athlete

No, this forum is where guys, lacking an intelligent argument tend to resort to name calling (ala "neo-nazi") and irrelevant points that are clear examples of straw-grasping. 1. ...and yes, IMO Germany had claims against these pieces of real-estate too. Hey, just because France wins WWI...unless they are prepared to back up the b.s. terms of the ToV indefinately, then eventually Germany is going to take them back. Why wouldn't they? Germany is supposed to just accept, forever, that they are under the rule of law as it is dictated by France? Bull****. 2. Well, they said "no, you can't have a corridor through the Danzig", and promptly got their asses kicked. Unacceptable? More unacceptable then getting erased as a country? From Germany's standpoint, the Danzig was an annexed German province. Asking for only a corridor was frickin peanuts. 3. This bit isn't even worth a response, but you wanna talk about a propoganda machine? What a laugh. WChurchill was the mother of all propogandists, and I am no Nazi...more like a pragmatist. As for the Soviet Union, no, I don't think they had any right to invade Poland. I think they were opportunistic. Strangely, England and France didn't declare war on Russia, and when all was said and done, they essentially gave Russia Poland as the spoils of war. Nice eh? These are the 'good guys' that you speak of. The Kurds and Ukranians? Well, lets face it, they simply lacked the means to do anything about it. It is unfortuneate. You think they might have done something about it if they had? Germany lacked the means for 20 years too. The danger of imposing reparations on a country is that if they ever get the means to put it right...from THEIR perspective (because it doesn't much matter what we think...it's what THEY think that matters), they might exercise those means. (ala North Korea waving a nuke around now...how long will it be before they start flexing?) I'll say it again. Hitler and the Nazis did attrocious things. I denounce genocide, I denounce persecution of minorities...but in 1939, I don't think the west was either justified or prudent in there decision to go to war over the Polish issue; and like it or not, there is no guarantee that there would ever have been a conflict in Europe on the scale that it saw had France and England not declared war on Germany. You can't say for certain that it would have happened.

Imagined and manufactured slights? Man, where to begin. First, the greivances with Poland were: 1. Danzig had formerly been part of Germany, was occupied primarily by former German citizens and the German people wanted it back. The only reason it wasn't under German contol was because it had been taken by force...(live by the sword, die by it; i.e. is it surprising to anyone that when Germany had the means that they'd use the same method to claim it back?) 2. Poland refused to provide any land access to E.Prussia from Germany...originally Germany was asking only for a 1 mile corridor through Danzig. The Poles responded literally by threatening to invade Germany if they pressed the issue. "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." Rydz Smigly 3. There were widespread reports of atrocities being committed against former German nationals in Danzig. The records show several greivances filed with the LoN as early as April 1939. Okay, so now that we've established that there was basis for a conflict with Poland... As for WWI, well there is no doubt that the Germans took some tactical liberties with the sovereignty of neutral countries, it was after all a war. That doesn't make it right, but what about war is right? The beauty of the arguement of course is that the ToV points out to all those would-be combatants that you MUST do whatever it takes to win, lest you be victimized by the victors. So if it takes passage through a neutral country to win, well, do it man, cuz if you lose... Once again... I'm just suggesting that the international community a. Ought not to have concocted such brutal terms in the ToV, and b. Ought to have been pro-active in reversing the damage done when they recognized the impact it was having...not just on the standard of living of the average German, but of the political rammifications. The West KNEW that Hitler and the Nazis were radicals, that they were hell bent to 'right the wrongs... bla bla bla'. Churchill knew that Germany was fast re-arming...again, it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict what was going to happen if those 'wrongs' weren't addressed, and quickly; but instead of supporting diplomacy Churchill went on a sabre-rattling campaign, and actively undermined the diplomatic efforts of his government. Now, for those of us that at this stage are saying, "Athlete thinks that we shoulda just given Hitler whatever he wanted to avoid a war..", NO that is not what I'm saying; but if they had redrawn the maps to pre-ToV standards, and been reasonable about the reparations that needed to be repaid history might look a little different. Again, context is key...who is Hitler talking to? Well, the typical 20 year old draftee in the German military wasn't alive when WWI ended, but got to live in the aftermath of the ToV. I don't live in a dictatorship, but if I were in that circumstance, I'd go to war for my country to fix it. [ June 08, 2005, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

