Disaster@work
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Disaster@work
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:
The Rest Of The Board: Where do these people come from?
Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I come from Can-ada. The teacher put me in the special class because I talk like dis, eh.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:
Gauchi: Thanks for the info. I kinda knew the ratio I guess my numbers were WAY off, thanks for the correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please note that much of the help that Israel (and any country the U.S. wants to help) gets is through favourable contracts from suppliers. There is a complicated system of loans, escrow and deferred payments that enable countries to get U.S. arms, systems and technology without paying for it at the time (or perhaps ever). Much of this does not fall under the purview of the various Congressional committees that oversee arms packages to foreign powers.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo:
Kingfish,
Re: Somalia, I think the problems that went wrong there are once again manifestations of the whole problem of using a Democracies military for police duties. US forces LOVE to kick ass. That's what they are trained to do, and that's what they want to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh oh. I have visions of Roman legionnaires rampaging in my head now. Does anyone doubt that the U.S. is an empire?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Once you tie them all up with beaurocratic BS and rules of engagement and political restraints, thats when they go to hell in a handbasket. Whether we're talking about Vietnam, or Somalia, the truth is, (in the case of the Americans) if the the politicians just "wound us up and let us go", things would be different. Of course, decimating Mogadishu with tons of firepower would not have engendered the support of the locals to be more democratic, but if applied with the proper military fortitude, it sure would have pacified them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you're looking for that kind of pacification, an atom bomb would do just fine. I can almost sense the humour in your post but a lot of people would disagree. This bullheaded approach has gotten the U.S. in trouble time and time again. Any force that goes into a situation like that without reaching some sort of understanding with local powers is bound to miss a lasting resolution. This willingness to impose solutions from the outside so typical. It's military tourism.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The US military of the 1920's and 30's learned the hard way how to deal with such things, unrelenting force and hunting down and killing the leaders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, it's so sad that the U.S. is a democracy, isn't it?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really wish the US would just drop kick the whole UN, myself. It seems to tie ones hands and cause these insurmountable problems far more than it actually helps us, the US. I realize that's an overly simplistic viewpoint, but...
Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Currently the UN functions only as a place to air grievances and bring issues to world attention. Because of superpower politics, of which the U.S. is a major part, the UN can never function as a police force. No country wants to be the one to put enough authority into a UN force so that it can act quickly, least of all the U.S.
Our Canadian general Romeo Dallaire begged his superiors to let his troops defend themselves and the Rwandan victims from the massacres there. 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed and thousands of civilians, brutally murdered. But all he could do was watch. Within sight of peacekeepers people were being hacked to pieces. They were taunted by the killers. By the time it became clear to the bureaucrats the extent of the disaster, it would have taken a major influx of troops to stop the killings. If he had had the proper authority on the ground, he might have stopped it from beginning by arresting a few people and securing the armouries. Today, he is a tragic figure, an alcoholic. I feel so very bad for him. It is the shame of all members of the UN that they cannot put their faith in a standing army with authority. This is not just the U.S. fault (as they would have to supply much of the logistics of such an army) but also the fault of third world nations that don't want their sovereignty threatened (feeling guilty, perhaps, because they see that such a force might be needed in their regions).
-
Here is the Amazon link for BlackHawk down:
Black Hawk Down : A Story of Modern War
by Mark Bowden
I read it when it was a series in the Philadelphia Enquirer. Gripping. Many of the chapters can still be read on the Philadelphia Enquirer's website here:
http://www.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-28-2000).]
