Hamstersss

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: The Americans are bound to be unbearable and self-obsessed: they are at the end of their "turn". Don't you idiots realise just HOW MUCH equipment the Americans would need to assault Europe?? Their supply lines would effectively be HUNDREDS of times longer than the German supply lines, AND they would be contending with a large air and submarine threat. The Germans would know for DAYS or WEEKS before hand where the Americans would plan to land. Stop believing this macho bull****, and maybe watch some other movies other than Private Ryan with its slow motion shots of the star spangled banner. In the next Century instead we will have Chinese History Channel historians, regaling all and sundry about how their country is virtuous and God fearing, and how they have fought to protect their way of life... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow Bates, this is what everyone said Japan was going to the US twenty years back. And everyone said the US was through in the 1850s. And Europe said the US was through in the Great Depression. And the Soviets said the US was through in the 70s. And now China? Are you kidding? China is a joke, they have a societal mess over there. Their military is 30 years behind the times. They have no political stability. Their infrastructure is crap and you think they'll surpass the US? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Look at all this, I say, a thread asking a simple question transformed into a thread glorifying the Americans and their contribution to the war. Reading through some but not all (sorry, I have a social life) of these posts it seems to me like there are a few people "defending the honor" of the US as the great savior or something of this sort. Yes, US did have a ton of money to burn on a war effort. No, that doesn't automatically make them great fighters or saviours of "the other guys" who just went in and took the most casualties. If anyone should be prased and honored it should be the poor Russian pesants who were given guns and forced to day in waves for a government most of them hated to be a part of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, you didn't read much of this. There have been no glorification of the US, nor have there been insults toward Germany, Russia or Britain. What there has been is a debate as to whether or not the US could have won the war by itself. As well as an older debate about whether or not it's fair that the Allied troops in CM have as much variety as those in WWII. It's good to know you're pro-Russia, though. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: What can I say. Your viewpoint is much more simplistic and cynical than my own. Since I cannot convince you that you're wrong, I see no reason to go on trying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We live in a simple, cynical world, my friend. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monticello: The B-24 couldn't launch from an aircraft carrier...I believe you meant to say B-25. Assuming an empty B-24 could launch from a carrier, it still couldn't carry the payload, since the max payload is 8,800lbs whereas the smallest of the atomic bombs, Little Man, weighed 8,900lbs (see <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html." TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html</A>.</A> At max payload, the B-24 range is approximately 800 miles. So, even if the B-24 could be launched from an aircraft carrier with 100lbs over max payload, the US Carriers would still be in German torpedo-bomber range to launch the attack against Berlin. Fact is, the B-29 was the ONLY heavy bomber in US inventory that carry the atomic bombs created at the time. [This message has been edited by Monticello (edited 10-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I stand corrected Monticello, I did not realize they were that heavy and I did flip-flop the 24 and 25. What was the capacity of the 25? I'm not quite sure how my argument came to be that of lone American nuclear bombers hitting a perfectly functional Germany. I'm not a proponent of this but I am a proponent of reducing German air and naval assets and then nuking vital transportation, industrial and economic centers. Remember, I'm not saying that the only thing that would have allowed the US to win was the atom bomb, I think that the US would win because of its enormous economic, industrial and resource might and that the atom bomb would make that victory easier. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chup, For PR purposes and because Britain proved to be a useful ally. That the US could defeat Germany and most of the rest of the world all by its lonesome does not contradict the fact that allies help share the cost. Also, your plea to not spin off into the A-Bomb is a strange one. If you are offended by the fact that this was an American invention than that is too bad. If you feel it is not a significant invention, you are wrong. If you feel it does not serve a social and military purpose, you are still wrong. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Again, assuming the US could have carrier launched a bomber capable of dropping a bomb on Berlin, how could it carrier launch enough fighters to protect the bomber from an undefeated Luftwaffe? You are sidestepping the questions you don't want to answer. Assuming the question is US v. Axis (which, in fact, the original question was not. It was the US v. Germany), from where does the US launch an invasion of Africa? Can it do so without British naval cooperation? Can it do so against an undefeated German and Italian military, which have been unmolested by Britain, and which has had time to fortify Africa against invasion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chup, if the whole of Europe fortified for five years and stood united against the might of the USA, it would fall. The unmolested Luftewaffe would have been molested, heavily. Its forces would have, like those of the Japanese, been destroyed while the US built up the American Air Force. Could the US have invaded a fortified Africa? Most assuredly, that barren, fractured continent could have been invaded at any point. Could the US have defeated a united German and Italian army with strong Luftwaffe and Italian air support? Of course. You seem to be missing the point here so I will state it clearly: The United States of America has a greater industrial, social and political might than any other nation or any conglomeration of nations on Earth. There is no way that Germany could have stood against them, Germany, where mass production hadn't taken hold. Germany, with the industrial might of the STATE of New York. What naval cooperation would the US need? How could any nation stand before the US at that time? Chup, what group of nations could have held back their might? Do you realize the size difference between the two? The industrial difference? The resource difference? In every measure, the US is at least twice the size of Germany and often many times that. Finally, only one nation had access to nuclear weaponry during that war and it was not Russia, Britain, France or Germany. The United States fought World War II with one hand tied behind its back. Look at the casualties, look at the production. If need required it, they would have just taken the other hand out and destroyed Germany. As it was, they were happy to let Russia, France and Britain take the brunt of the fighting and support them, rather than take on Germany, Italy and Japan all by itself. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

