exSpecForSgt
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by exSpecForSgt
-
-
Yes, this "technique" works, surprisingly well, in fact. Stinks like the dickens, but actually seems to work better than lucricating oil or grease or anything else you can imagine.Originally posted by Bogdan:Ahem... I don't think BFC modelized it but, when MG crew ran out of water, IIRC, they used to pi$$ on it (or into the water tank) in order to refresh the barrel of the weapon a bit.
Grogs will surelly explain to us if this "technique" was often used or not.
Oh, and one doesn't apply this "technique" to the barrel (or water tank), one applies it to the breech and other working parts. Small difference, but =VERY= important.
-
**sigh** You're quite right -- this =has= gone on -quite- long enough. Have a nice life.Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:OK Pops. Spare me the chip-on-the-shoulder vet crap. This is a technical discussion about things that go bang. Get over yourself one of these decades huh?
Are you like that guy 'strawberry' in the cheech 'n chong movies?
-
1) Since you don't seem to 'read' too well, let me make it a bit clearer for you. It's not "SpecFour", kid, it's "EX-SPECial FORces SerGeanT", okay?Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:Uh, thanks Spec4. Get some counseling.
2) I =have= had "some counseling", thank you very much. May I recommend the same? Unless, of course, you're beyond the need for such things...
-
You know, OTOH, I'm amazed you people are still flogging this =very= 'dead horse'. OTOH, however, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, because you guys are still throwing 'theories' and 'it stands to reason' around like it really matters or something.Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:.45
Thats the legend. But the physics is that the 'knock-down' is no greater than the kick felt by the firer. That is, the momentum transferred to teh target is no greater than the momentum felt by the firer. If pistol ammo had real knock down power, they would knock down the firer (or break his wrist).
I, myself, have said in so many words - and I believe one or two others have, also - that thus-n-such is what happened when I, myself, have actually, for-real-ly, had to use these weapons firing these rounds at other people in the heat of battle. Not 'theory', not 'it stands to reason', but shoot the other SOB before he shoots you! I shot him and lived to have nightmares about it - he didn't and got 'recycled'.
Yet evidently that doesn't mean a damn thing to you guys, 'cause you're still arguing over .. well, to be honest, I'm really not sure just =what= you're arguing over at this point! At =this= point, quite frankly, you're beginning to sound like little kids in a sand-box - "did, too" "did not" "did, too" "uh-uh" "well, neener-neener" .. and on and on.......
Have =you= shot someone and =know= what you're talking about? Then, don't tell me that what I =did= and the effect =I= =saw= is all a figment of my imagination, or worse, that I'm obviously *lying* to yo'all. Geez, Louise, you guys, just what kind of 'clue' does it take?! :mad: If nothing else, go argue about something else! At this point, you're just embarrassing yourselves.
-
No, it's not. Done it, saw it, don't want to talk about it. (To me, it's =real= - you know, like real nightmares - and not some 'theoretical discussion'.)Originally posted by Snarker:If a man struck by a bullet "flys" backward, doesn't basic physics tell you the shooter (assuming equal weight) should pretty much "fly" backwards also?
Pure Hollywood.
Gee, then I guess I -really =was= off in Never-Never Land.....and "knock down" power is a myth.
=MY= note: the .45-cal had the 'edge' because it worked when it had to. I've used the Thompson and one of the Stens (it's been almost forty years, okay? - I don't remember which model/mark it was) in the field, against 'the bad guys'. The Sten was a piece of crap and having to use it once was twice too often!My note: .45 cal does have the edge because it meets all the requirements and is larger.Yes, the Thompson was heavier, yadda yadda .. but it worked when and how I needed it to, and kicked some =serious= a$$ while doing it! I'd =still= have it today, if they hadn't taken it away from me. It was one of the sweetest weapons I've ever used, period.
As far as 'ballistics tests' and 'studies' go, you can prove or disprove anything you've already decided you want - I've seen it done. OTOH, if you actually pay attention to the voices from the field, to the voices who've had to use something to stay alive, you may get 'results' the boys in the labs in their nice, clean white coats may not 'like'. To them =I= say, "Tough noogies! I'm interested in staying alive, not being your stupid lab-rat." <shrug> YMMV, of course, and probably will. I'm alive today, that's all I need to know.
