Bone_Vulture

It's all Sergei's fault!

Could the consensus be that from now on, the Finns decide what's cool and what's not?

Very well, INFIDEL! :mad: (Wraps on a turban) Isn't that exactly what happened here? Wbs used the term "Japs" without a care, and Sergei was offended by it. Perhaps Sergei's argument could be rephrased: a term that the speaker considers neutral or meaningless might offend the listener against all expectations. Here we're discussing political correctness, though. I don't think we can ever form a consensus on that issue.

I aim to please. :cool:

Using flawed punctuation was a contemplated choice for me. I tried to mimic your fervor in a most compact sentence possible; upper case letters, angry smiley.. Maximum impact!

[start Michael Dorosh mode] So you'd like to demolish passenger ships and machinegun the survivors? I bet you'd also like to sodomize baby seals! Admit it. ANSWER ME BITCH :mad: [End Michael Dorosh mode]

Oh, so that's why it's called the "World War". Because it involves THE WORLD!!! I wouldn't like to dis the Swedes, since they took to a certain degree care of our war orphans and sent supplies and volunteers, but apart from that, Sweden's participation in the war was rather meek to say the least. And the Swiss? *snicker*

I've always envisioned myself serving in Wehrmacht, as a quartermaster of some supply dump on the eastern front in 1943. Oh, my weapons would be a Luger sidearm deposited in a trunk with the rest of effects, and a particularly sharp pencil to battle the paperwork with.

But in your example, there are old tanks in the present time, instead of modern ones in the past?

There was a large disparity in just about every imaginable type of weaponry, and desert warfare was ideal for American air superiority.

Then you'll present the question inside the thread. Do not expect a sane answer; just get out while you can and don't look back.

Do not mention the "Peng" outside the "Peng" thread.

I made the same suggestion, but the common opinion appears to be that land battles on the Pacific front would be too "infantry focused" due to jungle terrain.

Thirded. For the sake of the honorable Defense Force that us Finns have. :cool:

Meh, I just think that wire guided rockets and targeting computers lack to rugged feel of crude WW2 equipment. By the way - I read from a Finnish army paper that Poland still has some post-WW2 era 85mm AT guns in reserve! :eek: Apparently they maintain a function as an effective weapon against light armor.

It's not the size that matters, but finesse.

What is this craze about post-WW2 conflicts? I feel like a conservative here.

The interchangeability of the future CM releases remains to be seen...

Like I said before, it'd be more useful to take late war weapon schematics to pre-war time. This way the weapons could be both manufactured and maintained with the era's technology.

'Knives covered all the necessary info. Walls act as a good shield to cover infantry from direct fire and from being spotted, but it fails to provide cover for actual combat. Be aware that walls also serve as an excellent hull down position for tanks. I once even had a bunker hull down behind one - don't ask me how.

Unless the division also has a factory to produce munitions and spare parts, its fighting capability will wither in several weeks.

Vietnam was probably the worst possible theater for armor. In the jungle tanks are useless.

Now, if someone could come up with the WW2-era production numbers (plus figures of pre-war stockpiles)?

Oh yeah, good call. I never use the casualty option myself, since it can "chew out" excessively expensive men like artillery spotters and tank crew.

Yeah, I think the writer might be mixing the Panther with Jagdpanther and Jagdpanzers.... We've discussed the Panther II before, I recall it was only built at the very end of the war in token numbers, and had a completely remodeled turret to balance the 88/L71's increased weight.