B-29s delivered the bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were the best planes to do it there. The bomb wasn't heavy so it could have been launched from a B-24 launched from an aircraft carrier, as I said, a la Doolitte. My reasoning for Sicily was because I thought it was the US vs. the Axis, without Sicily and Italy the US would have to wait until it established a foothold in Europe. I assume we have to believe Germany invaded France, otherwise the victory will be even more lopsided (Occupied France, if I remember correctly, was producing more goods for the war than the Fatherland). If your contention is that the German navy could have withstood the American navy (It didn't plus the Americans had a better understanding of modern navel operations than the Germans did so that this would have been even more lopsided if Japan had no play in our hypothetical war) you are wrong. Without England, the US would have had to inch its way up from Africa, which would take longer but the result would be just as inevitable. As I keep saying, more US casualties and a longer war but the same result. Finally, there is no question that the US was more powerful than Germany, that is why Germany was performing aggressive war, the US had and has more Lebensraum than it knows what to do with. Whether the US would have entered the war is a seperate question but had they, regardless of whether it was Germany, Germany + Occupied France, Germany + OF + Italy or Germany + OF + Italy + Japan, the US would have been victorious. It's not pretty but it's true. One of your main issues, Machineman, is that the US and Germany were not connected, to ignore this is like ignoring the bomb, and would be like me saying, "Well what if Germany used worse tactics," eg ignoring one of the main strengths of our combatants. Germany could never invade the US, regardless of books by Newt Gingrich, and the US could have pushed their way onto the continent of Europe, with the welcome support from the occupied peoples, and pummeled Germany to death in a war of attrition. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: To both CavScout and Elijah - Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All ready answered (Oops, dropping the bomb, that is), Chup, but, for the sake of brevity: Aircraft Carrier. Sicily. Ireland. Any Small Island Around Europe. Any Occupied Part of Europe After American Invasion. As for invasion, Africa to Southern Europe. Norway. France. Remember that there is an enormous amount of coastline in Europe, gaining a toehold is all the US would need and from there it would be a war of attrition. US infrastructure would only grow stronger, German infrastructure would only get weaker and the war of attrition would go to that great big nation across the sea. I am not trying to be jingoistic here, the simple fact of the matter is that the United States of America is and was a powerhouse, unlike any nation-state on Earth since the Roman Empire. Look at CavScout's figures, look at the economic, political and social dominance in effect now. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Interesting conclusions, so let me see if I am getting this correct, it's the contention now of a few ppl that the USA could have won WW2 ourselves? I just want to clarify this point before going on. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, John, it is my contention that, barring the help of Britain and Russia, militarily, the US could have engaged and defeated Germany given the technological, social, economic and political situation in the late 30s and early 40s. This would have entailed greater US casualties and a longer war but I do not think the near bankrupt German nation, supported as it was by a (well)patched together infrastructure, could stand against the might of the United States. We tend to underestimate the power of America but the leaders of other nations did not. Japan called it a sleeping giant for good reason and the amount that the US gave to the other nations, without significantly impacting the US's own industry, is astounding. Put on top of this the invention of the atom bomb and the conclusion is obvious, no nation at that time could stand against the US at that time. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Moreover (doncha love it when someone starts with a moreover), I think the atomic bomb question is a digression. CavScout, I think again that you are spending more time trying to pull me down than trying to pull yourself up. You are the one who is arguing that the US could have won the war on its own, an opinion which flies in the face of some of the most eminent politicians and historians of both then and now. I ask you therefore to prove it. Let me ask you a few questions, and I ask that you respond to the questions rather than attacking my position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chup, I realize this was directed at CavScout but I'd like to throw my moreovers in. First, it is a common misconception that the American people blanche at casualties, they are merely a practical people and slow to anger. Looking at the only true trial by fire that the Americans have faced, the American Civil War, you can see that their national character is made of sterner stuff than most people think. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: 1) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Britain? If so, how? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First, to "disallow" the idea of the US using or developing the bomb would be like disallowing the Germans the use of jet fighters, advanced armor or other technological advances on their side. The Americans developed this weapon because of the necessities of war, not as a national science project. However, even without it, the industry and mass production of the US, along with its immense natural resources and agricultural production, guarentee a victory in any war of attrition with any other power on the globe. It would have taken longer and more Americans would have died but there is no way Germany could compare to the amount of manpower and weaponry produced in a nation the size and strength of the US. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: 2) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Russia? If so, how? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Africa, Italy, France and then Germany. More aircraft carriers and more tanks, more troops and more guns, more ships and more bombs, more planes and more bullets, more, more, more, more until Germany was torn to pieces, just like the South in the Civil War. The US had practically limitless power at that time and the national will to use it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: 3) Allowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, if Britain and Russia had been defeated, or had been non-combattants, from where would the US have based bombers with which they could have dropped atomic bombs on Germany? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you are fighting in a war and your enemy develops a new style of tank that is more powerful than your tanks, you upgrade your tanks. If, however, your enemy has developed a new technology that allows him to pack 20,000 tons of explosive power into a single bomb, how do you counter that? The US could launch it from an aircraft carrier a la Doolittle or they could clear the skies with their limitless airpower and drop it from Sicily or they could nuke Tokyo and tell Germany, "So, do you want to be next?" And Germany would have cried foul and surrendered because there was NOTHING ELSE THEY COULD HAVE DONE. Atomic weaponry was not an incremental advancement like jet fighters, King Tigers, fancy new U-Boats or even aircraft carriers, it was an exponential advancement that gave the United States the capability to defeat the entire world. If they had wanted to after WWII, the US could have rolled into Russia and succeeded where Germany failed, why? Because they could nuke Stalingrad or nuke Kursk or nuke Kiev or nuke any other significant population or industrial center that caused them grief. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chup, There was little friendliness between the USA and Germany that couldn't have been easily wiped away, as it had with the Japanese. We justified firebombing Dresden, just as we justified fireboming Tokyo and we would have dropped the bomb on the most expedient target, Japanese or German, if necessary. What can't be argued is that, had Germany kept fighting and shown itself to be capable of fighting late into 1945, they would have fallen over themselves to surrender upon seeing the effects of an atomic blast, regardless of whether it was on a German city or a Japanese one. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

