CavScout

Ahhh... explains why I can't set ambushes with my troops. So the HQ sets a marker and then you target you individual squads to the marker? Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-29-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Von Brizee wrote: It's also partly for the sake of realism - you wouldn't have a town full of Germans without any vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The German military overall was very short on motor vehicle transport. So it would depend on the unit, I suppose, if they would have that many trucks. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-29-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC: Well, if the M2 or M3 Bradley IFV wasn't designed to go up against tanks, why is it fitted with TOW missiles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well some Humvees have TOWs as well, they aren't made to go head-to-head with tanks either. The Bradley TOW is as useful against tanks as it is against go old BMPs. The TOW also gives you better range and MUCH better one-shot-one-kill capability. As for the M3... the OPFOR doctrine has a tank in their recon elements. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne: Regards, Cav. I'm just curious.. Didn't the 24th Mech become the 3rd Mech at Ft. Stewart. I had some buds in the 82nd at Bragg who transferred down to the 24th in the early to mid 80s. Thought that after the reorganization, it became the 3rd Mech..I know the 24th was still intact in the gulf. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, the 24th was renamed the 3rd sometime after '95. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: Thanks for the info, where do I get quicktime? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> www.apple.com

My fav German tank is whatever one my Shermans can kill! Cav

US Army '90-'95 1-1 Cav, 1st AD [Germany] 4-64 AR BN, 24th ID (Mech) [Fort Stewart, GA] California National Guard, '96-present 2-185 AR BN, 40th ID Obviously 19D ;p Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: It only works in full daylight. It's random. They'll buzz around and look for targets of opportunity. You can't direct them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank goodness. I thought I couldn't read the manual.... Cav

How does one make use of air support? I have it but have not figured out how to use it. If it is something obvious, just point out the manual's page number and that will do. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Actually, my personal belief is that Southerners were railroaded into secession by the slaveholding aristocracy. In six of the eleven seceding states, the ordinances of secession were not put to popular vote, and in those states in which it was, counties known to be pro-union were not even polled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you may be on to something with that. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Theron: I would like to say that from what I know about the causes of the civil war and reconstruction that Strat is right. The initial issue of what started the civil war had more to with taxes than with slavery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest reading the State Declarations of Causes for Secession. Just reading their own documents will show it was SLAVERY not taxes. South Carolina "The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." Mississippi "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." "It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion." "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The most important thing that a "free and democratic" government can do is tax it's citizens. The important question is how it does it. This is of course deeply linked with states rights and soveriegnty i.e. who has the right to tax what, see the issue of South Carolina and nullification. Slavery did become an issue latter in the war, which allowed the North to claim the moral high ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, read the documents of Secession issued by the Seceding States. It wasn't taxes, it was slavery. CavScout

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat: The root of the cause of the Civil War was the issue of succession and the root of succession was the issue of government taxation of the citizens and states. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? The Civil War had nothing to do with "taxes". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Abraham Lincoln reenstated the income tax. One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was over the issue of British taxes. The issues concerning the Revolutionary War were still fresh in the minds of most citizens in the early to mid 1800's and was a definite motivational factor in the Civil War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where'd you 'learn' that? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most of the confederates, late in the war, fought with rags for clotes and no shoes. They mixed sawdust in their food because there was not enough to go around. They were motivated by american history, i.e., Revolutionary War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were motivated by Southern pride and the percieved 'invasion' of their home. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl: If both you and your opponent (or the AI) respond to the "attempt to skip night combat" with a yes, then it's normal. There may also be some setting where only one of the players gets the option (haven't played enough ops to know) and the other player had the call. I've also had night battles that played out with no contact at all. I was defending, and the AI attacking so carefully that there was no contact (until I tried to rush a few halftracks forward on the last turn to grab some terrain...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was never given a "attempt to skip night combat" option. I was looking forward to it myself. The bunkers were giving me hell during the day. Cav

