Wolfpack

I just realized my e-mail was wrong too...you left out the r, so it's actually Spharv@aol.com...for all those who will now proceed to thrash me unmercifully. ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

It comes on some PBS stations, I love the show myself. Never got into Mr. Bean, but Black Adder is great. Nothing better than a black, sarcastic sense of humor. ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Rules? Rules? Someone mention rules? ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

<bump> Page 3? Someone is slacking here. ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

69

Well Mr. Dorosh, looks like we'll be facing off before any action in the campaign going on...now you'll get to see exactly how badly led the Germans really are. =) ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

25 here, but it feels like I've been through about 5 lifetimes already...funny how having the Army screw up your back and knees will do that to you. Especially when you have to rely on them to put you back in one piece again... ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

I got a platoon just once in a QB...it turned out to be a pretty fun battle since my other units were 3 shrecks a flamethrower HT and a Stug. The allies were infantry heavy with 6 HTs so it went pretty well. My shrecks were knocking out HTs left and right, and my flamethrower was lighting all cover on fire as fast as possible. I split my squads up and obliterated the rush when it came. A team of Gebirgsjager still has a pretty good amount of firepower...especially when your opponant is forced to run through pretty much open fields to get to you. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell. [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-24-2001).]

hehe, my favorite jeep vs tiger scene came in a QB I was playing. I was running a Jeep up to do a little recon. He got to the top of the hill and before the stop and reverse orders went through, he was nailed by the tiger at the bottom of the hill. He went up in a nice ball of fire like that one, but continued rolling down the hill and rammed the Tiger. Man was I proud of that driver...he was giving his all to the cause. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

Ah yes...mine met with a similar fate, the infamous death from above attack, aka Dad on his Riding Lawnmower. I remember that for about a year afterward, I would still find little bits and pieces laying around in my yard...poor guys never knew what hit them. sniffle sniffle ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell. [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-22-2001).] [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-22-2001).]

How about "Break on Through" and "The End" I also like some NIN and Tool for the big attacks. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

Actually, I was thinking about more of a modification of those buttons. I'm not sure they'd really fit, but I prefer them to the original buttons. I'd rather have something that really fits in with the grog interface. (I know, I know. I'm a picky bastard, but what can I say? I want it all. ) ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

Have you ever thought of doing a combination of the grog and gunmetal mods...I love the camera contraol buttons iin the gunmetal, but would rather have the grog main panel. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

I agree, let's get it going....regardless of maps or not. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

I wouldn't be able to list them all here, way too many to count. The most recent was last night...setting mp my MG bunker on the top of the biggest hill I've ever seen. Unsuprisingly, it was knocked out in one turn. Of course, my whole setup that game was all screwed up...don't know what my problem was, but my opponant enjoyed it. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

Hey, thanks for the picture, I was just going on what I had read, never saw one....pretty nifty. ------------------ Go thou, and fill another room in hell.

That would be a British (Guards Armored Division) variant. Those are aircraft rockets....I would guess they could be used for bunker busting, although the accuracy would probably be abysmal...best feature of these was probably the "Holy S***!!" value. Be nice to have when you came around that corner and saw the KT sitting there too. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

I'd be willing to give it a go...the mod manager is the one offered on CMHQ right? That's the only one I know of. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

Okay, but how much longer could they have kept this up before being forced to pull a significant amount of resources would have been lost to the war effort. The soviets were already short of food for the population, as more men would have been pulled off farms, and out of factories, how long until this really begins to affect the war effort. Do factors like this enter into your figuring anywhere? Just curious. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

