Lumbergh

I know. You must have been busy studying for your Principles of TNT Chuckage exam. Edited since I spelled "chuckage" like "bukkake", with two ks. [ January 08, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

In a QB a few weeks ago I had a rocket spotter, so I laid them down on the area "around" the victory flags. When I got up to the flags there a couple of KO'd Marders, which, it turns out, were nailed by said rocket spotter. Good enough for me.

MG: If you do not return to your thread, you will have to submit a 2,000 word essay on TNT. Important points to address are the effect of chucking on TNT, as well as the difference between molten TNT and hot, molten TNT. Also please delve into the finer points of TNT-stuffing technique, whether it be down the throat, gunbarrel, or into the skull. Gracias.

Hey! I used to live in Arling-tron (robots destroy everything)! Then I moved to England. What's the chances of THAT?

Tom, You're always so POSITIVE!! Always nice to have an anti-troll around!

Remember--it's all an abstraction. Except for the cheescake. Although Russians, I've heard, are partial to borscht-flavored cheesecake over chocolate.

Well, it certainly sounds like you are more scared of smallpox than even I am. Anyhoo, I'm not going to worry about it since there are clearly smart medical people advising the US government. Presuming that the docs told the government the same assessment that you did, then the gubment would have to make a calculation about what the expected likelihood (since you're talkin' about Von-Neumann) of a smallpox attack was. Clearly, the expected likelihood is very small, since if it were not, they would be vaccinating everyone, NOW. Not just medical personnel. So would their buddies like the UK. Amazing how we can percieve risk. I am a lot more worried about getting smallpox and dying than getting hit by a car when i ride my bike, but it is so much more likely that I will die from a bike accident.

Fionn, Jesus, that is a bit scary. I could do without smallpox, thank you very much. 20 people infected with smallpox would be quite a strain to control. Still, it registers as a minor threat with me compared to nuclear weapons. Smallpox *might* exist in Iraq, who *might* attempt to give it to Al-Qaida. I doubt they would use it in the manner you described, though--there would be a high chance of the virus infecting people in the home country, and if you think smallpox loose in the US is a disaster, wait until you see smallpox loose in Pakistan. Still sounds like the CDCs worst nightmare. How long would it take to innoculate the whole country? Do you think vaccinating everyone is worth it if it kills 3,000 people, more than September 11th did? As for nukes, well, there are thousands of them in the wild, ill-maintained and poorly secured. That the Bushies haven't expended massive, massive amounts of money to secure these weapons is beyond me. And as soon as North Korea has an ICBM, they can vaporize my family whenever they want to.

Could you fill us in on what that warhead would have to be filled with? Sounds like it's filled with the Andromeda strain to me. Smallpox? Isn't that why people are/have been/will be vaccinated? Anthrax? Even the "state of the art" stuff seemed eminently less threatening than a nuclear warhead when it was potentially on my mail! But I know, there are other agents out there. What are they, and are they more lethal than the above? Because, to me, it seems like a nuclear weapon is a "sure thing", whilst a biological weapon is a very dodgy and quite possible worthless thing. A 500kt nuke on NYC *will* kill 5 million + people with a likelihood of 1. That same warhead filled with smallpox has the potential to kill many more, but it also has the potential to kill a mere few thousand. Also, why shoot bioweapons after a nuke strike if everyone is already toast? Especially given Soviet overkill doctrine against US airbases, that is, a very large (10mt IIRC) groundburst with multiple spaced airbursts to destroy any scrambled bombers. Add to that the fact that they had redundancy on targets, and most of the airbases and missile silos are located upwind of population centers, and you have massive, massive fallout casualties. A detailed coverage of this is in Citizen Scientist by Von Hippel. One of the best non-classified studies of a nuclear war.

I suggest this guy try out AA if he wants HQ units he can delegate stuff too. Just a suggestion.

Actually, I think CMBB foxholes are more like "impromptu" holes in the ground than a well-prepared position you describe. Otherwise, they would provide much less exposure then they currently do.

Can't wait for a hot, molten report of 5 turns of TNT-spitting fury.

Not to mention that crazy Russian active-antimissile defense system. It's nice to know that 60 years on, it's *still* best to have a bigass German gun.

Try borax mixed with sugar water. You can make a bunch and keep it in the fridge (make sure to write "poison!!" on it though.). You leave it in bottle caps in various strategic locations. The ants love it--the ant trails start going for it immediately. Takes about a week to decimate an ant population that way. Another thing that I've found wonderfully effective against very small ants in the kitchen has been 409. Seems to kill them on contact, so you can kill *and* clean at the same time!

Yeah, watch the next time you have some infantry trying to close-assault a tiger. It looks like someone in the tank chucks a grendae out (just an abstraction, I know...).

Bastables: Ok, uncle! You win about the defensive terrain, all things held equal. Of course, if we look at it in detail I think we'd find that every situation is indeed unique, and we can't apply any "rule" as to who is going to incur more casualties. We could try, but it would still be approximate. But since you are so fond of statistics, I think we should focus on the real issue, that is, if the force ratio in the west was allied:german 5:1, what was the casualty ratio?? Working from a purely theoretic perspective, since that is the only one I have, if each side packs this manpower into the same area, the germans should be able to take out a significantly higher number of people, man for man. Since you have the groggish references, please enlighten me. I think we'll find casualty ratios much, much closer to unity than 1:5. Again, however, I am afraid such conclusions still don't tell us much of anything useful. A bit like claiming someone is the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. Edited: Oh, and I just realized, it would be even better if we had comparisons of manpower/casualties over a given spatial area, since I highly doubt that in fact spread over the western front every German faced 5 allied soldiers. [ December 23, 2002, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

Even as bloody as "The Neverending Story III: The Retreating Ubertank Threads"?

Bog. A lot.

Is there a collective "We told you so!" forming around here? *ducks*

Mmm, excellent points. Still, the Firefly remains my favorite eggshell tank. Ok, fine, I'd rather be a supply sargeant. Or a B-29 pilot. Ain't nobody touching me in one of those! Also, does anyone have casualty rates available for US/Commonwealth tankers? Or German? It would be interesting to see if we really were worse off... Edited since I saw your second post. Well, that's exactly when you would say "Scoreboard"--when you're playing hoops and someone does some fancy crossover hoo-doo and scores on you. But your team is still winning by 10 points. Man-for-man the Germans had BETTER be doing more damage, since they had 400,000 troops facing 2+ million. And they were on the defensive in favorable terrain much of the time. But at the end of the day, everyone in Germany speaks English now, not the other way around. [ December 22, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

Yeah, and as we like to say in the US: "Scoreboard, biatch!"

I'd rather be in a Firefly than any other tank in the whole war, since a) I'd be on the Western Front and thus not on the Eastern Front. I'd be Commonwealth instead of German, so I'd be a lot less likely to ever run into enemy armor. c) If I did run into armor (or I guess it would be armour), I'd have a really fantastic gun to kill it with. d) Comfy seatcushions e) French girls rock! Belorussian girls, erm, I've never met a Belorussian girl but maybe they rock too.

Oh let's not be a troll. I am sure the 20 25mm flak guns make a great target for your 6 company hqs spotting for 18 60mm mortars.

Glantz has some totalled numbers ("When Titans Clashed"). Why not give your neighbor this book instead of random figures? If he has any grogish tendencies he'll love it. So will you! Dave

No more Sherman-bashing!! I would have thought that 2+ years of CMBO would have taught everyone that even ignoring the obvious operational and strategic advantages of the Sherman, tactically it was a pretty good design (for its time)! Heck, they even do pretty well in CMBB.