Michael, 20 vs 25km per day is a tough one to argue without all the facts, but there are several possibilities. For example, if you are just advancing troops across undefended ground, then perhaps you get them marching and they move 20km/day. If you've got an armoured attack underway, it could be that the mech troops sit around for hours and hours and when the breakthrough occurs, they pile onto the vehicles and race ahead to exploit. In both cases the two units move the same total distance, but clearly you can't race footsoldiers through a breach in the defence if it is 20km away the way you can if they are on trucks/HTs etc... Just a hypothetical possibility...one of many that I could dream up. The other thing to remember is that the bulk of the time spent fighting was during the siege of Warsaw, so if you are advancing reserves from the rear, there really is no rush. The Mech units would get there faster and wait for several days while the foot soldiers plod along. If the trip is 100km (example here) and the mech units get there on day 1, and the other inf gets there day 4, then both averaged 25km/day. This is a simplification of another possibility. Of course in that example, the tanks WOULD be used as inf support (i.e. during the siege), and would have been for the majority of the time. Point is that simply comparing the 20/25km/day number might not be a fair operational comparison. Rad, this is for me a very complicated conversation, and I've said before (and succumbed anyway for some reason) that it's tough to articulate in a forum without coming off as pro-Nazi (which I am not); but simply put, yes, the Brits had an agreement with the Poles; but given that Hitler was clearly taking back what Germany had lost with the ToV, and since he'd been bitching for years that he wanted access to E.Prussia, and given that the war drums had been beating in Poland for the better part of a year, it wouldn't take the brains of an Archbishop to predict that there was a pending conflict between Poland and Germany. I'll give you the invasion of Czeck. Frankly I don't know that much about why Hitler went beyond the terms of his agreement with Chamberlain and occupied the whole country. I'll do some reading and get back to you. ...but to me, the Polish question is pretty clear. The Danzig and East Prussia were given to Poland as part of the ToV...it was occupied by Germans almost exclusively (as it relates to EP), and all Germany had originally asked for was a mile wide corridor to get to EP. This was stomped by the Polish Government. It wasn't reasonable, yet England came to Poland's defence as did France. THEY knew that Hitler wouldn't back down, but IMHO, after the broken agreement with Chamberlain they couldn't publicly back Hitler's position. This is all old news. Appeasement didn't work because it wasn't done correctly. First, there should not have been a no-further expansion clause in the agreement with Chamberlain. They should have just conceded what was unjustly re-assigned at the ToV and taken the high road. They should have strongly encouraged Poland to give up the Danzig corridor, and probably even the Danzig province. They should have drawn the line in the sand once Hitler's eyes turned towards lands that had not, in recent history, been part of Germany (Prussia). Further, isn't it odd that England and France didn't declare war on Russia when THEY invaded Poland?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Yeah, that's what I said. :confused: Since you evidently are inviting me to respond, I will do so in YOUR thread now. My point was that IMHO the specific reasons that England and France went to war with Germany were, at the time unjustified. NOT that the Nazis or Hitler were nice people or 'the good guys'. As for this thread, well, call it 'Avocado' if you want, but I'd call knocking the armies of Europe's other major powers off the continent in 6 weeks frickin 'lightning' fast. What Cooper seems to be saying is that the other countries were not as well equipped, and not as well prepared...that Germany was able to use it's mobility born of modernized equipment to fully exploit the breakthroughs that had always been sought. Well, okay, it wasn't the New Testament, but don't you think that when you build an army from the ground up, procure equipment over the course of several years to support a method of warfare that had never been used before, and then put it into practise such that you roll over every major military power on the continent that someone might give it a name and dub it revolutionary? What are we arguing here? Blitzkreig means lightning (i.e. fast, shocking, powerful) war intuitively. Okay, so maybe the press gave it the name, but it was clear what it meant. Fast, mobile, 'not-attrition based' war. It probably wasn't well defined when the term was coined because if everyone understood what it meant, then the European campaign would have lasted longer than 6 weeks. I think Blitzkreig was an intention, not a mechanism...the intention being breakthrough by overwhelming a single point using all resources available (not new, though the means were), and then use every means available to exploit (not new, but the means were). Operationally it really meant applying the right (and as it turned out, the newest) technologies available. Probably more than anything, given the time, it meant spending money to equip the armed forces with vehicles that allowed the inf to keep up with tanks, and learning how to use CAS with modern airplanes. [ June 07, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

