Mad Russian

Taking sign ups for the King of the Hill 2. The second KOTH tournament sponsored at The Proving Grounds! Both CMAK and CMBB scenrios will be played in the tournament. The tournament will be closed at midnight June 5th, US Central Time Zone. After that I will accept alternates and reservists only. To sign up email me at sro_cm@yahoo.com I need a name and an email where you can be reached. I look forward to seeing your name as the winner of the KOTH2!! Good Hunting.

Taking sign ups for the King of the Hill 2. The second KOTH tournament sponsored at The Proving Grounds! Both CMAK and CMBB scenrios will be played in the tournament. The tournament will be closed at midnight June 5th, US Central Time Zone. After that I will accept alternates and reservists only. To sign up email me at sro_cm@yahoo.com I need a name and an email where you can be reached. I look forward to seeing your name as the winner of the KOTH2!! Good Hunting. MR

In June 1941 the UK is going to send troops to Russia? How? In 1942, this guy thinks that there will be 300,000 to 500,000 Allied troops, from any and all sources, to send to Russia to free up as many as three Soviet Armies?? And soon after that the Martians land in Berlin and take over the German rocket program too! MR

Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location. There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons. MR

Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location. There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons. MR

It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example. Edit: Specific examples: 1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991. 2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>

It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example. Edit: Specific examples: 1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991. 2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>

It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example. Edit: Specific examples: 1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991. 2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>

It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example. Edit: Specific examples: 1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991. 2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>

I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>

I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>

You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>

You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>

Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses. MR

Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses. MR

152mm shells were common in the Soviet army. All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns. The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one. So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets? I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war. MR

152mm shells were common in the Soviet army. All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns. The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one. So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets? I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war. MR

Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945. I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible. Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples. As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either? Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark. Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this? Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does. It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts. Don't you think? MR [ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]

Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945. I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible. Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples. As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either? Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark. Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this? Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does. It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts. Don't you think? MR [ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]

The scenarios for the tournament will also allow a designer to make a scenario that is not restricted by points but by size. Up to a battalion on each side. With 10 vehicles counting as a company. Support weapons and engineer obstaccles/fortifications not counting in the total. So whether you want 2 companies of King Tigers and Company of PG, or 3 companines of recon infantry the scenario will be good. Points is not the issue but the number of units in the fight. Since normal support weapons like LMG, Snipers, HMG, etc....belong to a company sized unit they will not be counted either. Now if you decide to put in 500 HMG's along with 3 companies of infantry I'm pretty sure that won't fly....but if you do the normal allotment of 3-6 HMG's per company I'm pretty sure that will. The judges will determine what makes it into the tournament. If for some unforseen reason there is an issue the judges can't resolve I will resolve it. Show off your skills! The scenarios can be about anything. And whether or not the scenarios are chosen you will get good experience and feedback from some very experienced judges. You will get direct feedback if you send in a scenario. The feedback may be as simple as, "this is too big, cut a company on the Soviet side". Or it may be something like, " the map is a bit too small and you need to add 3 turns." Whatever it is we will get back with you. We want good quality scenarios and the way to get them is support your scenario making efforts. Remember...you have until the last day of February to get those scenarios to me! Be careful who you use as playtesters! If the person you use as a playtester may enter the tournament and end up playing it again. That is not what we want. If you need playtesters let me know. Good Hunting. PC

The scenarios for the tournament will also allow a designer to make a scenario that is not restricted by points but by size. Up to a battalion on each side. With 10 vehicles counting as a company. Support weapons and engineer obstaccles/fortifications not counting in the total. So whether you want 2 companies of King Tigers and Company of PG, or 3 companines of recon infantry the scenario will be good. Points is not the issue but the number of units in the fight. Since normal support weapons like LMG, Snipers, HMG, etc....belong to a company sized unit they will not be counted either. Now if you decide to put in 500 HMG's along with 3 companies of infantry I'm pretty sure that won't fly....but if you do the normal allotment of 3-6 HMG's per company I'm pretty sure that will. The judges will determine what makes it into the tournament. If for some unforseen reason there is an issue the judges can't resolve I will resolve it. Show off your skills! The scenarios can be about anything. And whether or not the scenarios are chosen you will get good experience and feedback from some very experienced judges. You will get direct feedback if you send in a scenario. The feedback may be as simple as, "this is too big, cut a company on the Soviet side". Or it may be something like, " the map is a bit too small and you need to add 3 turns." Whatever it is we will get back with you. We want good quality scenarios and the way to get them is support your scenario making efforts. Remember...you have until the last day of February to get those scenarios to me! Be careful who you use as playtesters! If the person you use as a playtester may enter the tournament and end up playing it again. That is not what we want. If you need playtesters let me know. Good Hunting. PC