-
I model in 3D. One of the first things I did in Alias PowerAnimator was make an extremely detailed Jagdpanther. Somehow i'd gotten the dimensions wrong, though. *sniff* And it looked kind of ... odd. Still, nothing beats how I modelled EACH TRACK. Heh, the thing took 2 hours to render each frame at NTSC quality.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:
You would be surrendering land for peace. That sounds like a fair trade to me. Realistically, if you want lasting peace in the region, it's safe to say that Israel will have to give up some territory. I don't claim to be "in the know," but I think that most Israelis can see that, even some of those who live in the disputed regions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It certainly is important to take that step. Israel isn't secure anyway. Any sustained drive will bisect the country in two or mess it up so badly it will take a decade to rebuild. For that country, it has come to the point that it can only be secure in stable relations with its neighbours. Which is the way all countries should act. It is the same with personal security. Any of my coworkers can come into my office and shoot me. I can't stop it. Arming myself wouldn't help if I didn't see it coming. Being always on alert would cause me to be less productive and always fearful. So I choose to believe in good relations with others around me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
South America: I have no idea. Someone with more knowledge of South American militaries can jump in here if they wish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's tough to say because all of these countries' militaries are devoted to internal security. In the past, however, the Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil all had hostile relations with each other. You have to say that Argentina and Brazil have the resources to be the greatest threats. Certainly, Argentina gained valuable lessons when it tangled with the British. Argentina could have done better with what they had. Colombia right now has major backing from the U.S. for the so-called war on drugs. This includes training for elite forces.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Western Europe (Continental): France<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with France for now because French soldiers have extensive experience in peacekeeping and also in interventions in Africa. Its commanders are also quite aggressive, even in peacekeeping operations. I would say they are even more interventionary than the U.S., but only insofar as French interests are concerned. A resurgent German army certainly has the goods, but their experience in active operations will be constrained by the EU, as they lack territories and interests overseas.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Eastern Europe: Russian Republic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except for armies in Africa, no armed forces is now currently engaged in high intensity conflict as much as the Russians.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Northern Africa/Mediterranean: No real idea. I'm tempted to say Egypt, but I'm not sure if they are considered to be more in the Middle East.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting question. It depends who Egypt is fighting at the time
Anyway, their armed forces as a whole are the regional superpower, barring Israel. Egypt's forces are technologically superior to most it will likely array against including Libya and Sudan. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Central Africa: No real idea. Anyone wanna step in? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nigeria. At least their soldiers aren't 12 year olds. That whole area is a total mess. Rwanda has been flexing its muscles a lot, though.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Middle East: Israel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Israel is certainly very strong but they rely a lot on technology and their reserves. As I said before, both Turkey and Egypt are strong both technologically but also in terms of manpower. Turkey, specifically, has an extremely modern air force, NATO resources to draw on, and isn't afraid to show its strength against Greece, Iraq, Syria, or its Kurdish separatists. Turkey has a legitimate navy, as opposed to Israel's coastal force. Of course Turkish forces get plenty of seasoning trying to keep down the Kurds, who aren't much of a threat these days.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Asia (Subcontinent): India<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No argument there. Without nuclear weapons, India would wipe the floor with Pakistan. Pakistan's air defenses and air force are a joke. Geographically, Pakistan has no depth to defend.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
East Asia: China, and still moving up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only the size of China's forces are an issue here. Compared to the sophisticated systems used by Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan, China can't touch them. Its forces are too unwieldy and its industry not yet up to snuff to match the systems of its neighbours. Any Chinese attack in any direction north, east or south would be an embarassing failure. China has already tangled with Vietnam and found them a hard enemy.
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by herbjorn:
Fionn
Germany has a conscript army, right? Whereas Britain has a smaller, albeit non-conscript army. Wouldn`t the average British soldier have been training for several years more than a conscript German soldier?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Germany last month began instituting more reforms aimed at downsizing its army and replacing the conscript system. It does have elite large formations (especially the one that maneuvers with the French) so they are trying to rationalize their army to be more mobile and compact.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:
I actually like the court martial button
.Right now I have a few Panther crewmen I could use it on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In operations mode it actually will make sense. Summary executions all around might improve some units.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brethon:
Disaster@work, have you by chance read 'Clear and present Danger' by Tom Clancy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I stopped reading Clancy after the whole military-porn industry became too successful. By military-porn I mean novels salaciously listing up to date military trivia wrapped around poor plotting, jingoism, and obvious outcomes. [On a side note, I think one of the reasons why the Patriot was so successful initially is because it was one story where the U.S. was actually an underdog]
I did watch the movie on video. It was ok. But it doesn't refer at all to the alliance between the political groups and drug lords, which is what is so complicated about the actual situation of the FARC and the cartels.