Well, like I said, it's tough to convey the full opinion without either actively debating it, or writing an enormous book. I certainly wouldn't presume to try and undo 60 years of propoganda in a few choice sentences and so I've edited my post. As for the neo-nazi thing? No, I condemn genocide, I have no personal issues with any ethnic or religous group...quite the contrary. I'm more focussed on the decision to go to war in 1939. I think it was a bad call. End of rant. If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. Winston Churchill [ June 07, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

...and likewise, nothing justifies the wholesale starvation of Germans during an extreme economic depression exasberated by the terms of the ToV, persecution and execution of German nationals reported to the LoN as early as April of 1939, etc...like I said, there is so much more to this debate then we are likely to cover in these forums. [ June 07, 2005, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

Yes, see, this is exactly why the debate is less then useful in the forums. heheh. Actually, they didn't start WWI, they came to the aid of an ally (like the Brits and French did in Poland), and they didn't surrender, they agreed to an armistice. Only after they disarmed did the terms of the ToV get brought forth. Anyway, hardly the focal subject of this thread.

No, the ToV made them the injured party. I've read enough; enough to know that Poland's position as it related to the isolation of East Prussia was unreasonable. The ultimatum from Eng and France didn't come until after Germany resorted to a military action to secure what ought to have been granted by the Polish or perhaps the LoN. The war started because the Germans (it so happened to be the Nazis...remember that the re-armament of Germany was well underway before the Nazis took over), took back everything they had unjustly been forced to concede at the end of the first war. Eng and France were simply appalled that Germany would simply take what they felt they deserved (much like France did 20 years earlier), because they could. i.e. parts of Czech, Austria and now the Danzig corridor No longer did the threat of attack concern the German people because they had spent the last 20ish years doing what needed to be done to break free of oppression enforced by the threat of military action. And so, when the Polish government said, "no, you can't have your land back so that you have reasonable access to a significant portion of your population", and spurred on by reported atrocities occuring against Germans in West Prussia, Germany simply went in and got it back. Of course they kicked the crap outta Poland...you don't HALF-ATTACK a sovereign country...especially when it's "allies" start beating the war drums and it's leaders are alleging the ability to over-run you in 3 days. You take it out. Let's look at a modern analogy... Iraq. But for Britain, (and the rest of the 'coalition of the willing'), most of the western world was strongly against the US invasion of Iraq...much like much of the western world was against Germany's invasion of Poland (except I might add, the US who remained conspicuously neutral). The big difference is that the Germans had a legitimate greivance. The U.S. government on the other hand either were (at best) ill-informed about the presense of WMD, or (at worst) lying through their collective teeth. Of course, as is always the case, history is written by the victors. So NOW, the issue was Sadam's oppressive rule over his people and the U.S. fancies itself liberators. In contrast, the Germans lost, so NOW the issue is all about their treatment of the Jews, Russians, POWs etc...of course we all know that nobody was aware of what was going on, and certainly not of the scale until June 44, or at best Dec of 41...2 years after Eng and France declared war. Again, the conversation about good vs. evil in historical context is, in my mind, much better debated (by me anyway) verbally since it would be important to convey my opinion completely without truncating it in a forum...lest I be labelled a Nazi, racist or pro-Hitler fanatic....we've already seen evidence that this is the path some would take... suffice it to say I think of it as a sort of chicken and egg conversation; that if someone came to me and said, "those guys are persecuting me, and I think my family and I are in danger", I probably would opt NOT to slam the door in their face and then point a finger 6 years later at 'the evil guys'. [ June 06, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]

