phil102

lol - yeah I agree True, but it does not take much effort to find a whole lot more relevant information on linked and related threads on that forum. One just has to make the effort to look. Surely interested people do not need to be spoon fed!

From the judgement of the IMT on the criminality of the SS "Conclusions: The SS was utilised for the purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD. Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939. " http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judorg.htm#ss for an informed discussion on the criminality of the SS see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=46013

Jason, you said In my opinion it is impossible to read any good quality, balanced historical narratives of the Soviet-German conflict and not come to this conclusion. It is most clearly expressed by Clark in "Barbarossa". This book is a benchmark for a general overview of the conflict and should be read by all with an interest in the war. The issue of the German plans for the colonisation of the east is explored in some detail in Rhodes book "Masters of Death". Although this book is primarily about the Eintzgruppen it devotes much time to Himmler's desire to colonise the east in a similar way to the 19th century colonisation of the Americas and Africa. On a separate note, I have often been appalled at the abrasive language and personalised attacks that are a regular occurence on this forum. This type of language deters many people from posting and, in my opinion, the forum moderators should play a more active role in discouraging it.

I've lost my CM BB cd. Any suggestions on where to get a new 1? None of the UK shops seem to have them - even Amazon is sold out. Any suggestions on where to get 1 would be appreciated.

posted October 09, 2005 06:27 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- syria is not iraq, the last time i checked -------------------- Using Syria is just a thinly veil attempt to avoid using Iraq, which most poeple would agree, is unacceptable.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by phil102: I would find it objectionable to play a game based on events which simulate very very closely the events currently going on in Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Why ? No offense, I'd really like to know. What would be the problem playing scenarios from OIF 2003, there are plenty of books about it... ------------------------------------------------ No offense taken at all mate. Reading some of the abusive posts in here is sad in many ways. Its a game. Its supposed to be fun. To answer your question: I think that with all the **** that I read about in the news on a daily basis about the bloodbath in Iraq I think it would detract from my enjoyment of the game by attempting to simulate that reality. Maybe a dumb reason but it just doesnt sit right with me.

I got interested in WW2, particularly the eastern front, by reading a few books on it. Before I starting reading about it the only thing I knew about WW2 was what I saw in the movies. 'A Bridge too Far', 'The Dambusters' etc etc. All Hollywood bull****. I never realised that the bloodiest, most brutal and most protracted fighting of WW2 took place in the east. As my interest developed I thought it would be a good idea if a game existied that was historically accurate and went some way to simulating actual events. I bought CMBB and it blew me away. Ive been addicted ever since. My only regret is that i dont have enough spare time to play it more. When the announcement came out about CMSF I was sorely disappointed for many reasons. I started playing CMx1 because of my interest in WW2, not the other way around. Like the vast majority of people in this country I'm strongly opposed to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and US policies in the middle east. Basing CMSF in Syria in 2007 is, in my opinion, a way of basing the game on what is currently going on in Iraq without actually having to say so. Actually basing the game in Iraq would probably not be acceptable so BFI choose to base it on the next best thing, Syria. I would find it objectionable to play a game based on events which simulate very very closely the events currently going on in Iraq. The game is aimed at a wider market that the current CMx1. Good for BFI. They need to make money like all companies. I for 1 wont buy it. I look forward to the WW2 version when ever it comes out.

from Barbarossa by Alan Clark Ch 6 Leningrad: Hypothesis and Reality Hitlers first 'firm decision' was to 'level the town, make it uninhabitable and relieve us of the necessity of having to feed the civilan population during the winter' ie murder the entire population. The Armys views were developed by General Walter Warlimont (Chief of the national defence section of OKW) who wrote extensively on the 'problem' of the civilian population of Lenningrad. Normal occupation was rejected but evacuating the women and children was considered then the Germans would let 'the remainder stave'. Again, and not unusually, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people was to be offical German policy. The 'proper' solution which the Germans finally decided on and which was approved by Jodl (Warlimonts immediate superior was to 'Seal off Leningrad hermetcially, then weaken it by terror (i.e airraids and artillary barrages) and growing starvation. In Spring we shall occupy the town... and remove the survivors to the interior of Russia and level Leningrad to the ground with high explosives'

You can area target prisoners with mortars etc if you want to kill them. You cant target them directly.

Security Guard From what I have read, particularly 'Armageddon' by Max Hastings, it seems that if troops were going to surrender, they often decided, in advance of a critical combat situation, to do it. There is a very simple reason for this. If you have been engaged in active combat with enemy troops and those enemy troops have suffered some casualities in the exchange, it is highly likely that if you decide to suddenly stop shooting and put up a white flag that you will be summarily executed on the spot. If however, you surrender before you have fired a shot it is likely that you will at least escape immediate death and will be herded to the rear and into captivity. There are a very large number of recorded instances of this type of action by troops on the ground. Just my 2 cents

You can win this level as Germans against the AI. Its not designed for 2 player. You need to put your 88s in the woods on the left which over look the low ground up to the village. From here they will knock out any Russian tank which ventures onto the left side of the map. If you dont get the 88s in the right position you are basically screwed, but you can still get a draw or minor victory. The Russians have very little infantry. You can clear out the entire map up as far as the big forest on the right in front of the village by carefully using your Pz2s and assault guns to move up the right hand side in groups to destroy Russian AT guns and clear infantry. Get an infantry squad with an MG34 in with your 88s also to supress Russian infantry on the left of the map. Once the map is more or less clear of Russian infantry up to the forest send in all your infantry in their halftracks into the big forest and organise them for an assault on the village. Use your T34s and other tanks to support this. You will probably loose several tanks at this stage to Russians who are holding back at the far end of the village, outside the sight of your 88s. You will probably have superior numbers of infantry in the village so move quick up to the flag in the centre before the Russians reinforce. If you get to and hold the flag in the centre of the village you will probably score a major victory. Dont forget you have Luftwaffe support which can take out several Russian tanks without you even knowing about it. This is often a pleasant surprise when you get to the village. Overall I enjoyed this level and played it quite a few times. The key is getting the 88s in the right place where they can see the village and are positioned in scattered trees on reasonably high ground and where they can support each other by firing on the same target when necessary.

There are not two modes of hull down. There are good hull down positions and poor hull down positions. They are both hull down. Look at your armour from the enemys point of view in #1 scale. You can be 'hull down' and still be 90% visible with only 10% covered. To do it right (and avoid getting hit) you should 90% covered with only the gun and top of the turret visible from the other side of the hill.

There's 'hull down' which can be achieved easily on any upslope then there's the totally protected hull down shown above. They are both shown as 'hull down' in CM when you use the LOS tool but there a world of difference between them.

Hi, I played the scenario once and found it fairly easy. The Russians didnt get further than about 500m from their start point. I placed all the target reference points right where the Russian armour had to appear and then I spent a long time finding very good keyhole positions for the Nashorns. As soon as the Russians appear they get picked off very easily. The TRPs make your fire very accurate. They are only effective if you dont move your Nashorns from their inital positions, so this makes locating them in good positions vital. Make sure your Nashorns cant be seen from all angles but only from certain spots. Use the terrain carefully, small dips in the ground can provide good cover. Use the trees to hide you from certain angles. I did find that the Nashorn I located on the left got taken out quite quick but the others took out loads of Russians before eventually getting wasted too. When this happened I moved my other Nashorns into poition to replace them and continue the carnage.