Stalin's Organ

An interesting post, but full of so many self-contradictions as to make it very confusing! For example Stalin's turn and run at the sight of a tiger, or their crews bale out when first fired upon - so what is ist htat will kill the single Tiger that comes across them?? I wonder if "Stalin" tank includes some less-than-stalin types, much as all German SPGs weer "Ferdinands" or all Panzers were "Tigers"? Perhaps a few KV-85's and IS-1's are included here? Even early T-34/85's? And perhaps those crews abandoning their vehicles were doing so because there weer the lighter tanks and had actually been knocked out at range?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martyr: Oh, and Berli, I have to admit that two digits is very impressive. I bow respectfully. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmmmm......'bout time you got into the 21'st century isn't it? Try using some KY-Y2K - alows 4 digits to fit where only 2 did before.

Don't worry about being blind Mr Spelunker.....there's noth'n much to see. It's not like either Kitty or Mace will be embarrased...I mean they're both..adults....more or less.....maybe less than more. And here was me thinking you had to have big ones to get in here? sheesh - another illusion shattered Of course if someone shows up with a magnifying glass it might be another story......one worthy of forgetting altogether! kitty has my depest sympathy for this pointless disappointment! There, there, never mind.........Macey's only an aussie...it's not like you're missing out on a man or anything...... But happy anniversary anyway!

Firstly he's not holding a Faustprone at all, secondly it doesn't say he clubed them to death, so i assume he survived because they fell about the place laughing.....at which point the little slug thrower on his back may have proved more useful??!!

All this talk by Iskander is making me hungry.....I might have to visit the kebabery down the road at lunch time....yeah, I can drop into the Chemist on the way and renew my Prozac prescription too....God knows I need it now that I'm being stalked by a Pengster....... So, Isky baby......named after spit-roast lamb with yogurt & tomato dressing eh?? Hmm... lamb is the national dish down in these parts, yoghurt is sour milk, and no-one's ever been able to figure out whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? Quite a tasty little morsel even. yes...I think you'll do quiet nicely for lunch!! Now for all those pengsters who keep expressing curiosity as to why I'm still here...well it's 'cos of that famous Maori comedian Wittee Repartee (now sadly dceased and much missed). I miss him (sob), and while collectively you're not fit to recycle his shaving foam, you're the best this board seems to be able to offer. sad really, but there you have it. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: [QB If it was a mere draft why was it kept in the archives and not disposed of ? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK it's common to keep all bits of paperwork generated by governements - even if not adopted as policy they are still part of the officila record, and can indicate what options were considered along the way to the final decision. I'm not saying that the Sov's did NOT want complete conquest of Finland at soem stage......just that a DRAFT document does not support the viewpoint that they definitely did want to do so.

Well haven't I talked up a storm!! Well for starters a DRAFT copy is obviously somethign that is considered - and then NOT adopted - or it wouldn't be DRAFT. Whether or not it was public is irrelevant - many official documents are not public. So what? Had the document ever reflected actual Sov policy, public or not, then it would not have been draft. BTW despite the name I am not an apologist for hte Sov's........but nor am I going to sit here and watch people talk up something into a solid fact without any actual evidence. Ciao babies

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: And why is that odd little man who has a fascination with Stalin's thingy still posting here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's someone with a fascination with me? ....bloody hell...not another stalker??!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV: everyone knows; asl was the ultimate in realism. andy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cough.... a sad commentary on the intellect of the average gamer!! :eek: [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

Why do people rave about the Stuart? it's not THAT cheap - 90-something points vs 115 for a M4A1 Sherman, it's gun is only useful vs the flank of German main-line armour, it is 50mm AT-gun bait when it tries to get into position to do that, and the Sherman's 75mm HE is considerably more useful than teh tripple MG "threat" vs infantry. Greyhounds have the same gun and mobility (if fewer MG's), and do NOT use up "Armour" points....if I was to go for cheap american tanks it'd be a mix of M4A1's, M8 HMC's (for "armour"), and Greyhounds for "vehicle" points. As a single pick-tank I'd take the M4A1 as a better balanced vehicle than the Stuart, for not much extra cost.

Maybe SP are averaging out the mantlet over teh turret front armour, assuming the mantlet covers half the front and is on top of the turret armour? It's not a great way of doing it, and I don't know if it IS what they did, but there appears to be at least a little overlap that perhaps CM doesn't ive credit for. Perhaps there's room for het opposite of a "weak spot" - that is a "Strong spot", where the armour is particularly resistant due to a fortuitous line-up of mantlet and turret plates??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: The su-85, su-100, su-122, and these bigger types all lacked MGs and would not be in the breakthrough force but rather the overwatch second echelon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure they'll stay back a bit - there's no need for them to "mix it up", but, er......so what? "The breakthrough force" isn't just the first line of infantry. It's everything assigned to achieve the breaktrhough - that includes the SP guns assigned to support teh offensive. What's the use of big SP guns if they're not going to support the attack? Exploitation? Looking at eh speed and rangge and ammo figures for ISU-152 it doesn't look much like a whippet to me!! More an elephant - knock 'em hard, make the gap, let the hounds loose!

Ah...so you have mushrooms skewered on your bit of wood too do you, you Turkish Delight? Have you already forgotten how I humbled your Canucks? How it must've galled to lose a whole platoon of Priests to a 20mm cannon and a solitary AT gun? 4 AT weapons (assuming we include a 75mm inf gun and a solitary 'shrek with the aforementioned heroic Pak and Flak) was all it took to grind your pathetic sitzkreig was ground to a halt! Your underwhelming incompetance more than making up for overwhelming strength! Come back and fight you bunny!!