Well, I think that it's a an accepted historical fact that Britain and France declared war on Germany, so what about it isn't correct? Oh, the good vs evil thing? Well, that is a profound debate; one not really worth engaging in in these forums, and one that inevitably ends in emotional rants. My only point would be that I'm not talking about what was discovered long after we declared war on Germany, but the reasons we went to war in the first place. [ June 03, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]

LOL. Well, if this is directed at me, the point was just, "it's funny how we've been brainwashed to think that WWII was victory of good over evil, and that Germany started it...by the way, I for one don't buy it." Nothing profound, just thought I'd throw it out there. I have to say though, I thought the quote was funny.

Shiza! I didn't know he read these forums. Bastage. :eek: I guess we're calling this one a mulligan. Coulda sworn he said he went to Military College...actually, there are two aren't there...did you go to the other one? RMC and....sh!t, seems to me it was a french school. Ah well. Also, I haven't yet figured out what fricken calculator ur talking about. Where in this post did I talk about percentages etc... 29 years? Back then, Centurian was a rank, not a tank right? (I stole that). So, since I'm nixxing continuation of this scenerio, tell me your version of events thus far. THAT would be interesting reading. [ June 03, 2005, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

Not sure what that ^ meant...I getting really tired.

Actually, I heard Pete Rose started the war, and then bet on the outcome.

Steel Beasts...not quite the same, but somewhere along these lines...and SB II is enroute I understand.

Hmmm...trying to remember now...might have been an M5...Thing is, from memory I have sort of an M113-looking thing in my head, not a HT...

'Uh, they didn't start it' would be my only point. Let's remember who declared war on who, and why. What should have happened? Well, the great victors (eng and france) ought to have conceded that the ToV was ridiculous, that the lack of any viable access to E.Prussia was unreasonable, and should have strongly suggested to Poland that for moral, political and military reasons they should consider giving up what wasn't theirs to begin with. Would Hitler have stopped there? Probably not, but we'll never know because instead, eng and france decided to stick their chests out and defend Poland's right to be selfish and unreasonable with the lives of ill-prepared and ill-equipped troops. Well done. After promptly getting their collective asses booted out of Europe the RAF did a decent job of stopping the Germs from invading, and the Eng government took whatever the US was willing to give until the end of the war in order to drive Germany into the ground and give Poland to Russia. That is my sarcastic version of wwii...although I stand behind the 'uh, they didn't start the war' bit. *braces self for impact*

