Johnny D.

I know these were used in the Pacific land and sea, to light up the battlefield at night. But were they ever used in Europe, by any nation? And if so could they be added CM2? [ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Johnny D. ]

I should be able to install my new motherboard for my current system in the next couple of days. The only thing I would like to know is; should I or need to change anything in Windows before I switch them? I'll be going from an Abit BX6 to KT7E. Just to note if everything goes right I'll overclock my new Duron 950 to 1200-1400 mhz with the help of water cooling.

You don't even need $1K for a new PC. Between ebay, Price Wacth, and overclockers.com you could build 1 gig system for $500. All you need is a $27 AMD Duron 700, overclock it to a 1000+ mhz and a water cooling system. You can't overclock a mac, can you? (not that it's worth it) I just looked at overclockers, one person made 1705 mhz with a Duron 700 with core voltage!

From hunting experience, I can say fog, clouds, and full moon make three hugest differences at night. I hunt in the bluffs of south-east Minnesota and the north woods. On clear night with full moon I can see my shadow walking, in the field and in the woods under a broken canopy. I can see camp well, well over 100 yards. When the clouds roll in it is much more difficult hiking up the hills. The moon can make the difference between seeing that fallen branch before, or hearing it after you step on it. When its foggy hiking is almost dangerous, it is with a shotgun. I couldn't see anything within 10 yards (there was cloud cover as well), but once I entered the woods, max visiability - 6ft. and that was only the big trees (8 in. or over). I was tripping every 50 ft. and making a lot of noise. Flashlights are last thing you want to use if you don't have to. My dad and I were hiking up another hill and he had to take the flashlight out to find the trail. Well that messed up our night vision enough to force us to use it on and off up the whole hill. I'm making a map of the farm hopefully it will be goog enough to post, then you can see what I mean by hill. To play it will be a bear or real fun.

I think jshandorf is right. When it comes to war movies (recent anyway) Hollywood has its head up its ass.

Has the addition of the Maus to CM2 ever been discussed? I would love to play with one of those, although three KingTigers isn't bad either.

All I know is that if I had a small arty battery in my house all I have to do is knock out a couple windows and I could shell downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, while playing CMBO. If you saw my house you would understand. It's perfect if Canada attacks and the Twin Cities is occupied. I could sneak ammo in from the resistance through a near by sewer. At's in buildings woulb be nice, if it is already possible then I must have missed something.

Yeah, I have book on US planes the Germans captured. It mentions how KG 200 was a secret Luftwaffe unit used in clandestine intelligence missions, and most were delivery of agents, saboteurs, and their supplies behind enemy lines. I thought I heard of them sending up captured B-17's to knock down stragglers, too.

If the skirts were designed to stop ATR's then why wasn't they deployed a lot sooner than '43, when ATR's were in use prior to the war beginning. I think it's more than irony that schurzen wasn't seen regularly on german vehicles until near when the Germans started fielding HC weapons themselves. The Germans were one of the first to discover the power of the shape charge and one of the only armies with standard protection against it.

This game is almost perfect to begin with, it is just a great game. So it better be pretty cool addition, and I think it would just be cool to have the Stukas equipped with the "Trumpets of Jericho". I would love to hear those playing as the Germans, and if CM2 starts on June 22, '41, then there should be plenty of sirens in the game. It would be nice too, if any enemy units caught within a 250m radius of the target instantly panic or take cover until the attack is over and maybe a short time past.

I know I always get angry when some freakin Shermans get BS hits on my Kingtigers and knock them out. Nobody likes losing good tanks at the hands of other Sh_ty tanks. [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: Johnny D. ] [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: Johnny D. ]

