gunnergoz

Turn based games totally suit my character..."relax, review, decide, do." Sorry, but I'm just not a RTS "run, run, run, shoot, shoot, shoot" person. Just ask my wife, the Ukrainian Energizer Bunny.

Regarding subject of thread, I think that, no matter what else we say, Japan would have done something to cause a war with the USA, given that they felt mortally threatened by the US oil and steel embargoes, by our diplomatic maneuvering to isolate them, and also given the xenophobic nature of their military-political leadership.

Off your meds? Or off your rocker?

Still feeding you beans, is she?

Polygamy is not possible, since the good book says man cannot serve two masters...

Not enough to buy a module just to get them.

So I take it to mean that having surgery performed on you by a male surgeon while a female nurse looks on, is a bad thing?

I'd love to see (and would pay for) a bootstrap strategic campaign module for CM:N. Better yet, a strategic/operational/tactical 3-layer cake of CM deliciousness. Pick your Army (strategic), pick your Corps (operational) and pick your Division (tactical.) Want to play Patton's armor from the breakout into Germany? Fine. Want to play US airborne with drops through 1944-45? Great. Want to play British Guards from Normandy to Holland? Have at it. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

This way, friend: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sukhoi.ru%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D66275&act=url

An enjoyable little bit of memorabilia. Thanks for posting it.

Very impressive little production about the dogfighters but as with a lot of aerial CGI, I question the hairpin turns that the aircraft are depicted as making while at full speed. It's easy to do it in CGI but not so much in real life. Much such CGI just seems too immediate in both time and distance, at least as compared to aerial gun camera footage I've seen. As to the Soviet Storm series, I started watching and was somewhat impressed with that too. I generally don't care for re-enactment in such documentaries but this being Russian made, it had a bit more authenticity in my mind. Russians well remember that war and they are pretty convincing re-enactors of it, at least as compared to American ones I've seen. I think a modern Russian audience would actually be more discriminating about such a documentary series. After all, they revere the memories of the dead lost in that war and to this day, most modern Russian newly wed couples' first act after getting married is to go lay flowers on the local war memorial. 25 Million dead a couple of generations ago will do that to you.

Pretty impressive overall, especially the tracks and suspension. And it does seem a bit less than life sized, perhaps about 5-10%. But what is that funky little sponson on the turret's upper left side? I don't recall that in the real thing, or in models I've built.

That's because you were too busy playing with your Exidy Sorcerer.

Good one!

As long as what they do, they do right, I'm content to see them make what they see fit. They haven't dropped the ball very often.

Good to have you back, John. I've been gone for a while too, pending a new pc, which is now ensconced in my "office."

I was reluctant to use it but now I'm used to it and it seems to work pretty reliably.

I'm psyched, just hope they don't lame it down or minimize the strategic elements to beef up the tactical.

Michael is right - they got it wrong. That's a boy wearing a Fess Parker style Davy Crocket faux fur cap. I was around then, wore exactly the same cut of boys pants and jacket - and I too hankered fer such a hat. Never got one, though. Nice look back in time...

There is still an effort being made to assign battalions to divisions that have some historical lineage connection to the division. It is not being made easier by recent changes to organization and doctrine.

The current US system of lineage, CARS (Combat Arms Regimental System) in theory serves to enhance unit morale and cohesion by celebrating unit history and continuity. in practice, however, the Army's penchant to rename and reflag entire units from battalion through division, tends to dilute the effect and frustrates soldiers no end. One day you might all be members of, say, x battalion, y regiment, z division and overnight the army decides to redesignate you as, say, a battalion, b regiment, c division. Usually such changes are due to army downsizing and concurrent efforts to keep older historical units on the active rolls, but it also can't help but aggravate soldiers who may have formed a sense of unit identity and attachment to the old designation.

Couldn't come soon enough...

Funny, I just finished reading Hitler's wartime conferences and towards the end he discusses flying in 15cm infantry howitzers to beef up troops engaged in street fighting in the Balkans, specifically for the purpose of bringing down strong points in buildings. Spielberg or not, almost nothing surprises one when one reads enough history books. Darn near everything that can be envisioned, has been tried on the battlefield at least once.

Thanks for the hyperbolic and irrelevant comparisons. Inhumane compared as to what could and should have been done if the army was not enamored of the corporate production line model of management. Inhumane as in sticking unprepared green replacements in the front line with no attempt to integrate them and leaving the integration, if any, up to the squad and platoon leaders that were at that point likely just trying to survive themselves. Sure, the US psychological treatment of "shell shock" victims, then in its infancy, was better than in other countries, but that is not the same as the subject we are talking about - the replacement system.

It did not in any way respect unit cohesion and treated individual GI's as numbers to be plugged in to any unit that needed bodies. So you might train in the US with one unit, gain combat experience overseas, bond with your unit buddies, be hit, recuperate and be sent to an entirely different unit, even though your original unit might need replacements too. Also, it threw replacements into combat with almost no training or preparation in the units that they joined. You might just be trucked up and thrown into the foxholes with complete strangers. In the stress of combat, the veterans tended to look after each other and let the new replacements either make it or not, on their own. A lot of replacements died without squad mates not even bothering to learn their names. The system basically neither respected unit cohesion nor individual experience (or inexperience) with the result that there was a lot of needless wastage (i.e. deaths) in new replacements. The only place it seemed to work somewhat was with US airborne units, which to some degree had time to withdraw and absorb new replacements before going into combat. After the war the US Army came up with other systems (e.g. Cohort) that trained units as units, and replaced casualties in a more methodical and rational manner, while the unit was not in the thick of fighting. No replacement system can be absolutely fool proof in wartime but the US WW2 system was positively inhumane and insensitive to the GI's subjected to it.