Wisbech_lad

Pakistan... Hi mom!

Oh absolutely. Some rationales given to attack USSR while still in war with CW were to remove hope from the CW (Germany felt CW has refusing to negotiate, waiting for USSR & USA to join) and that since the forces were already mobilised, it was a golden (or only) opportunity to attack USSR. (i.e. if the armed forces stood down after a negotiated settlement with CW, it would be very difficult to pursuade Germans to go to war again) Amusing with hindsight As you know well, German High Command saw Russia as a 3 month campaign.

JasonC, Re the German decision not to go to Total War. This was as much a political decision as a military one. The war was not a popular one in Germany. Conquering France so fast made it (for a while) popular but despite Nazi propaganda, the desire for a "show down" with communism wasn't there. Pressure was growing to demobilise men after the fall of France until Barbarossa - especially from the farming sector. The Nazi Party did pay attention to public opinion, and IMHO the reduction in military output (or rather, not ramping up to total war levels) was driven by a wish to keep the home fires burning. So, when it looked as if full court press wasn't needed, the Germans seized on it gratefully Compare to the UK, who outproduced Germany in aircraft in BoB. The war wasn't popular, but was seen as necessary defense against an aggressor. There was massive propaganda at all levels to try and explain why, how and what the fighting was for and worthwhile - with an explicit deal that the reward would be accelerated home rule for all colonies, and a welfare state in the UK, if sacrifices were made now Politically, the Germans were able to switch to total war in late 1942 because it was then a war of survival. Before that, ISTR the only German of note calling for total war was Himmler, but he was one of the few who truly believed in the whole thing. So, the Germans didn't go for total war not just because they didn't think they needed to, but also because they weren't convinced it was doable. Ironically, it turned out not to be a big problem. Whether or not 1944 consumption patterns could have been accepted in 1940/41 we will never know. I am not sure though - without a mortal threat, about the only country to have such a skewed consumption pattern was Russia during collectivisation. I put it down as another wehrmacht p3nis envy - the view that the Germans could have won if only they had gone to total war two years earlier misreads the reality of the situation a bit - they didn't not just due to stupidity, but out of fear of the political consequences at home.

Some counter factuals - the offences had failed before midsummer. They were spring offences. Both Russian & German revolutions happened before the end of their fighting, not that they left the war and had a revolution. The "far advanced" infantry tactics were, ironically, part of the German collapse. They were attained by basically putting all the best remaining troops in the assualt divisions, that then ran out, leaving no cadre. If home front didn't matter, then why did the side with the larger and more efficient economies win... One reason for the drop in German morale in 1917/18 was the fact that to keep up with UK and France, even after collapse of Russia, a simply massive amount of GDP went into war - I've seen stats that has UK domestic GDP consumption at levels 7-8 times higher than Germany. German civilians were starving, social tensions were massive UK and France were still decent places to live, as long as you weren't near a front. Germany was not. Remember one of the main lessons learned from WW1 was "destroy the home front" (strat bombing, blockades etc) as it was reckoned that home front morale collapse played such a big part. Hitler's "stab in the back" argument played so well, because there was enough truth in it to make it plausible. The fleet did mutiny, the new government did call for armistice Of course, in WW2 that turned out (as usual) that everyone was preparing to fight the previous war. Plus on defensive measures, everyone realised the importance of propaganda & social cohesion at home to sustain the effort.

Arrrgh, sorry I set all this off. To clarify - I know that derogatary slang is part and parcel of life, and am not particularly PC. But, as AKD also points out, choosing "haji" is... unfortunate. I wasn't calling Cipher out on it - just my opinion that it is unfortunate. Epithets that may seem worse on the surface would (IMHO) be better. Replies to other points would count as political

