warrenpeace
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by warrenpeace
-
-
22 hours ago, Lethaface said:
MMM you know how the UN views the current occupation?
Also, you are quoting but don't post the source. You are also missing out the ethical cleansing of groups like stern. Still my point was that the people living in the area which were driven out from their homes didn't do anything to deserve that.
At the same time I think it is better to keep this thread about the current war.The quote came from the US State Department Historian: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
The Stern Gang and Irgun did some really bad things. However, there are plenty of examples of Arabs killing Jews proceeding the advent of those organizations. For a fairly complete list see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
As you can see the first Jewish attack did not occur until 1937.
-
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:
Arabs aren't a country though. Another rather significant distinction is that Germany was responsible for WW2 and the people driven out of those area's were a direct consequence of the war and Germany's behavior. People from the Palestinian area didn't start a massive war nor commit a holocaust; so it's harder to swallow they were driven out of their homes, like for what reason?
I'm not fully sure if there was not a 'national identity' like you say, but people sure did have a bond with their houses / ground / place where they lived. It's not that people weren't bonded to their town/city/region before the invention of nation states.
I agree though that the regimes (dictatorships) of the Arab states in fact don't really care much for the Palestinians. They are indeed used as political pawns, although I think the Palestinians themselves also don't want to accept that they have lost their home turf forever. They call it the 'Nakba' (disaster) for a reason.
At the same time the people living in those Arab states certainly care about m, so that's why those regimes have to keep up appearances once in a while.Ultimately yes Israel is directly responsible for the Gaza situation as they have created it (and are slowly annexing all remaining 'Palestinian' land).
"People driven out of those area's were a direct consequence of the war and Germany's behavior". One might argue the same thing happened in Palestine. The Jews accepted the UN resolution, the Arabs did not.
"The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan.
After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command. British trained forces from Transjordan eventually intervened in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab state under the United Nations Partition Plan and the corpus separatum of Jerusalem. After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive."
-
Bulletpoint,
You are absolutely correct about the Germany welcoming German refugees situation, but my point is the Arab nations of the Middle East never did the same with Arabs from Palestine. The Arabs that lived in Palestine were as much Arabs as East Prussians were German. Remember that Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq were all essentially National creations after WW1. Boarders were kind of made up by the British. There was no real national identity for any of these places. Instead of welcoming and resettling the refugees, they used them as political pawns.
From 1948-1967 Gaza was under Egyption control. Israel wanted to give it back to them as part of the Camp David Accords, but Egypt said no. Egypt definitely does not want 2 million Gazans. That is why I think the only real solution is to eliminate Hamas and then invest a ****load of cash into the strip to create economic prosperity.
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
It wouldn't be the first time Israel drove out Palestinians into neighbouring countries where many of them are still stuck in huge refugee camps to this day.
Ghazans already live in what has been described as "the world's biggest prison", completely controlled and dominated by Israel.
And the Arab countries can do nothing against Israel and they all know that. Israel also knows that, and that is a big part of why they act like they do.
I guess you are referring to the original 1948 war, which is when most of the Palestinian refugee's in Gaza were created. I won't argue with you that some (but not all) were "driven out", although the exact reasons that some Arabs left and others stayed is not clear (20% of 1949 Israel was Arab). However, refugees as a result of war is not unusual. Think about the aftermath of WW2. All the German's who lived in East Prussia, the Sudatenland, and parts of Russia were "driven out". For some reason, we don't call the ancestors of these people as refugees. I will also point out, that the there were large numbers (900,000) of Jewish Refugees from Arab countries that were "encouraged" to emmigrate to Isreal, in much the same way that Jews "encouraged" Arabs to leave.
I agree that Gaza is a hell whole and no one wants it. As for Israel's Arab neighbors, you seem to think that they actually care about Palestinians. They don't. Jordan still has 680,000 Palestinian's within its borders that are not Jordanian citizens, even though many of them have been living there for three generations. This idea that Israel alone is responsible for the state of Gaza is one-sided. Gazan's have been screwed by Israel, Arab neighbors, and their own government (Hamas).
-
Israel will invade Gaza and reoccupy for some period of time. Given the number of people killed in the initial Hamas attack, Isreali's will be willing to take the IDF casualties necessary to complete the operation. They will literally go house to house (rubble to rubble) to disarm the entire population. Lots of innocent Gazans will likely die during the operation.
The real question is: What comes next? For the last 30 years zero progress has been made to solve the Palestinian Issue. The two-state solution seems to be dead, but no alternative has emerged. But what other choices are there? The only way a one State solution-only way this would work would be to deny Palestinians full citizenship, i.e. make them 2nd class citizens without full rights. Give them some limitied ability to control their own local areas. Sounds like South Africa in the 1980's to me. Won't be viable in long term. How about a three-state solution? Let Gaza be its own state. Sounds wacky, but after this war Gaza will be in ruins and Israel will be able to dictate what type of government it has next. Think Germany or Japan after ww2. Maybe the strategy should be to offer to rebuild Gaza, set up a democratic government with a constitution, and a time frame after which the Isreali's will leave. Sounds crazy, but this is essentially what happenend to Germany and Japan after ww2.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Not surprisingly, it has been raised as a parallel a number of times since a) it is well documented, b) it took place relatively close by, and c) it had lots and lots and lots of tanks which makes everybody interested in it
There are a number of issues with looking directly at Citadel, the primary one being that the Germans were dangerously positioned when they launched their offensive. When they were bogged down the Soviets were able to successfully smash the Germans into a general retreat. The second major difference is that Hitler imposed this upon the military and made things worse as the offensive went on.
