Mark IV

Yes, I threatened, now I deliver. This will require extensive mods by Max, CoolColJ, and the gang. The scenario: .45 ACP-equipped tracked Macs vs. 9mm-sporting Pentiums duking it out with improved flash-bangs, realistic smoke, and scavenging liberally for ammo amid the mounds of dead bodies caused by on-board rocket batteries in a beach landing scenario. Objective: Release Date, a wooded rise in the center of the map. (takes the Cool Point hit). Weather: Complete Fog. Axis as PCs are a lay-down- Evil Empire, anyone? And the G3 tower colors are impossible for any kind of Greater Reich. The .45s will blow the PCs into more and smaller pieces, but the dreaded 9mms will put more rounds into smaller monitors faster at longer range (recoil counts). Of course, Macs will shoot longer, straighter, faster, and further, but their ammo isn't interchangeable with anyone else's and their HQ keeps resigning. PCs are bent on world conquest and function as mindless automatons until Game Turn 3 or so, when they begin throwing tracks at random (HQ orders them to fight for every meter of ground, regardless, and promises wonder weapons to come). Foreign language versions? Nah, too controversial

Something that just occurred to me, is that recorded WWII contemporary Japanese and German views of one another (especially as the wars developed) often seem to reflect the view that "Jeez, those f#%$&@s are crazier than WE are". The Japanese were more or less baffled by the Jewish thing (I think they could relate to the race of destiny thing, but not the designated bad guy routine). The Germans, to the Japanese view of the time, were a for-real Western Power and thus "establishment". It must have been hard to understand why they would deliberately blow the status that the Japanese were striving so hard to attain, by taking on what was obviously more than they could chew. The Germans were impressed by the fact that people who lacked full international military "credentials" had decided to take on the USSR, China, and the US more or less simultaneously, without any natural resources to speak of. YES, I'm aware that they were really only engaged on battlefields with all these powers at once for a matter of days, but the political facts of the matter were that the Japanese challenged them all simultaneously in the same sphere of time and space (not to mention the Dutch and Great Britain- damned cheeky). Simply amazing, the more so to us post-nuclear children (apologies to pre-nuclear folk among us) who haven't really lived through diddly-squat.

M. Dog: It is of interest, since I didn't know whether or not Magic had picked it up. Does it say whether the information was relayed on to SHAEF? Sometimes the best way to keep a secret (from US forces) is to forward it to the Pentagon

Platform war! Platform war! (After this is done, how 'bout a "which is better, .45 or 9mm" thread?)

I think the -Cool Points scale should be posted as part of the UBB reply form. I can't remember how many to dock. Let's just say -10 in case you got away with one somewhere.

The beginning of SPR was the most immersive war experience I can remember from any movie. Since impressions are necessarily personal I won't waste time trying to convince anyone else that "it was SO", it just was for me. What really got me (and many others) was when the door of the landing craft dropped, and the zing and snap of bullets on steel just surrounds you. Most movies dwell on the horrific sounds of the guns. I think the sounds of the bullets were much more terrifying, and don't remember any other movie paying so much attention to that. Thin Red Line, on the other hand, was very disturbing, because of the 3 bucks I paid to rent it. That's most of a pack of smokes, anymore. Nice tropical birds 'n' all, but I'd rather have the cigs. Sorry.

The jury is still out on this one, I think. One of the other concerns is that vaporized dust in the impact area settles into the earth, and is then redistributed by wind, plowing, and vehicle traffic for years to come. The greatest hazard was to occupants of the penetrated vehicle (due to vaporized DU in their immediate atmosphere), but they are likely to have significant health complications of a more immediate nature... . Handling of unfired DU ammunition has even been dismissed by most critics as a contamination hazard.

No real disagreement here. I only wished to point out that there are at least 2 sides to every story, and that commanders deal with the information available to them at the time (in a real-time WEGO environment!). Re: point 3, I don't think any Allied commanders drives were as well executed as Patton's. Patton was extraodinary and ruined the class curve for everybody. Monty certainly didn't set any records for drives in Europe. Re: point 4, there is enough doubt about the state of the American command to have, well, doubt. I suspect you are better versed in this than I am, so I defer. Just trying to lend perspective to the time-honored American past-time of Monty-bashing.

