Schoerner

Rune, where are the references to the documents? And documents are not papers produced by the winners. They are proven to be authentic german papers. It's not of interest to me, what Höß, Commander of Auschwitz "said", with squashed testicles. I don't gice anything what a german general said at Nürnberg, knowing that otherwise he will hang. History science is based on the same principles as every legal proceedingses: 1. authentic documents 2. scientific expert-certificates 3. witnesses Sorry, as long as the first point is totally ignored and neglected by all the system conform "historians", i can't take them serious. Or should i really believe oponents of Hitler and Nationalsocialism more, than the principles of science? I'm wondering, if that is all true, what is told about Hitler, Himmler and their targets, why are there no authentic documents available, although it was a totaldefeat? All documents, everything was available to the winners and they are not capable to show authentic documents, that are prooving, what they are telling about the oponent? If they really planned what is told, wouldn't it be logical, that there are tons of papers, original studies and authentic documents, substantiating the claims by the winners? Even the communistic USSR archives were full with studies about world-revolution and their complete papers did never fall into hands of enemy systems. And the winners of WWII are not capable to reference to authentic-papers? I think it's extremely strange, that in the important topics, only secondary-literature references do exist, but no authentic ones! In such a case, i prefer to believe in the since the Roman empire prooved VAE VICTIS.

The same reasons he embarked on such a war in 1939 - the threat of two frontiers didn't disuade the attack on Poland.</font>

Can you name the source? I hope it has a better quality like the "documents" for the trial of Nürnberg. A Trial without authentic documents, originals. Only faxsimiles.

Well, you surely know, that Rumania was on Axis side. The rumanian oilfields were more than enough. Don't you know, why the oil fields in the caucasus were choosen? They were choosen to take them the oponent away. That is an important difference. Where do you know, what he believed? Can you read thoughts? I suggest to use historic facts, like strategic papers, orders and troop movements. Again, you can read thoughts? Which sources are you referring to? Which strategic papers of the OKW do exist, that are prooving this? So once history is written by the winners, it is guilty for all times? This i call crap. And again you do know, what all believe?

Why did Hitler say after 1933, that he wouldn't write "Mein Kampf" again? "Mein Kampf" was the book of a opposition-politician. Take the personal circumstances into account. Take the circumstances of the german nation into account. And then take a look at the extremely pragmatic politics Hitler made: South-Tyrol, hallway to Danzig ("No other german politician could dare to strive for that minimal solution"). The attack against the Soviet Union was improvised due to the over 100 russian divisions concentrating on the west-border. There was no more time to wait until the Heer was perpared for a russian war. The concentrated russian forces were that massive, once they had started to attack, several hundred kilometers in extremely high populated Germany country and deep defensive positions would have been needed to stop them (Germany isn't that big). Only a fool can believe, that Hitler after he had won against France and was in war against Britain, that he and german HQ was that stupid, to start a two frontier war, while ALL involved strategists, including Hitler, knew what a two frontier war would mean, from WW I. It's really funny, how (excellent informed) people ignore the huge soviet troop concentrations of millions of soldiers on a quite small strip close to the german border, although it made absolutely no sense for a defensive strategy, in such a huge and neverending country like the USSR was. Do you really prefer to believe in such a primitve story, that "Mein Kampf" was the reason, while the historic military facts of troop-concentrations, movements and orders are speaking for themselves? But even if we believe the tale about the "peaceful" communistic USSR (and ignoring all the attack wars since 1917 against it's neighbours), this story becomes even more ridiculous: can you explain to me in a logical way, where was the reason for Hitler to attack the "peaceful" communistic USSR, while the war in the west still was going on? Why did he start just for fun a two-frontier war? And please, don't come with that explanations for school-children, that the evil does things 'cause it's evil and the enemy of western democracies and their aliies (as long as they are alliies) are eating children just for fun. Let's assume, that the most successful politician in this time, had rational reasons for what he did. What were the reasons for a just-for-fun two-frontier war?

double post [ February 18, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

ROFL! [ February 17, 2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

*** BUMP ***

Lindan, you don't have it already? :eek: It's a must have. At the usual place: www.cmmods.com

It's not really hard to overwhelm fleeing forces. When the russian attack on the northern flank started, the Romanian and Hungarian units were just running away when they saw the T34 coming. The very few german units in the northern flank, thought as a corsett in the case of an attack, didn't run away. The Romanians and Hungarians panicked and the Russians could easily overrun the few left german forces. The russian advance was that fast (but not a real surprise) and without any resistance, that, in case of a russian attack, the assigned german forces for this reason couldn't even be brought to the area, 'cause there is only a front, if someone is fighting. The Romanians and Hungarians were just running.

