PzKpfwIII
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PzKpfwIII
-
-
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.Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:And the vast majority of military actions other than spec ops, recce and patrol are conducted at company to battalion (100 - 400 men a side) and larger. In fact, some posters here (e.g. JasonC) have argued that major WWII actions only make sense to simulate at the division level and up... hence the long-awaited CMC add-on to CMBB.
-
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/survey/apme/graphicimages/media/photo3.jpgOriginally posted by Lee:Great A-10 videos, the best combat video quality I've ever seen! Looks like our English friends got a real up close look at what an A-10 does on an attack run.
Glad everyone was ok. Here's a video of some stupid terrorists coming back to get an RPG to fire at one of our Bradley's after the Bradley crew has already fired on them just seconds before in the exact same alley. Even by pathetic terrorist standards, these guys are retarded. haha
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.Originally posted by Yskonyn:It's all in the way its being said.
Gibson, the tone in your replies isn't really friendly.
Would that Gibson had a crowbar and an arm long enough.Of course that's your opinion, but you're not obligated to download and use the mod. If you don't like it, don't use it, but you don't have to bash the creator for it.
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.You're, of course, free to express your opinion about something, but don't bring it so rude.
Respect is earned, not granted.It'll only start flame wars and it respectless to the creator of the mod.
So is running off at the mouth on the internet.Skinning is a time consuming effort.
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.I come across mods I don't like, or don't really think are adding to my gaming experience, all the time (other games included), but I do understand that a lot of time has been put into every one of them and as such should be respected none the less.
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.Let's be considerate of that. -
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>Originally posted by Bastables:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:
No M16's in a hardcore sim modeling a major war involving the US army is surprising. Whatever though.
-
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.I suppose I missed the part where Lee found that taking another human life was in and of itself some level of "funny." A couple of you may be creating a connection there that most likely doesn't exist, given that you grant someone the benefit of the doubt.
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.As far as the caption itself goes - I see a quote that perfectly highlights the apparent demeanor and attitude of the subject pictured. For what it's worth, I find the caption funny.Besides, as pointed out, his name isn't Jacobson.
Huh?But wait! Let's look at the *real* humour in this situation - Person A is a guy that has devoted his life's work to deriving entertainment and profit out of the simulation, as you say, of "taking the life of another human being." Person B is the guy who partakes in said entertainment, possibly on a daily basis, possibly in a moment of (natural) human weakness laughing out loud when a 500 pound polygonal bomb erases the "lives" of a dozen or so electronic Syrians.
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...Person C is a guy that innocently posts an image that he finds to contain humour, takes the time to share that humor with others of a like mind,
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.and he's the one that somehow receives a reprimand
It's self explanatory, in fact...- and above all things, about suicide rates. You guys will have to do some more explaining for that to make sense to me.
...you just answered your own question, didn't you.Could somebody explain to me the unique significance of the 26 year number? If my math serves, that's roughly the correct time for such a thing to occur as a result of the last major war we had. -
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.Originally posted by Heinrich505:Sorry, John, but that is all I could come up with at present. The painting is a nice one, and I'd love to have it, but can't afford that for now. Maybe when I win the lottery....ha ha.
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.Originally posted by RT North Dakota:Well the US Infantry Commanders conference of 1946 reached the conclusion that infantry training, as conducted in WW2, had serious shortcomings.
There is good published material and research (Bolger, Jary, Harrison Place, Wilson and Forman) that shows that what both US and UK infantry did on operations was NOT what they were trained to do, but what they learnt from bitter experience.
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.Originally posted by RT North Dakota:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Adultery:
...or was most of the tactics used for patrolling, fire and manover and such invented after ww2?
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?Originally posted by average:Poor Dale. He can't really cherry pick across formations in QBs anymore, and he is very very sad as we can see from his posting on the forums.
I'd like to see a realastic TOE and OB for both sides together with most of the other stuff above.
-
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?
-
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.Originally posted by kipanderson:In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire.
-
Just reread your post. Never mind the below - I didn't answer your question, but did find some nice photos of pedestal mounts.Originally posted by McIvan:Where did carriers such as this, with Vickers mounted in the front where the Bren would normally have been, slot into Allied formations? The Vickers does not strike me as easily removable and, with the cooling jacket hooked up to the radiator, it seems set for sustained fire from the vehicle itself.
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.Originally posted by JasonC:Miseor thinks the whole thread is now about him. Or maybe its the world. Or maybe the floor isn't wet enough yet.
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.Originally posted by Normal Dude:Kuniworth:
I plan on modeling the partisan activity in the Balkans as accurately and variably as the game engine will allow. In addition, their activity will increase substantially if the German player tries to move garrison troops out of the region, and will also increase exponentially if partisans win victories, or if the Allies to decide to attack the Germans at the Balkans instead of Italy.
State of Croatia is already modeled.
-
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.
-
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.Originally posted by Sergei:I'm sure Jason means motorcycles WITH sidecars. That's how they usually are in photos. LMG's could be operated straight from the sidecar. I'm not so sure about ATR's. You probably could fit a radio set in it as well.
-
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.Originally posted by JasonC:Of teams, only ATRs and LMGs can ride cycles. All heavier weapons and guns cannot. They can't tow things, carry mortars or HMGs, etc. This includes radio FOs - WW II radios were quite bulky, not simple affairs.
-
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.Originally posted by George Mc:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mkvi:
when was united nations "founded"?
maybe someone else around here might have another take on it?
Cheers fur noo
George </font>
Medics appreciation
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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.