In short, Citadel was not just a battle of attacker vs. entrenched defender, but a disaster from the get go. Who knows how things would have gone if the Germans had developed a more sensible offensive plan or Hitler had not consistently interfered. What we do know is a piss-poor plan against a well laid out defense doesn't seem to work out very well for the attacker.
In the situation with Ukraine it is pretty clear that Russia is spent as an offensive force and sensible military leadership is in control of the operation. For sure Ukraine has some very significant factors making this offensive more difficult than it would be (in theory) for NATO, but it is making progress and doesn't seem to have the sorts of Sword of Damocles hanging over its head like the Germans had for Citadel.
We have had many discussions about the possibility that we are entering an age of "defensive primacy". Too soon to say yet, but it is pretty clear that a well prepared defense with deep and dense minefields protected by artillery, ATGMs, and air power is an extremely difficult nut to crack.
Steve
Just to clarify, the comparison is only to the initial German attacks, not the subsequent Soviet offensive. I don't think that Russia has enough left in reserve to make a serious counter offensive. (Of course I think Bradley said the same thing in December 1944, so who knows?).
-
I have not been following this thread that closely, but it seems to me that the lack of progress in the Ukranian counter offensive reminds me a bit of Kursk in 1943. The Soviets had time to prepare defense in depth and made extensive use of minefields and fixed defensive positions to essentially nullify the German offensive advantage. I think the lesson here is that without massive air superiority, fixed defenses win. Does anyone else see this parallel?
-
4 hours ago, womble said:
For me, WEGO is the only way to play. RT may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. A massive chunk of my enjoyment is in re-watching the turns unfold, finding the engaging little stories that play out. RT simply doesn't give anything like the same opportunity for watching situations develop and resolve.
I hate to miss anything, and even on a small/Tiny map, you will in RT.
I totally agree. Last night I loved watching the reply of the German Infantry man get shot just as he was about to throw his hand grenade. The grenade falls of tile behind him and explodes as he falls to the ground. Sounds a bit gruesome as I write this, but it was so real.
-
1) One of the things I find annoying is trying to figure out the source of sounds on large maps. I hear gunfire or artillery but I can't tell which unit is actually being fired at unless it is hit. I wish there was some sort of notification system that would say "unit X is taking fire".
2) Obviously a follow the road command would be nice for vehicles.
3) I'd pay extra for some formation level commands, i.e. Platoon go here and set up line.
4) Lastly, I don't understand why we can't see actual movement pathways that units will try and use between waypoints. Other games seem to be able to do this, but not CM. I can't tell you how many times I have had units do stupid pathfinding things. I know that good players simply put way points at every square, but it is pain in the ***.
Overall, I still love the game and come back to it over and over. However, these stupid quality of life issues should have been dealt with a long time ago. My suggestion is have ChatGPT help you write some code faster :).
-
Steam is nice because there is no additional book keeping with regards to installing and playing game when you get a new computer. All your games are in one account so you don't have to go back to old emails to try and find battlefront serial numbers. In addition, new patches are automatically installed. Finally, you have a single place to go to buy additional games or DLCs. This is why Steam is so popular. I strongly support the move to Steam and am a bit shocked that Battlefront made the move given their bashing of it in years past.
-
Nice article in NY Times by reporter on ground with troops near Karkiv. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-artillery-kharkiv.html
Sounds like both sides are getting tired and are using artillery and drones to save lives. Just what I would do in CMBS, if I have time.
-
My list:
Little things:
1) Follow road command
2) Adjust fire mission length not just location.
3) Better survival skills for routed troops (i.e. hide more, run less)
4) SOP type order for what to do at first contact with enemy (important for turn based play).
5) Ability to decompile campaign core unit and briefing file. Important for being able to modify campaigns.
Bigger things:
1) Combat medics. Dealing with wounded is not "optional". An aidman is assigned to every platoon. Also, the killed to wounded ratio needs to be tweaked. The ratio seems way off. Lastly, there should be incentive to try and save wounded in the points calculation.
2) Be able to split squads in vehicles.
3) Be able to use aquire command as part of order string, i.e. run to vehicle, aquire Javelin, come back.
4) Shading to show what terrain a unit can currently see. I.e. light areas would be potentially visible to Unit. Would make it a lot easier than using the FIre command tool.
5) Some sort of news feed to let you know when important stuff happens. For instance you might get a message that says "Stryker destroyed". If you click on message it would take you to the right place on the map. Would be extremely useful in large scenarios.
6) Be able to see path that AI will take when clicking on end point.