I just played a OP, Stolberg, and there were a few night 'battles'. Both night 'battles' ENDED after set-up. No fighting, nothing. Spent time setting up and blame, hit go and end up in the day set-up phase. Is this normal? Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Oh, so it would have been ok if the Germans would have spread out their murder then...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? I said no such thing. In fact, it was your 'trivializing' of the number that the Nazi killed that I responded to. You attempted to say the Nazi were rather slow in killing. I just showed that they were in fact more efficient. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seriously though, the duration and exact numbers of killed (some people don't think 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Jewish Holocaust) is irrelavent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Amd generally they are Holocaust disbelievers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if just 10 million Africans over a period of 1000 years were killed directly through the slave trade it would still be a dreadful holocaust. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd wager as many, if not more, Europeans were killed as slaves as any Africans. BTW, what years are your 1,000 years covering? 800s to 1800s? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually, the Western slavers took a REALLY acurate count of those who died during the slave voyages alone, and this number is astounding. Most slaves were worked to death during the first few hundred years of African slavery in the New World, and it wasn't until England blocaded African slave trading in the Atlantic that the Slavers decided to breed their own slaves instead of importing new ones. PS. What makes you do you doubt this number anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because I have neither heard of it before and you haven't provided any info/resources as to where it came from. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Yet, what is still majorly ignored in the history books is that more than 100 million Africans lost their lives in the 600 years of slavery (not ALL America's fault!). Kind of makes the scale of the Jewish Holocaust seem insignificant and a little less organized! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If one considers the Germans killed their 6 million or so in roughly a decade (600,000 per year) versus the 100 million [i doubt this number myself] over 600 years or about 167,000 a year. Cav

The Silver Star is awarded to Sgt Oakley for his action on 14SEP44. Sgt Oakley displayed leadership above and beyond the call of duty,when in the face of overwhelming enemy odds, by insuring American victory in the battle of Stolberg. Using guile and tactical efficiency, Sgt Oakley manuvered his tank [M4A3(75)W] through the built-up area of Stolberg to blunt a German armor counter-attack that threated the entire American offensive. With little regard to the odds, Sgt Oakley engaged and destroyed a Jagdpanther, Stug IIIG, STuH42 and inflicted numerous infantry casualties to the enemy. His leadership and guile secured the American foothold and subsequent push through the German West Wall. Sgt Oakley's actions reflect great pride upon himself, his tank crew, the 3rd Armor Divison, the 1st Army and the entire United States Army.

Zap me an email when you get the full version. Oh well... off to get whiped by the AI! Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Certainly not victory. The only legal case that could be made for any State's secession is if that State can prove the Federal Government was not upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is the covenant between the Federal and State Governments. It is a matter of common law that where one party fails to uphold a contract, the covenent is void. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortuantly the S.C. disagreed... go read the decision it is an interesting read. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Um CavScout, that case was in 1868. How else do you think the Supremes would have ruled in 1868? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well it is the ONLY court tested case that I am aware of. Southern sympathizers may argue otherwise but they have neither LAW nor victory of war to back-up their claims. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: The Civil War was not truly a civil war and more resembled a war between nations than any civil war. Contrast the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution with the Civil War. You will see that the States of America were, for all intents and purposes, seperate nations with the right to secede from the Union. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Irrational rationalization, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: As far as the right to secede, our Constitution does not prohibit it and those states would never have joined the union if they thought they couldn't leave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> May want to read STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), U.S. Supreme Court "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-26-2000).] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-26-2000).]

Any newbies out there want to take a stab at a PBEM game of CM? Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Specter: Cavscout, What the hell have you been smoking son? The Whermacht were in the streets of Moscow! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lead elements of the German army were able, with help of optics, to see Moscow's interior. How this translates into the "streets of Moscow" is beyond me. Napoleon I accomplished as much as the German army, look what it got both... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If they had started Barbarossa a month or two earlier Russia would have fallen! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "If, if, if...." A very dangerous game that. Heck, what would have happened if the Allies would have atatcked the virtually undefended west German border? What if the Allies have intervened well before Poland. What if America had ignored the Japanese threat and focused on Germany. For every 'if' you can find for a victroy, more can be found for defeat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The allies would never have gotten off the beaches had the panzer divisions been placed closer to the front like Rommel had pleaded! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> May IF Rommel hadn't gone of to see his wife on D-Day... maybe IF Rommel hadn't bungled Africa... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hitler's meddling in the military affairs had significant repercussions for the German military forces! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was Hitler's meddling that produced the victory in France. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They came very very close to winning! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. I'd say the Germans, once involving the Soviets and Americans had no hope of ture victory. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "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 [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-26-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg: Come on Specter! The Soviet Union had already moved it's industrial core to the east and would not have surrendered simply due to the fall of Moscow. I know the board will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this was pretty common knowledge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So true. The loss of Moscow would not have lead to the capitulation of the Russians. Cav