PzKpfwIII

If you're talking about "buddy aid", that has nothing to do with trained medics. Isn't this kind of evidence that either the documentation of the game fell short, or that your own understanding of the game falls short? In either event, doesn't that invalidate at least to some small degree your rave review of "medics" - which in fact are really just combat first aiders amongst the combat riflemen in the squads? Given that the standard instruction in full blown attacks between 1939-1945 was to leave wounded men where they fell, this should be very interesting indeed.

Perhaps you need to actally read those posts. If I have read JasonC correctly, he has consistently maintained that brigade/divisional level games in CMX1 - for those foolish enough to attempt cramming enough battalions onto the same battlespace - do nothing to simulate the logistical and command/control problems inherent to that level of operations, rendering CM in any guise near-useless to portraying combat at any level over and above what it was designed for - company-level.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/survey/apme/graphicimages/media/photo3.jpg Here's an American soldier after some retard tried to kill him. ha ha! What retards! They must have missed! What bad shots! ha ha! War is fun! ha ha! Great pics! Keep 'em coming! ha ha! ha ha!!!

These are reminiscent of Tom's Battle of the Bulge mods for CM:BO - nicely done, and seems appropriate for Italy. What was your inspiration?

Please. PLEASE. M1A1 alternates between railing against BFC as the devil incarnate and then falling on the ground and begging for a tummy rub while licking their boots, all the while ensuring he has one or two self-congratulatory posts being sure to remind us of his glorious military career which at last count included as a tank loader, the general's driver, the water boy for an artillery regiment, some photo-ops in the turret of a tank, and a National Guard Cop. Would that Gibson had a crowbar and an arm long enough. Like M1a1 wishing for BFC to go broke because they got the switches in the auxiliary driveshaft actuating rod controls wrong? That kind of rude? You reap what you sow. Respect is earned, not granted. So is running off at the mouth on the internet. Invading Poland took a lot of time and effort but who has respect for that anymore? I haven't seen such specious logic since my cousin's stepmother actually believed there was merit to the argument that making his his bed in the morning was a waste of time since he would just be sleeping in it that night anyway. Because Heaven forbid we should have one less primadonna mod dude on the forum jumping up and down begging for attention with more eyesore screenshots.

It's not surprising in that the actual US Army is not using them anymore; as stated, neither is Canada. UK, too, went to the SA80 ages ago - no one seems to be using full size battle rifles any more. Engagement ranges are shorter, and I suppose the corollary is that artillery is smarter for reaching out to longer ranges without excessive collateral damage? Dunno, but if the real Army isn't using them, makes sense not to see it in a game. </font>

If you want pick literal gnat**** out of pepper, be anyone's guest. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I agree with the other posts beginning with Sergei that Lee's juvenile, sophomoric comments reflect poorly on the general level of intelligence of the board and his idiotic childish rantings make the place smell like a Day of Defeat clan. That says far more about you than it does about the subject. Anyone with an elementary understanding of photography, including the simple experience of being photographed one's self, knows that facial expressions caught on film are often not at all reflective of the subject's actual thoughts, feelings or indeed even their demeanor at the time of photography. Besides, as pointed out, his name isn't Jacobson. Huh? I think the point here is that it isn't a Day of Defeat clan, and his juvenile commentary isn't appreciated; if you haven't grasped that yet, you're about as far off base with this comment as you were with the rest... I see no evidence of a reprimand in the moderator's post. Mocking and derision for the last couple of pages, but far less than he deserves. It's self explanatory, in fact... ...you just answered your own question, didn't you.

Postcard size prints of all of Pentland's military art is routinely available on ebay for a couple of pounds sterling apiece (depending on bidding); I have a copy of the print in question, so I know that it is available. Just search for "Pentland" on ebay and you should see the listings. http://cgi.ebay.com/German-military-tank-art-PC-Barkmann-Ardennes-Manhay_W0QQitemZ200179316799QQihZ010QQcategoryZ69700QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD2VQQcmdZViewItem The postcard in question is available at the above URL.

