Marlow

Also, while we are at it, I stated that veteran recollections are often suspect. To which you replied. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: My, what an interesting viewpoint you hold <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am quite frankly amazed that a "historian" needs to be told that eyewitness recollections are often unreliable. Getting an accurate story from veteran accounts requires extensive cross-reference to other witnesses and documentary or physical evidence. Later you state that you did check for corroboration, but that was not apparent in your original post.

Let me spell it out for you in more detail. You stated: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but to the "US Army" as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This implies that all along you were talking about the Army as a whole, but earlier you said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is basically saying that since the "game" does not include M-1903s, they are falling for some sort of "hollywood" version of U.S. forces. Because the game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, this would only be mismodeling if, in fact, M-1903s were used in that theatre and that time. Also, while I am going on memory, everything I have read has said that Springfields were already on their way out as the standard infantry weapon by 1941 (although it remained the sniper weapon of choice for some time). By 1944, they were out of service with infantry soldiers in Europe (and probably the Pacific). Also, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you said: "US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems." (emphasis added). How does this contradict what you said? You made a sweeping generalization that the U.S. used over-firepower to attempt to solve, not "some tactical problems," or "most tactical problems," but "all tactical problems." I am only pointing out that such broad generalizations are usually incorrect.

You stated: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I admit I don't have numbers but you should note I did not confine my remarks to the "ETO" (European Theatre of Operations?) but to the "US Army" as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But earlier you said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since this game is limited to 1944 and 1945 in the ETO, I made the reasonable deduction that you had a problem with M1 use in that theatre and that time. You are now changing your story. Also, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Which is all I suggested. Deciding upon whether it was "some" or "most" is an argument I won't get into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you said in the original comment: "US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems." (emphasis added). [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Wrong button. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Are you suggesting that their memories were faulty? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. Veteran recolections are often suspect. Something you should know. The idea that the U.S. through around ordinance to cover up defective tactics is true in some cases. In others it was the best tactic for the situation. In Aachen, the Army's tactics were remarkably effective at reducing German defenses, while taking relatively low casualties compared to what they inflicted on the defender. This involved heavy use of demolition, fire from both direct and indirect artillery, combined with rather sophisticated infantry/armor combined arms tactics. Was this using too much firepower to cover for tactical defects? I think not. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Errr, how does that comment negate what I said? The Springfield was never fully replaced in the US Army by the Garand. Therefore, attempting to claim that the US Army only utilised or that all units should be modelled as being armed with the Garand is inherently false. Despite the supposed superiority of the Garand, even the US Army did not believe it was worth arming every soldier with one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about some numbers to back this up. By 1944, every front line infantry unit in the ETO was using M1s. Any remaining Springfields were used for special purpose (e.g. sniper). I suppose a few individuals might have kept their 1903s, as there are always a few people who don't like change. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> . US military forces were well known and noted for their profligate over-use of firepower to attempt to solve all tactical problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice generalization there. Sort of like the "well known" war wearyness of all British troops, or the "well known" use of human wave tactics by all Russians to make up for lack of leadership. American's used firepower instead of men when it was available. To do otherwise would be criminal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lopaka: In a QB I'm playing, I drove a Sherman up over a steep hill on a road to go kill a nasty little halftrack that was causing me grief. He did his job about 1/2 down the backside of the hill. The problem is that after he turned around to go back over the hill he has taken about 2 minutes to go about 10 meters. It doesn't seem to be a routing problem because he is inching forward along the path that I asked him to travel and he hasn't replotted his waypoints at all. Also he is still on the road with no potholes or any other blockage. Does anyone have any experience with something like this? [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Lopaka ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Happened to me with a Mark IV on a steep road. After about 5 or 6 turns it got free.

Hey Max, that actually makes a lot more sense than one of your normal posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you would be hard pressed to find a U.S. infantry unit in 1944 that used the 1903 for anything other than a sniper rifle. Earlier in the war some infantry units had the Springfield, but only because production of the Garand had not caught up to demand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr: The Germans did develop a semi-automatic rifle (forgot the designation), but it was deemed to be too unreliable, cumbersome, and difficult to manufacture to be widely produced. [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The G 41 was their first try. It was not well accepted. An improved attempt, the G 43, was a much better rifle, and a half million or so were made. IIRC, it was not a high priority due to the appearance of the SG 44.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I would think that the only Americans with access to Churchill Crocs were 9th US Army, who were part of 21st Army Group. 79th AD (who held all the Crocs) were an Army Group asset. As such, their Crocs were parcelled out according to need to units within the constituent armies, 1st Canadian, 2nd British, 9th US (I think it was 9th US). So it would be correct to have a scenario showing 9th US doing somefink in Holland with Crocodiles, but it would not be correct to have a scenario showing 7th US Army attacking in the Vosges with Churchill Crocodiles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy," four Crocs from Squadron B, 141st Tank Regiment was in action with the 29th Infantry Division's 116th Infantry in the reduction of Fort Montbarey outside of Brest.

