Blackhorse

not an Operation by chance? if it is, be sure to click the Operation tab. If not, then I can only tell you it works fine for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Not quite true. Steve has said before that they are interested in doing a modern CM, but it will have to wait until the engine is completely rewritten. I think we will see a modern CM at some point, but it will not likely be for a few years yet, unfortunately.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was referring purely to the published list of planned CM games. Beyond that anything is possible and certainly welcome by us CM users. I would like to see a modern version as well, somewhere down the road, just for the record

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M1A2Abrams: Anyone who thinks they should make a version of CM with modern equipment post here. (sorta like a petition)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just so you know. "They" are in actuality 4 guys. That's it. In fact, up until 2 months ago, "They" were just 2 guys. This is NOT some big corporation you're dealing with. It's more like a group of buddies making damn good games. They have a plan, a plan they are sticking by. Modern CM is not in that plan. Enjoy it as a WWII sim. You can still learn tactics using it, because while the equipment might change, sound tactics all are rooted in a certain commonality. If that doesn't work, check out TACOPS, also sold by BTS. It is a modern combat sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kelly: I have searched the forum in an attempt not to duplicate a previous thread. In spite of my anxiety, I have decided to post this suggestion. The simulated foxhole is a nice touch, but I would like to suggest a "slit trench" network as a new terrain feature...say perhaps CM2. Is it possible to create that mod? I imagine the defense factors would change, however. John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm fairly certain it will be in CM2. Trench warfare wasn't nearly as prevalent on the West Front as on the Eastern Front, hence it noing being depicted. Trenches we common on the Eastern Front.

Nice work KMan. This is a cool utility.

In my opinion, if you can set the 2 computers up so you face each other, it would be better. Hotseat requires you to get up and move away from the computer, and interferes with trash-talking, BSing, and typical stuff associated with F2F gaming. Still, Hotseat is fun.

The Patton Museum has an M-18 Hellcat snagged in Kosovo. I never realized the M-18 was such a small TD.

Favorite Tank = 1 ea, Sherman Tank, M4A3(76)W

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre: august? it's every august and you tell us NOW?! TEN MONTHS to the next one?! AAARGH! can't...take...it...that...long <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can always go to the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot. It is the Nation's largest civilian event of its type. It is held at Knob Creek Range, just outside Fort Knox, KY. It is this weekend. Do a search on Yahoo for more info.

At Ft Knox, KY. on the last monday in July and the 3 following mondays hosts an open to the public CALFEX (Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise). It is about 2 hours long and demonstrates every weapon in the Army inventory individually, and then as part of a Company Team in the defense/counterattack. I get a chubby every time I see the CALFEX. My in-laws were blown away by it, as were all the other people that came to watch. Put it in your calendar and make a vacation of it, you will not be disappointed.

Try these http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/WW2-GerPer.htm and http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/WW2-EAME.htm [This message has been edited by Blackhorse (edited 10-26-2000).]

Good stuff Wild Bill. Happy 3rd as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: a chatboard ?? now there's a concept...and it's called oxymoron. btw congratulations, your unceasing efforts finally paid off, you made the signature list of epochal statements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dude, cut the guy some slack.

Fixed and works. Nice reaction McAuliffe. Those buildings look damn good. Also, as an aside, I love those scenarios you've put together. They are truly first-rate. Keep up the good work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by McAuliffe: Magua has sent me the first series of his rural building mods. Modest as he is, he points out that his winterversion is "a little bit quick and nasty", but to me, they look as a piece of art. Zip-files available for downloading at the link below. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is something wrong with the rural summer file. It is only 557kb, when it should be 3.1mb. I can d/l the wintrer one no problem, but the summer one gives me an error in winzip.

Whoa! Those are remarkable. Where oh where can we get them?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MajorH: Berets may be sexy in garrison but they are useless in the field. Without a bill, they don't keep the rain and sun out of your eyes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bear in mind this beret is intended to replace the "Envelope" cap. I'm not sure whether it will be for use with Class "A" and "B" uniforms only or if it will be for wear with BDUs while in garrison, much like the airborne, SF, and ranger berets are worn. The rangers and special forces when they deploy to the field don the BDU cap, complete with bill. In most other Army units, when you go the field you wear nothing but your Kevlar. You don't even bring your BDU cap for wear while on maneuvers. It is usually Kevlar 24/7, with the exception of your being able to remove it to eat, to sleep, and to do personal hygiene. As I understand it this new beret is to be a garrison headgear.

Well I'll be damned! I never thought this would happen. FYI, black berets were the headgear for armor forces long before they were the headgear for the Rangers. That all changed for the US Army in the 70's for various reasons. In other armies, the black beret is still traditionally the armor headgear. In any event, the good news is the headgear is back the way it should be

Here is a request. Can you make the walls with holes and with sections missing by using the transparent color in those places? Take off the roofs, and suddenly we ~might~ have some rubble looking structures. You're the expert though, you tell us if this is doable.