However, as has already been said, the Thompson was a well =machined= piece of weaponry, which took time. The cost per unit was reflective of that. The Sten was a quickly stamped out, even disposable, ::thing::. It was not 'inexpensive' - it was :cheap: .. and the troops could tell it. And at the end of the day, when =all= is said and done, the only thing that matters is: are you still alive, what helped you stay that way, and what is =most= likely to do that tomorrow?
[ January 21, 2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]
-
Sorry, but "grapeshot" and "cannister" was essentially the same thing: a canvas (usually) 'bag' with =lots= of musket balls. It was =extremely= effective against infantry at (relatively) close ranges.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:My knowledge of the subject is less than comprehensive, but I believe grapeshot fell somewhere between a ping-pong ball and a tennis ball in size. They did in fact also have a cannister round which consisted of musket balls.
Now, there -was- a composite 'round' that consisted of either 9 or 12 "meatballs" {my term for them, since they were about the size of my G'mother's Sunday afternoon meatballs} and enough musket balls to 'round out' the package. They were used at sea when you got reasonably close to your target to sweep the decks. The 'meatballs' were large enough to tear through most things found on decks - small boats, barrels, cabin walls, etc - as well as the planking on the top part of the sides (the gunnels?? - sorry, I'm not a 'squid'). The musket balls were merely 'packing' .. but if they took out someone along the way, great!
This round was not used ashore because it was a waste of time and storage space [for artillery requirements on land]. On land, you either used a largish round to beat the hell out of whatever it was you were firing at, or you used 'grape' when the enemy started getting too close for comfort.
In a word - NUTS! It was lousy for use against rigging! They used "chain-shot" for that. "Chain-shot" is attaching a length of chain to either two balls (not used very often - too wasteful of resources) or to the flat sides of =a= ball cut in half. Essentially, you'd cut a ball in half, attached the chain to the flat side, curl the chain round 'n round 'n round, attach it to the other side, then put it all in a cloth bag to keep it nice and tidy. When fired, the bag would shred, the chain would extend, and .. Bob's your uncle!Grapeshot, in addition to being a potent anti-personnel weapon at close range, were also useful for attacking the rigging of opposing ships in the age of sail. 'Chain' was =great= against rigging, but lousy against the sides.- = - = - = -
"Cannister" in Viet Nam was called a "beehive round". It was =only= used when the battery position was being directly attacked and there were '***s in the wire'. When firing it, a few things of note happened:
1) The tube was essentially flat, pointed directly where you wanted the 'bees' to go.
2) You screamed "BEEHIVE!" at the top of your voice =just= before pulling the lanyard.
3) Upon hearing "beehive", everyone within hearing got as flat in whatever hole in the ground as they could find (and usually prayed!) because the 'bees' didn't care who you were...
4) Everything and everyone within a cone from the gun was shredded and/or killed. The 'cone' was usually only about a couple hundred feet deep, and, yes, that =IS= entirely too damn close to be playing those sorts of games with an infantry assault!!
"Beehive" was first used in late-'66. Once the NVA figured out what it was, they (more or less) quit trying to assault artillery positions. Each shot could easily cost them 30-40-50+ troops with virtually =no= chance of accomplishing anything. After an assault attempt, it would be common to find scores of bodies and equipment left where they fell because there were literally too many of them to be carried away by what few survivors were left.
One of the mailmen on campus was a 'gun-bunny'. We got "a few" under our belts one evening and began 'comparing notes'. His battery was assaulted late one night, and they couldn't see anything. When the perimeter posts started yelling (over the field-phones) the ***s were close enough to be using grenades, the guns started firing 'beehives' into the night. The next morning, the troops quit bothering with the tally when the body count went over 100 in the first fifteen minutes..... Oh, and that was when there was enough to be sure this was =one= body, not two or more. [i think he said the officers finally just gave up, counted the heads they could find and let it go at that...]
[ January 21, 2004, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]
-
Nope, Oren, as I said I was in IFOR in Bosnia. Also, in '93 I was in "restore hope", Somalia as a LO for General Keymeulen in sector south out of Kismaayo. But, no, we did not have to actually kill people.</font>Originally posted by Alfatwosix:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />i guess that i am the only one here with actual combat experiance.