Major T: Exactly. While no one would argue that German occupation of Antwerp would have been a good thing (except Hitler), the generals leading the attack knew they weren't going to make it that far anyway. Even if they had, the situation would have been as you stated. This was part of Montgomery's POV (point of view). He, and the British staff in general, were appalled at the American unwillingness to give ground and the casualties they took as a result. He did not believe that Patton could make it north in time, which was understandable without the benefit of hindsight. And he found a disorganized, demoralized, and disconnected American command staff which was allowing forces to be isolated and destroyed piecemeal through an unwillingness to "roll with the punch". He may have saved the 82nd Airborne from annihilation. I'm not a big Monty fan (aren't there any Brits here?), but he was an extraordinary leader of men and had to make some big decisions in a tough spot. There were very different British and American styles, and Monty's approach to the Bulge was more conservative of human life. His idea was to a) guard the Meuse in case another attack developed in the north, reorganize the American forces and build a reserve on the Allied left, and c) stage a methodical attack as a left pincer to cut off the Germans. It doesn't sound as though communications from SHAEF were very specific, and both they and Monty were "assuming" about the other's goals, based on their own philosphies. Though his approach lacked dash, it would have worked just as well with fewer Allied casualties in the long run. If he had only kept his mouth shut until the war was over, history might treat him more kindly.

On 15 Nov, Japanese ambassador Oshima mentioned to von Ribbentrop that Germany had made a mistake to go on the offensive in the West in 1918. Von Ribbentrop advised him that regardless, Germany was going on the offensive in the West again. This was communicated by Oshima to Tokyo. I have no idea whether it was intercepted, but US Pacific intelligence were avid readers of Japanese diplomatic correspondence. They certainly wouldn't have found out any details, though. General von Manteuffel wasn't told of the offensive until 3 Nov., and had to sign a non-disclosure agreement punishable by death at the beginning of the meeting, according to his memoirs. Von Rundstedt and Model were only told "a few days earlier". Other than the possibility of a Magic intercept of the Japanese diplomatic message, I know of no "evidence" that there was real foreknowledge of the Ardennes Offensive. It's always amazing, the extent to which "coulda" is interpreted as "evidence".

I see that my post of yesterday was lacking in civility. While I stand by the statements, I do apologize for its tone. They say God created whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world.... [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 02-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the British fought tooth and nail in order to get Poland to be a part of the free world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then they had their chance, circa 17 Sep 39, to declare war on the "other" aggressor, and they didn't. Your response here: That's right, they couldn't take on all the aggressors at once. So they picked a side. Why do you suppose that was? Did the UK see a "local" threat, in terms of the traditional continental order being overturned? I would argue that the UK enlisted the US in the broader view of world events, and that the US then unpredictably took a more ideological view of things, while the UK, the more pragmatic. The US saw the USSR as the long term primary threat, whereas the UK saw Nazi Germany as the greater threat. "Stalin would not hear of it"; who gives a damn? Why did FDR and Churchill give a damn? Because Stalin swung a pretty big schwantz when it came to who has the most iron on the scene of "justice". Stalin was in no condition to dictate terms in Sep 1939. Britain caved and reneged on its contractual obligation (anyway) to Poland. By the time it came back up, Poland was an administrative province of the Red Army. Explain that and we'll move on. Otherwise, you're stuck with the fact that Britain declared war on one aggressor, but not the second, based on two weeks difference. Explanation: Yuh. Tooth and nail. Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is my own personal belief that anyone who deliberately seeks power over others is fundamentally evil<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... and each nation "ultimately gets the leaders it deserves". Assuming we can't all make it to the polls on a daily basis, you've gotta deal with representative government. Are you going to run, or only the "fundamentally evil"? Give me a break.

Preposterous. Did they mention anything resembling evidence?

There would have been another European/World War by now, in my opinion, if it wasn't for the atom bomb. Mutual Assured Destruction seems to have worked- so far. Nuclear weapons have not only taken the "fun" out of major war, they have really changed the psychology of national leaders for the first time since- well, ever. Oddly, only the pissant countries can now still contemplate full-scale war against their (pissant) neighbors. India and Pakistan is the most interesting confrontation in the world right now. The usual racial, religious, and historical animosity motivations are at work, but one wrong move and it's mushroom city. Hope they can handle it. PS: I try to avoid discussions like this on this board, and I'm really testing/flaunting my cherished and continued Member status. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the threads are still out there. Somewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm afraid to believe. Lindan, that's a roger, we gotcha. Rams by 15, Mark IV clear. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-30-2000).]

I just tested it as part of the recovery process, by Searching on the dreaded nahvereinigsterwhopper . This reminded me of a cool site on this arcane topic by one of our own: http://home.t-online.de/home/rcunningham/nahvert/nah.htm although a few of the pix came up with the Red X of Death. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-30-2000).]

