would write the island off, it would virtually ensure a Republican victory in November. And NEVER state that Clinton does not have balls (hell, there are more eyewitnesses to his than to any other Presidents'
). His whole political life demonstrates an acumen for bold, even outrageous gambles. He has shown no reluctance to send servicemen into dangerous places for far less reason. If China thinks he's indebted to them, they underestimate him; he'd damn sure rather knife someone 5000 miles away than the people he's counting on for his post-Presidential plans. Not to mention legal funding. The timing is way wrong for a major Chinese play.
-
Greetings all, it's nice to be back.
I think Taiwan holds all the non-nuclear cards in a real shooting engagement right now and China knows it.
The US has 7th fleet on tap, and would probably be limited to air and naval support in a tripwire scenario. Over time this can all change but in the context of this election there wouldn't be time, or probably the need, for significant US ground forces. China doesn't appear to have sufficient amphibious capability to go in on the ground in the face of Taiwanese/US resistance.
To be sure ROC has subs and ships, but the Pacific is still an American pond in tactical terms and a Chinese blockade would be in name only if things got serious. If shooting started now, look for a mostly symbolic air and missile war in the short run, with dark threats all 'round. Phase 2 could be either really serious, or the Chinese could use their celebrated patience and some more campaign contributions to "buy" Taiwan back in the future.
-
I assume more time and homework have gone into the scenarios packaged with the game than I am capable of putting into one (especially since I'd rather play than design).
Combined with the scenario editor we have heard described and the talent for custom historicals and what-ifs here on the board, I plan to glut myself on freebs. PBEM, AI, may gawd help you all
. -
Lorak: No worries- you founded the cutting edge site in CM chat, and have earned your footnote in history. I'm sure all applaud your initiative, and Yahoo be damned, you can't always pick your battlefield.
There are many features there that most of us simply haven't taken the time to learn to use. It's a good site.
You're not tarred by the Yahoo brush, and the thing works. Good job.
-
Go back to where you download the beta demo, and click to download it. When you get to the download page, you'll see "click here to download the extra beta scenario" or something like that.
-
Perception is everything... one reason the DDR & company didn't have you for breakfast is that the Warsaw pact believed it would face a trained, mobilized West that was to some extent prepared.
Sometimes its a good idea to look stronger than you really are.
-
Remember the squad is a representation, only. If you have a 12-man US squad that has run low on .30-06 but has lots of .45 ACP for the Thompson, great- one guy has plenty of short range firepower, and 11 are fixing bayonets. The unit represented could still be fairly characterized as "Low" on ammo.
I think grenades may be tracked separately from ammo, as I see squads with Low ammo status chucking grenades freely in close assaults (charging out of the church into the little woods in CE springs to mind).
Actually, the more I think about it, this is really what "Low" is modeling. If you assault an infantry squad that is in Low condition, you'll find they have plenty of firepower for a short bloody fight. The infantryman can be relied upon to keep a few rounds for self-preservation. I don't think there is any "Out of Ammo" status for infantry.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-06-2000).]
-
Coe, the turret machine-gun is often called the coaxial machine gun, since it shares roughly the same axis with the main gun. It is usually sighted with the same optics used for the main gun and often fired with the same controls. It can ONLY target, by definition, the same thing the main gun is pointing at, and it traverses and elevates with the same mechanics as the main gun. So, no independent targeting.
-
Found a cool online first person source:
]http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/tanks.htm]
Tommi, come to think of it, to a twenty-year-old from El Paso, Texas (where my dad was from at the time), Norway and Finland are pretty much the same. I will seek clarification.
Sosh, I knew you'd like that story. As a kid I heard bits and pieces of most of these but I'd never heard about that one before.
Colin, I might try to talk my dad into scanning those pix(I live 3000 miles away).
And all, my dad is like most of the real vets I know; no brag, just fact, and none too eager to talk about the details. He told me once about jumping into a truck one frozen day outside the Bulge; it was full of frozen US bodies. He jumped right back out.
He didn't do any Sgt. Rock stuff but like that whole amazing generation just plodded along doing "the job" until it was over.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-05-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-05-2000).]
-
Tommi: It could indeed. I doubt if anyone in the section spoke German, and they only knew what they were told.