-
1) Goering unit - a fat sieg heiling character would bring instant morale bonuses when present. Especially when running for cover, screaming like a little girl.
2) Chuck Wagons - fighting makes a man hungry! Didn't soldiers in WWII eat? Where are the wagons?
3) Virtual string, slide rule, damage template - I don't feel like a grognard unless I can see 3D models of all of these.
4) Sniper View - I want to look through the X-hairs of my sniper unit. Then hit OK, and watch as the sniper scans the battlefield and when he settles on the prone body of another sniper, and is shot at that exact moment through his sight. That would be K00L!
5) Grand Fenwick volunteers - Like many small countries, Grand Fenwick participated in the crusade against fascism by declaring war on Germany. Including units of medieval archers with spectacles will at last recognize the important, if symbolic, contribution of these brave people.
6) Support for Half Life: Counterstrike maps - Although the tile-based nature of CM maps might make it difficult to import maps created for Counterstrike using Worldcraft, it would combine the most popular first person online game with the best example of turn-based wargame currently available.
7) Decapitation / no decapitation mode - If decapitation settings are on, the depiction of casualties will take on a grisly, realistic tone to show how terrible warfare will be. Points for animations that make the player actually barf and fill their pants at the thought of being forced to send one more move to their merciless, hated PBEM opponents. Doesn't work in Win2k because of crappy implementation of D3D.
8) Hitler's armoured car - only one of these was made so don't risk it! It has to survive the war so that it can be displayed in a museum! Costs 3000 points.
9) Xmas scenario - Takes place Christmas Eve in a winter wonderland. Pine trees frosted with snow. Germans and Tommies stare out from trenches over a no man's land. Suddenly, a song breaks out. It's "Silent Night." The Germans respond. Everyone gets out and begins to play football.
10) Court Martials in results screen - Every player has experienced exasperation when one of their units turns coward or does something so stupid they endanger the outcome of the battle. Now you can click on the 'court martial' button and have the satisfaction of seeing them shot in disgrace. German officers are allowed to take poison.
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brethon:
Well..noones payed much attention to the cartel as of late...if they get their men (yes, they are sexist) to stop snuffing their stuff, they may be formidable...after all, when you fire from the hip since age 5, you have to get good at it by age 25
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The FARC (with whom the cartels are aligned) have a credible record against the Colombian regulars. The FARC control quite a bit of the country and have established para-governmental organizations such as courts, schools, depots and clinics. These people are motivated, use both women and men in their fighting force, and have a low tooth to tail ratio as compared with their government adversaries. In another post a couple weeks ago I argued that the U.S. was going to become involved here to a greater extent in the next ten years as the Colombian government is pressured to deal with the drug problem.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Besides which they get yearly training in Ireland....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well put.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(Frankly, I don't see what's so hot about Delta Force...actually, I see them as pretty crappy
)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They certainly would be pretty shell shocked after Somalia.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:
The Israeli army is supposed to be pretty good, though I've heard that they're somewhat overrated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most modern armies have 'elite forces' which are probably comparable to each other. However, for the regular army, I would say that the Israeli army has both an advantage and a disadvantage.
As we all know, Israel has fought a number of wars the latter half of the 20th century. Therefore, it would safe to assume that the level of experience for many commanders is high. However, the Israeli army suffers from its conscript status of much of its forces. That is, many people who are forced to fight rather than ones who choose it as a profession. While this would probably lead to a general improvement in basic skills for the population at large, for the standing army this constant rotation of people who would rather be doing something else can't be good. Also, most of the Israeli army is engaged in policing, not in warfighting. Remember that their last major war (Lebanon) was almost twenty years ago and the only remnants of that experience are either in the upper echelons or quit. Lebanon was also a negative experience for most line troops.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:
Good points Disaster.