-
I thought quite a bit before I started this reply, but decided the possible slur needed responding to, probably because I've had to deal with this very same "attitude" from my own father and most of the 'older adults' (the WWII generation) I know.Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:My dad also said that more Vietnam vets killed themselves after the war than died in the war. At least the WW2 vets came home as heroes.
Yes, the WWII vets came home as "heroes". The entire country was behind them, supported them, etc, etc, and, quite frankly, because they "won". Also, they went out in groups and came back in groups. That may not sound like much, but it means quite a lot, believe me.
The fiasco in Viet Nam was a completely different situation. The country did not support the troops =or= why we were there. =To= =this= =day=, very few of the American populace know, or want to know, what that was all about. In the end, "we" "lost", something this (overly?) proud country has never had to deal with before. In the 'beginning', troops were sent over there in units, but quite soon people were being sent to units one or two at a time, like chunky bits being fed into a meat-grinder, and just as impersonally, too.
And then, as if all this wasn't bad enough, most of the veterans' organizations that were there to help the WWII vets adjust, to help them heal inside, to give them support ... deliberately turned their backs on the VN vet. We were just a bunch of "whiners", "losers", "dope-heads", "baby-killers", blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.
So, you have =terrible= memories and nightmares, can't sleep or adjust or relate to other people, and people are always looking at you like you're some kind of sick "monster". But far, far worse than all of that, you can now 'see' quite clearly where the government has been and is and continues to lie to the populace and manipulates them shamelessly ... and there is =NOTHING= you can do or say about it, because people flat =refuse= to listen to or believe you. In fact, the more you =prove= your point, the angrier they get, =at= =YOU=!!
Yeah, sure, the WWII vets were all "heroes" and more VN vets committed suicide than were killed in action. So explain to me why this is supposed to 'surprise' me..... (And don't even get me started on that rat-b@st@rd Bush...! Just. Don't.)
BTW, you all might find the book "On Killing" interesting and useful reading. It is used as a text at West Point, among other things.
-
I thought quite a bit before I started this reply, but decided the possible slur needed responding to, probably because I've had to deal with this very same "attitude" from my own father and most of the 'older adults' (the WWII generation) I know.Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:My dad also said that more Vietnam vets killed themselves after the war than died in the war. At least the WW2 vets came home as heroes.
Yes, the WWII vets came home as "heroes". The entire country was behind them, supported them, etc, etc, and, quite frankly, because they "won". Also, they went out in groups and came back in groups. That may not sound like much, but it means quite a lot, believe me.
The fiasco in Viet Nam was a completely different situation. The country did not support the troops =or= why we were there. =To= =this= =day=, very few of the American populace know, or want to know, what that was all about. In the end, "we" "lost", something this (overly?) proud country has never had to deal with before. In the 'beginning', troops were sent over there in units, but quite soon people were being sent to units one or two at a time, like chunky bits being fed into a meat-grinder, and just as impersonally, too.
And then, as if all this wasn't bad enough, most of the veterans' organizations that were there to help the WWII vets adjust, to help them heal inside, to give them support ... deliberately turned their backs on the VN vet. We were just a bunch of "whiners", "losers", "dope-heads", "baby-killers", blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.
So, you have =terrible= memories and nightmares, can't sleep or adjust or relate to other people, and people are always looking at you like you're some kind of sick "monster". But far, far worse than all of that, you can now 'see' quite clearly where the government has been and is and continues to lie to the populace and manipulates them shamelessly ... and there is =NOTHING= you can do or say about it, because people flat =refuse= to listen to or believe you. In fact, the more you =prove= your point, the angrier they get, =at= =YOU=!!
Yeah, sure, the WWII vets were all "heroes" and more VN vets committed suicide than were killed in action. So explain to me why this is supposed to 'surprise' me..... (And don't even get me started on that rat-b@st@rd Bush...! Just. Don't.)
BTW, you all might find the book "On Killing" interesting and useful reading. It is used as a text at West Point, among other things.
-
I thought quite a bit before I started this reply, but decided the possible slur needed responding to, probably because I've had to deal with this very same "attitude" from my own father and most of the 'older adults' (the WWII generation) I know.Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:My dad also said that more Vietnam vets killed themselves after the war than died in the war. At least the WW2 vets came home as heroes.
Yes, the WWII vets came home as "heroes". The entire country was behind them, supported them, etc, etc, and, quite frankly, because they "won". Also, they went out in groups and came back in groups. That may not sound like much, but it means quite a lot, believe me.