His whole story is about going places and doing things without anyone ever really knowing what the hell was going on.
Somewhere back in Detroit he had quite a few photos from the war, and I believe this plane is among them. There was also a great picture of him sitting at the quad .50; my brother and I were delighted as kids by the "naughty" picture on it (babe in a bathing suit). I have to scan these.
-
Pardon the "made you look" headline, but I just talked with my old gray-haired dad on the phone about some of his ETO experience and learned a few interesting things.
He was an anti-aircraft gunner in the 404th AAA Bn. under the First Army. Each 15-man section was comprised of a quad .50 cal rig, and a 90mm anti-aircraft cannon, and section members were cross-trained in operation of both. In England prior to the invasion they were near Weymouth, shooting at V1 buzz bombs (not very effectively).
His unit went over on D+3; he remembers ships full of wounded, screaming with pain all over the deck, coming back from the continent as they were embarking.
Interestingly, all members of his section carried M1 Garands, not carbines. While in England they had practiced with bazookas, "the old ones" he says. The troops had a low opinion of their accuracy, and he said you aimed 30 feet high to hit a tank at 100 yards.
As they were literally disembarking in France from a large ship into a small landing craft, he was handed a tube and told that he now was the section's bazooka guy. (Something to keep in mind when your zook team misses a golden opportunity! They might not have been a zook team last week). Said he just dropped the 4-foot tube into the landing craft, because they were all just trying to avoid being crushed as they scrambled down the net from one ship to another in 15-foot swells.
He remembers the bocage country well. American dozers were very effective on the hedgerows, but no one was shooting at them when he got there. They built forward fighter bases and his unit guarded strip A7 for a time.
Being part of 1st Army he was on the outskirts of the Bulge, southwest of Liege, and they were issued AP rounds for the 90mm at the time. They had no idea if they would stop a German tank (I assured him they would, 56 years too late) or whether they could fire horizontally without the recoil tipping the guns over. They had no AT training at all. He was still carrying both the M1 Garand and the bazooka tube; someone else had the rockets.
His section was not directly engaged, but others in the 404th were. They never found out if those units got any tanks.
They went along with 1st Army after the Bulge and ended up in Eschwegge, Germany (near Cologne) guarding an airstrip there. There had been a "concentration camp" for Polish POW forced labor there, and when they liberated the Poles they tried to kill every German in town, so they were forced to put them back in the same camp.
2 days before the cease-fire a JU88 approached their field with flaps and gear down, clearly trying to land. The AA gunners requested instructions and were ordered to shoot it down. He said they "didn't shoot very hard" but hit it with some .50 cal. The pilot was able to crash land uphill, and to their amazement 17 men were inside- they had opened up the fuselage and stuffed it full of troops, all wearing flak jackets.
It turned out the JU88 was from Finland and the Germans preferred to surrender to the Americans, and this was their escape. The flak jackets saved most of them- he clearly remembered .50 rounds (apparently deflected by the aircraft body) sticking into the flak jackets. This was supposedly the last German plane shot down in the ETO, though I take that with a grain of salt.
So anyway, if you read this far, thanks- and that's how my dad won the war. Now he's puffing around his emphysema, 76 years old, playing on his computers (but no CM- just can't get him interested in war games).
-
The US draft was officially discontinued at the end of 1976 (about 4 months before I enlisted).
Personally, I would support a universal draft of reduced time- I know the Bundeswehr used to have a 15 month service period. While this conflicts with my libertarian inclinations, modern war doesn't always allow time to set up a universal draft and train a bunch of civvies up to snuff. Having a pool of manpower with some basic military clue would expedite mobilization in the event of a real emergency; and from what I saw, society might benefit from a modicum of discipline, universally dished out, at a tender age.
I really don't want to debate this here, but there was a good reason for it. No one now seems to believe that we'll ever face another national military emergency, but things have a way of changing....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had a Sherman's main gun taken out by a sniper rifle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it possible that the sniper damaged the sighting optics for the main gun?
