Kurtz

Hey! I feel sorry for the guy...Imagine Adolf Hitler going all the way to Italy just to burn down his mother´s house!

An interesting detail is that, according to Gen. Vitez, the heavy Czech fortifications were along the Polish border. (Because of the dreaded Poles? ) They stretched from Nachod (125 km ENE of Prague) to Ostrava (250 km east of Prague). Around Prague and along the German border (and some of the Polish) were light fortifications. There were another line of light fortifications NW of Prague, approximately halfway to the border. Along parts of the Austrian border there were no fortifications at all. The Czech built forts on reverse slopes to protect them from accurate artillery but on the other hand they were unable to fire observed fire from the guns. Gen. Vitez should not be taken as a independent observer, he certainly knew which way the wind was blowing in 1940-41. He thinks that the war has been "merciful" (as opposed to "The World War") thanks to "the excellent tactics used during the fighting over the fortifications on the Rhine and the new, very efficient weapons the German army had at their disposal."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Me, I treat 'em with respect. Well, hello, Mr. Bunker, sir. Good day, Mr. Bunker, sir. Allow me, Mr. Bunker, sir.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that the famous mr Edward Bunker you are referring to?

I just finished reading a book by Libor Vitez, a Czech general. He inspected the Maginot Line in October of 1940. His assessment is that the Czech fortifications, which were much weaker than the ML, couldn´t have delayed the Germans significantly. He is obviously pro-German, this has probably influenced his assessment but it´s a interesting book. (It mixes pictures of destroyed forts with "tourist-pictures" of the Town Hall in Freiburg and the cathedral in Strassbourg. )

Funny how the Panthers changed into Leopards... But the "trunk down" position doesn´t make sense unless they change into Elefants.

1. During their last attempt to accomplish a breakthrough the anglo americans lost over fivehundred tanks 2. Während ihres letzten Versuchs, einen Durchbruch zu vollenden fivehundred die angloamerikaner, die rüber verloren waren Behälter 3. While their last attempt to complete a break-through fivehundred more angloamerikaner, which were more rueber lost containers My nipples are bursting with delight!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Although it isn't know for sure, the general thinking is that the small metal "lip" under the MP40's barrel was put there so the gun wouldn't slip too far out of the vehicle. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the "lip´s" purpose is to snag on the edge of the Halftracks (when firing from inside the vehicle) thus preventing the weapon from accidently slipping inside the vehicle.

Artillery is great for forcing tanks to move out of the annoying indirect fire into your skillfully planned direct fire.

Thanks for the enlightment, Steve, we Europeans know about as much about the American bureaucratic and political system as the average American. That is, not very much.

A war gives you a chance to use up the stores of obsolete ammo that otherwise would have to be scrapped, probably in an expensive way. IIRC, during the Gulf War NATO´s stores in Europe were in effect emptied and not replaced afterwards (at least not Cold War-levels) since the threat from the Soviet Union had diminished. Ahh, the Soviet Union....the Warsaw Pact...those were the days... On the other hand, if you have to replace the ammo you consumed, it would be somewhat more expensive. And don´t forget the opportunity to try out the latest weapon systems on real targets. The Horror! The Horror! How about the Vietnam war, wasn´t there drafts back then? Or did the draft exist anyway, without connection to the conflict? BTW: what does O&M mean? Operations & Manouevre? [This message has been edited by Kurtz (edited 03-04-2000).]

It seems I was mixing things up in my last post. Sorry, I´ll punish myself in an appropriate way. The Horror! The Horror! I was probably thinking of the UN´s inability to intervene in a civil war (who invented this terrible term!? ) There was an addition to the GC in 1977 (2nd Geneva Protocol) dealing with non-international conflicts. However, it explicitly states that it can not be referred to to justify an direct or indirect intervention in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of the state whatever the cause may be. [my emphasis] Well, might makes right..... Regarding declarations of war, from the 3rd Haag Convention (1907) "The parties who has signed the treaty admits that hostilities between them should not commence without a previous unambigious announcement worded either as a motivated declartion of war or as a ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war" (I just translated this into English, it may not be consisent with the original text) Mines: If you employ claymores with tripwire, it´s a mine. Bad, bad boy! If you detonate them on command, it´s a weapon. Good boy! Artillery delivered mines is probably classified as anti-vehicular and are as such not covered by the Ottawa Convention. I could be wrong on this, though..

