Moriarty

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: Chup, I never entered one of those rediculous Peng threads, so please, after 20 years of wargaming, I still like to discuss game topics (even about one or two inch more of armor on any tank), and not be a member of wannabee stand-up comedians. Poolers are def not the 'elite' of CM fans, and they should live with it; when it all started (you saw my number?), there was no PENG pool, there were just 'boring' grogs that commented on the game...and it worked. So, stay in your 'pools' and let us discuss game topics...and all will be good. Fred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fred, ol' buddy, no one in the pool ever claimed to be among the CM elite. We're not so pretentious and full of ourselves. Oh, and nobody gives a damn about your friggin' number. (OK, that was a bit harsh. Maybe somebody does care, but I doubt it.) Edited to edit my own presumptuousness. [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ] [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef: Theres a big firepower difference, something in the order of 3x as much out of the HMG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. If I recall correctly the HMG is modeled to fire longer bursts more often based on the assumptions of interchangeable barrels and higher ammo loadout than the LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Ooh yuck! Butt kissing or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A head-nod to His Baldness. Gyrene and Abbott liked the idea of a running AAR open to forum participation that, hopefully, will not go ballistic. So, if you're lookin' fer a game mister ... do it right and in the 'pool.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: And that American robin. Don't forget the American robin...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, and I always thought they were swallows, English or African, I can't remember which.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: This whole arrangement smacks of pengdom. Mummy says we can't have two pools, y'know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It does bear some resemblance to a pool outbreak. The combatants intended the single thread as a means of a running AAR ... with a little taunting along the way. I'm sure our fine moderators will let folks know if it gets out of hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: et al<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks. I'm no grog (although I do consider myself a true blue gamer, Fred) but I do appreciate the information and the corrections. I'll keep them in mind. I picked the unit IDs only because I knew there were there and it would lend a touch of authenticity ... call it literary license, if you will. It is obvious that this was not to be a truly historical scenario. Some historicity regarding what types of units fought with or against what other types of units was desired ... i.e. somewhere between an ahistorical slugfest and a truly historical scenario. Some of it is admittedly a stretch, but not entirely outside the realm of possibiity. Once again, thanks for the "real" info and feel free to jump in again. There'll probably be more opportunities as this thing unfolds. [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: What am I supposed to do with 24 Trucks and a conscript French Flamethrower team? J/K Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, sure, just conveniently forget to point out that those trucks were loaded with fine French wine and cognac ... Napoleon, of course ... and willing, nubile young French women. If you don't know what to do with them, that's not my problem. [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

Alrighty then, what follows is a communique from Guano-boy, er, Goanna, El Lizardo, Scales R Us: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, it has been about a week since I could even access the bbs so I was forced to read through an unmitigated pile of ****e (plus a few unpolished gems from PawBroon) in order to find out who is doing what to whom and who might have had a chance to tell their tale before me. I note that Agua didn't miss his chance to promptly notify Lorak of his gamey, cheating scurrilous win over me, so it should come as no surprise that a certain someone forgot to post his complete disembowelment. Time to correct that with an ‹berLizard Update! When my company of green feildgrau took to the sodden field in the pouring rain with the task of rooting out a similar-sized unit of poms led by Elvis I was less than confident given his prior touting of his prowess and my previous mixed experience against him. Officers and non-coms applied the lash heavily to get the men forward, FORWARD you Schweinhund! Even my platoon of armoured pioneers was forced into the mud when all but one of my halftracks became helplessly bogged. Fortunately, my crazed use of the IG on the attack worked beautifully and he exposed himself to deal with the guns, suffering the fate of those identified at the hands of some poorly placed 240mm Nebelwerfers and well placed 105 mm shells. The rest of my attack went almost perfectly to design. Taking the small flags first, I cleared my left then rolled right while he focused his attention on the feint toward a major VL there. The result: Axis (Goanna) 79 casualty (17 KIA) 3 guns and four AFV lost - 81 pts Allies (Elvis) 123 casualty (26 KIA) 6 mortars and three AFV - lost 19 pt pts MAJOR AXIS VICTORY Mentioned in dispatches: A golden claw with single