For an attritionist JasonC you are ignoring the economics & home front of WW1. By Winter 1917 there was starvation in Germany (the UK blockade would have ended the war much sooner if it wasn't for the discovery of artificial nitrates, but that only made economic sense for munitions, not fertilizers) The Austrians, to all intents and purposes, had given up. Strikes were breaking out in Germany. March 1918 was a desperate gamble by the German High Command - that they would (IMHO) have had to have done whether or not US was in the war or not by that stage - basically to knock out France before the "home front" collapsed. By Black Friday, German morale was shot, they couldn't even hold the Hindenburg line. The Fleet was mutinous - and had suffered no significant losses It wasn't the destruction of the German forces that mattered, it was the destruction of the German economy that led to throwing away the forces in a last gamble (that also led to the German Army losing very large numbers of officers, given as a "decisive" reason to the Reichstag by the army, as why they should sue for peace) Obviously this is an extreme, strawman view (of course war is not simply a calculus of economics) But it is impressive how quickly the German revolution of 1918 happened, even before the war ended, and how little resistance there was to it. The Germans in 1918 hadn't run out of forces, or room, they had run out of food and reasons to fight The Americans were decisive in the summer counteroffensive, but the final German spring offensive was stopped by British & French reserves in April, not US. Note that in 1918 the Fremch army had bounced back - yes, they held less of the line, but they were instrumental in defeating the German offensive

Yep, which both of my parents-in-law have done, which is why they get the honourific title of hadji. Most of my staff are muslim too, about 25% have done the hajj. It used to be that you put it on your business card (like degrees in some cultures) but that has now reduced - seen as boasting about something that is meant to be personal Anyway, some interesting stuff here guys, keep it coming!

Ugh. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, and Cipher, no disrespect, it is obviously just a casual slang word the way you use it - but haji? My wife's family are muslim, my parents-in-law are haji. It is a term of respect - akin to "sir" or "doctor" and it just sticks in the throat a bit that that is what you guys have nick-named the jihadi/ insurgent mob. I know nicknames for the enemy are par for the course (jerry/ kraut/ nip/ gook) but for a conflict that probably needs some element of hearts and minds - haji isn't a great one to pick. Sand nigger/ rag head / towel head would be less offensive to muslims who are not insurgents, IMHO!

"Problem is, some genuis in the upper ranks decided that our military doesn't use them. You can probably thank a bleeding heart liberal somewhere for that." They've been banned for military use since 1899 now - Hague Convention and all that. Do a search on Dum Dum bullets (Indian Army designed hollow point/ flat head bullets in the 19th C) Not sure I would call pre WW1 European armies bleeding heart liberals. Ironically, the 0.303 dum dum was developed by the Indian Army for use on the NW frontier (Afganistan/ Pakistan) - so putting down jihadis (Afridi police action ISTR) fast was seen as a problem then too... [ December 06, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ]

Thought that 0.257 was the best compromise? 0.303 too big/ heavy/ overkill, but a bullet from the Boer Woer that the Boer hunters did well with, but ill-suited to WW1. But so much stock, that no-one could afford to start from scratch for WWII. After that, there is the 0.223, that really is bit too small, but is overkill to the WW2 findings (rifle fire is to keep the other guys heads down, rarely kills them, so volume/ logistics> stopping power) SF, by their very nature, will always go for customised stuff to show that they are special. Note the story about British SF using M16 in Falklands - at the time, everyone else in the British Army was using FN 7.62 rifles... and I remember the SAS using H&K at one point, basically because they could.

Nelson certainly wasn't a manouevrist - his aims were to either blockade the continental navies, or destroy them. His battles don't feature fancy force multiplier tactics either, he just reckons that better RN morale & training means if he could get ships on 1:1 situations, victory is certain. Oh yes, and shag cute babes. That was another aim.

As a political/military/cultural change agent, I would rate Ataturk higher than Washington. The American Revolution was an evolution of many ideas already in place, and Washington was a first amongst equals - and much of the culture was in place (18th C American colonies weren't exactly tyrannical fiefdoms, there was flourishing local government, legal structures etc) Ataturk, OTOH, not only defeated the Allies at Gallipoli, he radically changed his country, from the Ottoman Empire to Turkey. For good or ill (ethnic cleansing out the Greeks, romanising the language, destroying the power of the imams)

Though Asoka did the whole relinquishing sword thing too... (and conquered most of India beforehand)

Yes, the Universal Carrier is, in both CMAK and CMBB, a sweet ride. A very nice combo with 57mm (Russki or 6pdr) and support weapons (3" mortars, MMG's etc)

Some other recent decent: Nelson Giap Slim Wellington (not for Waterloo, but for Peninsular and Marattha campaigns) Whoever destroyed the KMT 1945-1949 knew what they were doing too... Churchill is maybe the most "forgotten" English captain.