Calm down. Huge numerical superiority. The same old stereotypes? Hm. How comes, that numbers accepted by all involved sides, become wrong stereotypes, if they don_'t fit into the scheme? How many russian pows of fighting troops were made until end of '41? How many fighters were destroyed withing the first 24 hours? Did Glanz (like most other authors) neglect these numbers? I don't say the Russians sucked. I would say, that the Germans, the Finns and the Brits were just the better soldiers. [ February 17, 2003, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I read Glanz several years ago but if i remember correclty, he was (another author) totally ignoring the huge kettle-battles during the first weeks of Barbarossa, where more than the half of the russian army was destroyed. Only until end of '41 3 million russian pows of fighting forces were made. The encircled and destroyed forces during the first weeks were even more, than the whole german Ostheer. And Glanz also didn't take into account, that 2000 russian fighters were destroyed in the first 24 hours. This numbers need to be taken into account, too. If they ever faced it? This was in late war even quite common on tactical level (plus no air cover). For CM these tactical force ratios are important. Taking all forces of the front into account, the ratios are not that high, that's logical. But that's not interesting for judging the tactical expertise of the soldiers involved in the real tactical battles.

But the force ratios need to be taken into account. It's much more difficult to achieve a 1:1.64 while the force ratios are 1:3 - 1:12.

Has anyone tried that out with ski-troops? Or a game with models that were definately not included (means the whole model, not only graphics) in v1.01? [ February 16, 2003, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

The new unofficial Ufz-Patch v2.0 for the german CDV v1.02 executable is now available at http://www.cmmods.com/web%5CCMMods.nsf/d329c6a48ec6a36f85256c5f005fd0d9/f5b556a72c62684085256cce0054108a!OpenDocument btw: the older AnticensorshipLoader V2 (for CDV's english and french versions) and AntiZensurLader V2 (for the german version) works with v1.02, too. Schoerner [ February 15, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Stalin, it would be VERY easy to make a cheating utility already (i.e. simply based on the same principles like my AntiCencorshipLoader). Therefore i agree, the security reservation, that the turns are calculated on one computer only, shouldn't be an argument against it. [ February 07, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

SuperMultiplayerMode: more than 2 players (4?) can play on the same battlefield (in combination with friendly fire due to misidentification this could become quite funny ). To keep the interface as slim as possible (like it is now): possible additional/advanced orders are put into submenus, only appearing after a certain amount of time, when cursor is over the main-order (i.e. target -> target carefully/target fast; withdraw -> withdraw if contact; withdraw if under fire). [ February 03, 2003, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Inspired by Bellator, posting how Wittman handled it, to knock out 3 T34 out of 12 with his StuG, two ideas for the engine rewrite came into my mind: 1. Tank Commanders can leave the tank for spotting 2. hit accuracy is influenced by the time a crew has to aim at the target. Maybe also an additional option for the kind of firing, would be an improvement: the TC can give order to aim and fire very carefully or as fast as possible (no order leaves things untouched). This could also give additional opportunities for wider and more selective differentiation between the experience/skill levels of the tank-crews.

Just wanted to say thanks for this great work. A few days ago i D/L all of Canon's German vehicles (combatmission.com) and i've never before seen vehicles giving such a strong impression of metallic surfaces. The vehicles look much better in the game than on the pictures. In game they develop an incredible plastic look. IMO, the 3D impression is setting complete new standards. And the best thing: all are CMMOS compatible! Even my favaourite MODs, now look plain and dull compared to Canon's. Unbelievable. Canon RULEZ!

That's a cool tip.

It's a good idea to assign a function to the unit-icon, but i don't know if this function is necessary, 'cause TAB already does that. It was already mentioned before, but what i really miss are buttons depending on passengers and to auto-select passangers by clicking them. Also a window with an organization chart of all units on the battlefield (units selectable via this chart). [ January 30, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Why the excitement? The intention of this article is clear. It's typically for Spiegel (BMG). Now imagine, that in 10 years wargames will be outlawed and forbidden and in 50 years this will be told as truth about the wargamers anno 2000. Then you have an idea, about the truth-salary of all the Spiegel-stories about Germany in WWII... The really regrettable thing is, that people are reading such (and others) articles and think, that only this single article was so wrong and it's the exception of the rule. And no one starts to question himself, what else is a lie, if even such primitive lies are possible? We want the lie. And we deserve it.

Great work! Or even one step further: an interface capable of reading the data format of digitized topographic maps and transforming it into Mapping Mission's native format. This would allow an almost fully automated map creation process.

Very true for them, not true for me. I do get to say what is allowed and the one in which it is presented. Quite frankly you have very often show a very poor attitude. Agressive and offensive for no other reason than to get your jollies. Take some advice from those who have posted here... chill out. If you want to use this forum as therapy for your unresolved anger, that is very much against Forum rules. Improve your attitude or find another place that doesn't care how badly you behave. Steve</font>