gum leaf cluster is awarded to Unt Lambert who is also promoted to Regular status as he showed the patience of a saint (while acting for the forces of darkness) in keeping the high ground and applying accurate fire to knock out a Wolverine, a Sherman III, and a vile Churchill AVRE that would have otherwise decimated my infantry. Today is doubly good, since I can also report the third, in what is becoming quite a trend, of my wins over the despicable Berlichtingen. For a change of pace, I took the yanks in a random 1500 pt attack on his village. The burg was held by a plethora of vermin with volks attached to their name (some of which looked like close relatives). Fortunately my cunning plan once again worked marvellously. After several hundred tons of direct and indirect fired Lend Lease ordinance were applied to every known or suspected hidey hole, my infantry was able to advance through only light resistance. My plan was assisted to some infinitesimal degree due to the selection of green and conscript troops on his side. By the numbers: Axis (Berlichtingen) 208 casualty (58 KIA) 2 guns and six pillbox lost - 10 pts Allies (Goanna) 81 casualty (23 KIA) one halftrack and one HMC lost - 90 pts ALLIED TOTAL VICTORY One more consecutive loss and Berli will be proclaimed my bunny. Lorak please scribe it so and continue your own noisy death in our match.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

PushBroom, or shall it be El Dudereno, your challenge is accepted ... although with certain obvious misgivings and trepidations. An armor battle you say, and only armor, and you have the unmitigated gall to deny my fearless feldgraus the pride of the German tank fleet : the invincible PzIIL. You, sir, have no couth. [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ] [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: There's a scenario where the Germans get three and a company of troops to go after some US paratroops. Without the Hotchkiss tanks it would be very very tough (dare I say impossible) in the time allotted, but with them its just doable. For me. In my opinion. So, they do have some use, and are better than nothing, but I wouldn't take them up against anything armored at all..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The scenario is La Fiere and is barely doable with the H-39s. Hotkisses are about the only tank that can be put out of action by a sniper. When the TC gets whacked, the driver (the only other guy in the thing) bails out. Two-man crew also accounts for extremely slow ROF.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillies Phan: hehe Illinoize smells like dirty feet hehe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, now that's perfectly acceptable. Keep it up, mister, and you'll find yourself in another game one of these days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Roger THAT! No medic/corpsman/EMT pays for his own drinks in my bar ever! EVER!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hot damn, where's your bar? FF/EMT for 20 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillies Phan: You are welcome. Its about time one of you limey's (limies?) (likmees?) said something about how the BEF blew chunks and needed the AEF to help out. Monty was a wienie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GAH! Yes, indeed, David was mucking about outside the pool again, but can we please keep this sort of thing out on the respectable, serious, grogly board where it belittles and belongs?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by litchy: Don't you get it, the best soldier was his dad, my dad and your dad. After that it doesn't mean anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, don't forget my mom, too. U.S. Navy intelligence during WWII, while the old man was a bombardier in the much maligned B-24 Liberator. But this probably isn't the right forum to get into the contribution of the air forces ... unless you remember that tanks ain't worth a damn without ballbearings and oil.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Gen-x87 wrote: > Oh did I hit a nerve with you? Were you trying to? > I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water. > Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising" > Have we met before? What's that got to do with it? First you claimed that Britain and Russia would not have "survived" without the US, and then you claimed that US soldiers "always seem to find a way to win" and are "always inflicting more casualties than the enemy". I simply said that, from someone who had offered one blindly biased opinion, another was no surprise. > Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it. Would you like to define "everyone"? The French had a defensive strategy. The Germans outmaneuvred them. The French were not unwilling to fight, they simply lost their main asset straight away. > Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes Oh right. Good argument. > I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army. Read what I said. "The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord." > > But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations." > Quit making excuses. I beg your pardon? Excuses for what? I'm pointing out that Britain wasn't somehow defeated until the US showed up. Is fighting a war in three theatres while your country is under attack somehow irrelevant? > I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US. Did I dispute that we were on the defensive? The point I am making is that we were