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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Hi, this thread is for ppl who for whatever reason feel US troops in WW2 have been shafted historicly & by wargames portrayel of US tactical capabilities, & that US troops are often considered inferior to German troops in tactical & operational capability, and some percieve only won battles by application of brute force. This thread is for those who believe US tactical & operational capability was in fact superior to the Germans & provides them a thread to discuss this issue in a coherent manner, by presenting material that suports their thesis. To this end I submit Bonn's When The Odds were Even as an counterpoint to the common beliefe of general German tactical & operational superiority. Bonn's study covers the US 7th Army's Vosges battles & the German Operation Nordwind where US & German forces were about equal in equiptment, men & material, & the US forces soundly defeated some of the best forces the Wermacht & Waffen SS could deploy. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very interesting, very rarely do I hear that the US got shafted in this manner. Most of the time (in the games I have played) they get generous proficiency ratings. As for the real life WW2, it is very hard to judge as it would be quite rare for the US & Germany to match up evenly(air power alone tips the field). Certainly the US came out poorly in the Hurtegan(sp?) forest battle. I know this might be heresy but I think that Germany was largely a defeated army by 1944 when the US(and Allies) finally met them in any strength. Lots of children and old men filling out their ranks, especially in the West. In fact I would go so far to say that Overlord was unecessary in the final victory as the Russians had it pretty well in hand by then. Simply the threat of invasion was sufficient. That the US (and every combatants) men fought valiantly is a given IMHO. To evaluate the tactical efficiency is a very subjective argument and considering the circumstances of 1944-1945, pretty much impossible. Matching a 1942 German army vs a 1945 US army would be interesting indeed but can only be speculation, much as it would have been neat to see Marciano vs Ali. Interesting topic however. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daveman: I think vehicles should have "inherent worth", but think this emphasis on .50cal Jeeps isn't needed... they should be cheaper than a team. Here's an idea for a "rarity" system for CM2... one that I should think could even be patched into CM... have a choice at setup between 2 different price lists, the current one that reflects combat value, and a second where men and equipment are priced according to their rarity. For the player who wants a "sandbox" WWII game (like myself) and simply wants to fight out battles with WWII men, equipment, and tactics the existing system works fine... you want a battle where the combat values are roughly equal. For the historic-minded player, availability of men and equipment is presumably more important. Battles would be less balanced, and you'd have to guage Axis success by how well they did with what they had, but isn't that the point of playing "historically"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Daveman for Prez! ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by q.silver: Does anyone know information on The Battle of Vimy Ridge. It was a battle in WW1 so you know, give me some information on it Im doin a project for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Other than that the Canadians (yeah!!) were the ones to finally take it after miserable failures by both the British and French. Unfortunately , no one thought they could do it and did not have reserves in place to follow up. Many historians believe that had this happened the war would have been over much earlier. Search the web, there is tons of stuff on it. Vimy ridge is the spelling btw ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: I was wondering if anyone knew of a good carrier wargame for computor? After playing CM in real time I keep imagining a game that would depict the carrier battles in the Pacific in WWII. It would be a cross between "Fighting Steel" and a stratigic air war game. You would control the placement of ships and their direction, be able to make up and launch attacks, plan the attack route and conduct the attack on both a stratigic level and a tactical level. Not so much a air war simulator but you could direct a torpedo squadron to make a run on an enemy ship much like you direct the movements for units in CM. You would be able to turn your carriers into the wind to launch or recover aircraft, deploy your ships to prepare for incoming air attacks. Just dreaming but I think it could be a cool game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You might try "Fighting Flat tops" , it's an online game.(look for it at thegamers.net) Haven't tried it myself but keep meaning to. Really loved the boardgame Midway that is basically what you are looking for and I hope that a game comes along with this premise too.(I have converted it to Exel for PBEM play via ICQ but it isn't really a "computer" game) Matrix is building a "new" Pacific War with Gary Grigsby that will be grand strategic for the Pacific. In fact they have re released the original (fixed up) free for download to hold you over. Again, can't comment on it yet. Last but not least, Pacific Tide has been in development for quite a while and looks promising if it ever comes to reality. regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky9292: how come no one told me that nothing can kill a tiger head on? How the &*&$ did we win WW2 if the Nazi's had tanks like these?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> played this baby blind vs the AI (got kicked as the Allies) but I actually took out a KT with a greyhound, frontally. I couldn't believe it. Had to replay it several times just to make sure I saw it right. Very cool, but did me no good in the long run as it and the rest of my armour were smoking wrecks shortly thereafter. regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lipperd98: Something I just dont understand is why this war was shoved to the side.Like it never happen???We lost over 30,000 + men in that war in three years!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My guess is cause we didn't win(per se), but unlike Vietnam there wasn't alot of hoopla at home about it. Of course it was MUCH shorter than Vietnam too and wasn't on the 6 o'clock news nightly in living color. regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rookie: The entire Boot Camp Sequence from "Full Metal Jacket" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> eg, Oooh, I like you, you can come over to my house and f@#$! my sister! - FMJ D.S. TEXAS? Only steers and queers come from Texas and you don't look like a bull- FMJ D.S. I want that head so clean and squared away that the Virgin Mary Herself would be proud to take a dump- FMJ D.S. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz: "You gonna pull them pistols, or whistle Dixie?"- Clint Eastwood in "Outlaw Josie Wales"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Love that show. How about his comment to the bounty hunter. "Dying ain't much of a living boy" - josey wales ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jagdcarcajou: Hey all, I'm putting the finishing touches on an article for the CM Recon site, and I could use a bit of help. Do any of you have any recommendations for a good publisher of U.S. and Brtitish Army OOBs or unit histories? I already have Fedorowicz for the Axis, but I don't know much about the Allies. Any insights are appreciated. Hopefully the article will be up tonight! Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> try thegamers.net in the TOAW section I believe they have lots of TO&E and OOB info there (wargamer.com is worth a look too, I believe they have some unit history stuff) regards ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Me, I can't wait for 82nd Airborne. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry but I am not that kind of guy ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.