Do you know where I can find resources on the physical fitness training of the US Army? I'm 19 and work out/run, but I'd like to tweak my routine to match what the Army has established. Tried and true
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might want to flip through this book:
It's the Navy Seal Workout.
I tried this out for a few weeks and found myself not much of a superman. You're probably asking the wrong person fitness questions. But I picked three of those exercises and found they helped reduce some love handlish areas on my sad sad body. This book emphasizes running, the jumping jacks, lots of those similar exercises.
There is plenty of criticism of this book, though. Such as, the running with army boots on. My thoughts are, it's better to do something than nothing.
-
Even after cutbacks no one spends more time training, thinking over doctrine, experimenting than the Americans. There are many factors beyond technology that distinguish U.S. preparation. While the U.S. may fall behind other nations in individual categories, all of them taken as a whole show the U.S. to be the number one force presently.
- Physical fitness - there is a large body of knowledge developed by the U.S. armed forces in methods of developing fitness. This doesn't mean that they put out supermen who can march naked through the Antarctic. Nor do they drill their soldiers into doing more jumping jacks than any other nation's armed forces. Rather, their methodology mirrors strides in basic medicine and sports medicine in the private sector that bring up the general fitness level of their soldiers.
- Military science - Again, this is an area where both military, ex-military, and paramilitary institutions combine to provide the U.S. with up to date and advanced doctrine. While there are plenty of examples where inertia inherent in such a large and varied collection of forces results in embarassing failures in doctrine, the U.S. devotes tons of time in educating their officers on tactics. The sheer number of officers, ex-officers and researchers who engage in dialogues on strategy dwarfs many standing armies. All of this also underlies an education system for officers, technical personnel and support personnel that is a major advantage over many countries who lack an education system for civilians to begin with [of course, some may argue that there is such a thing as 'too much thinking']. The extensive Reserve and National Guard system also keeps into circulation a large number of these educated people.
- No army in this century has been to more areas of the world than the United States in either observer status or as organized participants. Let's face it. The U.S. is the loose global empire of our time. Everyone it sends out brings back knowledge of how to fight (and how not to fight) in whatever corner of the world they were sent to. No matter how well drilled a soldier is, if they haven't been somewhere to fight, they don't know what to expect. Even from American failures, such as Somalia, they have learned important lessons. Has this mythical South American elite force been to the arctic?
- basic skills. American soldiers can generally read, write and communicate with each other. Most can probably drive a car, use a radio and operate basic machinery. They are trained in personal hygiene and at least have access to livesaving information. Quibble all you want about whether this is going up or down, many armies can't boast even these.
-
I think a point someone else raised is that using ESC is not standard for Windows users. I forget what it is for the Mac. ALT-TAB is the standard usage. ESC usually means, get out of this mode and back into another mode in the program.
It's not a major criticism. In many applications that use 3D graphics ALT-TAB will crash the machine or program
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:
So they shot half a dozen of the villagers- the sniping stopped.There is no record of this in the regimental history, no one was put on trial and no one was brought to account for it. Was this man a murderer? Was he an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances? Bothe sides committed 'war crimes' but it's so easy to sit in judgement 60 years after the event safe and comfortable at home. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have three comments on this:
- Killing civilians is totally beyond the pale. This is what My Lai was all about. One of the 'justifications' for My Lai was that it was a reprisal for killings by a faceless enemy they couldn't catch, with the assumption that the villagers had been supporting it or were in fact hiding members among them. Not only is there doubt that these people were the enemy but, in the case you spoke about, they may even have been the people the Yanks were supposed to liberate.
- a reprisal is different than 'in the heat of the battle'. A reprisal indicates that it took place after the initial fight and is done for revenge / intimidation. This implies that the participants had time to consider their actions.
- Yes, we are considering this after the fact and in the comfort of our own homes. But we do set the moral tenor for what goes on in the future. Hence, war crimes tribunals are supposed to lay down guidelines for behaviour.