Just found this at the Britwar website: Airborne armoured recce regiment, August 1944 [Forty 98] The regiment has an RHQ, an HQ squadron, a support squadron and 2 recce squadrons. RHQ has 2 scout cars and 3 jeeps. HQ squadron has an intercom troop, an admin troop and a seaborne party. The seaborne party includes 8 cruiser tanks. The support squadron has a mortar troop, an infantry support troop, and two carrier troops. The mortar troop has 4 4.2-in mortars carried in jeeps. The infantry support troop has 18 motorcycles and a jeep. Each carrier troop has 3 carriers. Each recce squadron has a heavy troop and three recce troops. Each heavy troop has 4 light tanks. Each recce troop has 2 universal carriers and 2 jeeps. The cruisers in the "seaborne party" might be the cruisers you mentioned. Also, it looks like they had a number of carriers for recon use.

Germanboy, Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: One reason people generally don't allow force mixing for Germans, is that on balance it leads to unhistorical force selections. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, you are correct. Let me clarify that I am only refering to American Airborne/Armor mixes, and not mixed Axis types. I know that British Airborne troops spent some time in the line as regular infantry, but I have no information on any attached armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: Lorak let it be known throughout the MBT that Marlow, first of that name, is in fact an honourary Australian. It is the only possible explanation for his defeating me, and his gamey use of computer selected, massed assault halftracks. Final tally: Marlow- 70 Speedy- 30 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you kind Sir for posting of your noble but futile efforts in the False MBT. I had quite a difficult conundrum. On one hand, I wanted to gloat about my wonderful victory over your Veteran armored Brits, but I would have to dirty myself and post in the Heretical Cess if I wanted the Tome Keeper to take notice (BTW, it appears that my continued refusal to accept Mouse's thread as true heir is taking on a somewhat Quixotic air. Perhaps his new name is fitting …). Since you have seen to the formalities, I can properly trumpet my triumph over the Imperialist English Running Dog Hordes. Long, long ago, in a mailbox far, far away, A great battle was received. The Nazi Horde took the field with a computer selected force of : three hetzers, two stugs, SEVEN 251/9s and a 250/9 for armor, and two pathetic Heer 44 rifle platoons and a gaggle of LMG teams (and a few other odds and ends). After a start that saw my Teutonic Ubertruppen dealt a harsh blow, with all of my real armor destroyed by a gamey computer picked force of six Veteran Daimlers (obviously ahistorical), I had to take back the initiative with my SturmHalfTrak brigade. These baby assault guns did yeoman work in taking out a number of the Daimers, several Crommies, and turning much of the objective town (and the infantry hiding within) to a fine ash. And as far as being Australian, I'll deny it to the end. I can see it now, as I am before Joe's little Anti-'Pooligan Activities Committee --- "Are you now, or have you ever been from 'down-under'…" [edited due to suppression of a smilie infitration] [ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

Firstly, I apologize for the size of this message, and secondly, I apologize for yet another thread about what exactly is or is not "gamey." Based on what I have seen in the forum, many people consider the mixing of force types to be "gamey" (e.g. German mountain troops + Heer or American paratroopers + regular army). This philosophy has been incorporated into certain sets of "rules" or conventions designed to optimize "realistic" force selection. However, this rule has struck me as odd for two reasons. First, from a playability point of view, it offers far greater choice to the Axis player who can choose a variety of different infantry types, and still have a good selection of armor from which to choose. Compare this with the allies who can either pick rifle squads and armor, or paratroops without armor support. Additionally, if playing combined arms, armored, or mechanized forces, the point allocation system virtually prohibits use of paratroopers as a sole force type. Second, from a realism point of view, the mix of paratroopers and attached armor does not (based on my admittedly limited knowledge) fly in the face of what really happened. According to AIRBORNE TROOPS IN GROUND OPERATIONS at the Army's Center for Military History Website, armor was used in support of airbirne infantry in much the same way as it supported regular infantry. "The one deficiency that definitely did affect operations was the lack of heavy antitank weapons. The 37-mm. and even the 57-mm. antitank gun were inadequate against the armor to be faced in 1944-45. But this affected the division's operations more in strictly airborne operations than it did in ground operations; for just as were regular infantry divisions, the airborne divisions were usually reinforced with tank and tank destroyer units after contact with ground troops was established." Since American Airborne forces spent a considerable time in the line after airborne operations, often weeks or months longer than intended, it would appear that attachment of tanks and tank destroyers would be fairly common. The same document provides a list of units attached to airborne troops for all the major engagements. While the amount of armor support is not massive, it is far from insignificant or uncommon. At CM scale, armor support of a platoon of tanks per battalion of paratroopers would seem to be supported, particularly considering that any armor support would likely be concentrated where it was needed most. Note, I have