akdavis

Is this somehow related to the eternal question "Are Russian women hot?"

Since nearly 10% of our battlefield KIAs have come from suicide bombings, could you justify not including suicide bombers?

Ah yes, Operation Iraqi Feedom.

Non-tile terrain elements that function the way stone walls and hedges do. For example, streams and arroyos that infantry squads can take cover in but are only several meters wide. Similar terrain elements necessary for fortifications (esp. important in the desert campaign) would include anti-tank ditches and berms. It was these type of small terrain features that allowed infantry to survive in the desert. Also, an easier way to lay down fortifications in the editor would be greatly appreciated. Would be nice to be able to place minefields, trenches and barbed wire the way you lay down roads. I don't mean to be a naysayer, but if the best new features of this game add up to dust and a tank with two turrets, then you are going to get trashed in the press for selling an add-on as a new game. The way it's being advertised now, it sounds like a user-made CMBB mod. Things necessary to do the Mediterranean theatre justice: Region specific terrain elements/buildings (I think I'll **** a brick if mosques show-up in northern Italy). Beach landings Fortifications (examples: desert forts, shore batteries, Tobruk-style fortifications). I've heard the desert campaign described as a naval battle where the forts and cities played the role of islands. Combat paradrops Vichy French forces Mountain troops able to traverse cliff tiles (I'm thinking here of Free French forces, the 10th Mountain Division and German mountain troops).

Hmm...the reference I found list a 546th Field Artillery Battalion with 155s. Here is the text: and here is the link: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/AbnOps/TABB.htm [ February 04, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

546th Field Artillery Battalion was attached to the 82nd Airborne from 10-17 April 1945, just FYI.

Also, there have so far been no pictures of large groups of people. I would expect a post-1933 Nazi function to get the people in the streets in large numbers.

Goodale, when you get your scanner set-up, follow the directions I posted above in making your scans. It'll save you some time re-scanning everytime you want to do something with them.

Goodale, do not attempt to scan the pictures for internet purposes. If you do so, you will just end up with files good only for web posting. You never want to end up having to try and make a small image larger, so start big and then work you're way down for the purpose intended. If you want to print them, then they would need to be 300dpi at the size you want, but 300dpi is far higher res than can be viewed on the Internet, so why post a file that big? Keep that big, high res original for printing and make yourself some smaller (dimensions and resolution) copies for the forum. Here's how: Keep scanning them big. You want high quality files to work with. I would suggest having them AT LEAST 8 in. on the long side at 300 dpi. Save the original scans in a low-compression file type (either photoshop or tiff format is best). For web purposes, you should take your big, high-quality scans and reduce them to a smaller, lower resolution jpeg file. Something with a file size of 500k or less is best. I can only imagine the bandwidth you are using posting these monsters. If you have any sort of image editing software on your comp (your comp probably came with something pre-installed) you should be able to open the high-quality scans, reduce their size (actual dimensions) and resolution(dpi), and save new jpeg copies for posting on the web. Just remember not to save over the original scans. p.s. Remember to go back and convert the ones you have already posted. If you keep posting 1.5mb files, Battlefront.com (and dial-up users!) may get a bit upset, and you're 10mb will be gone in no time (if it's not already). [ January 31, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Actually, assuming no significant cropping, the prints much closer to 35mm format than medium format, at least 6x7. Of course, they could be cropped. Given the nature of the photographs, the camera was almost certainly a hand-held rangefinder type. [ January 31, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Definitely not Stalin. Are all the images equally lacking in sharpness? If so, this definitely looks like the work of an amateur photographer (which is good, means it's not copywork of some professional's photos). It could also mean that the prints were enlarged from a small format negative, or that the negatives were improperly developed. They are certainly from a hand-held camera, and most likely one used at eye level, rather than waist-level (like many twin-lens cameras of the time). Probably a Leica. p.s. You can post smaller images and we'll still be able to see them just fine. I'd say go for 5 in. on the long side at around 200dpi. [ January 30, 2003, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Okay, before you waste your time looking for a "military photo expert," I'll go ahead and tell you that's probably not the best route. This isn't really military documentation you have, it's political. Someone familiar with photographic documentation of the Third Reich would be your best bet. A German history professor or a professional photography appraiser would be easier to find. Second of all, I seriously doubt your friend could tell whether or not they are copywork just by looking at a few prints. What expertise does he have that would qualify him to do so (besides being older)? Did he give you a reason why they are definitely not photos of photos? Third, have you acounted for the negatives yet? If not, then any speculation on value is futile. For all you know the negatives have been printed off of for years. Thus, there could be 100 prints of the same images floating around out there. Your prints are not the originals. The negatives are. And fourth, DO NOT EAT while handling historical documents. If I make a black&white print I want to last for a long time, it does not get touched by bare fingers from the moment the printing paper comes out of its box. Use white cotton gloves! Looking forward to seeing a few of these. Hopefully you picked some of the more "iconic" images. Exciting stuff, no?