Little of what I posted was wrong, but rather not explained well enough. I'll be responding to several people who attacked my posting. To begin with the point was to dispute that Germany was picking on backwards nations and doesn't deserve credit for its stunning victories. Yes, most T-34's and Kv's were taken out by breakdowns, aircraft, and 88's, but there were still battles which III's and IV's defeated T-34's. There are three reasons for this: a tech advantage in the three man turret and radios for communication, the crews, who by now have seen a good amount of combat, and the doctrine and C&C which gave the commanders the flexibility to do so. If 30,000 prisoners were taken, who cares if they were all panicked. Why were they panicked in the first place then? Because they fighting the unstoppable Germans. And how did they get this reputation? By stunning victories(60%), rumors spread by any possible Russian suvivors of previous engagements(2%), and German propoganda(38%). A 20:1 kill ratio did happen in some engagements. On average in was probably between 8:1 and 10:1, from June just before the Russians counterattacks in winter. And overall the loss, counting POWs, was closer to 20:1, to me that is still amazing. Not even the western allies averaged that in the end (starting in El Alamein). As for those Matildas, maybe the Germans were scared straight, but they didn't run away and give up. Those 88's may have been last ditch, but the Germans succeeded. They could've ignored Rommel and ran (or surrender like those Russians), but they didn't. When push came to shove, the Germans shoved back, no matter how desperate. Ok, superior armor at the end geuss not, but in '42,'43, and part of '44 they did have equal or better armor. The Russians were the only ones with truly better tanks than the Germans, even then the Russian tanks had huge drawbacks. As for the Battle of Britian, I have read books and they tell me Hitler! He got pissed and spazzed again after the British only scratched Berlin. Hitler actually ordered in the beginning no attacks on London because it would take away from the focous of destroying the RAF. When the British retaliated for the mistaken bombing of London, Hitler wanted London torched like Warsaw and Rotterdam before it. The fact that the 109's were leashed to the bombers didn't help either. Until I get names of those "other poeple" who hepled Hitler torch London, or the name of the book where that came from, Hitler is what happened. To add to the original point, if Germany was the only non-backwards nation from '39-'41, then shouldn't they get credit for just doing that? If Germany in the Blitzkrieg years had the best doctrine, best C&C, best oganization, wouldn't that mean they are...hmmm what words am I looking for hmmm... oh yah, The Best. The only way to determine this the best is to pick a theater and time frame and go from there. In the first 1/3 of the war my vote is Germany.

I too dislike myths, and as such lets fix one. The Germans were anything playground bullies. They were of the world's most powerful fighting nations in their peak and decline. There is a reasons why the allies feared the SS, the Tiger (evenmore the Tiger II), the Nebelwerfer, stole German equipment at every chance, and TO THIS DAY use tactics originally used by the Germans. If the Germans are of not such quality, then why can Pz. II's, III's, IV(C-E)'s, 38(t)'s defeat superior T-34's, KV-1's, Char B1-bis's, and Matilda II's? And don't tell me luck. It was the Superior Training of those tank commanders, and their ability to Adapt. What do you think the Germans did when they encountered the Matilda II (may have been Matilda I) for the first time in France. The gun crews, and tank crews for that matter, where astonished to see their 37mm rounds just bouncing off the front armor at point blank! All they could do was run or be run over. But the Germans, staying cool, using their Training, employed the best thing they had. The fearsome 88mm Flak. When ever the Germans encountered a problem like this (and they did many times) they Adapted to the situations, and often times won, because of this flexibility. If Germany isn't the fighting force I or history claims, then why a 20:1 kills ratio against Russia? How can one German machinegun battalion take 30,000 Russian prisoners? If the nations with the largest armies are minor, then Germany would be minor as well. Meaning Germany bullied no one. If anything the Germans, went after the "big kids". And if France, Britian, and Russia are minor in '39-'40, that would make the U.S. almost third world. If the U.S. and Russia switched geographical locations, and Germany pulled an operation Barbarosa against us, I'll bet the Germans will enjoy success early. After the that who knows what would happen. It was the experience earned in the beginning, by training and ability, that would be combined with superior equipment in the end, that allowed Germany to last as long as it did against three major powers, plus several minor ones. And in the end, it is easy to see it only took one man to defeat Germany. And his name is Adolf Hitler. Yes, he was a brilliant leader, but his military decisions were fatal. It was Hitler who ordered the London Blitz, when Britian was on the brink of collapse. It was he who chose to wait the month of August of '41 and do nothing, only to choose Kiev as the next target. Had he chose Moscow, he would have cut the nations only transportation and communications center. The country would have been three isolated parts (north-Leningrad, center-Urals and Siberia, south- Caucasus and Stalingrad). It is possible the Germans could have marched well past Moscow, leaving a short distance between them and the Urals for '42. IF Russia could have continued at all.