Dave H

Since BFC has made it plain that all political comments are unwelcome, I stuck that quote in without any context or elaboration, as it says so much. It seemed like a good opportunity! Back to the subject at hand, the cheapest Sherman is the best for me so I can have as many as possible. Of course, for anti-infantry work you also have to consider the Stuart and its wonderful firepower from massed machine guns. Fast, tough, and cheap! That way a single AT mine or stray artillery round (usually friendly fire!) doesn't ruin a whole attack, too. This web page roughly computed a 50:1 ratio between Shermans and Tigers on the Western Front. Panthers have it much better, at "only" a 20:1 ratio. That's without even taking into account the availability of trained Allied crews and the Sherman's greater reliability vs. the largest German tanks.

That name terrifies every sheep in Australia. Probably the koalas, wallabies, and kangaroos, too. :eek: :eek: The women just point and laugh.

That name terrifies every sheep in Australia. Probably the koalas, wallabies, and kangaroos, too. :eek: :eek: The women just point and laugh.

I think the only way the QB afficionados are going to find true "balance" in CMX2 is to allow both players to use the same nationality. Otherwise you're in a never-ending search for perfect unit-by-unit matching between nations which had different organizations, tactics, and philosophies. You want Combat Mission to be a better game? Then take on his Tigers with your own Tigers. For me the lack of perfect unit-by-unit matches between units makes the era much more interesting. Of course, I have to admit I'm a big fan of highly unbalanced scenarios, too. As Donald Rumsfeld said so eloquently the other day, "You go to war with the army you have".

Good points all around. Thanks to all who contributed to this exercise in fantasy. Now that "The Jews" have been brought into the discussion, I think it's time to lock it up.

As long as you're only posting here to let us know that you're not posting here, then I guess we won't have to ask you to stop posting here, because you're already not posting here.

As long as you're only posting here to let us know that you're not posting here, then I guess we won't have to ask you to stop posting here, because you're already not posting here.

Ha!! That's the easy part. The real magic in a pair of socks is making one sock disappear in the wash, while the other one is all but impossible to throw away. Even when you think it is gone, it will reappear at the bottom of a sock drawer. :eek: :eek:

Ha!! That's the easy part. The real magic in a pair of socks is making one sock disappear in the wash, while the other one is all but impossible to throw away. Even when you think it is gone, it will reappear at the bottom of a sock drawer. :eek: :eek:

When you try to make units fill roles that were very ahistorical, should you really be surprised that the performance isn't what you want it to be? I'd say that is further proof that BFC made the capabilities of units accurate. If you use a wrench as a hammer, don't criticize the wrench for not doing the job as effectively as a real hammer.

Amen. Between him and John Wayne, it's a wonder the uber-Americans didn't end the war in six weeks! I'm just making the point that the Sherman wasn't ever intended to be a one-on-one match for Panthers and Tigers. Did they meet? Of course. There were times when Greyhounds and jeeps and halftracks ran into Tigers, too. Just because they weren't equipped to deal with such an indestructable opponent didn't make them less effective in their intended roles. Try some unsupported Panthers and Tigers versus Allied engineers in a town if you want to see the instant cure for "uber Big Cat-itis".

Thanks for your interest. We'll do our gosh-darned best to carry on without you. Rejection from yet another <font size=1>junior penguin</font>. How will we go on? Keep a stiff upper lip, Waffles! FYI, we have had any number of Ladies, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypso, Olde Ones, Aussies, and assorted <font size=1>penguins</font> drop in. Some still slink over in the wee hours when their MBT guards aren't alert. Too bad you won't be one of them. Anyone heard from m_t_w since he was run out of Spain? I've put off installing the patch until the putz sends his next turn. Little did I suspect it would take weeks - and weeks - for that turn to arrive. :mad: :eek: :eek: [ December 08, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Dave H ]

Thanks for your interest. We'll do our gosh-darned best to carry on without you. Rejection from yet another <font size=1>junior penguin</font>. How will we go on? Keep a stiff upper lip, Waffles! FYI, we have had any number of Ladies, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypso, Olde Ones, Aussies, and assorted <font size=1>penguins</font> drop in. Some still slink over in the wee hours when their MBT guards aren't alert. Too bad you won't be one of them. Anyone heard from m_t_w since he was run out of Spain? I've put off installing the patch until the putz sends his next turn. Little did I suspect it would take weeks - and weeks - for that turn to arrive. :mad: :eek: :eek: [ December 08, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Dave H ]

Except if you are facing Panthers or Tigers and Sherman is the best AT asset you've got. Then it is very relevant.</font>

I think that really hits the mark. In the role it was designed for, which is supporting the infantry, a Sherman with the 75mm gun is superb. Upping the gun to the 76mm actually reduced the effectiveness. Comparing the Shermans on a tank-vs-tank basis with the Panther and Tiger is interesting, but really irrelevant. It's similar to comparing the dogfighting abilities of a Spitfire and a Stuka.

