82nd Airborne

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Has that argument been settled on this board? That would be a first...hell, he would only be 112, so it's not conclusive that he's a goner....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> P.O.T.D.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: Nice little documentary on Wittman last night. (Also had a lot of superb footage of Tigers in action) Interesting how he shunned turret rotation in favour of simply turning the whole vehicle. Brought up some interesting points about vehicle breakdown when doing this though, due to the ammount of turf/soil being jammed into the bogies, causing track failures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great show!! Pretty dedicated Nazi if the picture they paint is true. I thought of the turret speed debate too...

If it's the old B&W version(German subtitles,full title "You dogs want to live forever IIRC), then it is a great show. If it is the new colour version, it's the sh*ts. Sounds like you are talking about the old version though, so it would be a nice addition.

Hey I just went to your site...fantastic! Salute.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak: Ok I know the first world war was not about maneuver, I also know that on the western front the two sides would basicly lob arty at each other all day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to nit pick but there were alot of "maneuver" battles in WW1, even on the West Front early in the campaign, prior to the "race to the sea". ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Surely as "objective" as the "I always play Germans but CM has to strengthen them because I suck crowd." Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> if that's the kind of objectivity you are striving for, yeah, I guess so. can't comment on those guys however, mainly as I haven't read their posts. If that's what they are saying then it would seem strange (to me). There does seem to be some validity to the turret speed issue on Mark V & VI's but, as I only play the Allies (so far), I am not looking forward to a tweak in that regard Have a good weekend ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

Hide in some woods along the enemies expected advace, protect with a rifle squad or 1/2 squad. Be deep into the woods to ensure that you are not spotted until too late. As enemy enters woods, toast'em. I haven't had any success on the attack but on defense they are good fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Any thread by CavScout which drones on about the might of American World War 2 uber-might.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But he's soooo objective. He even said so himself. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: that's the whole point of the Onion... and here is my favorite military related onion article... "we must deploy troops..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now that is funny! ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

Cool stuff. I love that movie, god help me I do love it so. (wish they used the whole speech though) ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

Good topic. When all is said and done , I think that adjusting the time delay for each nation would achieve the desired result. From what I've read the ability to quickly bring down arty was the key difference in national doctrines and went from fastest to slowest. US, German, UK, Russia. Alot of the Germans prowess was some pre planning, while the US, top to bottom had a better doctrine. Sooo, my point is , considering the scale, varying "lead times" by nationality might be more historical. Don't know if this is impossible to program/patch but it would be interesting and give each side even more of a flavour. regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Anyway, the "German soldier/army is superior" idea is often misrepresented and construed to mean all kinds of things. Someone in the closed thread posted a blurb from a War Department study that concluded that 100 Germans was worth about 125 allies or 200 Soviets. No one made any reference to that later in the thread because they were arguing about the A bomb and everything else. I think that War Department study is important because it conveys a simple idea: that the average German soldier performed better than the average allied soldier. . [This message has been edited by RMC (edited 10-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that baby got locked up before much comment could be made on this point. I've read a few War Dept studies that were quite insightful and seemed pretty objective too. Valour and sacrifice as a given it does conclude that the US itself, at the time, felt itself slightly at a disadvantage to the Germans tactically and even more so in tanks(from another War Department study). good post RMC ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor: If I had believed everything I heard as a kid I would have thought the US single handedly won the war and Britian and USSR helped. Gladly I found out how false that was! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that the truth! ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg: I have to say "das boot" too, its an alltime classic. "A bridge too far" will also be high on my list. I would also like to recommend "a midnight clear", its not the best warmovie but its a nice little one... Goodnight!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> midnight clear is a GREAT flick

For such an interesting topic that may be the worst war movie ever! ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.