That is leagues different than your original statement. This conclusion is borne out by the evidence you presented. But then again, the idea that training alone (as apart from experience) may not adequately prepare a soldier for combat is nothing new. Ask yourself why they added slaughterhouse visits and Battle Drill Training to the curriculum in the Second World War - they knew to their core that the standard books couldn't impart experience. They had to know nothing could. They were desperate to provide it. That they couldn't is not a surprise - nor should it have been in 1946. I doubt it was. For what it was worth, the drills taught in 1943, as Dandelion mentions, are often the same as those taught today. In other words, they've stood the test of time. Ditto battle procedure. It's also just as "useless", if you want to call it that...

Two observations. 1. Most US and UK infantry training in WW2 was of a pretty poor standard, and even useless.</font>

And what is the "standard" TOE for a German Kampfgruppe or American/British Task Force?

Just fooling around with the download version; the sales literature on the battlefront site says "Powerful mission, map and structure editor available" I am running the 1.3 download version and can't seem to find any mention of this editor in the manual, on the downloads page, or in the game itself. Where should I be looking?

Aghan National Army The official site of the Afghan National Army. Looks like Syria would be a good stand-in for them.

Wood? Screw pickets have been around since 1915 or so...angle iron would be more likely, so would Soviet style emplacements. Nice German stuff from 1943 per your picture, don't get me wrong...but what does it have to do with Syria?

Wire obstacles can spring back into place; driving a tank over them is not a guarantee that they will cease to impede the movement of infantry.

Just reread your post. Never mind the below - I didn't answer your question, but did find some nice photos of pedestal mounts. No idea where the front mounted Vickers gun vehicles fit in. Perhaps it was a prototype? It had to be fairly useless with a restricted field of fire and one man crew, even if safer for the operator. Divisional Machine Gun Battalions. Photos of the Saskatoon Light Infantry of 1st Canadian Division show the same vehicle, though they mounted their MGs up higher, in the rear compartment. [ May 28, 2007, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfwIII ]

He's obviously a returned bad boy of the forum. The game now becomes to figure out which one. Or we can all yawn and go watch hockey. Or could do, if we didn't have to wait til Monday. Sorry, dt, no one comes on, posts 27 times, claims to be a fan of CM:BO AND acknowledge JasonC's analytical skills while also taking swipes at him in addition to stroking their own ego without having a prior history here. So Jason isn't alienating anyone. Besides, as Steve famously posted before - most players play alone at home and probably don't even visit the forums.

Can we get a screenshot or two?

Will there be any way to indicate the type or composition of German forces? I was under the impression that SS troops such as the Prinz Eugen serving in Yugoslavia were more ruthless than even the Wehrmacht troops, who were certainly no angels when it came to anti-partisan warfare.

His name is Peter Webber and he lives in Eastbourne. If you look up the domain name that his website is registered under, his home address and phone number are there as well. http://www.deadisdead.net/

Don't presume, though, that units will always be prepared to engage in a pursuit, administratively or otherwise. Logistical concerns, or even timid sub-unit commanders, won't be simulated in the game but were very much a restraint on real life commanders. I think there should be some restriction placed on the ability to pursue beaten enemies, adjustable by the scenario designer, based on the historical performance of the unit in question. In other words, you should find that Russian units in 1941 ill-equipped to pursue units, but a German or Soviet mechanized unit in 1943 would be fully prepared.

Exactly. Ditto a 50mm mortar and ammunition, so the list makes little sense either way - unless it is based on actual equipment lists.

And yet some radios were equipped with backpack straps for man portability whereas the anti-tank rifle could not be comfortably slung. Have you actually researched the equipment manifests of M/C units to see what they routinely portaged or not? This seems like a list taken off the top of your head. It's counter intuitive, to me, to permit carriage of an ATR on a motorcycle (or a 26 pound MG34 and ammunition, for that matter) and not permit a radio. I'm presuming motorcycles without sidecars.

I thought the Finns were not being included in CMC....

1945 - I guess the author is referring to the Allies. I'd noticed it as well in this article and never came across the Allies being referred to as the United Nations before. maybe someone else around here might have another take on it? Cheers fur noo George </font>