CavScout

Then why did you jump so hard to defend the "German advantage" against armor in the other thread? "do you have any data on Allied infantry training courses in taking out tanks in close combat? I have (somewhere) the PDF of a training brochure for German infantry that confirms Michael's statement."--Germanboy or "I saw the point that the German soldiers were specifically trained to deal with tanks hands on, while the Allied soldiers were not. Whether this translated into different performance (also a function of weapons available of course) is a totally different question, IMO, but a decent assumption to make."--Germanboy Why is it not a "decent assumption" that Soviets were better at fighting at night if they trained to do so but it is when regarding German training? I just wish people would hide their biases more effectivly. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club

"In real life, infantry without AT weapons support did not have a lot of chances against tanks either. To quote a veteran WWII grunt, who survived seven tank attacks himself and obviously discussed it a lot with fellow soldiers, if attacking infantry had tanks and you had no AT gun (or AT rifle, at least) around, you were caput." To which, "Unless you were German." was quickly replied. Knowing that you backed up the person saying that and prentending to not about it know makes you the liar Germanboy.

I agree they shouldn't be expected to put out "add-ons" or implement "new features" but they should continue to "improve" the product in the case of bugs.

Odd though, that in another thread the "fact" that Germans infantry 'trained' to fight enemy armor without AT weapons made the automatically less fearful than Allies infantry facing a enemy armor in a similar situation. Funny that some of those wanting steel nerved German infantry, when facing Allied tanks because of "training" received, are not willing to allow similar bonuses for Russians who trained for night combat.

Perhaps but one's ambush of advancing HTs shouldn't be triggered because your PBEM opponent has decided to lead the HTs with his HQ. Ambushes can have specific targets. We would never trigger an ambush just because the first guy (point) wander into our ambush point. We would wait for our taget, be it the main body, the command element or certain vehicles.

I'd love a "HUNT: armor" or "HUNT: Infantry" command.

One thing CM does do is make concentration of forces too effective. There is little reason to not concentrate your forces, and this is probably the biggest edge when on the attack. There should be a point of diminishing returns. You should not be able to put a company's worth of troops in a platton's worth of space and still have the company's firepower. Units should be blocked by friendly units in the line of fire.

Of course, everyone knows that Allied infantry ran in terror at the sight of armor while the Uber Germans would laugh and pick-up the nearest rock to take a tank out. It's common knowledge, right? [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-13-2001).]

Range or an "ambush marker" that was sizable.

Funny, you're the first response on the thread and are attacking the poster personally and you call me a "troll". Hypocirsy...

If not having an altar to Nazi Germany is "nationalistic" then you got me.

I always love those WWII German supporters... they never quit, I'll give them that. A proper analogy would be trying to cross the freeway and complaining when hit by a car. War is a freeway and it has cars. Don't try and cross it if you are worried about being hit.

I am sorry, Germany wasn't at fault, those evil Allies should never have started that war. It was an injustice.

Were they supporting the war? In anyway? If yes, then they became targets.

So then it wasn't unexpected. The Germans then knew that by continuing the war that the city could be targeted. Sounds like the blame should fall on them.

And if you think civilans have no part in supporting a nation's war effort you are the fool. Unless you are going to claim that Dresden had no hand in supporting Germany's war effort, then it was a legit target. Odd to see those arguing for morality in war...

BTW, why was their AA guns on a non-military target?

LOL, Hitler was elected...

70,000 less to support the German war effort. Sounds legit to me.

You forget that these are "Gerries", some would say German, laws made by Germans for Germany. It has NOTHING to do with who won and who lost, as those who "lost" have made the rule themselves.

Yeah, Slap! What he said! Where's my turn!

You don't need ports to be an IFV, the M2 have done away with them.

You'll have to forgive me, I didn't know saying, "The Allies ran in fear from armor but the Germans didn't" was historical...

It was and it is. "My point was, and is, that German infantry simply did not turn into a fear stricken mob at the first sight of enemy armour."-Michael Dorosh

I know you are not seriously going to contend that German soldiers weren't afraid of armor and that the Allied certainly were? That's his point. And it's is silly on its face.