omitted armored artillery from the list, as there is no way to determine if it provided direct or indirect fire support. I have also limited attached Commonwealth units to armor and antitank (when I can figure out what is what). NORMANDY Following their D Day parachute drops and glider landings on 6 June 1944, both the 82d and 101st Airborne Division remained in the line in Normandy for several weeks. Attachments for the 82d during this period were as follows: Troop B, 4th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 1-23 June. Co. C, 746th Tank Battalion, 1-11 June. Co. A, 746th Tank Battalion, 13-21 June; 1-8 July. Co. C, 899th TD Battalion, 1-19 June. Co. A, 607th TD Battalion, 19 June-4 July. 801st TD Battalion, 30 June-1 July. 803d TD Battalion, 1-8 July. The following were attached to the 101st Airborne Division for the periods indicated: Co. D, 70th (L) Tank Battalion, 6-16 June. Co. A, 70th (L) Tank Battalion, 7 June (date of termination unknown). 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, 17-26 June. Also attached for some portion of the period were the …4th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; and the 1st Platoon, Co. B, 899th TD Battalion. HOLLAND - OPERATION MARKET Because of shortage of divisions and multiple responsibilities, the British 21 Army Group retained the 82d Airborne Division in the line for 57 days beyond D Day in Operation MARKET (until 13 November 1944) and the 101st Airborne Division for 71 days (until 27 November). For most of this time, the two divisions held defensive positions but were subjected to strong German counterattacks. The following units were attached to the 82d Airborne Division for the periods indicated: 1st British Coldstream Guards Armored Battalion, 19-22 September. 2d Irish Guards Battalion, 16 September-23 October (2 sqdns. until 10 November). Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry, 19 September-10 October. Royals Reconnaissance Battalion, 19 September-9 October. 3d British Guards Battalion, 30 September-1 October. 304th British Antitank Battery, 30 September-3 October. 2d Grenadier Guards Battalion, 6-7 October. 13/18 Hussars, 10 October-10 November. Canadian 27th Armored Regiment, 10-12 November. The following units were attached to the 101st Airborne Division: British 44th Armored Regiment, 19-25 September. 13/18 Hussars, 18-22 October. 4/7 Dragoon Guards, 2-11 November. British 53d Reconnaissance Regiment, 5-6 October, 13-19 October. British Squadrons A & B, Royal Scots Greys, 6-7 October. British 61st Reconnaissance Regiment, 6-12 October. Squadron C, Royal Scots Greys, 6-17 October. Squadron C, 61st Reconnaissance Regiment, 10-12 October. British Sherwood Rangers, 22 October-2 November. British 304th Antitank Battery, 12-13 October. British 74th Antitank Battery, 9-13 November. THE ARDENNES When the Germans launched a major counteroffensive in the Ardennes on 16 December 1944, the only strategic reserve immediately available to Allied Supreme Headquarters was two U.S. airborne divisions, the 82d and 101st, both of which were located near Reims following relief from the 21 Army Group in Holland. On 17 December, both divisions were directed to move to the road center of Bastogne, though this was subsequently altered to send the 82d to the north shoulder of what became known as "the bulge" where it came under the XVIII Airborne Corps. The 101st at Bastogne was under the VIII Corps. The bulk of the 82d Airborne Division reached the north shoulder in the vicinity of Werbomont early on 19 December. Here the division fought defensively until joining a major offensive of the First and Third Armies on 3 January. From 10 through 27 January the division was in corps reserve, though one of its regiments was from time to time attached to other attacking units. The division was relieved on 4 February, then from the 8th through the 12th assisted in an attack on the Roer River Dams.Attachments were as follows: 14th Tank Battalion, 9th Armored Division, 23-24 December. 703d TD Battalion, 20 December-1 January. 740th Tank Battalion, 29 December-11 January, 27 January-5 February.- 1 - 628th TD Battalion, 1-11 January. 643d TD Battalion, 25-31 January. 32d Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 28 January-5 February. 629th TD Battalion, 31 January-18 February. Co. B, 744th Tank Battalion, 9-19 February. Two platoons, 893d TD Battalion, 9-11 February. All the 101st Airborne Division had reached Bastogne by early morning of 19 December. Here the division would fight defensively through 1 January, engage in limited objective attacks on 2 January, and participate in the major offensive by First and Third Armies from 3 through 17 January. On the 18th the division moved out of the line for transfer to new positions in Alsace. Attachments to the 101st were as follows: 2d Tank Battalion, 19-30 December. Combat Command R, 9th Armored Division, 20-31 December. Combat Command B, 10th Armored Division, 20 December-18 January. Combat Command B, 4th Armored Division, 8-10 January. 705th TD Battalion, 20 December-18 January. Co. B, 811th TD Battalion, 3-11 January. Co. C, 704th TD Battalion, 4-6 January. Co. A, 602d TD Battalion, 4-6 January. 611th TD Battalion, 6-7 January. Co. B, 704th TD Battalion, 9-11 January. Co. C, 609th TD Battalion, 11-12 January. The document also goes on to provide attachments to airborne forces in the Alsace, Operation Varsity, and later, but you get the picture. The point is that airborne troops spent a lot of time acting as regular strait leg infantry, and when they did, they had reasonable levels of armor support. This makes considerable sense, given that for the Americans, neither regular infantry or paratroopers had inherent armor support, and both had to rely on attached units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: What in the... WHAT ARE YOU LOT DOING IN HERE?! WHO BROUGHT THIS THING BACK FROM THE DEAD?