Turning away neutral ships from Portugal or Panama is one thing. Turning away neutral ships from a major world power is something else entirely. Since under Roosevelt the USN was quite willing to convoy "neutral" shipping to England, one can only imagine. I was thinking along exactly the same lines in the Pacific. As long as the US remained isolationist - that is, willing to sell to whoever had the most money - there was no conflict between the US and Japan. Among other consequences, the Pacific Fleet would probably have remained at San Diego, not at Pearl Harbor. Japan's war in China would likely have remained the military's focus indefinitely. Presumably the goal would have remained to conquer the entire country, which is a massive undertaking. On the other hand, a United Kingdom totally dependent on shipping from the Commonwealth may have prompted Japan to attack Singapore and Hong Kong earlier. Seanachai, at first your threats of beating me with a hoe ("That's HOE, dummy!" in my best Redd Foxx voice) concerned me. Then I remembered that the average garden gnome isn't strong enough to lift a hoe. Since you, like all <font size=1>penguins</font>, are far from anything so lofty as "average", I stopped worrying.

Lamby? *takes notice* Mace</font>

Lamby? *takes notice* Mace</font>

I've seen a lot of the what-if scenarios floating around lately. Most of them are concerned with tactics like invading here instead of there, or using this aircraft instead of that one. Here's one concerning global politics you may not have considered: In 1937 FDR's polio suddenly flared up. Although he was given the best treatment available, eventually being confined to an iron lung, he died. He was succeeded by Vice President John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner. Without FDR opposing it, soon the Ludlow Amendment easily passed through both Houses of Congress. It provided that, except in cases of invasion, "the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast in a nationwide referendum." By 1939, the Ludlow Amendment had been ratified by enough states to become part of the US Constitution. President Garner easily won re-election in 1940. John L. Lewis of the UMW characterized him as a "labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man" for his opposition to organized labor and his method of "influencing" votes in Congress. Under President Garner there was no Lend-Lease for the UK, which was barely hanging on after Dunkirk. There was no Arsenal of Freedom. Garner, unlike FDR, was no Anglophile, and he turned a cold shoulder to Winston Churchill and yet another war raging in Europe. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the USA declined to send so much as a single bullet to the Communists. Indeed, the American merchant marine was busily delivering food, fuel, trucks, medical supplies, and other cargo to French, German, and Italian ports. There were no US Navy destroyers escorting convoys through the U-boat infested Atlantic and Mediterranean, as the American flag was a guarantee of safe passage from the German submarines. Imagine Churchill's reaction to the US freely supplying Hitler and Mussolini. How far would he have gone to stop it? Would he have declared unrestricted warfare against American-flagged merchant ships? Would he have authorized an Oran-style pre-emptive attack against the US Atlantic Fleet to keep it from opposing the RN? Imagine that on Sunday, December 7, 1941 a British aircraft carrier conducted a Taranto-like raid on Hampton Roads, sinking several American battleships. Congress could no longer simply declare war. The US would have to conduct a national referendum on entering the war. Think of the anti-UK frenzy that election would have stirred up. Think the world would be a different place now?

What, after Churchill characterized Italy as the underbelly of Europe? Why would you avoid attacking there? :confused: :confused: Here's a recent discussion about soft underbellies: vocabulary

Nice title. Too bad that rental house isn't in Canada, where the raw sewage would have frozen solid in about 30 seconds. I guess in Australia nobody would have noticed there was a sanitation problem. Maybe it's a side effect from a diet of beer and Vegemite. Come to think of it, that's a pretty close approximation to raw sewage, and those people live on it! Where's that <font size=1>penguin</font> Mace; I want to see the big smile that visions of raw sewage, beer, and Vegemite put on his mug.

Nice title. Too bad that rental house isn't in Canada, where the raw sewage would have frozen solid in about 30 seconds. I guess in Australia nobody would have noticed there was a sanitation problem. Maybe it's a side effect from a diet of beer and Vegemite. Come to think of it, that's a pretty close approximation to raw sewage, and those people live on it! Where's that <font size=1>penguin</font> Mace; I want to see the big smile that visions of raw sewage, beer, and Vegemite put on his mug.

<font size=5 font color=blue>"I'm not dead yet!"</font>

<font size=5 font color = yellow>Good Afternoon, Mace and other Waffles!!</font> <font size=3 font color = yellow>Nice try, Boo, but actually it is YOU who have turned down SODDBALL's original challenge.</font> :eek: :eek: Let's not get testy. It would spoil my sunny afternoon. :cool: :cool: Hi Kitty, glad to see you are out of the kitchen for a minute. Mace, have a nice day!

<font size=6 font color=green>Good Friday Morning, Waffles!!</font> Mace, you really scare me sometimes. Where's Kitty to keep you out of trouble? If your tanks shoot as accurately as mine did in that abomination of a scenario we just finished, Snarker's "teensy, tinsy" Stuart will probably take out at least half of your Pz IVs. If that happens, I'm sure Snarker will post that photo, too. Good news on the raw sewage front. All of the plumbing is completely replaced. The city building inspector ordered the tenants out of the house, so no eviction is needed. I have one prospective buyer who is offering substantially more than we sold the house for 3 years ago, and a second buyer considering a cash offer. It looks like a win-win for everyone but the people who trashed the house in the first place. Anyone looking for some neighbors?