Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

CavScout

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    892

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by CavScout

    What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    Cav,

    I totally agree with the barrel being hit, but the reasons given out by BTS and others refering to Gun Damage have also stated things like Optics, Gears, etc... which would all be internal to the tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would think optics could be damaged by non-penetrating hits but I would think that there would be a set of back-up, likely of lesser quality, sights.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Now a direct hit on the optics lens would destroy the optics but the Gun would still work, right? And really what are the chance for an optics lens hit?? I would have to say it is very, very low, but in game it just doesn't seem that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think optic hits would be rare except when HE was used. [i also think the gun would still work as well.]

    Cav

    [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-11-2000).]

    0

    What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    So I wonder... Do gun damages actually penetrate the front armor?? If so then I can understand the gun being damaged, but if THAT is true then I would see my Panthers getting knocked alot more by the Allies' armor, and that is just not the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would venture to say that they are not penetrating the front armor. It seems it would be damage to the gun tube itself.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    If gun damages DON'T penetrate the front armor then that WOULD explain why German tanks take more Gun Damage hits, since obviously German tanks can withstand front turret hits from Ally armor in general. This in turn would increase the chance for gun damage hits, but that doesn't make sense for the reasons I pointed out above... A gun damage hit, sans the actual barrel being hit, would require a armor penetration which doesn't seem to be the case.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would think it would have to be related to gun tube damage simply by the number of "gun damage" recieved by near hits [how is a miss a "near miss"? Didn't it almost miss and hence it is a hit?] with arty.

    Cav

    [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-11-2000).]

    0

    What if - Marines in West Front?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fd ski:

    Something i read while back comparing Marines and Army as far as tactical doctrine goes didn't shed a good light on USMC at all.

    The theory was that Army usually used it's 3 unit doctrine - 1 unit ties enemy down, other flanks it, third in reserve.

    Marines were far more fond of frontal assults types of operations.

    While man for man Marines were probably better infantry then Army, their tactics would have hurt them a lot.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There are some interesting comparisions of Army and Marine tactics and strategy in the Pacific. Looking at the island fighting where both the Army and Marines fought you can see those differances. IIRC, a Marine sacked an Army General because he didn't like the "speed" at which the Army was advancing compared to the Marine divison(s)... nevermind the gross differance in casulties.

    Cav

    0

    Tanks don´t engage small guns with main gun

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

    [bThe Col who's tanks had actualy engaged Iraqi infantry confirmed that they used the 50Cal & 7.62 MGs vs Infantry no HEAT-MP round's were fired in his Bn's tanks vs dug in or dispersed moveing Inf unless an hard target such as a bunker was encountered. SOP was blast away with the MGs & call in Arty.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would point out that HEAT and HE are not the same thing and not intended for similar purposes. HEAT is an anti-armor round where as HE is not. Ask M2/M3 crews if MGs were prefered over 25mm HE and the answer is different.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    This is just plain untrue. I have NOT supported that idea in any way, shape, or form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would make use of the edit function then...

    "So, I think the US and other Western antions should be much more heavily penalized than other countries, and I have no problem with the US and other western nations being asked to subsidize other countries efforts to become compliant."--Jeff Heidman

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    It has nothing to do with rich and poor. That is a variable that you introduced, and then claimed that I supported. Another exmaple of building a strawman.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Naw... I am sure it is just accident that West is more "rich" than those that you'd like "helped".

    The only "strawman" seems to be your 'Presidentsque' evasion on semantics.

    Cav

    [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    I do not advocate "paying" anyone anything. I said that if the US expects other countries to spend vast sums of money to become compliant with the rules that the US wishes to set, then the US is going to have to help with those costs, siply because otherwise those countries will simply refuse.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are you going to argue semantics? "Helping" with the costs is the same as "paying" them. Having rich countries give money money to poor countries to become compliant is "paying" them.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    That is why your question is loaded. Like your friend, you insist on couching it in terms of your choosing in an effort to make it appear something different than what my position is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hardly... but one has to wonder if this is not hypocrisy as you seem to be "couching" the "terms" to hide what is happening. How you can claim that having the US give MONEY to another country to improve their enviromental situation is not "paying" them is beyon me.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What do you hope to accomplish by these games? Just be straighforward and honest. Ask a question in such a manner that you do not invalidate the answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The one playing games seems to be you. You are the one quibbling over the definition of "paying".