7) Some sort of way to let the AI headquarters take over part of command. Would involve accessing part of the AI plan for the scenario editor for a particular formation.
-
https://www.the-sun.com/news/us-news/5131995/video-ukrainian-vehicle-destroys-russian-tank-donetsk/
Saw this video. Seems to be a T72 being hit in the side by a BTR4. My favorite though is the article prose:
"But the 44.5 tonne tanks are less mobile and quick to aim than nippy troop carriers like the BTR-4, whose cannons can rapid-fire."
How many people refer to their armored troop carriers as "nippy"?
-
Some random thoughts.
1) When war started, I was in Vermont skiing with an old friend. He thought Zelensky would abandon Ukraine right away: "He's a comedian". I told my friend that if he did, war would be over quick, but if he didn't, this would be no cakewalk. Part of my confidence came from playing CMBS, which really reinforces the lethality of modern warfare. It also told me that hidden infantry with Javelins are really deadly.
2) Russia had 200,000 troops deployed for the invasion. For Barbarossa, Germans deployed 3,000,000. Even for Poland, they deployed 1,000,000. 200K was not going to get the job done.
3) Biggest surprise to me so far is the lack of decisiveness of Russian air superiority. I'd have thought it would be impossible to move on roads in Ukraine. Are Stingers the key here?
4) My biggest worry is tactical nuke option if Putin feels he is losing. Not sure what West would do.
Warren
-
I agree with the original poster. It feels like they are simply getting slower. Perhaps its age.
-
Most recent book was Rick Atkinson's "The British our Coming". It describes the first two years of the Revolutionary War. Excellent.
-
Watched Generation War on AmazonPrime over the last two nights. Had heard it was "German Band of Brothers". Not really. Overall the acting was excellent, the characters were interesting, but not well done from a strictly military/historical perspective.
Spoilers below:
1) I don't think it is realistic that the group of 5 main friends includes a Jewish one. This group was born in 1921, and they certainly all would have been in the hitler youth. Is it really likely that they would have maintained friendship with an openly Jewish character through the summer of 1941? Seems unlikely to me.
2) The one brother is a leiutenant in the Wehrmacht and has seen service in Poland and France. He then goes on to Russia. In 1943 at the battle of Kursk he is still a lieutenant! No way. If this guy has survived that long without injury and is not a total **** up he would have been promoted at least once probably twice. Survival was a good way to get promoted in WW2.
3) One of the characters is a Nurse. It appears she stays with the exact same unit for her entire War experience between 1941-1945. Is that really likely?
4) The lieutenant's younger brother is an enlisted man in his own platoon. I have trouble believing that that would be allowed in the Wehrmacht or any army.
5) The most egregious thing to me is: Why do the Russians have panzerfausts at the battle of Kursk? The Germans don't even have them!
6) Not really good portrayal of German small unit infantry tactics? When assautling the factory, where is the MG34? Why are they using submachine guns to suppress.
7) Polish people did not like the portrayal of the partisans being anti-semitic. I actually was not bothered by this. There were Polish partisan groups that would shoot jews and were anti-semitic. However, other groups did take in Jews and still other groups were primarily Jewish.
Was a bit surprised at how "replacements" were dealt with in show. Seemed like replacements were raw recruits straight from Repo Depot ala US army. My understanding is that in the German Army they would go into a "replacement battalion" where they would be given combat experience before being dolled out to other units.
-
Latest version of scenario.
-
I made this scenario to honor my step-father who was a 19 year old aid-man during this battle (just turned 93). It is based on a battle faught by the CCR of the 5th armored division on November 25, 1944. I have made a little sub-game in which the player can get points for not getting Paul killed and using him to treat wounded soldiers (no cheating!). I would appreciate feedback.
-
How do I specify where camera is when Scenario loads?
-
Just a follow up. I was able to do the modification I wanted using Steinfische's CombatMissionUniversal Utility. It stores the extracted files in a temp folder and this allows you to edit them with the scenario editor and repack them. The only thing you still can't do is modify the core units file itself.
-
I want to modify the Monte Cassino Campaign as there are is a problem in the second scenario (Can't access big gun battery because no forward observer) . I used Mike's ScAn_CaDe tool to unpack the scenarios, and made the modifications using the scenario editor. I then made a new campaign script to create a new campaign using the first scenario as the core unit file. Unfortunately, this does not seem to work. The problem is that in the editor it says "core unit" next to the formation, and the unpacker does not seem to make a true core unit file. I tried making a new core unit file by picking the exact same units and making the names the same, but it still does not work.
Any thoughts?
-
Have they implemented a follow command for road movement in the newest upgrades? They were discussing this a while back, but I'm not sure if it was implemented.
-
Why not have a flag to make micromanagement not so tedious?
Another nice feature would be a "show area targeting" toggle, like they have for movement paths.
Any tips on maximizing the chance of tank v. tank spotting?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
This thesis is interesting. In the literature review section it says that "12 shots were required to kill a AFV in WW2 with and average range of 800 meters. In Destert Storm it was 1.2 at 2200 meters.
https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p4013coll2/id/562/download