Kanonier Reichmann

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: I'd vote for "Sand Pebbles", a very realistic river battle scene and the hero dies at the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Awwwww, damn.....now you spoiled it for me Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holdit: Instead of closing the thread where the flames have started, just douse the flames themselves. Delete postings that contravene the rules and spririt if the board, along with any postings that quote from them, so that less people will be inclined to be dragged into responding to trolls. In this way, a sensible discussion could continue while the more exciteable posters either calm down or just stay out of it. I've seen it work elsewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ermmm, this is called censorship. I would have thought most Americans who pride themselves in their constitution for the right to freedom of speech would object to such a suggestion. Regards Jim R.

Jeez you guys are far too uptight. Of course it's a joke! The Onion's "raison de-etre" (sorry, I'm hopeless at French) has always been to make up stories for fun. Relax you guys, chill out etc. SHEEESH! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by White Death: The Bridge (1959) very impressive movie about realities of war. There are no winners - just losers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How true White Death. This film is often overlooked but it is an absolute classic. I twould have to rate high on my list of all time great war films. BTW, in sort of the same vein, people keep mentioning Kelly Heroes as a humurous war film. If you want to see another war film with humuor, check out "The life & times of Private Chonkin" or some such. It shows how f**cked up the Soviets were in the early part of the war, very entertaining. Regards JIm R.

A shameless bump. Jim R.

I had just noticed that the blast effect of my German 81mm mortars was significantly less than the 75mm artillery. Does anyone know the reasoning why this is the case despite the larger calibre of the 81mm? Is it to do with the trajectory when the shell impacts or something? Any grog input would be greatly appreciated. Regards Jim R.

Has anybody seen or heard from Gunslinger lately? Since about the middle of September I haven't seen any posts from him whereas before he was a regular "poster" including his fantastic dulled down bmp mods. It would be a shame if someone pissed him off perhaps & he has chosen not to be part of the CM community anymore. With those mods he produced his loss would be a terrible shame IMHO. Anybody know? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Dieppe... Kasserine Pass... the Brewster Buffalo... the grease gun... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chupacabra, please elucidate....what was wrong with the grease gun compared with say, the Thompson SMG? I am genuinely interested in your views & are not looking to flame you for them. Thanks Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eksman: The second item that I have is the employment of Wespe SP guns. Again it was my understanding that the Wespe was a SP gun used in a stand-off or indirect fire mode. I have been unable to find either a Wespe spotter, or a way to employ the Wespe in the indirect fire mode. Any Ideas?? Bob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well the first part of your question has been answered so I'll help with the 2nd part. In CM there is no ability for SP guns to fire indirectly if they're represented on the actual map. BTS only allow the SP guns to fire directly at targets with their presence in certain scenarios supposedly representing scratch forces or such like thrown together to prevent an enemies advance. Regards Jim R.

Keep trying Tanaka, if you're persistant you never know your luck. Regards Jim R.

Ahhh I love this stuff Cav. You really do set yourself up don't you. Your presumably sarcastic comment about the Soviets contributing most to the war due to their casualty rate IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I would think that even the most biased war historians would have to concede that if it wasn't for the enourmous sacrifices of the then Soviet Union tying up the bulk of the German army the Western Allies chances of defeating Germany would have been, to use an Australian phrase, "buckleys & none". And before you go on about the A bomb being the weapon that would have decided the issue, I severely doubt the Americans would have used such a weapon of mass destruction in Europe for all sorts of political reasons. Have a nice day! Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: They sure do like to hoard that tungsten don't they?! I think the AI looks at it this way, every round must be worth at least case of good whisky on the black market after the day's action is over so the more they have left over to trade the bigger party they can have -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't have much of a party if you're dead can you, unless of course it's called a wake. I couldn't agree more on how unbelievably miserly the Allied units are with their tungsten rounds. It's as if Scrooge McDuck is the Tank Commander in every Allied tank saving up the t rounds so he can horde them in his tungsten depository. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: What gave me a certain admiration for germans. The common knowledge of WWII goes a bit like this here in finland. 1. Germans were evil nazis, Hitler was their leader. 2. Hitler wanted to kill all the jews, so the americans had to fight him. The british helped a bit. 3. As the movies so well show it, the americans had to fight against overwhelming odds. They prevailed because they were morally superior. 4. Germany also had some sort of skirmish against the russians. [This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 10-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Jarmo, that's being a bit heavy handed isn't it? I thought the stoush between Germany & Russia was more like an argument and not nearly as serious as a skirmish. Oh, & of course we all know that it was the Americans that won the war for the Allies singlehandedly going by what Hollywood "realistically" portrays. Regards Jim R.

