Jump to content

V

Members
  • Posts

    705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by V

  1. Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    From whitehouse.gov:

    After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

    Do you know why he was fired?

    Okay, that is Eisenhower, who never had anything to do with Korea. Ridgway did succeed Walker on Dec. 23rd 1950 as commander 8th Army. </font>
  2. Originally posted by Moon:

    one of the main reasons for the new engine is to make CMX2 fully compatible with the Mac side of things again.

    And horsies, and dead bodies, and civies and motorcycles, and heads exploding...

    and mutli-turret tanks which provide cover...

    And an end to the scourge of the Borg.

    :D

  3. Originally posted by gunnergoz:

    MacArthur was fired because his conduct threatened civilian leadership supremacy over the US military. An enormously popular figure, MacArthur had the ego to go with it. He had the backing of influential members of Congress and for many, could do no wrong. Truman saw MacArthur's posturing and belligerence in Korea as the sort of thing that could launch a full-scale war with China and the Soviet Union. IIRC, MacArthur was all for droppin nukes into China and for more aggressive actions to cut off Soviet support of the N.Korean/Chinese forces. When MacArthur was unresponsive to hints and signals from the Executive Branch to tone it down and get in line, Truman went over there and personally fired the general. You have to hand it to Truman, he did it himself and didn't just send a messenger boy to take care of business.

    I remember his nuke ideas.

    Did the Soviets have ICBM's at the time?

  4. Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alsatian:

    What with the rainbow of nations fighting on the Italian front (don't forget the Poles, Indians, Anzacs, etc.), the geography and the terrain, it kind of makes you think of the Korean War. Then you throw in General Mark Clark to boot. Wasn't he allied commander for both?

    I thought Eisenhower was commander of Allied forces in Korea. </font>
  5. Originally posted by stikkypixie:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stikkypixie:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stikkypixie:

    And the SS are called WG (because of German law).

    And French law, as well...

    smile.gif </font>

  6. Originally posted by Martyr:

    I seldom use formations as such. I generally send a few scouts (half-squads) out ahead of the main force, but I let terrain dictate where I position my squads. This applies both when in place and when on the move: I plot paths that give maximum cover while still keeping some distance between units. Sometimes you have to make tough choices.

    Thats about what I do as well. Never found a specific formation to be very helpful...
  7. Originally posted by Monks:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans:

    If you need those Rangers just design your own scenarios. By advancing the date you can select your troops then change the date back. They will be there, QBs are not bad buts its the scenarios that are best.

    I rarely play the western Allies in either CMBO or CMAK. There is not a specific "Ranger" unit type, is there? </font>
  8. Originally posted by Hans:

    If you need those Rangers just design your own scenarios. By advancing the date you can select your troops then change the date back. They will be there, QBs are not bad buts its the scenarios that are best.

    I rarely play the western Allies in either CMBO or CMAK. There is not a specific "Ranger" unit type, is there?
  9. Originally posted by Abteilung:

    The Pz.IV turret has always been a subject of some curiosity for me. I have simply never gotten around to finding and purchasing the references which may explain the vehicle's developement history a bit better. The Pz.IV had a traverse rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-13 seconds throughout it's lifetime, so I daresay that weight probably wasn't too big a factor. That is given that the changes to the turret from the Ausf.D to the Ausf.G only added a second or two to the rate which azimuth adjustment was possible. Just my thinking, though. smile.gif

    So this thread isn't aout the PZ-IV/70? I guess that one doesn't really have a turret, does it?
  10. Originally posted by Seanachai:

    Of course. It does you credit that you recognize the satirical intent.

    Done.

    No prob, actually. I'm almost completely insane, and go off on all sorts of weird diatribes myself.

    I wouldn't let you off so easily, despite your extremely reasonable and mature behaviour, but I don't want to compromise the sense of complete disdain I feel for the creature that calls itself 'Newbiedragon'.

    Thanks, I think.

    :D

  11. Originally posted by AndrewTF:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

    http://davidlevinthal.com/works.html

    especially the "Hitler Moves East" section.

    HME_056.jpg

    Sorry if this has been posted before. I stumbled across it while looking for info on the book "Hitler Moves East."

    It's not really about the models, is it? It's art that happens to use models and toy soldiers and stuff.

    Edited to add: Hi Mom! :D </font>

×
×
  • Create New...