I'm in the middle of a game of CM at night in fog and I was set up as the allies and I hate it. Why? For the same reason I hate it when I'm the allies and I get set up with any extreme terrain/weather set up, because the bloody Germans created a tank and a gun and an infantry organization for every damn situation. I'm facing flamethrower equipped HTs and all SMG squads and they're tearing my men apart because no Allied force ever put together an all SMG squad. When you set up interlocking fields of fire with your HMGs and AP minefields within their very short LOS and all the enemy does is roll up and overpower you, you naturally feel like your troops are inferior. So when you have these disassociated battles where the German player gets to pick the perfect troops for the terrain, you always end up with the Germans having a tactical and doctrinal advantage. However, in WWII, the Germans paid the price for this, losing out on the benefits of mass-production, having specialized units that suffered in stand-up combat and having armor that was overly specialized and less easily repaired than your standard, die-cast Sherman. This can't be simulated in a game the scale of CM but it sure as hell had an effect on them during the war. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

The German army was made for hollywood by a bunch of propagandists that knew their business. We see so much propaganda from WWII related to the Reich because this is the only media that survived, unlike the, in comparison, frank treatment the allies got. The Germans were presented as these amazing, well-armed, well-trained, Aryan supermen because that's exactly what Nazi Germany wanted to present. Compared to what we know about the Allies, even considering the amount of censorship that went on during the war, we get an incredibly favorable bias toward the German army. The same did not occur for the Russians because the Soviet Union was the enemy for 50 years so of course we went out of our way to slander their army and dig up dirt on their failures. Look at the amount of scepticism with which members of this board approach any piece of Soviet testing or reporting during WWII. We let the German military machine off because we rely so heavily on Reich propaganda materials as hostorical documents. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Super, How'd you do that??? Mine is set up that way by accident and I cannot, regardless of anything I try, change it back. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darwin: So what your saying is you want the tac AI to not be changed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct, rather add an outside component that uses the strategic AI we all know and love from the single player game. And yes, Cavscout, a hold command would make this much easier and would act much like the hide command in that you would order a fast move and a hold and your marker would say "Move and hold." Otherwise, they would be free to adjust their position as the AI sees fit. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: How would this effect a situation where you wanted troops to stay put? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would assume that, in such a situation, your troops would stay put. The only time I would think the AI would take over is if your lack of orders left forces in an untenable position or out of sorts. The thought, I admit, is nascent, so I'm sure there are inconsistencies, but where there are time limits, there are players running out of time, which works in a game sense but I think it would cause problems in a realism sense. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olduvai: Funny funny stuff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Olduvai, I demand that you make your way into the Cesspool where you must post your humorous things with great proclivity. If you do not do this, you will be cursed for ever. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Knowing that TCP/IP play will include a timer, I was wondering if BTS plans on provisions for when the timer runs out and troops have no orders. While I think it's fitting that troops don't do anything, I don't quite think it's realistic. Rather if a unit doesn't get orders, there should be a condition where the AI can take over, so that if you don't tell a platoon to move, it may move as it sees fit, based on the situation around it. This way you can set up a portion of the battlefield and, if your troops handle the troops, you can let them run relatively free, while you concentrate on the sticky situation with your limited time. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Veteran: Having spent 3 or more years in the NFL. Crack: A dangerous, dangerous drug. But fun. Really, really fun. But don't try it kids 'cause it's damn dangerous. But fun. Elite: My killer hax0ring skeelz! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Just wondering, of course, because my dog disappeared out by the old Carter place. And my girlfriend went to find old Spot and she hasn't come back either. And I found what seems to be the dessicated corpse of a police officer outside the old Carter Mausoleum and I was kinda wondering, ya know. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

You've played him before? That's odd, he sure plays like it's only his second game. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Lay off him, guys, this is only his second game of CM, ever. He doesn't really know what goes on underneath the hood. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Don't give me that. My dumbass Panther saw your Sherman and then had an epileptic fit deciding which was the bigger threat, an M4A3(76) at 500m or a bazooka at 30,000,000km. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

I was listening to this collection of music from the republics of the Soviet Union (It's a French collection from back in the day) and I suddenly realized I have no idea about the following things: 1. Where did the term 'Soviet' originate? 2. What does CCCP stand for? (Please give phonetic as well as Cyrilic spellings) Thanks guys. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein

Aw, shucks. Can't we ban him, anyway? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein