Hortlund

Well, lets face it, if they do anything where US forces are not involved, they will probably face the sales figures from hell in the US market. No one wants that. So that rules out Finland, France, and ...my personal favourite I might add...Italians vs Greeks, with the Italians in Albania module coming 5 months later. The pacific is out for other reasons, and that leaves US forces in Europe. Hmm...Sicily or Italy or France or Bulge (Im pretending Ive never heard of Torch). My bet is France because its already been researched to hell and back, and because its pretty much a given sales success. Although, it could be Sicily. Im holding that one as a distant second.

1st module: Carentan to Cobra. US vs Krauts only. June-August 1944. Not a snowballs chance in hell: Finland 1939/40.

Ive been to Stonehenge once.

Sorry to ruin your little sidetrack/tinfoil adventure here, but like I told Steve, I havent read the book.

Take it for what it is instead. Me trying to explain to you why it is really bad form to make stuff up to support an opinion. I see you are unable to grasp this simple concept,and therefore I see no alternative but to view all your posts in the same light in the future. That is to assume that you are making stuff up, unless you give us direct sources and quotes.

Jason, you apparently know very little about who needs to show, or prove, what. It doesnt work like this: Person A: The reason Hitler decided to invade Poland was because he had an enormous craving for Polish ice cream. Person B: Eh, you just made that up. Person A: Oh yeah...well PROVE ME WRONG. Really, for someone who likes to pretend to be very intelligent and well-read on ww2, with lots of theories and insights you sure do your best to come across as something completely different in this thread. "Can you prove that my made up stuff is wrong" is something you usually expect to hear from a 10 yrold, not from an adult, and definitiviely not from someone with some sort of higher education.

Wow that tank is huge. And those poor people about to be crushed...

Somewhat on topic: If we are getting crews that can abandon and then reoccupy their guns (which Im not sure Ive read about or not, I guess I have just assumed it will be so) then I would definitively like to see a possibility to destroy those guns by running them over with a tank. That is all.

Are you sure it is not older than that, and maybe from another forum (as in CMBB)? I seem to have a vauge recollection of a grog-argument about armor penetration or StugIIIGs kill/loss ratio where someone bursted out that if we (ie you) didnt code the game the way he wanted it, we might as well have space lobsters of doom flying around nuking eachother... Maybe Im just imagining things though...work's been rather rough lately.

Maybe it is a cumulative effect like MD says. Its probably the arrogant condecending first post of his in this thread (look it up) combined with a completely made up justification for his own opinion a couple of pages later. Just rubbed me the wrong way, thats all.

You have warned me several times? *confused* Anyway, I apologize, maybe its a cultural thing, but over here "****" is not really considered foul language. If it bothers you I shall endeavor to stop using it. Well, then I dont think it is possible for me to explain it to you. Jason made stuff up and used the made up stuff to reinforce a point he was trying to make. That is generally frowned upon, but apparently not by you. Fine. [ September 21, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Yes Jason, it is very easy to point out your made up stuff. Originally posted by JasonC: Ardem - read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary, and never says he believes a word of it. He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again - in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier. In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist. The bolded part contains your made up stuff. The italized part is where you are way off in "lets-make-****-up-and-pretend-its-true"-land. Do you understand the difference between having an opinion on something (I believe Sajer is a liar), and making stuff up to justify that opinion (Sajer and the GD officer agreed to spread the Sajer-lie to make german soldiers look more heroic). Do you understand that difference? Im asking because I work as a lawyer, and to me, the difference between what you are trying to do now (pretend that your original statement was just expressing an opinion) and what you originally posted (stuff made up by you to reinforce your opinion on something) is enormous. And no Jason, it is not ok to make stuff up to reinforce your point, even though you are 100% convinced your opinion is correct.

No, I want to attack them for making **** up while pretending it is the truth.

Im talking about him making stuff up in an effort to make a point about something he believes is correct. Come on Steve, honestly, this is the third time Im spelling out exactly what it is I object to.

