Disaster@work

I have a Creative TNT2 Ultra and also have experienced problems with Combat Mission and am running Win2k. We should all lay seige to Nvidia and reduce that office to rubble.

All your points on the ACW are good but from my Canadian point of view, there is already an entire bookshelf in Chapters (big book chain) devoted to the American Civil War. In the grand scheme of politics that effected the world, you should expect an equal bookshelf facing it for the Russian civil war / revolution.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The preview for the horror of WWI was the Russo-Japanese War, with all the high-powered artillery, machine-guns, mines, barbed wire, trenches, and accurate repeating rifles. Frightful body count for such a short period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although it was clear to us what lessons the R-J war had for the future of warfare, back then few of the European observers thought that this kind of slaughter would be repeated in Europe, preferring to think less of both the Russians and the Japanese. Was there really any difference in the thinking of the Allied commanders in the Somme? Like the Japanese at Mukden, they believed that elan (or for the Japanese, bushido spirit) would win out over massed quick firing rifles and machine guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: I think it was Grimmelshausen who said: "Whoever kills a pikeman kills an innocent man." (BTW, if you haven't read his "Simplicissimus", do it).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice quote! I've heard the same thing applied to musketry in regards to its accuracy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One reason why Karl XIIs army was so efficient in 1700-08 was that he emphasized attack with "cold weapons", that is, swords and bayonets. His tactics was that the whole army would advance near the enemy, fire a single volley, and charge with bayonets. As long as the enemy didn't have enough artillery to decimate the Swedish army enroute, the defenders would most often turn and run when they saw that the Swedish line didn't turn back. However, at Poltava 1709 the Russians did have enough artillery and their lines didn't turn back and run (though, it was a close affair). The result was the worst Swedish military defeat through the history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also on the subject of formations and why people stood in lines is that you were more likely to stay and receive a charge if, Well, in theory at least, there was no where to run if you had a second rank behind you bristling with bayonets. Either be stabbed by your comrades or by your enemies. Choose! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Admissions to the Invalides in Paris in 1762. 68.8% to small arms 13.4% to artillery 14.7% to swords 2.4% to bayonets. However, artillery hits were lethal more often than musket wounds and that skews the table somewhat. I have no idea how much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think at that time any type of wound at all was a serious risk to become lethal given the lack of professional medicine for soldiers. That is, of the soldiers who made it to hospital. If you were wounded on the field of battle there was a great chance you might be left there for days and be preyed upon by looters, wolves or die from exposure.