-
I wonder if some jurist somewhere might figure out if Hitler had actually transferred / licensed his rights to Mein Kampf to his government and if so, it must reside with whatever department held it. I don't know what copyright law is like in Germany.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:
Spook, while I'm totally involved with CM at present, I too have an interest in other wargames that might be good ... not much chance that they will be as good as CM but you never know. In that vein, I got a notification recently that the company that did the SMG follow on for Antietam, can't think of their name right now, is going to be using the SMG engine for Waterloo! Now that might be worth getting, despite the fact that Waterloo has been done to death.
Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would be overjoyed to play this game. I love the SMG engine to death but the only thing missing (because of the scenarios covered) was cavalry charges. Since they are taking on Waterloo, they *must* do this. The last time someone tried to do Waterloo in RTS was Fields of Glory, a game that is very similar to SMG but poor in execution.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:
Sorry to appear Clintonesque, but there is a definite semantic difference between not accepting surrender and ordering that there be no survivors. One can always allow combatants to run away, either before or after telling them to drop their weapons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm yes, but I think if an officer told his troops: "take no prisoners" you can be sure they will take the sinister meaning.
I wonder what a war crimes court might say if instead of butchering soldiers attempting to surrender if you instead kneecapped the lot, or, as the Romans did, cut off all their right arms.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
By themselves, orders to not take prisoners are not illegal by any means, then or now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I found this possibility provocative so I looked it up in the Geneva conventions. Quote:
Article 40.-Quarter
It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.
Here is the reference: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Of course, everyone realizes that actually applying the rules is different in the heat of battle. The taking of prisoners has been optional since the beginning of time. But, at least to signatories of the Geneva Conventions (1949), it is in fact illegal.
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fdiskboy:
I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, but I don't think "masterpiece" is the correct term for Hitler's book.
I can think of several others that might be more appropriate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, he did say "Hitler's masterpiece" as in a masterpiece within Hitler's body of work. For example, I squeezed out a real masterpiece into my crapper this morning. Mmmmm. That was a good dinner.
Seriously, in university I once took a course in ideologies and we studied one 'great book' after another. So I got to study Mein Kampf as the written document for Nazism. We had to write a logical critique of it as the basis for a sound ideology, not a moral critique. Mein Kampf is pretty poor thinking. It's really more of a rant. In contrast, if you ever read Mussolini's political writings, he actually can make an argument for facism. I strangely found myself yearning for the days of ... heh
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergei:
But of course, as we do know, battleships didn't win any of the important battles such as El Alamein, Stalingrad, Ardennes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, perhaps in the game the Germans will be allowed to widen the Volga.
[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
Someone beat me to the attribution. Apparently, his leg is quite famous.
http://www.napoleonic-literature.simplenet.com/Waterloo/Water-1.html
-
This isn't a biggie but thought BigTime should know.
I often switch in and out of Combat Mission (PC) to do other stuff. When I do that, some of the text is filled in with whatever was the background pic. For example, in the Pick Scenario screen, all the text will be hard to read because it is filled in with the background pic of the tank and infantry. I find this happens if I ALT-TAB switch instead of using ESC.
To solve this, I ESC out and go back into the CM and this fixes the text.
I run resolutions higher than 1024 x 768 outside of CM and usually in 16bit. In the game itself there are no graphics problems.
This problem can get a bit annoying especially in editing maps. I frequently collaborate using ICQ which means I ALT-TAB a lot.
My stats:
400MHz Celeron 256mb RAM
Win2000
Creative Ultra TNT 2 32mb
Miltary Modeller poll
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo:
Disaster, do you have it on the web? I'd like to see it. I have seen some really neat modelings on the web. I wish I had the time to try it.
Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll see if I can dig it up out of an CD. I've been thinking about getting back into modelling as a career so this might be a good impetus.
Here's some other stuff I did, in the meantime:
http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/portfolio.htm
I'll tell you when I post the tank pics. I never had a chance to texture it, though.