The fiasco in Viet Nam was a completely different situation. The country did not support the troops =or= why we were there. =To= =this= =day=, very few of the American populace know, or want to know, what that was all about. In the end, "we" "lost", something this (overly?) proud country has never had to deal with before. In the 'beginning', troops were sent over there in units, but quite soon people were being sent to units one or two at a time, like chunky bits being fed into a meat-grinder, and just as impersonally, too.
And then, as if all this wasn't bad enough, most of the veterans' organizations that were there to help the WWII vets adjust, to help them heal inside, to give them support ... deliberately turned their backs on the VN vet. We were just a bunch of "whiners", "losers", "dope-heads", "baby-killers", blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.
So, you have =terrible= memories and nightmares, can't sleep or adjust or relate to other people, and people are always looking at you like you're some kind of sick "monster". But far, far worse than all of that, you can now 'see' quite clearly where the government has been and is and continues to lie to the populace and manipulates them shamelessly ... and there is =NOTHING= you can do or say about it, because people flat =refuse= to listen to or believe you. In fact, the more you =prove= your point, the angrier they get, =at= =YOU=!!
Yeah, sure, the WWII vets were all "heroes" and more VN vets committed suicide than were killed in action. So explain to me why this is supposed to 'surprise' me..... (And don't even get me started on that rat-b@st@rd Bush...! Just. Don't.)
BTW, you all might find the book "On Killing" interesting and useful reading. It is used as a text at West Point, among other things.
-
Yes, it's a shame all that history is being lost. It's a shame it's being 'lost', because that means it will have to be learned all over again by another generation.Originally posted by zukkov:this is amazing. even with the little tidbits of war stories on this thread, is it any wonder our parents/grandparents don't want to talk about it? in one way it's a shame though, as so much history is lost forever...
[-comments deleted, because they're keeping me awake -- just as bad as nightmares-]
*sigh* Yes, yes, I know - you =do= want to hear the stories, to learn, to understand, perhaps even to weap. So did I, once. But it hurts too much, mentally, spiritually. The funny stories, even the stupid stories, yeah, sure, no problem. The "seeing the elephant" stories - - sorry, they just hurt too much.
I'm sorry. I've said too much. I'll shut up, now.
And now that I've deleted most of my comments, =maybe= I can sleep tonight... maybe...
[ January 10, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]
-
Yes, it's a shame all that history is being lost. It's a shame it's being 'lost', because that means it will have to be learned all over again by another generation.Originally posted by zukkov:this is amazing. even with the little tidbits of war stories on this thread, is it any wonder our parents/grandparents don't want to talk about it? in one way it's a shame though, as so much history is lost forever...
[-comments deleted, because they're keeping me awake -- just as bad as nightmares-]
*sigh* Yes, yes, I know - you =do= want to hear the stories, to learn, to understand, perhaps even to weap. So did I, once. But it hurts too much, mentally, spiritually. The funny stories, even the stupid stories, yeah, sure, no problem. The "seeing the elephant" stories - - sorry, they just hurt too much.
I'm sorry. I've said too much. I'll shut up, now.
And now that I've deleted most of my comments, =maybe= I can sleep tonight... maybe...
[ January 10, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]
-
Yes, it's a shame all that history is being lost. It's a shame it's being 'lost', because that means it will have to be learned all over again by another generation.Originally posted by zukkov:this is amazing. even with the little tidbits of war stories on this thread, is it any wonder our parents/grandparents don't want to talk about it? in one way it's a shame though, as so much history is lost forever...
[-comments deleted, because they're keeping me awake -- just as bad as nightmares-]
*sigh* Yes, yes, I know - you =do= want to hear the stories, to learn, to understand, perhaps even to weap. So did I, once. But it hurts too much, mentally, spiritually. The funny stories, even the stupid stories, yeah, sure, no problem. The "seeing the elephant" stories - - sorry, they just hurt too much.
I'm sorry. I've said too much. I'll shut up, now.
And now that I've deleted most of my comments, =maybe= I can sleep tonight... maybe...
[ January 10, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: exSpecForSgt ]
-
We =have=?! Geez, I guess I better get with the program, eh? Let's see: US Army, Special Forces, 1963-66(+), Germany (among other places); Seattle, Washington (state), USA; ???; (languages = Italian, German, Japanese, a bit of Spanish)Originally posted by Frenchy:We've had plenty of unofficial polls taken in all 3 dedicated forums - ex-military, where are we from, etc.
Father's side:But how many of us have direct family ties to World War 2?G'pa came to America to get out of WWI (smart move, IMO).
Father was a radioman on a C-47 in a Troop Carrier Squadron. They were part of the North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and D-Day assaults (among other things), but was shot down over Bastogne. Spent the rest of the war in a POW camp outside of Munich. Spent his time in camp and VA hospital afterwards recovering from playing 'human torch' when his plane crashed...
His brother was a veterinary student and exempt from service.
Mother's side:
Don't know much about them, but I know my mom was a 'Rosie the Riveter' at Boeing Plant #2 on the shores of the Duwamish making B-17s (after she moved here from the 'panhandle' of Nebraska).
Stepfather was an infantryman in the 75th ID. The only picture I saw of him in uniform, he was an SFC and had a =bunch= of ribbons. When asked, all he'd say about any of it was that he was 'there from start to finish' and '=damn=, that winter was =cold=!'
-
We =have=?! Geez, I guess I better get with the program, eh? Let's see: US Army, Special Forces, 1963-66(+), Germany (among other places); Seattle, Washington (state), USA; ???; (languages = Italian, German, Japanese, a bit of Spanish)Originally posted by Frenchy:We've had plenty of unofficial polls taken in all 3 dedicated forums - ex-military, where are we from, etc.
Father's side:But how many of us have direct family ties to World War 2?G'pa came to America to get out of WWI (smart move, IMO).
Father was a radioman on a C-47 in a Troop Carrier Squadron. They were part of the North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and D-Day assaults (among other things), but was shot down over Bastogne. Spent the rest of the war in a POW camp outside of Munich. Spent his time in camp and VA hospital afterwards recovering from playing 'human torch' when his plane crashed...
His brother was a veterinary student and exempt from service.
Mother's side:
Don't know much about them, but I know my mom was a 'Rosie the Riveter' at Boeing Plant #2 on the shores of the Duwamish making B-17s (after she moved here from the 'panhandle' of Nebraska).
Stepfather was an infantryman in the 75th ID. The only picture I saw of him in uniform, he was an SFC and had a =bunch= of ribbons. When asked, all he'd say about any of it was that he was 'there from start to finish' and '=damn=, that winter was =cold=!'
-
We =have=?! Geez, I guess I better get with the program, eh? Let's see: US Army, Special Forces, 1963-66(+), Germany (among other places); Seattle, Washington (state), USA; ???; (languages = Italian, German, Japanese, a bit of Spanish)Originally posted by Frenchy:We've had plenty of unofficial polls taken in all 3 dedicated forums - ex-military, where are we from, etc.
Father's side:But how many of us have direct family ties to World War 2?G'pa came to America to get out of WWI (smart move, IMO).
Father was a radioman on a C-47 in a Troop Carrier Squadron. They were part of the North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and D-Day assaults (among other things), but was shot down over Bastogne. Spent the rest of the war in a POW camp outside of Munich. Spent his time in camp and VA hospital afterwards recovering from playing 'human torch' when his plane crashed...
His brother was a veterinary student and exempt from service.
Mother's side:
Don't know much about them, but I know my mom was a 'Rosie the Riveter' at Boeing Plant #2 on the shores of the Duwamish making B-17s (after she moved here from the 'panhandle' of Nebraska).
Stepfather was an infantryman in the 75th ID. The only picture I saw of him in uniform, he was an SFC and had a =bunch= of ribbons. When asked, all he'd say about any of it was that he was 'there from start to finish' and '=damn=, that winter was =cold=!'
-
Thank you =very= much, Mick15! This is just the sort of 'essay' I enjoy reading. Gives some very nice 'back-story' to some of the things we do in CM. (Answers the 'why the hell are we here, Sarge?' questions I often 'hear' in my head.Originally posted by Mick15:If you are prepared for an essay this might help :-
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I play CM, those are 'real people', not just "numbers" or "markers" or any other sort of 'gaming' ways of looking at what's being done. Yes, CM is a game, but consider, please, what it is you're 'simulating'. Uh-huh, exactly - and would you be as 'cavalier' about losing 'men' as a certain drunken Texan if =you= had to write the letters home for every 'man' you lost? Puts a whole new 'spin' on the game, doesn't it? )
I have an older friend who is French =and= spent several years in the Legion Etranger. =To= =this= =day=, he can not say or refer to Vichy (as in the pseudo-government of France, not the town, which is rather lovely) without spitting! When I asked him once =why= de Gaul made a point in one of his speeches as president of France to say that they had all helped win the war and it was now time to put it behind .. my friend looked embarrassed, looked at the floor, shrugged in a very gaulic way, and said, "well, it needed to be =said= .. or there would continue to be unceasing trouble in parliament and mysterious 'accidents' in the countryside." And that was =many= years after the war had (officially) ended........the fact that of the 30+ thousand French troops in Syria and Lebanon only 127 officers and under 6000 other ranks converted to Free France after the armistice shows how deeply divided loyalties were.
Okay, =I'm= asking .. but you can send it to me 'on the side' if no one else is interested.There is more and I would be happy to continue - feel free to ask.
-
I recall that one (but can't remember the exact title, eitherOriginally posted by Pheasant Plucker:I had a book when I was much younger called something like "The 10 Most Decisive Battles of WW2".
). If you remember the exact title, please let me know, so I can try to find a copy at ABE Books (on-line).
=YES=!! I remember reading about that and just shrugging it off, at the time. (Hey, it was =many= years ago and I was -a- =lot= more foolish than I am now, okay?...but [the autor] placed the battle of Keren in the top 3, right up there with Stalingrad! ) But =now= .. ohhh, yes, was the author ever =spot= =on=!
Yes, the link seems to work. All I can say is, geez!, that terraign looks worse than some of the 'hills' in Korea .. and that place is no damn fun, either! Yuckers!Think Monte Cassino but without any cover, or any decent firepower, being available to attack the mountain tops with, all in a blistering heat.If the link works you should see a picture of Cameron Ridge, just one of many mountains to be cleared, obviously by the Camerons in this instance.
Thanks for the 'thumbnail' of the battle & why it was important, and the picture & reference site.
-
You =want= to play one of those?! LOL I'd love to read the AAR, or watch two people do it, but I sure wouldn't want to play it myself. I can already imagine what a bloody, uncontrolable mess it could quite easily become, with =NO=one coming out the winner. Uhm, except, of course, the only true 'winner' in these sorts of things - the Being With The Scythe .. and I've had more than enough of =Him= in the mid-60s, thanks very much.Originally posted by Mark Gallear:I quite like the idea of Free French and Vichy French going up against each other, sounds like a must do grand humdinger to me!
That was WWI and in what was then known as German East Africa, now known as Tanzania (& Rwanda & Uganda..I think..), but I can't remember which lake it was.I can only think of Humprey Bogart sailing his small ship down that river to blow up a large German gunboat or is that WW1?
Good question - does anyone know the answer?Ok, if it wasn't for commercial reasons that French "players" might be upset about being reminded about certain parts of WW2, what was the reason for the Vichy French being left out of the game then? -
My (better informed) guess is, because of the research done by French beta-testers. </font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:
My guess is not to annoy French customers?
-
I read in another thread (the WAHT NEXT one, I think) that someone thought WWI might be an interesting place to go next. However, I don't think so ... because of the very thing yo'all are hashing over in this thread: lots of open space for infantry to cross with little-to-no cover. Sounds just like the Western Front to me. And the morons in the back, at HQ, never did seem to learn a damn thing about what was =really= going on at the front. Just my opinion, of course -- YMMV.
However, as a long time infantryman, I think the 'problem' boils down to simply this: the distance to close with the enemy versus the ranged distance of his weapons equals extremely lousy odds of survival, nevermind actual success. Yes, darkness can mitigate the 'equation', but darkness also increases the 'Murphy Factor' entirely too much, =especially= for anything less than very well trained =and= =experienced= troops. Oh, and this is =not= 'theory' talking, this is experience - BTDT. Of course, how well this is modelled in the CM engine - <shrug> - remains to be seen.