conducting operations on the other side of the world while we were under attack. Being on the defensive is a long way from being defeated, which is what you claimed Britain and Russia would have been without the US. > Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region. You mean Britain? Did I not in my last post use "we" to refer to the British? And if you regard that as a reason for my "anger", you are implying that you would expect your comments to anger the British. > I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining. My particular use of the word "sustain" was in an economic context, as I had in mind comments made by another person on the forum about the British supposedly having no food. > Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done. > I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table Good heavens. I fully recognise the USA's contribution to the war. If anything I am over-generous in this respect, because so many Americans such as yourself seem to think that the US won the war all by itself and saved the free world in the process. You can spend all day pointing out things the US did, and I will agree with you. But you are claiming that the other Allied countries would have been destroyed without the US, which is nonsense. "I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It should also be noted that British convoys kept an awful lot of people supplied with the arms and materiel to keep up the fight against the Axis powers. Gen-X, the point is quite simple. It was a joint effort. The United States military was slow getting to the party for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was isolationist policies that continued until the time that Japan set the nation's mind straight on an early December Sunday morning. The Europeans (generically includes all UK troops) carried the brunt of the fighting for a long time before the U.S. military got up to speed. The U.S. did some remarkable things and generally acquitted itself well during the war and especially after, which has been duly noted. But to go on and on in the vein that the U.S. was a the savior of the world is juvenile, unsupported by history and serves little purpose other than to piss off folks who are justifiably tired of this myth. The United States responded with fresh troops and all the materiel of war, produced by an industrial complex unhindered by the threat of bombing and largely unaffected by worker shortages. We did what was needed, no more, no less.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: Why not direct this guy over to the cesspool. Or would he defile it?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Better flamers than this have tried. But they leave out of boredom because cesspudlians ignore them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: Well that leaves..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not bald.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: I think Dunnee has a point. The Cess pool way has overflowed so much that it makes it disgusting to even wade through these boards sometimes. Its seems that insults under the guiese of "the cess" are tolerated while others are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In general, most of the cess is kept in the pool. If you choose to stray in there, get used to it, partake if you will, or leave and ignore it if it's not to your liking. Sometimes, indeed, it does spill outside to other threads. In the vast majority of cases, the taunts outside the pool are directed against other active poolers or those who have been to the pool and just like to stir things up. Rare is the instance, not including provocation, when a pooler takes out after the general public. The pool, in general, does a decent job of policing its own. Some members of the pool are very knowledgeable about the this's and that's and minutiae of TO&Es, OOBs, XYZs and BVDs. They sometimes like to take part in other discussions and do so without bringing the cess with them. All are pure gamers who are in the pool because, above all, it is a place to get good games against stand-up players who won't jerk you around. It's also a place for those who don't take themselves too seriously ... hence the insults (most times nasty, often childish), taunts and occasional poke in the eye. But, it's the game that's the thing. When you step in, it's what you get. Steve, Charles, Madmatt & BTS et al, graciously allow us to exist and won't spare the rod if we get out of hand. If the cess strays outside of the pool and if it's not directed at you, please ignore it. If it's not directed at you and you can't ignore it, sorry about that. It's not personal. And please don't confuse flamers with poolers. Cesspoolers have no use for the flame game and are glad to have a refuge where we don't have to put up with that stuff. Wannabe flamers have come by the pool to raise a ruckus, but soon leave because they are bored by the lack of response to them. Steve, Charles, Madmatt & BTS et al, graciously allow us to exist and won't spare the rod if we get out of hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The PIAT is supposed to stay with its platoon. The squads may not carry AT weapons, but the platoon PIAT should never be far away. The advantage of Vickers and similar machineguns is their sustained fire abilities, but this isn't modelled in CM. They may be heavy and have a slow rate of fire, but once in position they should be able to keep firing without risk of overheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I