delliejonut

You are not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong
Terrain/Casualties
ME: 400/600 pts
Probe: 500/500 pts
Attack: 650/350 pts
Assault: 750/250 pts

Looked and couldn't find these values anywhere. A list of QB battle sizes and types, and their corresponding amounts of purchase points. 
 
Attack   TINY   Defender- 738 Attacker- 1164   SMALL   Defender- 1185 Attacker- 1908   MEDIUM   Defender- 1945 Attacker- 3175   LARGE   Defender- 3236 Attacker- 5327   HUGE   Defender- 5432 Attacker- 8986   Assault   TINY   Defender- 695  Attacker- 1206   SMALL   Defender- 1112 Attacker- 1981   MEDIUM   Defender- 1822 Attacker- 3298   LARGE   Defender- 3027 Attacker- 5536   HUGE   Defender- 5076 Attacker- 9342   Probe   TINY   Defender- 780 Attacker- 1121   SMALL   Defender- 1257 Attacker- 1836   MEDIUM   Defender- 2068 Attacker- 3052   LARGE   Defender- 3445 Attacker- 5118   HUGE   Defender- 5787 Attacker- 8631   Meeting Engagement   TINY   951   SMALL   1547   MEDIUM   2560   LARGE   4282   HUGE   7209

Looked and couldn't find these values anywhere. A list of QB battle sizes and types, and their corresponding amounts of purchase points. 
 
Attack   TINY   Defender- 738 Attacker- 1164   SMALL   Defender- 1185 Attacker- 1908   MEDIUM   Defender- 1945 Attacker- 3175   LARGE   Defender- 3236 Attacker- 5327   HUGE   Defender- 5432 Attacker- 8986   Assault   TINY   Defender- 695  Attacker- 1206   SMALL   Defender- 1112 Attacker- 1981   MEDIUM   Defender- 1822 Attacker- 3298   LARGE   Defender- 3027 Attacker- 5536   HUGE   Defender- 5076 Attacker- 9342   Probe   TINY   Defender- 780 Attacker- 1121   SMALL   Defender- 1257 Attacker- 1836   MEDIUM   Defender- 2068 Attacker- 3052   LARGE   Defender- 3445 Attacker- 5118   HUGE   Defender- 5787 Attacker- 8631   Meeting Engagement   TINY   951   SMALL   1547   MEDIUM   2560   LARGE   4282   HUGE   7209

Looked and couldn't find these values anywhere. A list of QB battle sizes and types, and their corresponding amounts of purchase points. 
 
Attack   TINY   Defender- 738 Attacker- 1164   SMALL   Defender- 1185 Attacker- 1908   MEDIUM   Defender- 1945 Attacker- 3175   LARGE   Defender- 3236 Attacker- 5327   HUGE   Defender- 5432 Attacker- 8986   Assault   TINY   Defender- 695  Attacker- 1206   SMALL   Defender- 1112 Attacker- 1981   MEDIUM   Defender- 1822 Attacker- 3298   LARGE   Defender- 3027 Attacker- 5536   HUGE   Defender- 5076 Attacker- 9342   Probe   TINY   Defender- 780 Attacker- 1121   SMALL   Defender- 1257 Attacker- 1836   MEDIUM   Defender- 2068 Attacker- 3052   LARGE   Defender- 3445 Attacker- 5118   HUGE   Defender- 5787 Attacker- 8631   Meeting Engagement   TINY   951   SMALL   1547   MEDIUM   2560   LARGE   4282   HUGE   7209

Looked and couldn't find these values anywhere. A list of QB battle sizes and types, and their corresponding amounts of purchase points. 
 
Attack   TINY   Defender- 738 Attacker- 1164   SMALL   Defender- 1185 Attacker- 1908   MEDIUM   Defender- 1945 Attacker- 3175   LARGE   Defender- 3236 Attacker- 5327   HUGE   Defender- 5432 Attacker- 8986   Assault   TINY   Defender- 695  Attacker- 1206   SMALL   Defender- 1112 Attacker- 1981   MEDIUM   Defender- 1822 Attacker- 3298   LARGE   Defender- 3027 Attacker- 5536   HUGE   Defender- 5076 Attacker- 9342   Probe   TINY   Defender- 780 Attacker- 1121   SMALL   Defender- 1257 Attacker- 1836   MEDIUM   Defender- 2068 Attacker- 3052   LARGE   Defender- 3445 Attacker- 5118   HUGE   Defender- 5787 Attacker- 8631   Meeting Engagement   TINY   951   SMALL   1547   MEDIUM   2560   LARGE   4282   HUGE   7209

How about snow cut with a much cheaper drug

I'm fairly new here, but I'm starting to understand the stress that Steve and his crew are under, or more accurately, put themselves under. By having the best product of its type in the world, BFC doom themselves to the demands of people who want a perfect simulation. They obviously want perfection- why else would they be here? Alas, perfection is not possible, due to both hardware and manpower constraints. Sure, there's a huge list of awesome additions everyone would like to see, but the BFC staff are Elite Fanatic +2 Leadership, so they are small in number. 

