stoat

Those would be the reservist fromages not the regular forces, or femmes.

I've read that some Frenchmen were armed with a truffle and bayonet.

I've only ever seen it as meaning an army sized formation. I am not excluding the possibility that it could mean a smaller unit, but I have never seen used thusly.

When exactly are you going to give us that true, complete picture?

I do more planning once in contact than at the start. I will move troops out of their default positions to be closer towards the axis of advance, but I don't think out the entire thing every time. Once in contact, though, I do a little more thinking as to what I need each unit to do.

"philosophical" is Aramaic for "political"

That thread should have been locked on page one. I was surprised to find it had reached page five. Neither of the two discussions had anything to do with CMBB, as the thread originally had nothing to do with CMBB. It was fun while it lasted, but I don't think it should be unlocked.

From your own quote from your own source. The arguement has never been whether Hitler or Stalin had the best infrastructure, or which led the greatest social reforms, but instead which of the two killed more people. You have produced no countering facts that would state that Hitler killed more people. You have instead produced a lenghty Wikipedia page that you expected to change my postion. At first I thought your problem was stubborness, but you have proven that it is in fact stupidity.

Since you really seem to like this link as a source, I will show you what it says. You seem to be good at math. Tell me how this illustrates that Hitler killed more people.

I read it. Look what I found. Are you saying that all of those millions were criminals? Because it sounds like you are justifying it by saying that Stalin was just reducing crime rates by killing people. I pull no figures out of my ass, though were I to they would certainly smell better than your arguments. I have seen things come from there that have better cohesion than anything you have posted here.

Umm...yes it did. If you kill 4 million people, and then teach the rest of the population to read, you still have 4 million dead people. Stalin is responsible for 43,000,000 murders. The majority of these were in gulags, work camps, the like. The most common figure for Jews killed in the Holocaust is 6 million. The most extreme are closer to 20 million. For the benefit of the doubt, let's say it's 20. Add to that all of the German casualties, military and civilian from WWII and that's up to 35 million (15 million being generous). How many people did he really kill in the 20's and 30's? We'll say 5 million, again being quite generous. Stalin killed three million more people than Hitler. Hitler's reign of terror ended in 1945. How many more millions did the Soviets kill after this? No matter, I'm sure their postwar social reforms more than make up for the wholesale slaughter of their people.

Originally from various people (you know who you are): That's a great math formula you use there. So killing is alright if it's for the "good of the country? Even then, how is killing your political oppostion good for the country? How is killing church leaders good for the country? How is that any different from what Hitler did? Communist regimes have killed far more people than Hitler ever did. They are just as oppressive, too. I agree. Because there is nothing worthy of consideration in suffering, emotions, or feelings. While they did not participate in the mass executions of the Einsatzgruppen, they were certainly not completely innocent of such things. Zhitomir is the example that comes to mind. You are right there. I think I meant the entire campaign, but I am not entirely sure of the number. As a side note, up in Chicago a few months ago, government authorities found an old Nazi war criminal that had been living in the US for some time. He was a US citizen (no longer) and the folks that lived around him said he was a kind, though a reserved and quiet man. One cannot atone for those deeds by being kind for the rest of your life. One cannot wash the blood off of your hands by living out your days peacefully. Maybe we should not judge, but how can you forgive? Millions were killed, no, exterminated, and you would say "Yes, it was wrong, but it's okay if they're sorry." That is not acceptable.

I think the state of war could be implied by the tanks, men and planes invading Dutch ground and airspace. I think it could be implied by the tens of thousands of dead Dutchmen in the 5 days it took the Germans to seize the country. I think it could be implied by the bombing of an "open" city resulting in 40,000 deaths. It was an international effort, sure. But does that mean the Frenchmen, the British, the Danes, and all the others were less guilty of treason than the Dutch. Of course not. They were just as guilty. Who is to say a Dutchman that had fled the Nazis hadn't taken up arms with Russia to help free his country? All of a sudden, you have Dutchmen fighting each other. This doesn't even matter, fighting for the enemy of your country is treason, you don't have to kill your countrymen to be guilty. I agree, 50,000+ men is a sizable chunk of the population. They almost certainly didn't think of themselves as criminals. But they were. They were traitors. While they fought on the Eastern Front they freed up Germans to brutally tyrannize their country, and kill, rape, and torture the true patriots that struggled to thwart the Axis and to help the Allies no matter the cost. [ November 06, 2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: stoat ]

What do you need to know? Your country is at war with Germany. You willingly choose to fight alongside the enemy of your country. How can that become muddled? It doesn't matter how old you are, treason is treason.

If you don't like the subject matter, don't buy the game. Those threads serve no purpose as there is no way anyone can change the content. If they are only going to whine and contribute nothing, lock the threads down.

[ November 06, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: stoat ]

Not to mention, shortest.

Commander’s Independent Weapons Sight Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer

It is neither endearing nor reflecting. It is a string of 5 Romanic charcaters each of which represents a particular sound. (unless you want me to talk about dipthongs) Blame it on the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Etruscans, and the Romans successively. People here don't like you, that is true. If you want encouragement on how to do something right, I would encourage you to leave, and not to come back. By staying and posting, you prove yourself to be anal-retentive. Did I mention you should go away?

Once again you have problems with the discernment of "topical." If you look at the title and initial post of this thread, you will find its subject is, well, something about muthaships and bop guns. All of the following posts save yours remained on topic. There is nothing wrong with silly threads such as this, but when you talk about slaughtering sub-humans, that is going too far. As for your last comment, it is untrue, you just don't realise that people here don't like you and want you to go away. To keep this on topic: Bring on the aquaboogie.

How big was Chita in WWII?

From: http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ You are right in that SBDs were still in use at Philippine Sea. After June, SB2Cs stared to come on line rapidly. However, rockets only started to appear on ships such as Shinano and Junyo. I don't think that Junyo had its rockets during Philippine Sea, but probably got them during its prot stay from July to December 1944. I can't find information that says other carriers had rocket batteries, nor of their use in battle.

That was also the intention with the arial phosphorus bomb. That proved ineffective, so did little to break up bomber formations. Why would you be attacking rocket equipped ships with Dauntlesses? By the time the rockets came around, Helldivers were on the first line carriers, and Dauntlesses were relegated to CVE duty attacking shore targets, submarines, or coastal barge traffic.

It was the battleship bit that threw me off. The Japs did put 28 barreled rocket launchers on carriers such as Junyo and Shinano from late 1944. These were terribly inaccurate, but I guess if a 5 in. rocket were to hit you, it would ruin your day pretty quick.

The Japs had rockets?