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unlike the depths of the sea, the forum does give up its secrets. You can't hide your past shame from the spotlight of public scrutiny and scorn Seanachai. As to why? Isn't causing another Pooligan pain and humiliation reason enough? However, there is also the matter of finding a home in the dark times of the heretical pretender to the title of the MBT, where the gullible are being led astray, and posting in a sacrilegious manner. All who post there are placing their eternal soul at risk (do you think it is any coincidence that Berli is posting there? I think recruiting must be low, and he is involved in a covert membership drive). Evidence that it is a false thread is found in the current edginess (real as opposed to good natured) that seems to have permeated the place, and the shear number of gits, SSNs, and other assorted morons that have decided that it looks like a cool place to be. P.S. Pee El, don't get your panties in a bunch, it isn't about you starting the current false MBT in particular (even if you are just a smelly squire who isn't worth the price of a bullet to put through your thick and well sloped cranium), it really is more about sticking a pointy stick in The Bard's eye. [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Mensch, I gotta know where that quote by the Misguided Bald One in your sigfile came from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WHAT! You missed the shootdodge experience the first time around?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: 20 THOUSAND POSTS! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is to say 20,000 Topics and a Quarter million posts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yesterday I typed in "Peng CHallenge" search in title-only (personal reasons, shut up!) I have a cable modem and it timed out after about 1 hour. I could have done it by hand faster than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is only protecting you. The accumulated knowledge of The One True Cess has been known to drive wise men the the brink of insanity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It's broke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you try entering the secret password? Seriously, the search does work better if you narrow it by using a member number. While this may restrict your search results a little, depending on the subject, it is usually possible to figure someone who would likely have posted there. For example, in seaching for the MBT use Elvis' number, as his trademark "Wankers" post has appeared in most, if not all, of the Peng Challenges. Likewise, if you are looking for something on the comparative firepower ratings of the UberPanzerWeufer Mark XXIX auf F1 as compared to the UberPanzerWeufer Mark XXIX auf F2, then use the number of the appropriate Grog. [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YK2: In Seans absence I hereby grant upon myself the right to BUMP this thread....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thankee so kindly for BUMPing this thread Milady; however, I don't think that the Minnesota Miscreant is going to be especially happy to see it remain on the first page. You see, this thread is an experiment started by Sir Seanachump that went horribly wrong. For some time its existence made him the laughing stock of the Cesspool. Whenever he wandered by, people would stand around, point their fingers, and giggle (without even the courtesy of laughing behind their hands). Berli was especially rough on the poor lad. Meeks was a bit nasty as well, but that was par for the course. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole experience didn't result in Seanachai's extended stay in Minnesota's local institute for whacos (Commonly referred to as Minneapolis). Which brings me to the reason for this post. I have taken it upon myself to keep this thread on the front page as long as I can (or at least until the current pretender to the title of MBT started by a MERE SQUIRE, Panzer Leader (AKA panties, Sancho, and Pee El), slips off into padlocked oblivion). Hopefully the humiliation and pain of seeing his most unfortunate creation marking page one of the forum, will be a constant reminder of how hubris can bring the mighty low. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier: Marlow you 'orrible fellow, you've just won the sig line contest. The trick was to have the best sig line today. You won. How do you feel and isn't, by default, all threads (especially Peng threads) better when not started by sancho? Would you like to thank mom, america and apple pie? Please do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mr. Geier, if I could understand you, I'm sure I would thank you. Where can I collect my prize of lutefisk. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DekeFentle: Marlow SEND A TURN!!! When the Whuppin' boy speaks, gather round and hearken well. Pain is EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUS MENTAL DEGENERATION OMITTED most eloquent mentor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DekeFentle, you chowderhead. If you hadn't proposed a friggin 3000 point game, I might be able to finish the setup a little faster. Go climb back into whatever horrid little puddle of ooze you came from.* *Note that I will post replies to posts in Pee El's … It Was the Worst of PENG CHALLENGES abomination here. I shall not post in that wretched place and have the taint of heresy on my soul. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Marlow you mook, they're not eyes, they're an umlaut. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was ist dieses "mook"? Ich bin nicht ein mook, ich bin ein Berliner (with strawberry jam).