IIRC the GC only apply in conflicts between states, not in cases of armed insurrection like Chechnya or Kosovo. It´s correct that the US and its lackeys didn´t declare war on Serbia, I guess that if you declare war it all becomes so serious(!),it´s a lot easier just to bomb those you don´t like. Perhaps you have to pay your soldiers more if there is a real war?! BTW, was there a formal declaration of war against Iraq in 90/91? The soldiers on the Eastern front fight far better. The reason they give in so easily in the West is simply the fault of that stupid Geneva Convention which promises the good treatment as prisoners. We must scrap the idiotic thing. Adolf Hitler, March 1945, qouted from "Panzer Leader" by Guderian. The 3 US soldiers captured in/near Kosovo where held by Yugoslav authorities as criminals IIRC. Showing POW:s on TV is a violation of the GC (anyone remember endless columns of Iraqi POW:s on CNN? Or British pilots on Iraqi TV?) but since Kosovo wasn´t a war, the GC doesn´t apply.

Really cool movie! But I could do without the English speaker. "A tank driver named Wittman.."

Killing civilians is "OK" as long as the bad effects from this is in proportion to the good effect of killing the military target nearby. You know, the "collateral damage" stuff. Besides, military presence can void the civilian´s protected status. If there is a FO or a sniper in a church tower it´s OK to blast away at the church!

The first Casauly of War is Truth. There is always a reason for someone to claim something. Nobody would casually say "Oh, they killed a bunch of POW:s, not that I can prove it though" when you can show "evidence" of every atrocity your opponent has committed, including the murder of JFK.

Nowadays it isn´t the assault rifle´s effective range that is the limit, it´s the range of the portable anti-armour weapons. If you want to shoot at troops you generally have to get them out of their AFV first. The practical range of, for example, the AT4(M136?) is 200 m against stationary targets.(I am aware of the fact that the theoretical Dmax is considerably more than that )

And the recoil will make the soldier who fired the weapon slowly drift away in the opposite direction. At least that´ll take care of the "missing dead bodies problem" In the subsequent court martial the recoil will plead "not guilty" saying "I was only following Newton´s third law". But I´ll miss the sounds...In space no one can hear you scream.

Smokegenerators work by spraying diesel into the exhaust of the engine, not on the engineblock itself. (that would lead to an unbelievable dirty engine compartment and to a potential fire hazard)

If you fire enough at the ground floor the entire building will collapse, hurting everyone inside, regardless of which floor they are on. [This message has been edited by Kurtz (edited 02-14-2000).]

A funny thing happened yesterday. I was playing CE as US, took a German squad prisoner and suddenly they started firing at my troops and ran away!!! Needless to say, they didn´t get far. I did a search on the topic and found out that POW:s can run away when there is own troops nearbay (which it was) but that they shuld be unarmed. Well, this is probably taken care of already but I felt I had to vent my frustration.

*Wow...just imagine people throwing explosive Honda Civics at you...that would suck..* A Honda Civic filled with TNT! Ouch!!!

Jabo is short for JagdBomber. Jagd = hunt. Jäger = hunter.

I installed DirectX 7.0a and it runs without problems. For the moment... It won´t help much now but you can make a copy of the Windows-catalogue with a different name. It uses ~200 Mb. When the s##t hits the fan you can boot from a diskette, change names between the copy and windows and reboot. It has saved me a few times. Command prompt: C:\xcopy windows wincopy /k/h/e/v/c/q/r *When* there is problem: boot from a iskette, rename (ren) windows to something else, rename wincopy to windows, reboot. And it´s a good idea to keep a fresh copy of Windows, otherwise things could get *interesting* Hmmm...I better check my harddisk...

I have heard that the dogs went for the Soviet tanks since they recognized them from the training. It´s probably not true, but it´s a good story.

Maybe the registration form should have an extra accept-button: "I will not, under any circumstances, post questions regarding the release date of Combat Mission"