Also keep this in mind - the desert =never= =has= been a place where infantry was 'king'. Long-distance mobility has always been more important than toe-to-toe slugging ability. So, unless you're willing to simply overwhelm your opponent with numbers, a la the Romans, forget about infantry (only) actions in the open. Sneaky raids at night, okay, but 'maneuver actions' during the day, forget it.
-
Hey! Are you trying to be a smart-a$$ or something? Why on earth would they want to do something as simple and realistic as that?Originally posted by NG cavscout:Or ... they could just add an option for mortar and/or OBA to fire a limited number of rounds.
It could be as simple a pop-up as we now have for a Targeting Order for an AFV:
</font>
- you tell an AFV to target an MG in that building and a pop-up asks "use main gun? Y/N"</font>
- you tell a mortar or OBA to target troops in woods and a pop-up asks "how many rounds? _#_"</font>
Short, sweet, -very- simple and =realistic=..... Now, why would we want to do -that-?
P.S.- how does one make the second row of Instant Graemlins appear in text? I've figured out the first row, but can't get the second to show up...
.
.
-
Good Grief, =YES=!! Even though the American Civil War was well over a century ago, there are people in the South that are =still= =VERY= 'put out' about it. (As I heard one lady put it, in a tone of voice =dripping= with scorn, "It was The War Between The States, sir - there was nothing =civil= about it!") This makes the term "Yank(ee)" just about one of the worst things you can call someone, in the South! Yes, most people in the South have gotten over it and moved on ... but even with them, "Yank(ee)" is not something they like to be called.Originally posted by Dandelion:I haven't really heard either Yank or Brit used in a derogatory sense. Are they ever used as such?
Oh, I don't know about that. When I was stationed in Germany (mid-60s), those in the north of Germany used "Bavarian" to be the same word/meaning as 'hick, country bumpkin, fool, idiot'. Of course, "Northerner" was said as a curse-word in Bavaria, but I think they really meant "Prussian" when they said it. (For example, "Alle unserer sorgen kommt von norden - verdamter Preusser! *spit*" My apologies for my poor spelling/grammar, but it's been almost 40 years since I spoke German.) And =everyone= used "Franconier" [a person from the Franconia area] as a term for "pompous ass".I think that generally one will be hard pressed to find any derogatory ethnically based remark against a group within that groups own language.I know that people in other countries do the same thing, too. In Italy, there is no love lost between northerners and southerners, and everyone curses the Sicilians. Similarly, in Japan (one region/area vs another) and in China (one region/area vs another, one class vs another, and one 'race'/'tribe'/ethnic group vs another).
And we won't even go into some of the things the 'Free French' and the 'Vichy French' troops called each other! (According to someone I knew long ago, some of the most vicious, no-holds-barred, no-quarter-given fighting of (the early part of) WWII was the fighting in North Africa between these two groups of French.....)
.
.
Hmmm, does anyone know if it's going to be possible to fight French vs French in CM:AK?
-
Originally posted by Firefly:
I'm probably going to have to sleep in the garage for saying this ... hmmm, but only if she reads this, which I doubt, so I may be relatively 'safe'.....I saw no problem being called a "Yank" because I guess I am one, more or less. You see, my mother's grandfather/great-grandfather (can never remember which it was) was killed trying to kick 'Johnny Reb' off a mountain top at Chattanooga [uS Civil War or The War Between The States (or Der Amerikanische Burgerkrieg, for our German readers), depending on which side of it you were on...]. Hmmm, or was that Chickamauga? Oh, well, same battlefield, more or less.
The "problem" is ... my Lady is from Chapel Hill, NORTH CAROLINA, and she would =NOT= appreciate being called a "Yank"...
However, since she doesn't read this forum.....Oh, and the only one I know who I'm =positive= would object to being called "Brit" is the mother of my Goddaughters ... and she's =VERY= Irish!!
Yep, flaming red hair, skin so fair it almost glows at night, temper to match the hair, more than a bit 'fey', etc, etc......
.
.
Yep, flaming red hair, skin so fair it almost glows at night, temper to match the hair, more than a bit 'fey', etc, etc.....
Official MNB World War II at Sea Website Opens
in Modern Naval Battles - WWII At Sea
Posted
Oh, and the poster I remember the best simply said "Your MIND is your Primary Weapon!" Believe it or not, I actually could understand that one...
Take care.
"Da Bookworm"
[one of the more 'polite' nicknames I had... :sigh: ]