I think we often forget that "in real life" most battles involving tanks were againt infantry, not other tanks. In this context a mobile 6" gun throwing 100 lb lumps of HE and steel around the paddock probably seems like an unfair advatage to anyone on the opposing team! v And minor disadvantages like a big barrel and large recoil mechanism that might get hit were largely irrelevant! Any time a German tank encountered 1 of these things chances are it was part of a break-through force with anotehr 19 from the regiment lurking about somewhere and hordes of T-34's swarming about covered in SMG infantry and/or IS-2's in overwatch. I suspect they won't appear much in ME's.....but then ME's were a fairly uncommon occurrence "in real life", and anyone with balls should try dfefendign against a Sov asault that fields a couple or 3!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: What would be your real-life rationale for doling out VPs in this manner?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I imagine it would be about the same for awarding points for VL's at all.......

Well lookee see....the Kebab has managed to start a thread - highly appropriate behaviour for several bits of meat skewered on a stick!! Perhaps you could loan your stick to Ping? He seems to have lost his! But back to the Kebab - when are you going to send me the setup for our last game of 3? Or is your continuing decline giving you performance anxiety?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: From 800m away, that bunker will be nearly impossible to KO with tanks (IMHO). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope - tanks can kill any bunker they can hit - range just makes the possibility of a hit less, as with any target. I've lost bunkers to Sherman 75's at up to a Km in a scenario - the bunkers were MG, so the Sherman just sat out there for 2-3 turns until it got the hit. No problems at all. Of course the Sherman that tried that with the 88mm bunker didn't get to see if he could get a hit in 2-3 turns!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barticus: Quick description of how my luck works. For the first 20 turns I husband my 4 Panzer IV's before committing them. They ensue cutting down Ami Infantry in the open when they fall under a 105mm arty barrage (my opponent later confirmed this). I calculate this to be acceptable, keep the tanks buttoned and together. Three turns of arty, no problem. Next turn, 3 (YES, THREE) of the Panzers are DESTROYED by artillery fire alone (again later confirmed by opponent). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cough.....well I said kills of tanks were less common than immobilisatinos I didn't mean that you should leave them there until he does get that lucky hit!! Sheesh - sorry, but sitting under a reasonably heavy (105mm) arty barrage is not bad luck - it's bad management!! Still...lessons were obviously learned!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV: in advanced squad leader, the is/2 is a better tank (without considering range) than the panther. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry - but quoting wargames rules to prove a historical point is like F**king for virginity! Regardless of how good you think the rules are, they are still utterly irrelevant unless you can show the figures that went into them, and if yuo can do that then why bother mentioning the rules in the first place?

Err...since when did "draft" copies of anything become the oficial version and public policy? I'd be surprised if the USSR had NOT considered complete conquest of Finland as an objective, along with several others possibilities. To say that a draft document proves that that's what was actually intended is nonsense (IMO of course!). [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: If you check the Lorak site and look at my record you will note that I have absolutely no fear of losing. I have far too many losses to fear that particular outcome. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So..I got a word wrong...Pong is dead scared of WINNING - he fears it so much that he avoids the natural prey of experienced hunters..instead giving his throat to the wolf with the red rose....oops...sorry....wrong fantasy....... Anyway - Ping is obviously a self-sacrificing philanthropist - helping people increase their scores and ratings......now THAT'S disgusting!! With a hobby like that he's probably distantly related to the Fillies Fanny too.........

Imagine how may rolls of masking tape you'd need to wrap tht little sucker!!

Pong, let's face it...the reason you don't play SSN's is that you are AFRAID of losing. Imagine the collective horror of,...well.....of Pong, when he losses to a SSN. Like the lower life form he his, Pong has managed to figure that much out, so now avoids SSN's. Don't mistake this for intelligence - it's about the same level as a worm that avoids the light - it's hurts his ego, so he avoids it. Simple causality really, as shown by Organ et al: Why Pong is afraid of losing to SSN's, exposure of a scared nematode in inaction, Plumbing the Depths Press, Wellington, 4 June 2001 [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ] [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Do not negotiate games via ICQ or other chat programs. In the case of a dispute I don't think it is possible to send me a file of the conversation so I have proof of what rules were agreed to. This has already happened. Use email to negotiate games! Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And please ensure that you and your opponent are talking about the same thing - eg if player 1 should happen to request that, oh, say "guns must have towin afv's provided" - make sure that you both undestand what an afv is (or any other technical term or abreviaton!)!! I found myself as half of this dispute. the other guy thought htat an "afv" was anything out of hte "vehicle list", and bought trucks, per the usual CAL rules. To me an AFV is at least an a/c or h/track (although it's argumable that htey aren't either...but in this context that's what I used), and that he wanted a change to hte usual rules. To which I agreed. Perusing the b/field after losing I found 3 trucks, and no h/tracks. Words were spoken. I do not believe my opponent deliberately set out to mislead or in any way cheat - IE I accept it as an honest error, but it doesn't help things

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager: Another vehicle dropped out when hit in the engine compartment by a Pz III , which had taken a direct hit and was violently flung through the air to land on the Ferdinands engine compartment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So can we expect to see another penetratoin table for Pz-III's, along with "a" and "t" and "c" and "h" ammo there should be "v" - for vehicle!! lol