Boy, you really like the sound of your own fingers clattring against the keyboard dont you? Remember Jason, that the only reason we are having this conversation right now is because you were caught making stuff up out of thin air. No wall of text, no matter how many impressive words it contains, will change that fact. You should, really, just say "hey, I know I just made that stuff up, but it sounds plausible to me, and I believe that is what happened". If you did that I would have no objection to what you wrote. But no...instead you present your own pet theory as fact, and then you end up having to defend yourself by posting what you just posted. Anyway, there is one thing I take objection to in your little essay here, and it is this part: I guess we see the natural extension here of your theory on what war is (War = an anonymous, violent industrial accident on a continental scale, whereby men are ground up by machines...was it?). The logic next step is of cource that you'll assume to know how everyone involved will act based on your own understanding of their reality. Lets just say that I disagree, you cannot look at a situation from a purely theoretical perspective, and from those various theories think you can deduct how the individuals involved will act. Why? Because human beings does not always behave rational...it comes with our free will. Incidentally, that is why you are wrong on your war theory too, I dont believe war is a gigantic industrial accident where the nations focus their industrial might into one location, where both sides strive to do as few misstakes as possible while waiting for the law of averages to decide who wins. I believe that war consists of countless of micro-events that all taken together lead to macro-effects. But that, as they say, is a different topic.

What eyewitness accounts? Works of fiction are counting as eyewitness accounts now? Jason doesn't have to make up anything to discredit Sajer... the book is a work of fiction. Also not sure why you aren't satisfied with all the other stuff discussed here that isn't fiction. </font>

What I object to is you making **** up and then presenting it as the truth. I'll ask you again, do you do that alot, or are you having an exeptionally bad day in this thread? Because if you do, then maybe it is time to view all your other posts in the same light. Like I said, usually it is very hard to spot such behavior, you just chose to do it in an exceptionally obvious way in this thread.

Jason is in the business of disregarding eye-witness accounts in this thread. When he is making **** up to disregard those eye-witness accounts, I take objection to it.

Im not commenting on the Sajer bit at all. I have not read the book and I could not care less whether he is made up or not. What I object to is the sort of arguing Jason presented an example of in the post I quoted. Look at the post I quoted. Lets break it down so I can explain what I object to. read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary, Ok, so far so good. and never says he believes a word of it. He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again - Ok, nothing factually wrong so far. There is an implication hanging there in the first sentence though, it gives us the impression that although he doesnt say it, he doesnt believe the story. in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier. Stuff made up by Jason. In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist. More stuff made up by Jason. All taken together, the real stuff and the stuff made up by Jason gives the reader an impression that is not based by any facts...beyond Jasons free-fantasy-theoretizising. Now, I dont know about you, but I find that sort of "arguing" extremely dishonest. And people who are prone to using that tactic usually have the same MO whenever they post. Its not often it is as easy to expose as in this example though. Its just bad form.

Is this normal for you? To just make **** up, then pretend its a fact? Should we judge all your posts in such a light, or are you having an exceptionally bad day in this thread?

Well, the thing is, I wasnt there, neither were you, so all we've got to go on are stuff told by, or written down by people who were. That and images. So, if you read first-hand accounts from the war, sometimes you come across eyewitness accounts on how tanks ran over soldiers, MG positions, AT guns. Ok, so far so good. Not so many have read eyewitness accounts of Russian sorcery though, so your counterexample is not as accurate as one would believe at a first glance. Why do you think you are in a position to second guess those eye-witness accounts? I guess that is what my question really comes down to. They say they saw soldiers being run over by tanks. They were there, you were not. Yet you sit here saying stuff like "no, they were not, maybe some wounded guy was run over at some isolated incident, but thats it"...I mean...whats wrong with this picture? Heck, now that I think about it, I remember seeing a set of photos of a German gun crew manning a 75mm arty piece in russia 1941 being attacked by a T-34. Attacked as in the tank is moving towards them, and they are shooting at it. In the last photo of that series, the tank is disabled something like 10 meters away from the gun + crew. Are you really sitting there saying that it is completely unthinkable that a tank in such a situation that was not disabled 10 meters away could run over that gun and some of the crew? You'll find those three photos in Division Das Reich, by Otto Weidinger if you want to take a peak btw, its in the 3rd volume I believe (the one covering 41).

Still no answer then? Fine.by.me.

Yeah...no way did any tank in ww2 ever physically run over an enemy unwounded soldier on purpose. Now, since you have discarded eye-witness accounts as evidence of such occurances, how are we to prove it happened? Forensics reports? Im not sure there were super-many autopsies made directly after combat on guys that had been crushed by tanks, but I suppose thats what we'll have to find eh?

Jason, would it be correct to say that war consists of a series of micro-engagements that lead to macro-events? Or is it your opinion that war in the industrial era is a sort of continuous accident where both sides tries to do as few misstakes as possible, and at the end of the day industrial output, logistics-network and political will etc determines the outcome?

VERY interesting. Thank you very much for taking the time to type that out Jason.