Jump to content

Seedorf81

Members
  • Posts

    940
  • Joined

Posts posted by Seedorf81

  1. Hmm... never seen an enemy surrender and then attack again.

    I recall that this behavior is described in the manual; when a surrendering unit isn't approached/"touched" by enemy troops within a certain amount of time, they get back in the fight, though their morale is much worse.

    Looks like a real-life thinghy: I mean, when one tries to surrender but no enemy shows up to tell you where to go/what to do, some soldiers will pick up their guns and fight on or head back to friendly troops.

  2. Ok, given info makes sense, thanks again everyone.

    About c3k's D-Day pictures remarks:

    Robert Capa, a famous war correspondent, was at Omaha beach with the first wave.

    He took more than a hundred pictures, and those must have been some of the best war-pics ever, I think.

    Film was rushed back, where impatience from an lab employee overheated the film during the drying process. Just eight photo's remained.

    See for more details once more the magnificent site www.strijdbewijs.nl

    To go directly to story of the D-day photo's: http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/robert/capa.htm

    That is the Dutch page, I know there is an English version, but I don't know whether the Capa story is translated yet.

  3. Thanks for info thus far.

    Strangely enough it never bothered me, until I watched some of those (sometimes endless) Syria YouTube clips. Off course , our technology is a million times better than in ww2, but I really believed they had the possibility to film for longer periods than we see in the documentaries. Wrongly, apparently.

    Still think it's a real shame they couldn't or wouldn't provide us with longer runs.

  4. Does anybody know why practically all the WW2 documentary movie-clips are so ridiculously short?

    I mean, in those days they must have had camera's with more film on it than the oh so very often shown two-to-seven seconds lasting shots. Every time I see WW2 documentaries I think: he, cameraman, why the f#^k don't you keep on rolling? (or maybe the editors cut the sequences that short?)

    If the cameraman was directly in harm's way, I would understand, but even in non-combat situations the clips are annoyingly short.

    Maybe there are some film/camera-grogs that can explain this phenomena?

  5. I don't think I've ever seen anything suggesting that the Soviets were quite that close to their invasion of Germany (they'd've been better prepared to withstand Barbarossa), but it's a near certainty that Uncle Joe was planning to enter the war offensively at some point. If the Germans had been busy elsewhere (Seelowe, perhaps, or properly getting stuck in to Africa) the fall of Berlin would have been rapid.

    I do not agree. If Stalin had attacked Germany before Barbarossa started, he had to do that with the same incompetent Army that fought the Fins and that was swept away in the late summer of 1941.

    As I see it the Germans would not only have been able to stop such a Russian assault, but they would have had even more chance to reach Moscow with their counterattacks. The Russians at that time weren't flexible enough to go from attack to defense and their defensive lines would have been even worse than during Barbarossa.

    Sometimes a defeat leads to better things; like in 1939/1940 when the Royal British air force and the army lost enormous amounts of material and equipment. That turned out to be a blessing in disguise because after getting involuntary rid of obsolete crap, they were forced to come up with new, modern stuff. By the time that arrived, a lot of the German stuff was outdated.

    Stalin's "luck" with the massive losses of Barbarossa led not only to way better material, but - in my view much more important - also to a better trained, more flexible, free to make their own decisions officer corps.

    An early attack on Germany with the "old" Red Army would probably have led to disaster for the Russians.

  6. I once played an CMBN scenario (or was it a battle in a campaign) where I had the same (rather ridiculous, as I see it) invincibility of a Panther tank.

    It also had it's main gun damaged, but it proved impossible to destroy. Three Shermans, one a 76, blasting away in vain. I stopped counting the seemingly perfect hits after 40 but at least another 20 followed. Finally with these three Shermans within 10 feet, the Panther crew decided to bail, which wasn't a very sensible move.

    Can't recall any other scenario's where this uber-uber-ubermensch Panther appeared, but at the time I was convinced there was something wrong with the game (in those circumstances).

    Your Panther looks the same..

  7. Wow, how could an award to an entertainment unit which it got for being entertaining in 5 campaigns so easily be confused for an individual award for outstanding valor on the battlefield?

    Anyways, its a good reminder about not taking all war stories at face value and that it is adequate to question some of the more, lets say "outlandish" ones. Just recently I read about that German artist, who was a radio operator in a Stuka and claimed that he crashed and was subsequently saved by Crimean Tartars who kept him for several days, which somehow should explain he used fat and felt in his pieces so much (which they supposedly used to heal him). Turns out, the crash happened, but he was actually picked up by a German patrol soon after.

    It still happens..

    A few years ago I met a man at work who told everybody that he had been a sniper in Iraq. When I said that the Dutch hadn't been fighting there, he instantly replied that he had been in a very secret special ops unit. Ok, I thought, that is, be it very unlikely, a possibility. But as soon as I asked him about what weapons he had been using, he started mumbling. After a few extra questions it turned out he had never been in any military organization whatsoever!

    He'd made up the entire story..

×
×
  • Create New...