2000 pt Allied Attack scenerio. Can't remember the date...might be summer 43? Modest hills, Large Map, daylight, village I chose from memory...I'm at work 2x81mm Arty Spotters, radio 1xCaptured S35 just cuz I wanted to try it 3x75mm Paks 4x50mm Paks not sure the number is right.. 1xCompany Light inf with 50mm Mortars and 3xMG34 HMG 3x250/1 HTs 2xSharpshooters Trenches for everyone Looking at the map, I choose to defend a group of flags in the south, good reverse slopes, and away from the town. Set the Somua up north mainly for recce. Sent the snipers up the N and S flanks for recce. Set the Platoons up on the RSlopes in front of the flags, fairly tight...on sort of mid-map to protect against a flanking maneuver from the N, one on the N side of the Flags sort of just se of town, one on the s side of the flags. When I set up my guns, I put them in trees in keyhole-type positions looking toward the east from more or less in front of my flags. I also gave the North platoon a pair of guns 'just in case'. Long story short, contact was made first by my snipers. Using snipers for recce is a great tool I find. The nme started by moving the bulk of his infantry overland from the east, mid map making good use of cover and dead ground, but my snipers would see them sporatically darting from point to point. They picked up a KV tank moving slowly up behind the inf, but it never entered a point from which my guns could engage. I was patient; the strategy was to try and maintain fire discipline until the enemy entered the optimal field of fire on the Rslopes, force him to bring his armour up to support, and engage the armour with guns when it exposed itself. The contingency plan in case the enemy flanked to the north was that I had set up my 75mm guns in such a position that they could be scooped up quickly by the three HTs which were close by, and oriented so that they could reversed to and grab the guns in one turn. i.e the rear of the truck was pointed toward the gun in a straight line, and the trucks were < 30 yds away in cover. As the scenerio developed, a group of armour-supported APCs were spotted moving across the extreme north of the map. My sniper spotted them. Additionally, the large mass of inf moving across the middle of the map broke up into three elements; a large group to the north, a med size one through the middle, and one platoon) to the south, toward my guns. This last group was a concern as I had utterly failed to provide my guns with any kind of anti-inf defense. Ooops. At this point, I reflected on my recent readings in these forums about that Patton adage regarding, "Grab him by the nuts and kick him in the a55" or something like that. I'm thinking..."he's going to come up the gut and engage me, probe south, and while the mid- and southern forces tie me up, he's going to bring the hammer down from the north". Too bad too. Had he gone the other way...ah well. So now the predicament is, the southern group of inf are closing on the guns that are unprotected started cursing myself for that, and now I don't have enough A.T. assets in the north to repell a concentrated armour move. I don't really want to uproot my defenders and give up my foxholes and trenches, but if I don't reinforce the north before I'm engaged in the south, I'll be stuck. I send a HT to pick up a 75mm from the middle of the map, and drop it off to cover my trench line there...this gives me 2x50mm and a 75mm there, with a platoon of inf with a 50mm mortar in trenches...then I take those inf and move them north a bit so I can try and stall the northern advance a bit. Throw some rounds that way and make them more cautious. I fully intend to withdraw back to the trenchline after first contact. I move one of the remaining HTs into cover in front of the guns to try and stall the inf probe there. I figure it should be able to hold off the inf long enough for me to reposition the guns or get the southern platoon into position to defend the guns. Further, I figure if an nme tank is moved up to take out the HT, he'll be staring into the face of a pile of guns. Further, one of my 81mm spotters lobs some rounds in front of the advance just to let them know that I see them...maybe this will buy me some time. I also begrudgingly start taking the inf on the south flank out of their trenches sigh and start moving them slightly north to the guns. Already I'm realizing that this mistake will go down as one of a couple that will lose this scenerio for me. I start moving the S35 from the northern recce position to support the 'mid-map' troops I just sent on a stalling mission. Figure he can't go toe to toe with T34s/KVs anyway...might as well provide the inf with some HE and MG support. Plus my sniper on that flank is providing better intel anyway. The HT intended to protect the guns engages some infantry...not a huge amount, maybe two squads. As luck would have it, one of them as an ATR. It takes a couple of turns, and a lot of plinking, but finally one penetrates and the HT is dead. DOH! The force sent to stall the middle advance engages a platoon+ sized element. The HMG does most of the work, and gets them to duck for a few turns. The tank was a shade late to the party, and I'm already in mid-withdrawl when he shows up. The HMG stayed behind to cover the withdrawl, but as the forces against him build, he panics and bails. The S35 moves up, and makes em duck, but my spidey-sense is already going off that I have an unsupported tank facing >a platoon of inf. Time to back up. Meanwhile, the nme mid-force appears to have split on either side of the e/w road, with the heavier element on the north. This is good because that one reinforced platoon I had guarding the middle advance is right in their path, in trenches hiding on a rslope. So that's where I am. My northern flank defense is up to two 50mm Paks and a 75mm Pak, with a platoon of inf w 50mm mortar in trenches on a reverse slope. There is also a HT handy and an 81mm spotter to support them. The south is too gun-heavy, and the inf are out of position to help, I'm down one HT, and I'm sure those nme inf are on the march again, or soon will be. It's a race. I doubt I can move the guns now, but I'm going to explore this a bit. Also, it's clear that there is one KV mid map, squirming up to support the mid-map element, and prob two more with a T34 at least up north moving to come from the N flank with mechanized inf. This is how I expect things to work out. The N Platoon is prob in for a helluva scrap. Good odds down only about 2:1 initially being dug in with indirect fire support and that HT. If their ammo holds up, it's going to be a tough nut to crack. I expect it to get wiped out, but make a mess in the process. Hopefully there is enough AT firepower to stave off the supporting armour/APCs. The guns in the south are in trouble. I think they are going to get over-run. I don't think my inf will get there in time to prevent it, and once those positions are id'd I expect mortars to pound them to dust. I MIGHT be able to get a couple out with the only avail HT, but I'm skeptical. The platoon in the middle will probably decimate the platoon+inf headed their way. The nme really has no way to support that move indirectly or directly, and there isn't really any way to go around it. What I might do is dump smoke on the gun positions and try and get the two guns that are right in the path of the nme inf out w the HT, move them to the N flank. Then I'd try and withdraw the enroute, supporting inf to the rslope position and engage that probe. If it goes well, try and advance them to support the N flank. Stay tuned.