-
Check out Foobar's chat thing, pretty cool: http://www.ocaptain.com/combat/index.html
A mysterious Herr Wittmann has appeared on the scene...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the StugIII immediately laid
smoke (how do you get your tanks to do that?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't, at least in the beta demo. You have encountered the dreaded and much-discussed "nahverteidigungswaffe", a mortar-like device fired from some German armor for self-defense, which can fire either smoke or grenade-like charges. Search on the above for many curiously spelled references and discussions.
Control of it is automatic by the AI in our demo. As for the StuG waiting for the smoke to clear, that was one option open to it- the other being to scoot away behind the smoke to a safer location. Your AI was in a gambling mood. I've seen it do both.
American infantry squads don't have much to assault tanks with, but directing them to fire at a nearby tank will cause them to (also) chuck grenades. German squads equipped with Panzerfausts (as noted in their unit information) will also respond to a "fire" command, but in the beta demo AI they weigh infantry targets so heavily that it is very difficult to get them to shoot at a tank (only when no enemy infantry is visible). This has been fixed in the release version, we are told.
I don't think physically moving onto an enemy tank would be very successful. The tac AI is basically balking at this request and stopping short of the vehicle. It may be artificial, but it is intelligent.
-
I just did a test drive. Looks workable and certainly more hassle-free. Nice headliner graphic!
-
My new Dell Latitude is "state of the art", according to the fascist troglodytes in our IS department: 466 MHz, with NT 4.0 installed
.CM won't even install without DirectX, so it's the end of the road for me. Gawd I miss my Thinkpad.
-
I remember being new to the net... Yahoo automatically began sending me a magazine called Yahoo Internet Life.
After a couple months I started receiving dunning (collection) notices that increased in severity- and there was no phone number to call, only a Florida PO Box.
Since then I have avoided anything to do with Yahoo, until the chat session for CM. I would totally support a change of venue should that be possible.
-
Launched.
Still, I think there'd be a better chance for CM if there was this Supreme CO with a power jewel in his forehead, and you find him on the 10th level in the woods on the hill in Chance Encounter... flaming Hitler heads fly from his mouth... you need the 88mm chain gun to take him out...
-
I would still like the answer to the gentleman's question, "how do you decide who kills whom?" in the reenactment.
Are there umpires? Is it like scope training was in basic, where if you can ID the helmet number it's assumed you killed him?
-
Back to the spotter plane question: would any spotting intel be relayed from Jabo attacks to their respective ground forces?
This is not an artillery question at all. If a fighter-bomber attack overflew enemy ground formations (tanks, troops in the open) that were previously unspotted by friendly ground forces, would the information be relayed to them? Perhaps shown in a form similar to sound/unidentified vehicle contacts?
very off topic: China/Taiwan
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Argie: The boundary between political action and political theory is very murky; when you are talking about the likelihood of someone justifying and engaging in war, it is almost irrelevant. China is publicly committed to the eventual domination of Taiwan. That they have sufficient socialist rationale for this is only additional ground for worry.
There is no public scrutiny or discussion of Chinese foreign policy decisions in their media, and there is no stated principle renouncing the use of force to settle the Taiwan issue (quite the opposite; their statements indicate that it is only a matter of time before the issue is "resolved" meaning that China will never rest until Taiwan is brought "back" into China, one way or another).
Other reports in the London Times support this:
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/03/06/timfgnfar01001.html?999
We have not dodged the bullet; the timing is simply not right for China to pull the trigger yet. China's new rapprochement with Russia is partly based on the similarity between the Chechnya situation and those in Taiwan and Tibet- they are "internal matters", and each has released statements supporting the other.
Von Rom: Many of us share your concerns. One caution, though, is that [i think] China sees an aggressive posture as a bargaining tactic. It is quite possible that their "secret" document was deliberately leaked for effect. After all, we can hardly get reliable information on the Chinese postal service, much less the factions vying for power in the government, yet Der Spiegel manages to look at secret documents for the conquest of Taiwan including nuclear contingencies?
While I wouldn't discount the authenticity of their report, the prospect of a "planted" story cannot be discounted either. I believe that the current regime is serious about reclaiming Taiwan intact and would attempt it if they thought they had a good chance of success. In the meantime (until they do, or the regime changes), any doubts they can raise in the West are to their own advantage.
The vietnamization of Taiwan has already begun in the American press. The question is, will American resolve outlast the communist regime?