Did it pass the Elk Test?

Cripes! This guy looks like he just caught a glimps of the insurgent that IED'd the platoon's mascot dog! Yikes, that is a warface if I ever saw one.</font>

Servicemen have been "personalising" their stuff since year dot. RN didn't even bother with uniforms until 1860's ISTR, and that was to keep Prince Albert happy. As a matter of interest, what is the tax situation of US troops stationed in Iraq? Do you count as being overseas for tax purposes? And can you claim back gear you buy on tax as work related expenses? If not, why not? With all the reservists, there must be some CPA's to ask...

Dominions II not bad. KotorI was good, very good, but in a "watch the film" sort of way (follow the plot) Luckily, it was a good plot - better than most of the films. Morrowind I never actually finished the plot - but I enjoyed ne'ertheless. I have a big preference for "sandbox" games that are what you make of it - rather than ones that hold you by the hand. E.g. UrbanDead is holding my attention for months - and it is a very simple game. The head designer of Nintendo has alot to say about the role of imagination in games (but for a younger age range...) All time list. Very much driven by nostalgia, the first game in a certain genre that grabs you is likely the one you will remember Elite (BBC Micro version) Red Storm Rising/ F19 Stealth Bomber Tetris X-com 1 Civ1 MoO CM series First V for Victory game (Utah Beach) Homeworld (only RTS that I liked) I've never got into MoRPGs due time/ inclination. But I get the feeling that when I am retired (25 years or so), online game communities will be as important social networks as the local bridge club used to be. [ November 15, 2005, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ]

Hmm, why are we thinking big? Why not CM - Space Lobsters Of Doom - the nano wars? Automata fighting viral like battles, trying to either repair or destroy the chitin of the lobsters? Or the immune systems of their opponents?

Abbot - when you say "Some of us men actually eat meat and would rather blow each other up then blow each other" aren't you just saying the samething twice - that some men eat meat, and others blow each other, but we all enjoy a good chew now and again Ah Starship Troopers - Book vs Film. One of the great debates. Personally - it is a good entertaining book, but is avowedly juvenile. The film was a great piece of parody and should be enjoyed as such - one of those times when a director manages to con a studio he is making one film, but ends up with another - and they don't realise until too late... (Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves is another) Just the casting alone is wonderful - Teen Network Drama (OC/ Beverly Hills 90210 etc.) goes to war! I mean - this was a guy who made Robocop! WHat did they think he would do with the story? And then, when Hollywood still didn't get it, he made Showgirls... Oh yes, and my vote for the setting? Go ultra space opera/ fantasy/ Douglas Adams, sod the physics.

Most worrying - there is a "British Army Doctrine And Development Command"?? WTF happened to "they don't like it up 'em?" Or "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes?" All the doctrine needed in the past... Doctrine. Nasty continental stuff.

Yes, the Potter series. Good film too (Terry-Thomas at his most caddish) Actually my father's set, but I forgot to return them... "How to be an Alien" - George Mikes (a Hungarian emigre to UK)

It is indeed. I've got the first three of the Molesworth books - grate stuff. Up St Custards! I've a soft spot for humour of that era - I've also got the "Upmanship" series and the "How to be an Alien" books.

As eny tru grog noe a huge campaign game is to be enjoyed - not played. Come on, we all are guilty of having bought a monster game, read the rules, set it up (maybe) and maybe played two turns until cats/ real life intervene. It is the owning, the knowing that you could simulate Operation Mars, that warms the cockles of a grog's heart. Not the grubby playing. I fully intend to spend years constructing a hypothetical early '44 campaign that will never ever actually get finished. And I'll enjoy doing it. Has Eichenbaum posted yet about CMC? - looks to be just up his street