Being poor (my chosen occupation is music) I can't buy every single thing that Steve puts out. I'd like to though. However, during my time here I've learned to accept that things happen the way they happen for a reason. If the Bulge comes out and it doesn't have new snow textures- so what? You might argue that it's important, but reality being what it is... is it?

Recap: I'm broke, and some of you have extra copies. Give them to me :D

How about snow cut with a much cheaper drug

I'm fairly new here, but I'm starting to understand the stress that Steve and his crew are under, or more accurately, put themselves under. By having the best product of its type in the world, BFC doom themselves to the demands of people who want a perfect simulation. They obviously want perfection- why else would they be here? Alas, perfection is not possible, due to both hardware and manpower constraints. Sure, there's a huge list of awesome additions everyone would like to see, but the BFC staff are Elite Fanatic +2 Leadership, so they are small in number. 

Being poor (my chosen occupation is music) I can't buy every single thing that Steve puts out. I'd like to though. However, during my time here I've learned to accept that things happen the way they happen for a reason. If the Bulge comes out and it doesn't have new snow textures- so what? You might argue that it's important, but reality being what it is... is it?

Recap: I'm broke, and some of you have extra copies. Give them to me :D

I played a QB against Bootie, aka Shane Greer recently, with only infantry and light armored vehicles. We both fired some canister rounds at each other. Here's a pic of one of my shots going off.
 

 
No bugs here, he was obviously trying to destroy Bootie's death star. Jokes aside though, canister is extremely lethal against all infantry, whether in the open or in cover. Anybody even poking their head up above a windowsill was a candidate for ventilation. 
 
 
Stop.

If he's wrong about something, wouldn't it be better to say as much and debunk him with evidence? I'd much rather read that coversation. Your current system of downvoting and bullying is a little lacking for all parties involved.
 
Don't fear, it's just the internet.

I read through the linked threads, for the most part. I don't think you're at all wrong in critiquing John when you feel that he has said something untrue. Everyone should be open to critique- it's necessary and healthy.
 
However, critique is not my problem. Caustic behavior towards other individuals is. If someone posting a rebuttal does so negatively then logic is displaced, and there can be no genuine discussion. At that point, because of negativity bias, all discussion will become paranoid, defensive, and aggressive. 
 
I know you guys have a history I don't fully understand, but both parties are valid, even if one side is sometimes incorrect. I'm not asking you to stop fact checking or become apathetic. Just try to pretend that other people on the forums are actually people. 
 
Source

I read through the linked threads, for the most part. I don't think you're at all wrong in critiquing John when you feel that he has said something untrue. Everyone should be open to critique- it's necessary and healthy.
 
However, critique is not my problem. Caustic behavior towards other individuals is. If someone posting a rebuttal does so negatively then logic is displaced, and there can be no genuine discussion. At that point, because of negativity bias, all discussion will become paranoid, defensive, and aggressive. 
 
I know you guys have a history I don't fully understand, but both parties are valid, even if one side is sometimes incorrect. I'm not asking you to stop fact checking or become apathetic. Just try to pretend that other people on the forums are actually people. 
 
Source

Sublime and delliejonut,
 
As I've said kindly, explicitly, even pointedly to LukeFF, Wicky et al., Steve asked me quite some time ago not to start threads on certain topics, and I haven't. Those named have repeatedly and with malice aforethought made it a point to drag those very things from a certain place I mustn't name to over here, then have proceeded to hit me when they know I can't hit back. Moreover, they've done so despite my further pointing out that what they were doing was directly injurious to me, for I'm under medical instructions I'm not supposed to be stressed. They still did it. They have called me names, attributed things to me that weren't true, belittled me, called me a liar and deliberately baited me in the hope I'll slip. I did so once, on the old board. Wicky dragged out a technical mistake I made, a point I've many times admitted my error concerning. He kept hammering away at me thereafter with spurious claims, and I, angered and  swept up in righteous indignation, posted a fateful link. That got me a Moon rocket. I haven't made that same mistake twice. On this board, I got a warning for an offense not even on the books, yet the three of them flout the Forum Rules at will, but nothing ever happens. You can see the pattern for yourself in thread after thread starting with the disastrous emoticon post. Over and over again a certain Admin lets them tear me to pieces, and when I, sometimes accompanied by others, object, defend myself, call for appropriate behavior and even quote the malefactors the Forum Rules, magically a thread lock appears, with not so much as a word of reproof. Which, of course, empowers them to do it again. When it gets so bad  that other Members are quoting them the Forum Rules, pointing out stalkerish behavior, baiting and the like, who is the problem? It assuredly isn't me. And that's not just my opinion, but the published views of other Members. 
 