Very well stated Slapdragon. I'd say you are well on the way to recovery. Hell that entire argument was damn near brilliant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: There are people who will absolutely flame anyone who hints at any kind of criticism of CM. Steve is one of them. The level of intellectual dishonesty displayed by people on this board is sometimes staggering. It is amazing that people like you guys will actually refuse to debate in a reasonend manner, and then feel superior when people get sick of it and leave. It is not sour grapes, it is getting tired of dealing with a bunch of people incapable of putting an argument together without getting personal. Henri is not the first, or the last, to leave because of this board intolerance for anything but the party line. Pravda! Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, Please do me a favor. Go read the thread What is Maneuver Warfare in its entirety. After you read all of it (much was added today) tell me who was/is being intellectually dishonest. I made several valid points to Henri, yet he ignored them all. Bottom line, he was mistaken in his statements but refused to accept that. What would your solution have been?

Curiously enough, there have been no responses to my arguments....anyhoo Heinz Guderian, in his excellent book, Achtung Panzer addresses the German way of war…the Blitzkrieg After reading it, you’ll be able to draw your own conclusions regarding the Germans and “maneuver warfare”. I personally find this bit fascinating and enlightening. The Tactics of the Panzer Forces and Their Cooperation With the Other Armspg. 178 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By way of illustration we shall set our panzer forces the task of gaining a decisive victory. This they are supposed to accomplish by launching a concentrated surprise attack against a line of enemy filed fortifications, aiming at a point which has been selected by our commander and which is favorable for the deployment of tanks. We have chosen the breakthrough of an enemy position as our example, in preference to alternatives such as mobile operations, envelopments or pursuits, since a breakthrough is perhaps the most demanding mission that could be set. In this instance we are uncertain whether the defenders have laid out minefields. But, we know for sure that their anti-tank weapons are capable of piercing our tanks at entry angles in excess of sixty degrees and ranges up to six hundred meters, and that they have about as many tanks as we have. The attackers now have to choose their method of assault, considering first of all what elements of the enemy defenses are respectively the most and least dangerous. If there are mines in front of their positions, they could exact a heavy toll on our tanks… We next have to reckon with the anti-tank guns. These will be deployed throughout the entire depth of the zone of defense… The attacker must now do something to attenuate the fire of the guns in question. He cannot afford to go on to assault secondary objectives as long as he is under their muzzles, which leaves him no alternative but to destroy them outright, or arrange to have them silenced. To destroy anti-tank guns our tanks must either take them under direct fire at the halt from behind cover, or overwhelm them by a mass attack. In addition the anti-tank guns can be suppressed by artillery or machinegun fire or blinded by smoke… The tank’s most dangerous enemy is another tank. If we are unable to defeat the enemy armor the breakthrough has as good as failed, for our infantry and artillery will be unable to make further progress. Everything comes down to delaying intervention of the enemy anti-tank reserves and tanks, and getting in fast and deep into the zone of the hostile command centers and reserves with our own effective tank forces – and by effective we mean forces that are capable of waging a tank battle. The best way of delaying the intervention of reserves is through aircraft, and this is probably one of their most significant contributions to the ground battle… As we have seen, the breakthrough battle imposes some pretty tough demands on the tanks. Success is probably attainable only when the entire defensive system can be brought under attack at more or less the same time (Blackhorse: MANEUVER???).… It is therefore of great importance to strive to bring the entire depth of the enemy defense under simultaneous attack. This ambitious task can be fulfilled only by a large force of tanks deployed in sufficient depth, and with tank units and tank leaders who have learned to fight in large formations and, when the enemy puts up unexpected resistance, to smash that resistance with speed and resolution. In addition to depth, the breakthrough attack also needs a broad enough frontage to make it difficult for the enemy to bring the central axis under flanking fire. If a tank attack is so narrow that the area of the assault is actually enfiladed by machinegun fire, the other arms will be unable to follow the tanks, and no durable success will be achieved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also like to submit this follow-up written by William S. Lind in Maneuver Warfare, an Anthology 1993 Presidio Press. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Desert Storm, the American ground forces, Army and marine Corps, on the whole practiced maneuver warfare. There were certainly exceptions: for example, we had in effect the 1st German Marine Division and the 2nd French Marine Division, in terms of the styles each employed. But the overall picture suggests the ship has come onto the new course, even if it has a long journey ahead of it before it is safe in a maneuver warfare harbor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri, On page 79 of the Art of Maneuver Leonard gives us the characteristics of Maneuver Warfare according to him. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maneuver warfare theory de-emphasizes, but does not ignore, force ratios and loss rates. Numerical superiority in battles, campaigns, or wars takes on a minor role; local superiority is somewhat more important. But the maneuver-warfare practitioner seeks to use other dynamics to overcome—even exploit—his own numerical weaknesses if necessary. Maneuver theory emphasizes movement, craft, and the human dimension of war. Above all, it glorifies defeating the enemy through means other than attacking his strength. Specifically, maneuver theory seeks the following, in descending order. (Blackhorse: So far so good) 1. Preemption: defeating or neutralizing the enemy before the fight has begun (Blackhorse: If this is what you are complaining about, then let it be known this occurs echelons above the CM scale. If this is your argument, then pack up CM and put it away, as the maneuver warfare has occurred already making the CM battles needless) 2. Dislocation: rendering the enemy’s strength irrelevant by removing the enemy from the decisive point, or—preferably—by removing the decisive point from them. (Blackhorse: This requires combat, the clash of arms, and battle) 3. Disruption: Neutralizing the enemy by successfully attacking or threatening the center of gravity. (Blackhorse: Again, this requires two enemies fighting in combat.) Maneuver warfare, according to the concept of functional dislocation, employs the dialectic of combined-arms theory whenever possible in battle in order to fight the enemy where and when he is weak, and present him with a series of tactical dilemmas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, you see, Leonard admits that at the tactical level, Maneuver Theory emphasizes the use of combined arms (pg 91) in what he calls the Combined Arms Theory. He goes on in that section to site several specific examples and explanations of why combined arms are necessary and why they need to be understood. He breaks the Combined Arms Theory down into three principles. 1. The Complementary Principle 2. The Dilemma Principle 3. The Alcyoneus Principle As examples of the principles, he provides the following from pg. 93-109 of The Art of Maneuver The Complimentary Principle <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The complementary principle states that by combining the various combat arms into a single organization, we can compensate for each arm’s weakness through another arm’s strength. Hence, if my infantry have tanks nearby, they can rely on their brother arm to provide the rapid. Lethal armor-piercing fires they need. Likewise, the tanks need not fear the close terrain if their companion infantry are securing their move for them…this point will apply to all three parts of the dialectic—this relationship among the arms is not confined to today’s technology or organizations. Combined -arms warfare has been employed since antiquity, and although the weapons of the future will change, the synergism achieved through the combination of arms will not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Dilemma Principle <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When employed correctly, the various combat arms serve to complement each other with respect to the enemy…In our example, we attack with a task force of both tanks and infantry. If the enemy tanks choose to remain fixed in hull-down positions in order to duel with our tanks, then our infantry will maneuver from position to position and threaten to launch a close infantry assault—a prospect every tanker fears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The The Alcyoneus Principle <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Based upon Greek mythology, Alcyoneus was unbeatable except when not standing on the home soil of his country. Hercules upon learning this, picked the giant up and carried him into a different land and slew him. The Alyconeus principle is all about moving our foe into terrain in which he is most vulnerable…maneuver warfare theory abhors the idea of taking on enemy tanks where and when they are strong. On the contrary, it focuses on fighting scenarios that are unfair. We want to catch those tanks in terrain on which they cannot possibly win…Rather, we want to defeat enemy systems with un-like systems in terrain that maximizes our advantage and puts the enemy at a disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All this sounds completely reasonable and remarkably similar to my own Army experience in both combat and training environments. In fact, there is nothing in the above statements I disagree with. So, where is the disconnect and why do I disagree with you? It is because of your interpretation of maneuver warfare. I go back to your hanky-waving point. That is more an indictment of French ineptitude than of German maneuver brilliance. German maneuver brilliance in that situation would have had the Germans suddenly appear in Paris while every Frenchman was rushing to fill the void north of the Maginot line. In the hanky waving situation (if it ever really did happen. I’ve been on tanks and can flat out tell you hankies, much less huge flags are damn near impossible to make out, especially in the French countryside…but I digress) the Germans took a gamble and it paid off. The consequences could have been much more severe had they been facing a half-way competent opponent. Now then, back to your point and CM and Maneuver Warfare. CM models the combined arms and tactical level very, very well. It has no way of modeling the operational or strategic levels, as it is not an operational or strategic level game. Everything your heart desires out of CM is possible. Just out of curiosity, 1. Does this argument spring from the Gamey issue? 2. What is your experience and background? (It often helps to know who one is talking to). [This message has been edited by Blackhorse (edited 10-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: "Dan Bolger regales us with an entertaining and powerful assault against the proponets of maneuver warfare, advising them to "strike their tents and reture to write their memoirs."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking of Bolger, if you ever get a chance read his book, Dragons at War It is superb.