Yeah, well, terrain features is not currently one of the game's high points..though I haven't really played in 6 months; by now they might have wheatfields and stuff. The following by comparison is a Pz3h at range vs a 2lber round striking the frontal, 60mm thick armour....*plink*

The second image is of course showing the first image without the artwork; i.e. modelling of engine, crew...critical components. The horizontal darker red line is the shot line, yellow is spall, red is shrapnel. They posted all kinds of examples...that is a Panhard being hit with a 50mm AP round from a PIIIh (I presume the L42) at 50mm. [ May 28, 2005, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

I'd really like to see a BFC guy post (it's prob been done), the bare bones, 'How penetrations are calculated'. The developers at Cornered Rats Software actually posted screen shots of development test data on thier physics model. They showed the penetration point and angle, then the penetrator's path, the point the HE went off, the spall pattern, all color coded lines on a 'skeleton' of the vehicles...that thread went on forever and was really enlightening. I'll see if I can find it...

I think a bone is justified. I personally don't think it matters much...CM guys could wait 10 years and when CMx2 was released they'd hop in with both feet probably. That said, from a pure publicity standpoint, and for my own curiosity (which is insatiable...did I spell that right?), I would love for BFC or any other game developer to post daily project logs. At the very least, it would be neat to hear when major milestones are achieved. Not really sure what the secrecy is about...if I read, "Today Bob was working on the code for (insert feature here). He's struggling with how to make it do 'x' while at the same time leaving 'y' the way it is. Recall that it took us a long time to get 'y' the way we wanted it, but now we're finding that 'x' and 'y' are inter-related and it's a bit of a headache. " I'd think that was pretty neat...I don't think it would really do much for the competition unless they are going to try and do the same thing at the same time using the same engine...but for us curious dudes it would be 'a bone'. To some extent, these logs are kept anyway, probably lacking some narrative, but generally it's good policy...oh, what the heck am I rambling on about? nm.

Oh for the luv of God...thank you. *beats head w brick*

Just to clarify, it's the CMBB TOE, I have the CMAK one (called CM3_xls.zip)

Can't seem to find this TOE...was it called something else and/or anyone know how to track it down?

Well, it's not bad, but that particular model had 174 treads on each track and yours has 181...might want to read a book before you do a mod next time.