It's obvious isn't it? "CM-2 Beyond OnionDome" which, once released will be followed closely by the Hollywood movie starring Mel Gibson as Michael Wittmann. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: As for why they didn't code for trucks and the like, in all probability because any weapon larger than a .22 rimfire has the potential to kill/disable an unarmored vehicle, so did we really need to see a 100% kill probability above it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Tanaka, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. Firstly, when firing at unarmoured targets you have no idea what the probability of a hit is because, I gather, the chance to kill is dependant on the blast radius of your HE ordnance. If that's the case then I can tell you those armoured truck mounted AA guns are almost IMPOSSIBLE to kill. I'm currently playing a game where I have fired literally (& I'm not joking here) over twenty 75 mm rounds & over 30 37 mm rounds at this one Flak truck and it never dies!!! All you see each turn are explosions underneath it, behind it, in front of it every bloody where to no avail. Every turn this truck is targetted at around 550 to 650 metres away by 2 Stuarts & a 75mm Sherman & despite explosions going off all around this moving monstosity it never dies. This has been going on for over 10 turns now & I'm getting sick of it. Oh by the way, it has also been targeted by 3 60 mm mortars to no avail & I forgor to mention that over this 10 turn period it has continually been fired on by a 50 cal. MG from a Halftack & STILL NOTHING! It's like the Flak gun from hell. So, in conclusion I agree with Tanaka that unarmoured vehicles seem impossible to kill unless you can get up very close with them with infantry & then, no problems. However in my game this AA gun just stands off at over 500 metres & is basically invulnerable to all sorts of SH*T going its way including 50 cal., 75 mm & 37 mm fire. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: I can see 1 good reason for having ragtop TDs, provided you accept the whole US TD concept as unavoidable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey yeah...a convertible Tank Destroyer. Now that WOULD make the Germans green with envy. Just push a button & your electrically operated steel re-inforced rag top covers your head from all those nasty 81 mm fragments. Now that would be a sight to see! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Close, it's a hunt command up the hill, stopping so that the gun clears the crest of the hill and has LOS. In the same turn a reverse order is issued after the hunt. It works like this. The tank hunts up the hill. Because it will hunt, it will engage targets as soon as it has LOS. Then after the hunt order is completed, it will reverse back down into cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Croda, my understanding of the Hunt command is that the unit given the command will engage the enemy until it's destroyed. Therefore, if the Puma spots a unit & begins firing on it, isn't there a chance it will be left exposed at the top of the hill if it hasn't managed to destroy the unit it has engaged? I always thought you simply used the Move command while tageting an already known unit on the other side of the hill for the move then reverse commands to work & NOT leave your unit stuck on the top of the rise. But if your tactic of Hunt then Reverse works then I'll have to re-asses my use of the commands perhaps. Regards Jim R.

Since I live in a democracy I'll cast my vote as well...YES PLEASE... Of course, all this could be wasted if BTS consider themselves an autocracy! (which come to think of it they are when it comes to Combat Mission & its development). Regards JIm R.

Hey, don't forget Kanonier Reichmann manning an 88mm gun perhaps? Pretty please? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: I had an 88 survive for 30+ turns of engagement recently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume it DID fire at some stage during the game did it? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: They've discussed plans for modeling other nationalities in many previous threads: Finns, Italians, Kiwis & Ozzies, other nationalities on the East Front... everything but Japanese and Koreans (sniff)... at least for a few years. But they never said HELL no! I can live with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeez, I know we Aussies were renowned for volunteering to fight other countries wars (Greece & North Africa come to mind in WW II) but as for fighting on the Eastern Front! We must have been mad to get involved in that one. Regards JIm R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ahauschild: As for the tactic on setting buildings or woods on fire to deny them to advancing enemy forces. Yes, it is a valid tactic. No matter what the resources you use, flames, tnt, mines, bobbytraps, or just plain attillery, if you have to retreat and any structure or dominent landmark that will give the advancing enemys any advantages, including civil buildings, bridges, churges, depos and rail are to be expandable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What did the English police force ever do to the Germans to warrant special traps set for them all over a batlefield? Regards Jim R.

[This message has been edited by Kanonier Reichmann (edited 10-02-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: I am wondering why the small bildings can be on angles and the large ones and churches can't dose anyone know why that is? BTS? Rob <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure those so called churches aren't in fact meant to be mosques & therefore they nedd to face East/West. Then again, maybe not. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil the Dill: I don't know the German age. But in Australia the LEGAL age is 18 yrs and our driving age is 16 (which to me seems weird that we can drive before we can drink). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I dunno. Seems like a GOOD idea to me so that young drivers have around 2 years driving experience BEFORE they start guzzling alcohol so that hopefully they are better prepared for the unexpected whilst driving on the roads possibly whilst inebriated (not that I condone drinking and driving in any way). Just my thoughts on the subject. REGARDS Jim R.