learned long ago (the hard way) to keep squads-platoons and their associated weapons, i.e. PIATs and mortars, together ... at least within supporting-fire range. To be more precise, the slow ROF I was referring to was that of the PIAT in comparison to the zook or schreck. The Vickers MG team is slow as molasses in terms of movement ... unless you have a Jeep to taxi them about. That's livin' large. Other than the first time I played the Poles, when I had a pair of PIATs that could not miss, I have found the accuracy of these weapons, even at 100m or less, to be less than inspiring. And I realize these things were heavy, hard to move around and hard to load ... all of which takes a toll on the crew. From a tactical standpoint, I do love the fact you can fire them and not give away your position. That's sweet. As for the 2-inch mortar, it's pretty decent at taking out fixed gun assets, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: LOL. Who'd be silly enough to post somefink like that ? edited cuz I felt like it. [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: [so, are guns which fire bullets automatically, called machine-guns? Or are guns which fire bullets, automatically called machine-guns? Perhaps, upon reflection, you might not wish to call a muzzle-loading pistol a "machine-gun". [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More to the point, can any gun that requires human intervention to fire be considered as firing "automatically?" Thus, can any such weapon be considered machine-guns?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: I like the PIATS, but the 2" mortars leave me cold. They just don't seem to have the umph! of the American 60mm. Any German squad based around the LMG seems a good one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gah! I hates them PIATs almost as much as I hates them Vickers MGs. Heavy, slow ROF, lousy hit percentage (at least the times I've used them). Most vivid memory of them is 2 teams targeting a Puma at <100m. No hits. Shots, 20; hits, 0. The only thing the PIAT has going for it is there is not telltale plume, which makes them sneaky. Churchill is a joy against infantry and most armor, even though turtle-slow. Crommies are challenging to use effectively ... much like the PzIV. Been using the Brits alot recently because I don't know much about using them well. I don't like that their squads don't have any AT capabilities, and are a bit light in the firepower, but you can get a bunch of them. I like using the Poles ... can't understand a word of what they're saying, but I like listening to the language. I know it's only perception, but the times I've used them, they almost seem to fight with more attitude. As for the Germans, I usually stick to the FJs and Heer units. I can lose equally well with either. Have yet to play as the French.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: I like the PIATS, but the 2" mortars leave me cold. They just don't seem to have the umph! of the American 60mm. Any German squad based around the LMG seems a good one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gah! I hates them PIATs almost as much as I hates them Vickers MGs. Heavy, slow ROF, lousy hit percentage (at least the times I've used them). Most vivid memory of them is 2 teams targeting a Puma at <100m. No hits. Shots, 20; hits, 0. The only thing the PIAT has going for it is there is no telltale plume, which makes them sneaky. Churchill is a joy against infantry and most armor, even though turtle-slow. Crommies are challenging to use effectively ... much like the PzIV. Been using the Brits alot recently because I don't know much about using them well. I don't like that their squads don't have any AT capabilities, and are a bit light in the firepower, but you can get a bunch of them. I like using the Poles ... can't understand a word of what they're saying, but I like listening to the language. I know it's only perception, but the times I've used them, they almost seem to fight with more attitude. As for the Germans, I usually stick to the FJs and Heer units. I can lose equally well with either. Have yet to play as the French. edited for stupidity. [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: Since the search command is kaput I will rely upon the CM minions and their memories of past discussions. What was the result of the argument to include Hetzers in the ALLOWABLE under Short 75 rules? I recall that 1) FK believed it should be 2) its side and rear tissue-like armour compensated for the 60/60 upfront. If I am in error, please set me on the path of correct think. Cheers Murray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The side and rear armor would be the only reason. By the by, my copy of the Short 75 rule has the Hetzer on the "excluded" list. I also checked the RD ladder site (go to Combat Mission section), where they have it posted. http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/ It is excluded. [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Here's da rules for da newbies: 1) Single someone out... group challenges just add to the proof that you are a moron. 2) Be creative... if not its just more proof that you are a moron 3) SOUND OFF LIKE YA GOT A PAIR! So, as you can see, if you post, you are likely to prove beyond a doubt that you are a moron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yo, Jarh... Gyrene. The above was posted by our very own representative of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. Follow them or sod off, ya git.