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    That is not a opinion, it is a fact. China and India are NOT going to quit dumping CO2 into the atmosphere because Germany (or the US) asks them to. They are not going to harm themselves simply because the US thinks that they should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And should the US harm itself by both taking away money from itself and supporting a country, such as China, who is building a military to compete with the US?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can whine, moan, graon, and complain about how unfair that is, but that is reality. The questions is not whether or not this is fair or not, it is whether or not it is important enough to take the necessary action on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Which is another debate.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    As far as domestic evironmental issues go, I do not think they are remotely analagous to the global issues. But all political decisions are about what works and what is possible to accomplish. So, the answer is, of course, "it depends".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why is a polluting factory in China different than one here in the US? Heck, IMO, the one here should be the one "paid" to clean up over one a few thousand miles away.

    Cav

    ------------------

    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

    --Bertrand Russell

    "God is always with the strongest battalions."

    --Frederick the Great

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

    --Benjamin Franklin, 1759

    "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

    --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    And you woder why I am not interested in answering your stupid questions?

    Without an ounce of evidence other than my point about global pollution control, you have already determined that not only am I liberal, but apparently I am a "bleeding heart" liberal who advocates wholeale redistribution of wealth.

    That is precisely why I am uniterested in answering any questions about my thoughts on environmentalism. You have no interest in my opinions, you merely wish to place anyone who does not conform to your narrow view of the way the world works into your "liberal" box, which you are going to do anyway.

    Still going to defend this guy CavScout?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Untill you answer, I suppose so. You HAVE supported the idea of wealth distribution to "fix" the enviroment on the global scale, it is hardly unreasonable to conlcude you'd do the same on a national scale. That you continue to dodge the question does raise certain "red flags".

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    You're right, I'm not one of the rich at all. And let me tell you, paying for a computer, CM, and an ISP is a bitch on those welfare checks. I haven't eaten in 3 weeks, but at least I can escape my dull reality in the vivid world of cyberspace.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I hardly claimed you to be poor either. Are you "rich"? If so, what "share" do you give to others so they are "better off"?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Oh, and comparing the redistribution of wealth to racism is a loaded and misleading comparison, I think.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, not when one tries to validate an opinion by its age. Your use of the "age" of the idea was misleading and irrelevent.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point in saying that it's an old idea is that it's not some new plot cooked up by the UN to defraud the wealthy nations of the world.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Of course I would point out that one of the oldest, I believe it is the oldest, governments <sub>(NOTE: I said GOVERNMENT not COUNTRY or NATION)</sub> has been the US Governemnt. It is also one of the few to have resisted the socialistic movement. There is a reason for it durability and I beleive it is the thinking that one should work for their living and not be handed it.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    And that is precisely why I am not going to answer your loaded question.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Then how about this, should the EPA/US Government/Enviromentalist pay those, who they think, are harming the enviroment like what is suggested we do on the global scale?

    Cav

    [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    It seems to me that there is a liberal's catch 22 in your argument.

    Sorry, sure sounds to me like he is whipping out the "liberal" brush and giving me a swipe with it.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I disagree. He presented the "liberal" argument, as it stands in this country, and is showing how the "enviromental movement" differs within and outside the country.

    [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    Well, youa re the first to call me a liberal! That is pretty funny actually. I assume you are a right-wing conservative dittohead then?

    I guess it is easier to label someone than it is to come up with solutions to difficult problems.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think he called you a liberal. He gave an example of "liberalism" in this country and asked your opinion.

    As someone once said, "So try not to read what you want into what people say. It would be better for everyone you communicate with if you responded to what they say rather than what you wished they would say."

