Kanonier Reichmann

Iwas wondering whether anybody has heard from Slapdragon lately. The absence of his usually informative posts has certainly been missed by this particular post reader, even if his style does seem to ruffle some people's feathers from what I've seen in response to his posts I certainly hope his absence is in no way related to the illness he suffered a little while back. Any feedback from someone in the know would be greatly appreciated... and yes Slappy, you're welcome to reply. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mika: Originally posted by kipanderson: Making a hole into antipersonnel minefield is much easier as the mines are more sensitive. Generally if attacking the hole is punched with special charge that is put together from several long metalpipes that are filled with explosives (I've seen these being used in Private Ryan and I have used them myself in the army, but as english is not my native language I have no idea what they were called). It will take only few minutes for a platoon to punch hole through minefield, go through it and begin attack. -- MS. -- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe Bangalore Torpedo's is how those tube like explosive charges were referred to. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: <rant> If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the fucking oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence. In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans. </rant> Rebuttals? [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Strikes me as interesting how quickly a thread that started off talking about light tanks gravitated to the subject of heavy tanks. Too bad Einstein isn't around any longer, he could probably come up with a theory to explain it. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't tell me you haven't heard of Einsteins "Theory of Heavativity"? It's been published since the 1950's! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: "The End" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn... beat me to it. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Binkie: Thanks for the suggestions, Chupacabra. But no need for assumptions about my opponent. It's Fionn. What now, brown cow? What kind of specific advice do I need?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I wanna know is how you managed to get Fionn to agree to the "challenge"- a term I use loosely I may add. BTW, it is a genuine question. Regards Jim R.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 1950's film titled "Der Brucke" (sorry, no umlaut on my keyboard) which literally means The Bridge. A very moving, anti war movie with great close in fighting against Shermans. And if you had to fight as the German side against those odds in Combat Mission you would probably concede before starting. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeT: The German and Polish speech files have been translated to english. Has anyone done the same to the French files? MikeT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's easy, they're all a variation on the following... "run for your lives", "retreat!", "run away", "we surrender" and "lay down your arms". Sorry to all those French players out there but I simply couldn't pass up on the opportunity. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Huh? Canada whipped the US in 1812? IIRC the US took over Canada but then gave it back to them because who in the hell would wanna live up there in the cold? We did the same with Mexico. Took it over in the Spanish-American War, but then gave it back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Meybe so but the pretext for invading in the first place was pretty tenuous wouldn't you say? A little bit reminiscent of Germany's pretext to invade Poland because "we were invaded first" by their own fall guys. Or am I being too harsh? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Really? I haven't heard of this yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, now Maximus.. sarcasm doesn't become you Regards Jim R.

I know one sure fire way... make sure you spell "smarter" correctly. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: Tiger thought are just the fixs in the game not the manual. THe manule that came with 1.0 is well worse than my spelling in some cases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, that is an impossibility Don't worry, I'm assuming English is your second language, I'd hate to think how fractured my French would be, assuming that is your mother tongue, if I had to write posts in it Regards Jim R.

I dunno, you guys are making this topic far too complicated. It's quite simple, once you spot the relative, quickly grab your wallet, keys etc. and fly out the back door, over the fence through the neighbours back yard and down to the local pub to avoid the mother in law/cousin/grandparent. It's really that simple. Hope this has helped. Regards Jim R.

Yeh, thanks guys for your replies, I certainly will take it seriously. Just a couple of things on the suggestion to choose M18's instead... if you've got the British the only cheap alternative to a 76mm toting AFV is a Wolverine (c.f. a Firefly for instance and I'll certainly NEVER pick one of those god awful Archers)- which can be critical if you're playing a 1,000 point or less game. The other point is that the suggestion to hunt up a rise then reverse can be a bit iof a Catch 22 if you also use veteran or better crew as this often doesn't leave enough time for the AFV to locate the target, aim & loose off a shot before it starts reversing again due to their greater efficiency. You see my frustration... but as they say... such is life. Regards Jim R.

Seems this thread could become an offshot of the Peng thread at this rate. Be that as it may... a serious question... from your immense Cesspooling experience how the hell do you use bloody M10 a.k.a. Wolverine's effectively? No matter if I purchase veteran crews, hunt them up a ridgeline with an enemy tank already targetted, sneak them around my opponents flank- they ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS die horrible deaths whilst doing s.f.a. to the enemy. Perhaps the simple answer is simply not to purchase them despite it being a poor mans way to get hold of mobile 76mm AT guns as it seems to me they fire slowly and never seem to hit their mark whilst the Axis units invariably hit them by the 2nd shot at the latest. Your thoughts anyone? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stic.man: scipio i think he means "idiots" but what does m***n mean? eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, let me think... could it be melon?... probably not... ooohh... how about moron... that fits doesn't it? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: A wish list? A flame free zone? Well, we can always dream can't we? Remember, flame free zone! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn, I was going to wish for better flame graphics but I'm not allowed to . Aren't I entitled to my own opinion and express it? Regards Jim R.

Yep, I'm with you. The more choice the merrier as far as I'm concerned. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patrik: AIIIEEEEEEE!!! as the good Sir Jeff plummets into the dark cavenous valley. Good one Patrik. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but the "translations" look awfully close to my original list I used to record the German and Polish voices. Call me an egomaniac, but I just wanted to set this straight... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moon... you're an egomaniac! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: So what did Monty do? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What Monty achieved was a "90% succesful" crossing of the Rhein river in the Arnhem, Nijmegen area. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: OMG, I'm going blind! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but the reason why you're going blind the Pope would definitely NOT approve of. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Hi all I just noted that in ver 1.1b22 the M3A1 HT can carry a full squad once again. I haven't found any report on this change from the #16 build. Comments? While on the subject of transport capacity; Isn't the SPW 250/1 a bit overrated with it's capacity of 7? From what I've understood it should really be dropped a notch or two. On the other end we have the 2½ ton truck, that can only carry one squad in CM. Shouldn't it be able to take two squads at least, and for the small German squads perhaps even three (but maybe not a full platoon). At least it should suffice with two trucks to transport a full strength infantry platoon. Comments? Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn, I was hoping this thread would be an Internet based re-interpretation of that wonderfully exciting & suspensful series- Brideshead Revisited. Rats. Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: I couldn't speak specifically to the cost issue... but I thought the prices reflected model availability, and not actual cost to produce. In many situations, the two correlate (low cost = more of them) but in some cases it didn't. THere were some cheap tanks that weren't produced in great numbers, so they end up being more expensive than similar tanks that were readily available. Or, that is how I see it... I we just need to shake the Starcraft mentality that you have x troops that cost x resources based on their effectiveness only. In real war, you don't always wind up with force numbers soley based of cost to produce. We'll have to get used to it too... because when the Russian front version is released, you'll have the costs REALLY skewed. :^) Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Joe, you may not have read this before being a newish member but BTS have stated quite clearly that the cost of any unit in CMBO is based purely & simply on its intrinsic abilities i.e. armour thickness, firepower, mobility etc. and NOT on historical availability or cost to produce. The guys at BTS have confirmed however that with CM II there will be the choice to have point values of units either based on their intrinsic worth OR on their historical availability. Just thought I would clear this up for you. Regards Jim R.