BillWoodAgain

The following people need to send me a note as I crashed and lost all email data. Ciril Rozic Scott Orr Muzzlehead Thanks.

When I play Single Player, I prefer the Allies. I do not exclude playing the Axis though, and I admit I enjoy playing the German forces. They do have more "neat" stuff to play with (which reinforces my point). In PBEM, to be honest, I just really got started except for with one guy, ever since the Beta, (heck, ever since I met him online discussing Operation Crusader by Atomic), he absolutely refuses to play the Axis. I have a new opponent, and he has me playing the Brits, which is just grand. Ever play AH's Russian Campaign? This was an award winning wargame in its time, and I doubt between two competent players that the Russian player could get anywhere near the historical results. Hey, TankDawg, I'd like a PBEM, which of course mean one of us has to be "the bad guys" (to quote my son). If you want me to play the Axis, I promise I won't want to be Elite SS with afull platoon of King Tigers with 1/20th of the total production run of Pumas as my recon.

The .50 cal is too strong. The 88 Long is not strong enough. The German NuclearWerferthingy that shoots out of the turret, modeled, over modeled. No US WP. Many a keystroke spent on this, but I am of the opinion that it should be in the game. Read "Combat Lessons #4" informing the GI in the field how to use WP as an offensive weapon at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm The absence of Duds. The Dud rate of German munitions was extremely high in comparison to the Alllied, especially the American Dud rate. Seems to me I have read the German dud rates went into the double digits at times. Don't get me wrong, CM is a great wargame. It is as significant to compter wargaming as Squad Leader was/is to cardboard and paper wargames. I thoroughly enjoy playing it. Squad Leader was German friendly too, and was a long time coming from doing the American's justice when it developed GI Anvil of Victory, 1977-1983 if memory serves. Neither slight the Allied cause, its just that the Germans are more thoroughly represented. But you know, ever since I got into this wargaming hobby way back in '76, the hobby is partially and often critically driven by the interest in Nazi Germany and the Wermacht.

Ya know. Post 103 last night I saw a squad area target an empty hex during a dense fog. Had never seen it before, so maybe its new to 103. I dunno. Just cause I have not seen it before does not mean it was not there before.

Were real Tigers were used in Kelly's Heroes? They were simulated, if memory serves me, with T-34s. Nearly all equipment in the movie was stock stuff from the Yugoslavian Army.

I too am an addict. I drive my Caprice up and down HWY 52 in NC, rolling hills and villages, mountains and forests, right click commands for cars and trucks that can't seem to move correctly just using AI, spotting good places to hide an AT gun... I am considering asking the Network Administrator to ban acces to www.battlefront.com so I won't get distracted at work. Cold Turkey is my only hope. Got it this weekend, Scout Camp Weekend. Better bring a blanket for the "shakes"

It is was Czechoslovakia 1945, he would likely turn around and throw it at the Americans.

Jeff. I have played a bunch and I've never seen an AFV self target with its main gun anything other than another vehicle. Also, no smoke from the main gun unless I directly ordered it. Good points, for I sure wish they did the above two things sometimes. Perhaps it is because the AI always puts an AP round in the barrel by default and won't replace unless the player tells it to.

1. The Civil War was all about slavery, but I am not stupid Fionn. Its irradication was not stated until the Emancipation Proclomation after the Battle of Antietam, and even then it was purely pragmatic in that the US declared all slaves in the rebelious South to be free while no mention was made of the slaves in the North. And he would never of issued that speech until the Union won a battle, and Antietam was the first major "near Washington" battle the Union won. The Gettysburg Address solidified this modus operandi while iluminating the desire that we needed to reconcile and rebuild, a speech when he first publically mentioned his Reconstruction policy. The need to end slavery was the underlying goal of the Civil War, unstated but gradually as Lincoln was smart enough to ease Americans into that view face to face as he did not need a further fractured nation. Fionn, you are the first to point finger at those throwing blatant ad Hominim attacks, but you are obviously educated (how does an Irishman find the time for that and clevery hide your barbs in grammatical and subtle constructs. You implied I was a dumbass, when in fact you know nothing of who I am except that I disagree with you, or anyone else that disagrees with you. Americans have morality in its foreign policy. This is not a niave statement, it is a statement based on the truth and the history. It is niave to think the US is just like every other country, as we are not. If so, then Europe would be under the domination of either Germany or the Soviet Union, and Britain would no doubt be occupied, at least partly, by the more than willing Irish, who wanted very badly to fight along side the Nazis. You want proof of US intentions? Free Trade. WW2 WW1 Somalia Kosovo (btw, Fionn, Archduke Ferdinand, Sarajevo, 1914. The war actually began because of German desire to compete directly with the British Empire, the assination was the spark to light the fire) We surrendered voluntarily the Phillipines, Pnamam Canal Zone, Occupation of Japan and Germany. The Internet (why did we just give it away? So Fionn could insult Ameirca and be heard doing it! Fionn, we are all limited of our view of the world based on our own experiences and education. An open mind sees beyond his own shell. This is an American trait. I pity you for not understanding it or us. The most dangerous mind is the closed mind.

I have to agree/disagree with you. I agree that much US policy is driven by simple greed and pride, but an under current of morality is there. The primary motive for US wars in this Century were all about free trade. In the 19th Century, we damn near went to war with Britain on more than one occasion (the one occasion being the War of 1812, a trade war) because she, like other powers believed in Mercantalism and its derivatives. AMOF, we would still have this as National Policies active now without our insisting it was changed after the Second World War. We also have a strong history of wanting human right protected, and this was always true. Not always followed, but always wanted. The AmerRev was fought for our percieved violation of trade rights and human diginity. Our Constitution, built on The Rights of Man, was framed with those two principles inherent to it. Nearly all US wars were fought because of Human Rights and Trade, not for the sake of killing off our neighbor or taking all of his land with the one HUGE exception of the plight of the American Indian, a policy justified because of the passages in the Bible commanding us to be "fruitful and multiply" and the right of man by God to have Dominion over the Earth and all of its creatures to use in our developement. Native populations were not using it, so they lose it, so to speak. This was a policy first executed with great sucess by the Christian nations in the Crusades and honed to ferocious cruelty by Spain, and used by Britain (except Britain wanted to take care of the "Children", not pillage and burn their nations). True, we fought many actions, persued many policies, and wronged many peoeple in many ways in our history, but we alway have a thread of decency, humanity and fair play morality running through our veins. We do not fight becuase of some event that happened hundreds of years ago, we do not fight for revenge (we have used it as an excuse, but not as a policy) and we do not fight because of the archane beleif that the world is a "Zero-Sum" game, like all other nations have and most still do. No we are not perfect, but we have been "more" perfect than other nations. We eventually admit our wrongs and correct them. We oppose the strongest of evils in the world to preserve our freedoms and extend freedoms to others becasue it is believed that only governement of the people for the people with rampant education and free trade will achieve peace and prosperity. We had slaves, we fought a bloody war about State's Rights that had a core reason of slavery in it to free the slave. It was fought to protect the white man from his own indignety of being a slaveholder, and to extend the Constitution to the 3/5ths people. We nearly defanged Britain and other Imperial Powers with the 14 points of Wilson and definitely did so in WW2 when we announced that we fought this war for Democratic principles. Our decision to aid the defeated powers was amazing. Certainly the desire to protect us from the Soviet Union was inherent, but we could of done like anyother power in Europe before then and practiced RealPolitik blalnce of power games and surreneder Europe to them. That we did not goes beyond the actions any other power would of taken. Post-War Britain somehow managed to demolish its Empire with relative peace, Suez 1956 being one notable excepetion, while France, Portugal and others preferred to use coersion and force to hold their Empires, a practice still in use by Russia. Communism was a two edged sword for the American ethos. We had to fight it, but to do so, we had to due some wrong things, like the Shah, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. The Gulf War was to protect our oil interests, but it also was to protect the World's oil interests. If it was just for us, then we would occupy the place and save it for ourselves. Our current high gas prices would not exist as we, if we though like an imperial power, would force the Arab nations to sell cheap to us and screw the rest of the world. And what benefit did we gain from Kosovo? None, except that we got sick of what we saw Mr. M doing. (As a side note, I really think that any other President would of done it, Clinton would never of done it, except for that damned blue dress). Are we on top of the Morality Mountain with foregin policy? No, but we are on the Moral high ground relative to everyone else. Our Empire is not generally won by the sword, it is done by consumerism and mass media. The world is importing America, we rarely have to export it; and I ain't talking economics here. And BTW, the article that started this was quite "sappy", but relatively true.

As for tactics in the Civil War, read about the actions of the 20th Maine at Litte Roundtop. The tactics used by this unit would make any commander of any age proud. They used terrain to max benefit, as well as elan in the critical phase of Gettysburg. For the Revolution, General Greene was very good with hih levy of troops, many use to irregular tactics against Indians. Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse are great examples of non - European tactics. Monmouth was perhaps the last battle in the AmerRev that used a full blown line tactics European battle, and it was this battle that convinced the British that fighting Washington's Army was no good anymore, and they switched to the Southern Campaign. The war got ugly becasue it was an irregular army of "bushwackers and murderers". The Brits considered it cowardly and ungentalmanly to fight this way (good thing Greene did not) and this was the moral justification for the cruelty of guys like the British commander in Patriot. They felt they wer shooting vermin because they acted, in his opinion, like vermin. To understand military tactics historically, one really needs to undestand the belief systems of that time and place.

Radio. Prior to that, armies communicated using sight and yelling. Thus, except for small well behaved units, "WWII Tactics" were simply not possible. Also understand that you could NOT train large armies to be independent thinkers as they were drafted. Since 80% + of these troops were functionally illiterate, it was not possible to train them as they lacked many of the foundation skills to build military skills on. Prior to the ACW, the US Army was tiny, and therefor very few NCOs and officers existed that could train these people. The line formation was borne from these limitations, common to all armies with mass levies (Frederick the Great had a professional army with many years of training under it and it won because of stern discipline and excellent leadership. The other powers had to use mass levies to defeat him, or almost defeat him.) It was easier to command troops in formations, especially when they damn near touched each other. The military training was relatively easy, several marching formations and fire formations, and command by the battle flag. Psychologically, you must ask why troops would put up with this. It is mostly because of religous belief and faith in fate. It is interesting to read how troops in the pre-Radio age thought, esp. in the ACW. To die in battle was an accepted fate, it was your destiny. To fight for God and Country (or glory and nation as in non-English Europe) was an honour and was accepted. Bright colored uniforms were first done out of prestige and to show off professional troops against levies. Red was adopted by the British for pragmatic reasons, they were the color of blood. They also served the function of enemy/friend spotting. They were not inteneded for making better targets. The line formations kicking up dust on march, and smoke from weapons fire assured the line was generally spotted. Going back to "WWII tactics", Think Bushido Code in WW2 with the Japanese. They fought for Emperor and Empire, and they were more than willing to sacrifice themselves. Hence, they beleived that spirit alone would win the day, and tactics on the battlefied were secondary. The banzai attack was a line formation, and the Japanese at Nomonohan were slaughtered because they used mid-19th century tactics against an enemy that had a firm grasp of modern industrial warfare, the Soviet Union. Though they did not deploy the radio at the level the warring powers did later, the fact is that war was doomed because of industrial firepower against the human body. These slaughters got more and more intnese and thorough until the player(s) involved either changed via tactics and technology. This example is very illustrative of what happens when you do not change doctrine to match technology. I could go on forever about this. I won't, the post is to long now.

Remember that the .50 cal was developed in WW1 to defeat armored vehicles, which it would of done easily against WW1 armor. However, I have to agree that a few more rounds have to be involved than 1 as one hole should not do it, but then again, once it penetrates, it is a slug of metal bouncing around inside doing all kinds of damage to equipment, men and morale. Think of it as a fully automatic Anti Tank rifle of a large calibre.

The Danville AAF Tank Museum URL is below. http://www.aaftankmuseum.com/ I wrote an email a couple of months back and they wrote back saying they would open in October or November. Danville is about 70 miles north of Greensboro, NC, about 80 miles west by southwest of Richmond, Va, about 90 miles from Staunton, Va. My 8yr old is excited about it too. He is also competing with me on CM time... The Iraqi tank they have is a Pzkw IV.

The distance was 512 meters. A lone M5A1 atop a far away hilltop is on overlook, when he spots hell, 3 PzKwIVs. As they spot him 2 turn turrets and open fire. My brave little tank calmly lets lose one round, and BAM! a Mark IV gets killed by a front turret penetration. I looked, 53 mm front armor, 20 degree slope. 37mm penetrates 56 mm at 0 degrees. Must of been my relative height. My brave little guy then self-issues a reverse order, and ducks behind the woods as angry Panzers lay fire all around. A joy to watch, I tell you.