"Faith Hill singing the national anthem" is the point of watching. I don't need even know who she is (pop culture-impaired) but I want to be her clothes. And while being raised as a Lions' fan certainly doesn't pique one's interest in Superbowls, the commercials are worth dashing in for. I'll take Rams.

...so would that still be recoverable? It's a relief to have it back, anyway. As I posted to c.s.i.p.g.w-h <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's as though the corner bar just closed, and I'm sitting out on the sidewalk drinking out of a paper bag, waiting for the other regulars to show up. Wretched state of affairs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This also shows the need for a rally point when the operation goes sour (Ambush 101), which should be combathq or c.s.i.p.g.w-h. I thought maybe it was cancelled because of the spontaneously-developing CM convention in Vegas !

I had hoped that the board would have been defecalized by now. A sign of strong character, when once the resolution has been taken, to shut the ear even to the best counter-arguments. Occasionally, therefore, a will to stupidity. Just say "no" to encrapment.

Maddmensch: Dude, I am majorly impressed! The "bald beast", who lives to conquer and rule? (Love the abyss running away, too funny.) -You would go unto the BBS? Do not forget thy whip! ... and come to think of it, the chapter names of Ecce Homo have got to be the new theme for the combathq updates... you gotta admit it's better than the "poo" series, and can only lead to more obsequious Mattophilia. Foo: you mistake the impression of the gold demo for reality; it is only the perception which you perceive. The essence of the gold demo is unknowable and can only be deduced from the fact that something was perceived at all. It is the shadow on the wall of the cave, nothing more.

Perhaps a breakthrough may be achieved by applying a Nietzschean paradigm: If Madmatt did NOT exist, it would be necessary to invent him. But... Is the board a blunder of Madmatt's, or is Madmatt a blunder of the board? In the post-2D world, a higher type of Obergame will transcend the shallow judgement of more parochial times, and lead to a new psychology and a new era, Beyond Cool and Nerdy. Remember: In times of peace, the militant man attacks himself.

11 Echo 20 checking in with news on 7th Cav: contemporary accounts from the massacre, including officers' testimony, refer frequently to cavalry "companies". The general and indispensable source "The Custer Myth" edited by W. A. Graham includes contemporary and official accounts from enlisteds, officers, and others in and about the LBH who refer to "companies" more frequently than "troops", though both are used. Don't know the legal rights and wrongs of the matter, but these are the statements of the participants in the 1880's era. Details available on request. This is one of the great collections of late Custeriana, and contains much of the "primary" source material, including Indian eyewitnesses, on which later speculation is based.

"t" = tungsten AP. Search on "Tungsten".

Speaking only for myself, you know damned well that the "Yiddish" crack was the reason. This isn't Usenet, and there's no reason for BTS to allow flame-bait trolling on their board. There are places to discuss it and this ain't it. You might be a good guy, but there's no reason to taint the game and the board with something that leads to newsgroup and BBS disaster, every-single-time it comes up. If you don't believe this search Usenet, though I have a hard time believing you're that naive. Frankly, I'd recommend they close this thread, too. There's such a thing as shouting fire in a crowded theater. This is a privately-maintained board, and the First Amendment is alive and well out there on Usenet. I just want to play Wehrmacht, as do we all, and just don't need the BS here, in what is a sort of special place. Versteh?

One of the most important SOPs, and I think one area where the Germans were markedly superior, was item 2 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>put subordinate leaders into the picture about the tactical situation, mission, and anything else which may impact on the coming action<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ability to see your role in the big picture is vital to intelligent seizure of the initiative. As you observe the battle situation change, the hill you were directed to take may no longer be vital, but stopping the developing surprise flank counter-attack may be. If you are acquainted with the overall effort you are better equipped to make the correct decision in such a case. This was reinforced by item 4, "constant appreciation of the situation." In other words, there was no place for the "I don't get paid to think" mentality. Perhaps more telling was item 28, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Against strong enemy resistance, there is no point in continuing to attack<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are hardly words for automatons to live by. Trusting the company commander with the decision to break off an attack is Big Stuff, and it's a matter of record how successful the Germans were on the tactical offensive with this philosphy at the company level. It takes supreme confidence, at the highest military levels, to decentralize decision-making to the lowest levels. To "empower" low-level commanders to this degree means you'd better have a damn good SOP, by the way, so that a commander acting on his own initiative doesn't have to invent tactics as he goes. The seeming paradox is that the better your battle-drill, the more battlefield control you may safely relinquish.