Hmm...the only reference I could find online to the 524th Field Artillery Battalion has it listed as part of the 38th Infantry Division (Indiana NG) in 1954. However, I cannot find the unit listed under the 38th ID's WW2 order-of-battle (which is good, cause that would mean your grandad had been in the Phillipines). Hopefully someone else will have a reference listing which division your grandad's battalion was attached to. If at all possible, double check his records to ensure that you have the correct unit.

Sorry Goodale, your grandad was not in the Battle of the Bulge but also in Munich from 42-43. If he was captured in North Africa and made a POW, I suppose it's feasible he could have been in Munich at that time, but then he wouldn't have been in the Battle of the Bulge. I would suggest looking up some records and doing some independent research. You'd be surprised how hard it is to remember that far back, especially dates and names of places. You asked how to tell if these prints are copywork: unfortunately, without the negatives, it would be difficult to say.

Wrong; impossible. No matter how clever you get with code, the data is being transmitted, ergo, the data can be copied. At a minimum, nothing can stop the user from grabbing a screenshot. Eden </font>

Try a good photography store, the type that supplies college students and professionals. Art and framing stores also usually have archival materials. One of my photography professor had acid-free index card boxes that he stored small, loose 19th Cent. prints in. That would be perfect for a lot of loose, curling prints. [ January 27, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Goodale, as has been said, do not attempt to restore or mount these prints yourself, at least not until you go through the process of establishing their historical value (and regardless, they should never be permanently mounted to a page). If you simply must flatten them (keep in mind this is not necessary for an expert to look at them), place a piece of archival material (acid-free matting board would be ideal) in between the print and the weight. Putting prints into the ink-covered pages of books is a bad idea. Anyways, whether or not your grandfather has those negatives and what you need to do to protect them if he does is the most important question you need answered. If these are simply prints made from copy-work negatives (photos of prints), then they may have very little value. Remember a print only takes on value if its negative original is destroyed/lost. Impossible to say whether they are originals or not until an expert can look at them. From the content you describe, there's a good chance they are the work of Heinrich Hoffman, Hitler's close friend and official photographer. Hoffman was with the Nazi party from the beginning and took some 2.5 million photographs of Hitler. Hitler trusted only Hoffman to take candid or "behind-the-scenes" type photographs (they were still often highly controlled). Here's some links: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhoffmann.htm http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler2.htm And I'm sure you'll recognize one of Hoffman's most famous photographs: Where do you live Goodale? If you are anywhere near Austin, Texas, the University of Texas' Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center has an excellent staff of photographic archivists and one of the finest photo archives in the world. If these turn out to be original photographs of Hitler, you might consider this facility if you want those photographs saved for posterity. No matter what, keep all your Grandfather's photographs safe and dry, preferably in some sort of acid-free container.

Keep in mind that churches in Russia were usually wood, not stone like Western European churches. I imagine cannister shot would go straight through a wood wall, with lots of extra wood shrapnel as well. Are churches heavy structures in CMBB? [ January 24, 2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

That doesn't justify it though. </font>

Bless you! I've been dying for this! Big maps, here I come.

...up at www.simhq.com It's very indepth. Here's a wee nugget:

Every other game on the market has managed to make the Ampulomet look HISTORICALLY CORRECT, why can't CMBB? Jesus...this game is a total RIPOFF! I'd only be willing to spend 10 or 15 bucks on a game that can't EVEN make the famous Ampulomet look how EVERYONE knows it's supposed to. Man, I'm just going to go back to playing G.I.Combat. Now there's a game that's worth every cent of $80.00 Canadian.

CC5 improved on this by making force structure more realistic. Unfortunately, unrealistic airstrikes and artillery support were also added by this point in the series. Otherwise, all the problems listed with CC3 are the same.

Same problem. Using Gforce 3. Also have CMMOS.

R. Rolando Hinojosa-Smith, an English professor at the University of Texas (who I unfortunately never had the privilege to take classes from), wrote a novel based on his experiences as a crewmember of one of those 105s. It is called The Useless Servants(1993). I have the book here somewhere, but it is buried in a box. I'll see if I can dig it up. [ November 21, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]