Forever Babra

The vehicles came from the factory in dark yellow. Red-brown and green paint was issued and was to be applied in the field for the standard three-colour scheme. However, due to shortages of paint, sometimes only brown or green would be applied. Also, since the pigment needed to be thinned with fuel, fuel shortages also affected what was applied.

Hmmm... Steve & Charles ain't anywhere to be seen, so that means they're working harder. But CM2 has more stuff. But the major hurdles were covered in CM1. I'll go with.... ummm.... Jan 7, 2002

It's Oxford for me, old boy. However, in the spirit of love and good-feeling that the pool is all about I will cede "proven" and "pled" as nothing more than a curious crime against English perpetrated by the same people who, by an accident of geography and birth, go out at "nite". And I will further point out that I do not suck. Explosive decompression sucks. You blow.

Note to self: Whine for inclusion of iron fences for CM2...

That's a workable work-around, radar. I'd settle for a "sector arc cover" command or something similar. I don't need (or really want) to be able to control the turret of every tank, just to tell them to idle in the right general direction.

Well, no more than one or two anyway. In the "test" I did, it was the sheer volume of metal that half a dozen of them could throw onto a single target that made them so lethal. Buildings would crumble just out of fright. Having one or two won't upset play balance I shouldn't think.

Standard IDF march column. It would be nice if turrets were controllable to allow more finesse with formation tactics.

No one seems to have touched on cost. Tanks ain't free.

The I-Sherman, or "Super-Sherman" was effective offensively, but was not well-received by its crews. Mainly it was due to advances in gun technology, which allowed that monster gun to be crammed in. However, the recoil from its French 105mm was so great, the tank had to be put in neutral to absorb the shock. But when all is said and done, it was still a Sherman -- an eggshell armed with a hammer. Certain South American countries are still using it. Brazil has even mounted 90mm guns on some of its M3 Stuarts, which shows just how far gun tech has come in fifty years. [This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 03-31-2001).]

I just tried a 1000 point defend QB against the A/I. I purchased ten veteran Sdkfz 7/2, and spent the remainder of the points on assorted fixed light flak. The A/I attacked with 5 Shermans of various types, including two 105s, a halftrack and an infantry platoon. Two Shermans were knocked out. One was abandoned after it was immobilized and the other took multiple side penetrations. The other three Shermans were hors de combat by virtue of being gun-damaged almost immediately under a blistering, paint-peeling hail of flak fire. The halftrack was wasted the moment it poked its head out, and the American infantry was shredded and could not close under 400m. The Sdkfz 7/2s survived well, only two being lost to direct fire (no crew casualties), and a pair of them weathering a rather severe 105mm bombardment without damage. Truly nasty beasts. For each round put out by a Sherman, the Sherman would receive about twenty 20mm and 37mm hits in return.

CM2 will be the Russian front version. Projected release is fall 2001, which means spring 2002.

Some copies seem to get to their destinations, even overseas, in record time. Others take longer. And at the extreme end, the original batch of orders to we happy grogs in Canada was routed by way of Cleveland, Prague and Vladivostok seemingly. In other words, only the postman knows.

I'm trying to think of any English-speaking countries that have had a war on their own soil since the 19th Century. Can't think of any. I suspect the gravity of the events is lost when it hasn't affected you personally.

I've never met a Gurkha and I've often wondered if they're reputations aren't just a wee bit overblown. Don't read anything into the hand-holding though -- that's just a sign of friendship in that part of the world.

I'm looking forward to all that early German/Czech armour. Since KV-1s are going to be available immediately to the Soviets, I think we can look forward to German players bringing along a few towed-88s to every party.

I am always impressed by these gentlemen of the bar who presume not to know that "practice" is a noun, while "practise" is the verb form. Of course, these are the same people who would have us think that "adjourned" indicates that a proceeding is concluded when, in fact, it means quite the opposite. It must be an American thing, right up there with "proven" and "pled". One may consult dictionaries until the second coming (your cue, Bauhaus), and never an entry for them will one find - at least, not in anything purporting to be remotely reputable. I exclude Scottish Law, where one may encounter the curious verdict of "Not Proven", which bestows neither innocence nor guilt upon the unfortunate accused. Such fine examples of higher education. One has to wonder if daddy's money would not have been better spent.

It is a principle of animal behaviour first theorized by the Zoologist Hediger. As Michael says, it is the "fight or flight" threshold. If you surprise a bear up close, within the "critical distance" you will get what Hediger calls a "critical reaction": It will maul you. If you surprise it from a distance, beyond what he terms "flight distance", it will flee. Keegan postulates that the same principle applies to humans, especially in a war setting. Short-range engagements tend to have a much higher level of violence, with no-quarter contests common. At greater ranges, the level of violence decreases and troops are more willing to evade than engage. This is a behavioural principle and has nothing to do with weapons effects, though the type of weapons in use can determine the length of the critical distance. Studies on the principle as applied to humans showed that habitually violent men routinely underestimated the distance between themselves and their victims. EDIT: Some further thoughts. I raise this because if we take the theory as valid, and we also accept the 20% "participation" figure from Marshall, then it would suggest that the majority of infantry combat occurred outside the distance within which men would be driven to participate. [This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 03-30-2001).]

I don't think that's quite accurate. There were Vichy French forces in Africa, yes, some of which did at least token defensive fighting, but I'm not aware of any Legionaire units fighting for the Axis. If you know of any, I'd be happy if you'd point me to it.

I'm not a programmer. And I don't fetch coffee. Damn, guess I'm stuck with the job I got...

I will not comment on the numbers, but I can assert with a fair degree of certainty that someone not predisposed to kill WILL find something else to do in a firefight, and there is no shortage of things that need doing. The question only remains as to whether or not the 20% figure is accurate. Not to be overlooked is Keegan's discussion of "critical distance". Assuming the theory to be valid (and I do), what would be the typical critical distance for an infantryman on the WW2 battlefield, and how many small-unit actions were fought within it and without it? Does LOS affect the size of it? If a unit takes fire, but can't see the firing unit, will it cower or break even though it takes no casualties? It could be fairly presumed that being inside critical distance will boost that 20% figure, but by how much?

I'm reliably informed it's "an army of one"

Hmmm.... Gimme some time with that one...

What do you think this is? A Democracy? A Constitutional Monarchy? Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Not so strange, really. There is an abundance of psychiatric/psychological data to suggest that even the most hardened and compassionless of killers are frequently softened where animals are concerned. It's often harder for them to hurt an animal than a human. In short, we all cried at the end of Ol' Yeller

I cannot find a definitive answer. One source I have claims that HE was used exclusively. Another says: "It had a range of 7,330 yards with high explosive and 7,750 yards with smoke shells. The rockets weighed 75.3 pounds for HE and 78 pounds for smoke." Tendering shell weights and ranges for smoke ammunition would at least imply that the author has a source for that information, but those things could exist without ever having left the proving grounds. I suppose we'll have to search out references to field use.