Doubler's book "Closing with the Enemy" has a good account of the use of various methods for busting hedgerows. The Cullen device didn't come from just a couple of guys who came up with something completely new, the hedgerow cutters were a development from earlier efforts to figure out ways to get tanks through the hedgerows (and more broadly, efforts to develop tactics for fighting in the hedgerows). Early efforts to get tanks through were either to use bulldozer equipped tanks to lead the way, or to just drive over/through the hedgerows. Both of these methods had problems as there were not enough dozer tanks for the first, and the second was too slow and exposed the tank's underbelly armor. The next steps were to use engineers to blow a gap with demolitions. This worked fine, except that digging a hole to emplace the demolitions took too long to sustain a reasonable rate of advance since new hedgerows would need to be crossed every 200 yards or so. Somebody then had the bright idea to use a tank to dig the hole, and pieces of pipe were welded on to the front of the tank. The tank would push the pipe into the hedgerow, and then back up, and Presto! A hole was born. Next, some bright tanker discovered that often a tank equipped with the welded pipes could not only cut holes for demolitions, but that it could quickly drive strait through the hedgerow entirely. The Cullen device was developed as simply a more efficient method of doing the same. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Even with hedgerow cutters, tanks weren't great things to have in the bocage, as it usually put them in shreck range, if not Pf range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If Doubler's account of the effective hedgerow fighting tactics that the U.S. eventually developed is accurate (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't), tanks were essential in the hedgerows. The close coordination of infantry/tank teams, using purpose developed drills was the key. Units that had the time and leadership to develop and practice these tactics did very well. Those that did not took high casualties for little gain. When properly employed the tanks did not face inordinate risk. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heavy Blunt Intstument: 4.6) the competition will be by knockout <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes it should be a knockout tourney, with the losers advancing to the next round. A reward (if thats what "Chapter Commander" is) based on tactical ability is the antithesis of the 'Pool's ethic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2.7.8a) Any SSN or Serf who wins the overall tourney will be kiniggitted because we all dont want a smug SSN/Serf, but we can tolerate smug Kiniggits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NO NO NO. Someone like Pee El or DekeFlannel might slip in by mistake. We need Lorak as the gatekeeper to keep them oppressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Königstigers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mr. Aitken Sir, can you please tell me how you made those eyes above the o? It's so kewl! w00t! Ok, now a real question for the class. Can someone tell me what: "l337," "h4xx0r1ng," and "texting" are? I feel so out of it for not knowing. [ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iskander: Think that you can dissapate your forces against me a second time as well as you did the first?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bah. The Wolves will slake their thirst on the digital blood of your soldiers, and will crack their bones and suck out the marrow. How hard should if be to beat someone from a state where family trees look like telephone poles. The only reason you won the last tilt was because I succumbed to my darkest, gamey urges and purchased guns without transport. Because I tried to take advantage of an obvious game flaw, the Ghost of Aching David rose from the ground to the strains of Scotland the Brave, and smote my computer with a map that had no good overwatch positions within my deployment zone, and gave you invincible M10s of Death. Have I learned my lesson? Absolutely. In our next game, I will not use guns without transport, but shall instead use a fleet of KingTigers and FlakTrackTrucks accompanies by elite SMG hordes. Expect a setup SauceBoy. PS, In the spirit of the Kinder Gentler Cess, I apologize in advance to any fine citizens of the State of Kentucky that might be insulted at anything they read (all three of you that can read that is) in my post.