Jump to content

Kurtz

Members
  • Posts

    584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Kurtz

  1. But my attorney, it seemed, had not made it. He wanted more. "Back the tape up!" he yelled. "I need it again!"

    "Let it roll" he screamed. "Just as high as the ****er can go! And when it comes to that fantastic note where the rabbit bites its own head off, I want you to throw that radio into the tub with me."

    wink.gif

  2. I think there are different kinds of EMP effects. One is created by a nuclear blast high in the atmosphere (>100km?). This creates an EMP that will cover *extremely* large areas. There is also ways of creating non-nuclear EMP-like effects near the ground but I don´t remember how it was done. This method demands a more precise mean of delivery as the area of effect is much smaller.

    (I´m listening to Japan´s song Communist China right now. smile.gif)

  3. I know, it´s hard not to be aware of the upcoming threat but from there it´s a long way (at least for me) to start shelling a road because you know from previous experience that three Hellcats will appear soon. Well, as long as those who pursue this tactic just use it against the AI I guess it´s how they like to play. wink.gif

  4. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

    ...if they did not surrender before we started on a house, they never got a chance afterwards." Not being familiar with the intricacies of city fighting, I would think this is not acceptable.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Fighting in urban areas don´t give you much time to consider if you should take POW:s or not, if you are to clear a building you just continue throwing grenades and shooting at everything that even looks suspicious until the entire building is secured.

    I don´t think this is a moral problem, it´s like if the enemy surrenders while your artillery grenades are still on their way, there is not much to do about it. And there is a strong possibility that you won´t even see if the enemy tries to surrender because of the smoke and dust created by the combat.

    (After having breached a wall, thrown a grenade inside and done a bit of shooting,

    visibility is close to zero).

    **** happens... wink.gif

  5. There was a significant difference between US and UK bombing techniques, at least in the first years of the war; UK Bomber Command mainly bombed residential areas at night in order to break the morale of the German people while the US mainly

    did "precision" (well, by WWII standards at least wink.gif) bombing of industries during daylight. From what I´ve read Churchill tried to persuade "Bomber" Harris to switch to industrial targets but he was convinced that

    his method was the correct one. IIRC, at the Nuremberg Trials, no Germans were accused of bombing civilians in the UK since this could draw the world´s attention to Dresden/Hamburg.

    Regarding Hiroshima/Nagasaki:

    There was a rising need to show the Soviet that the US had The Bomb, remember that the old friendship between the Allies was fading away in the later stages of the War.

    It was also a opportunity to test 2 different kinds of nuclear weapons on real targets (that had not been much bombed earlier). So in the context of a rising cold war it may be explainable. But I´m not convinced by the theories saying that it would have cost millions of lives to invade Japan. According to some sources, the Japanese had tried to open negotiations with the US regarding a Japanese surrender. But to say to the public that you have used nuclear weapons on Japan to scare the Soviets...nah..I dont think that would be a good idea. wink.gif

    What is accepted as the truth changes, archives are declassified, the political need

    for a certain view disappears and so forth. A-bombs as the only way to make Japan surrender was the truth during the cold war but is not necessarily the truth today IMHO.

×
×
  • Create New...