Incoming

I do think they should at least put out an estimate date the game will ship, revise it every 90 days or so if necessary. It would be more 'professional' and keep us informed. The screen shots and interviews have been too little, too far apart. They have done a very Sh*tty job of keeping us informed.

Look buddy, I dont have time for searches...

Check out the US Marines new camou uniforms. Digitally created patterns. http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/mcub/utility/index.html And what does this have to do with CM you ask??? Well, not much! Just thought you might enjoy it.

Proof of the fragile Canuck psyche, can't take a joke.

Hooray! another assinine Peng thread!!!

Isn't it every Canadians dream to be an American?

Juno, One word, SARCASM!

I see, the better Yank infantry combined with the Better infantry supporting tanks of limey land. Gamey, ahistorical, or both???

New Zealand To Scrap A-4s, Air Combat Capability By End Of Year Defense Daily 05/09/01 author: Neil Baumgardner New Zealand has decided to disband its air combat force by the end of the year, retiring the Royal New Zealand Air Force's (RNZAF) 17 A-4K attack planes without replacement, while increasing the country's overall defense budget by $294 million over the next 10 years, defense minister Mark Burton said yesterday. "It is with sadness that the government has decided to disband the air combat arm," Burton said in a statement. "While the professionalism and skill of the pilots and support crew has been second to none, their equipment is outdated and has never been used in a combat role. The simple fact is that New Zealand cannot afford modern combat aircraft and the weaponry needed to equip them, and also maintain adequate army and navy capabilities. The Air Force, therefore, will be refocused. Its key roles will be in maritime patrol and air transport." The move follows New Zealand's decision last year to withdraw from a $190 million deal to lease 28 Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-16s from the United States to replace the aging A-4s. The lease had been initiated in 1999 by the prior National Party government and was terminated by the new Labor Party government following a review that found the program to be too costly for the country's defense budget (Defense Daily, March 30, 2000). New Zealand first acquired the A-4 in 1968, the third export customer for the aircraft. In 1986, New Zealand initiated the Project Kahu upgrade program for its A-4s, equipping them with Northrop Grumman [NOC] APG-66 radars, Raytheon [RTNA/RTNB] AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, and GBU-16 bombs. Two RNZAF A-4s have crashed over the past year, leaving the country with 17 remaining aircraft. Maintaining the A-4Ks would have cost $210 million over the next five years, or $500 million over the next 10 years, the government said. Cutting the aircraft will save New Zealand, which was currently only funding them at a basic level, $168 million over the next five years and $365 million over the next 10 years. In addition to its A-4Ks, The RNZAF's 17 MB339CB jet trainers, made by Italy's Aermacchi, will be retired as part of the cuts. It is not clear how New Zealand will dispose of the aircraft following their retirement. The RNZAF has operated combat aircraft since 1937. Remaining A-4 operators include Argentina, Brazil, which operates them from the aircraft carrier Minas Gerais and soon the newly acquired Clemenceau-class carrier Sao Paulo, Indonesia, Israel, Singapore, and the U.S. Navy. The move also means the RNZAF will have to withdraw from Australia's Naval Air Station Nowra, where the A-4s provide threat training for the Royal Australian Navy. Australian defense minister Peter Reith said New Zealand's decision to ax its air combat capability would have only a temporary effect on Australian Defence Force training.null

HEY JAZZA, RETURN OUR FILE SOMETIME THIS WEEK.

Those craters look awful familiar....Close Combat??? :eek: :confused:

I didnt know the Louvre had three entrances...and hey, what's that tank doing next to it???

please send to me @ fsume93@earthlink.net. by the way, you in Wichita?

I believe the M1A? can travel at a much higher rate of speed than the other MBT's. If so I would think this would figure into your which is better argument...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/04/09/international1416EDT0592.DTL Swiss Army Bicycle Brigade is being cut as part of army reform. :confused:

My first use of a Puppchen just occured. First shot, first kill on an M4A3 75. The M10 next to it destroyed it 2 shots later. Not a bad trade, would have liked 1 or 2 more kills though.

Preface: i did do a search and read all that turned up. Does anyone every use Puppchens on a regular basis? Since their price was doubled to 18 points there hasnt seemed to be much dialogue on them. I recently purchased them in a couple of PBEM's but havent progressed to the point of using them.

Anyone for a chilled 12 oz. Rolling Rock...

My M4a3(76)W HVSS Easy Eight Sherman just killed a Panther G (late) @ 788m. A tungsten round through the front turret, knocked out. V1.12 of course.

Supreme Spewer of Gurlged Crap. Get a life. This is rediculous.

Perhaps we are straying a little of the intended topic here. If you were in a 1500 pt QB, medium map, moderate hill/forest, village, Nov 1944, would you pick 4 M10's, an M8, and a couple of HT's? I wouldnt. Perhaps I am the atypical CM player. No harm, no foul.

I have never once said it shouldnt be done. I just questioned whether it was gamey. I too salivate at the opportunity it presents. I targeted the M10's with 75mm and 81mm mortars, sorry to say they survived. My Panther took out 2 M10's and 2 HT's and my Panzer IV took out 2 M10's and an M8. Maybe I got lucky, no casualties on my part...yet.

That is pretty funny.

KSAK, Putting them there out in the open when he hasnt spotted anything of mine is ignorant, Having only TD's is perhaps gamey. Was it normal practice to deploy a platoon of TD's by themselves ahead of infantry without shermans or other tanks for infantry suppression? If so, I apologize.

Being the poster of the last "are zig-zagging jeeps gamey" I feel obligated to join in here. One of the reasons I asked that question was because just about any post I read here talks about and delves into the details of the historical aspects of this game and the accuraccy of the weapons and their implementation. Then you come to this thread and you read JasonCrawley@Ameritech, who constantly spews fact based data ad infinitum, justify a lone(read: single, solo) Jeep Zig-Zagging its way across and entire battlefield as if out on a picnic. SORRY, IT DIDNT F*CKING HAPPEN!!! Justifying this gamey play with an example of 2 jeeps and an M8 were commonly used for recon has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a CM player using a lone jeep zig-zagging his way across the map. By the way my infantry, support and armor units were all hidden and I dont think he found any of them. Now, it was only a question. I dont mind it (yet) because any opponent i have played that has done that has proven to be not that good at CM. Do any good CM'ers utilize that tactic? I would assume not, which in itself should be the final answer to the question. Another situation of possible gameyness has come up in another PBEM game I just embarked on. This opponent has 4 M10's. He stationed 2 on the top of each hill on his side of the map. Right out in the open, on overwatch. He can see most of the map I am sure, but is that a smart tactic? Historical? I might add that he has no units out in front of the M10's and his only other armor is an M8 and a couple of HT's. So basically he is using them as his front line. Anyway, they are all knocked out now, no armor losses on my side. Gamey or ignorant? you decide.