    That was you.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    And what's wrong with the redistribution of wealth? It's an idea that's been around for a looooong time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So has racism and I hardly think that its age qualifies it for high regard.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You either redistribute wealth, or the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I disagree.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, I have no problem whatsover with some people (or countries) being richer than other people (or countries). That's life. But I also think that there is a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions where possible, and if this means that the rich need to pay up, well, so be it.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Obviously because you're not one of the rich. It is easy to say "give it up" when it is not yours to give up.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    The thing is, I actually agree that the US and other post-industrialized nations should be more heavily penalized for polution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    frown.gif

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Think about it. When the US and Europe was at the stage of industrialization that countries like China and India are now, there was ZERO control over pollutants, and the US dumped truly amazing amounts of polutants into the biosphere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But here's the fallacy of that argument, if the aim is pollution CONTROL you must stop the pollution that is occuring NOW not what has already happened. Those third-world countries are now the one's polluting. You can't exempt them and then claim the aim is pollution control.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Now, AFTER the US and Western Europe have completed industrialization, we are going to demand that other countries not act the way we acted when we were in their shoes!

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Then the aim is not stopping pollution. It is simply a way of redistributing the wealth.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Coal is a good example. Coal, as an energy source, is amazingly cheap and easy. Low tech, low plant maintenance, etc.

    The US complains about the amount of CO2 China is currently pumping into the atmosphere due to its burning large amount of coal in dirty power plants. But the reality is that the US did much, much worse 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago. By now, our technology and infrastructure has allowed us to largely move to other, cleaner sources of power, and even when we do burn coal, we can do it much cleaner. But those things cost money, and every dollar spent on a clean environemnt is one less dollar a country like India has to spend on building an industrial infrastructure to compete in a global economy. It should not come as any surprise that they are not overly interested in spending those dollars!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Again, it shows that the aim is not pollution control. If it was you'd go after current day polluters not the one's who have moved past that era.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Essentially, the US and Western Europe won the race and now would like to make the rules for other countries trying to catch up different than the rules under which the US won in the first place.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I disagree. This is not being "pushed" by the US. The US has refused to sign several of these agreements, like the Kyoto (sp?) accords for this very reason. The rules are being made by those who are the current poluters.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    So, I think the US and other Western antions should be much more heavily penalized than other countries, and I have no problem with the US and other western nations being asked to subsidize other countries efforts to become compliant.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't."

    Call it what it is, don't claim it is "polution control" when those poluting won't be effected by it.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    Read the article sneaky posted about the UN getting rid of soveriegnty (bla, spelling), and um.. no!

    The article was about a debate in which varous luminaries talked about the UN and its role. There was no 'the un is here to destroy national soveriegnty'

    The idea is ludicrous, the UN is made up of states, they're hardly going to vote themselves out of existence are they?

    Anyway

    Joe! What do you think of all this?

    PeterNZ

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, the UN has, and is, trying to pass "regulations" that would superceed national one's.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    The UN isn't some sort of global overlord. It's made up of delegates from its member nations, and the primary duty of these delegates is to look after their country's best interests. Are all of these delegates suddenly going to say, "hey, you know that whole national sovereignity thing? Howsabout we get rid of it?" I mean, it's like saying that the US Congress is going to conspire to get rid of the distinctions between the states and rename the country "The Grand And Glorious American People's Protectorate."

    It's my opinion that you're misinterpreting globalism to mean that nations must give up their independence and become subordinate to some sort of global collective.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What I do see the UN doing is trying to redistrubte the wealth. You'll notice things regarding polution heavily penalize the US but exempt many of the Third World nations and even some of the not-so third world, like China. What is in the interests of others is not, and rarely seems to be, in the favor of the US.

    IMO the UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN.

    Cav

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    Hey, any organaization that can take over the entire world without any military of its own, essentailly by tricking the people they are about to take over into using their very own military to do it, all the while keeping the entire thing a secret from everyone, (well except from your odd milita man living in Idaho) deserves to rule the world!

    Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    LOL! biggrin.gif

    0

    OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

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

    Scarlet,

    That's right. And it's just as ludicrous to suggest that the world of 1952 and the state of affairs, along with the role of the UN is the same in 2000.

    Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But it is "ludicrous" to suggest that foriegn troops training along-side the US military means the UN is planning a take-over. The US has always trained with foriegn troops. Heck, in the War for Independance we had French troops training us! Do you know how many Japanese were trained or studied in the US before WWII? You did know that during the Cold War Soviets military observed US traing missions, and the other way around, to know how we trained so not to cause any mistakes that would cause a war to start?

    Cav

    0
×
×
  • Create New...