Whew, I'll try to do a bit here, though I'm really not a grog (Unless you're talking about the late Roman Republic or American Civil War). I've snipped it down to what I think I can answer with a bit of confidence. As for the purges, yes, that figure is a pretty generally accepted figure, but what people often mention but fail to take into account is that many of those same officers were returned to duty after Barbarossa began. Some gave good service, some didn't...you can't really say that the purges had a huge impact because Russian leadership was spotty before and after purged officers were returned to duty. I'm not positive about the peace feelers, but knowing how paranoid Stalin was, it would not be a huge shock, since he could be expected to see that the Western powers were using his "inexhaustable" manpower to grind the Germans down. I would not be at all surprised to learn that he was looking to get out early. What better for him than to have the West fighting the Germans alone and beating the hell out of each other? (What he had planned in the beginning, although the Germans dashed those hopes with their quick, relatively painless wins in the west) As for the Allied bombing campaign, it depends on how you look at it. Yes, the Germans drastically increased production of most of their armed forces equipment in the midst of the campaign, but this was due to the fact that efficiency was increased a great amount once the germans realized that they were in for a long war. Speer did an incredable job in gearing up the german production for "total war" but it was too little too late. That said, without the bombing, production would have been even greater, and many of the critical subcomponants and much of the fuel would have been available for use. The bombing campaign had a huge impact in those areas. After Kursk, the general idea is that the Germans had lost their mobile reserve. It was those "Fire Brigades" that sealed off many Russian breakthroughs and began counterattacks that kept the Russians off balance. In reality, the reserve wasn't really lost, it was however put out of action for a bit, many of the tanks that the Russians had claimed as total kills were in fact, back out fighting fairly quickly. having a great part of their mobile force did hamper the germans for a while, allowing the russians to force the lines back quite a bit. But remember, the war did still last nearly another 2 years, I wouldn't call that a complete collapse. As for who's to blame...you can blame whoever you want, but most people blame Hitler. It's an easy choice, and makes sense, but the General staff can't escape blame either, there's plenty to go around. Now to that list of myths: First, no, the Russians didn't have an overwhelming numerical superiority in every battle, what they did have in nearly all of them however was a huge RESERVE. That's the key. While the Germans were running forces around sealing gaps, the Russians could pick the point that looked most vulnerable and then attack. Like Stalingrad...hold with a roughly equal force, then cave in the flanks with your reserve. Second, Russian manpower was nowhere near inexhaustable, toward the end of the war, they were scraping almost every bit as hard as Germany at that manpower barrel. And the Soviets were very touchy about the subject. They might not have cared much for the individuals that were fighting, but they couldn't exactly afford to be taking 20-1 and 15-1 losses like they did early in the war...if they could, then any general could have won for them...it doesn't take a whole lot of leadership ability to plan a human wave attack. The next two are kind of together, I think that the lower levels of leadership did pretty well in the war considering what they were fighting against. The higher levels were where I see a lot of problems, they were consistantly wrong about German plans and operations, and tended to react rather slowly to what progressed. Of course, the high commanders were directly under Stalin's eyes, that would tend to make a differrence there. As for rigidity...well, when it's stand and die in battle, or disobey your last orders and get shot down by your own troops, that does tend to increase rigidity. Even units that pulled back, and stayed behind to fight the Germans as partisans were not trusted by leadership, as they showed "Too much independance" Next, the Soviets were quite often trying to use encirclements, the problem is, that when the flanks failed to achieve their objectives, units were still funnelled into the fighting, so that the fights ended up as a head to head slugfest. Lend lease WAS absolutely critical for shortening the war...it is highly doubtful that the Soviets would have been able to mount any kind of successful advance without what we supplied. It wasn't the tanks and direct combat material we supplied, rather the trucks and parts to keep them running. You could say that Detroit helped the Soviets win the war, because the Russian army would have been unable to keep supplies up with the troops without those vehicles. As for the soldiers, it's a pretty broad generalization, but holds true for the most part...of course the same could be said of the soldiers of almost all of the combatants. I doubt you could find too many soldiers on any front that weren't terribly fatalistic in combat. Whew, that is long...all said, now that more and more of the former Soviet documents are being released, it's the perfect time to study this part of the war, since there is more information than ever before on the subject. A lot of books in the past have said that the biggest German mistake was invading Russia, or that Hitler's decision to seal off the southern pocket was what lost the war...neither is true in itself. The Germans instead faced their greatest opportunity in taking Russia out in a quick strike, and even in the long run might have won despite mistakes. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

When you reply or post, look on the left side of the posting area, and you'll see a line saying "Smilies legend" click on that. That'll be 20 dollars please. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

Not saying you're wrong there, just pointing out that it's better to have plenty of it ready to be shipped regardless of whether you can at the moment. Certainly better to have to balance than to say, "Well, damn...we're short on ammo, but there isn't enough here to give them any...maybe these MREs will do." I know the Tomahawks are much harder to produce than your standard ammo round, but the idea remains the same. We ran out of them because their use far outstripped our capacity to tool up to increase production again. Since it's not an instantaneous process, I would think we should make sure there's plenty to go around. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory. [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-09-2001).]

Geez, you guys are making me jealous...all I have is a Luftwaffe pilots lapel pin (Slightly scorched) It sucks to be a poor bastard. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

B-52s weren't based in Saudi, they were flying out of Diego Garcia. But here's the real point, don't think you would rather at least know the ammo is there, and available to be transported if you need it? Ammo expendatures are almost always higher than projected figures, and if you cut down on the total amount available, you cut down on the overall effectiveness of any unit. How much more vulnerable are your units when they are told, "Well, we don't have a whole lot of ammo to expend, so don't fire until you're assured of a hit". I personally would rather be able to use a little harassing fire, and take a few chances on improbable hits. I'd much prefer to know that even if my ammo level in-theatre isn't high, that there was plenty more where that came from available to transport if needed. Heck, they didn't see us using Tomahawks in huge volumes either, but we pretty much ran out of those didn't we? ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory. [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-08-2001).]

Yes, friendly fire is modeled in low visibility conditions. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.