I will happily debate the views, the issues, the concepts, the facts and more as they apply to the games, weapon capabilities and military history. Equally, I will share my own direct experience where relevant and permitted. Nor do I make any claim of infallible memory. Indeed, I've many times said I could be wrong. This is supposed to be a civilized, family friendly place. It generally is, but we have board bullies. And as bullies do, these pick on those least able to defend themselves. On those who are different. It is rude, uncouth, low and boorish not merely to conduct forbidden ad hominem attacks, but to do so when the one being attacked is on the ground, bound hand and foot and has already been kicked in the head!  Let me be blunt: 
 
There is absolutely no excuse or justification, even if someone hates me outright, for ad hominem attacks, slander, character assassination, insults, intimidation and a laundry list of other offenses against the Forum Rules, commonly accepted social standards and simple human decency. What these malefactors are doing to me is profoundly violative and hurtful. I wish to be able to go about my lawful occasions on the Forums without being vexed, annoyed, harassed and attacked. This is my right as someone who carefully abides by the Forum Rules.
 
Canister Effectiveness
 
To claim that canister had no utility in the bocage is the same as saying six HMG-42s firing simultaneously at the same target, from spitting distance, have no effect. Anyone here care to make that argument? HMG-42 at full cyclic rate puts out 20 rds/sec. The 37 mm canister round puts out 122 in vastly less than that in an instant. If the MG in the bocage is able to shoot into that field, it stands to reason that blast after blast of the intensity I described and going at the German MG position is going to have an effect. The greater the fire density over unit time, at least to a certain point, the greater the suppression and shock effect. This is the basis of the WW II TOT, the basis of concentrated surprise fire by Pakfronts, the longstanding virtue of the ambush. Canister creates instantaneous fire superiority. Supporting my argument is this M4 Sherman Wiki excerpt. It's under "Miscellaneous."
 
"The 75 mm gun also had an effective canister round that functioned as a large shotgun. In the close fighting of the French bocage, the 2nd Armored Division tanks used Culin Hedgerow Cutters fitted to their tanks to push three tanks together through a hedgerow. The flank tanks would clear the back of the hedgerow on their side with canister rounds while the center tank would engage and suppress known or suspected enemy positions on the next hedgerow. This approach permitted surprisingly fast progress through the very tough and well-defended hedgerows in Normandy. Over 500 sets of these were fitted to US armored vehicles, and many fitted to various British tanks (where they were called "Prongs")."
 
That canister round was designated T30. Source: M4 Sherman at War, Michael Green and James D. Brown, on page 68, last paragraph, bottom right.
 
Doug Williams,
 
Then I should be okay, for I'm working with SLIM to figure out GaJ's CM Helper.
 
LukeFF and JonS,
 
Not only do you not listen, but you apparently can't read anymore, either. I have many times now asked you to leave me in peace, yet here you are again trashing me. I look forward to seeing how you talk your way out of what I just posted on canister: information that's credible, is fully in accord with demonstrated combat realities, and is multiply documented. I may well be wrong on the Stuart assault technique, but I'm right on the use and efficacy of canister in bocage warfare. 
 
Bud_B,
 
The M8 has canister, is self-evidently firing same in the pic you provided, and it is wholly appropriate it should be doing so. In case you have any doubts, Steve Zaloga, noted weapon expert and armor writer (not to mention a tremendous modeler), lists three ammo types for the M8: AP, HE and canister. Page 19 of his Greyhound Light Armored Car 1941-1991. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

For those playing along at home; after being called out on repeating previously-shown-to-be-wrong information, Kettler has now moved on to
i) a weird MilHist version of the Gish Gallop
ii) various forms of "woe is me, it's all just sooooo unfair"
iii) flooding the board with irrelevant, quickly googled, links
iv) vigorously contesting points nobody has made
all of which, like the repetition thing, we've seen dozens of times before.
 
Would anyone like to place a bet as to which of his 'tactics' will be trotted out next?

I read through the linked threads, for the most part. I don't think you're at all wrong in critiquing John when you feel that he has said something untrue. Everyone should be open to critique- it's necessary and healthy.
 
However, critique is not my problem. Caustic behavior towards other individuals is. If someone posting a rebuttal does so negatively then logic is displaced, and there can be no genuine discussion. At that point, because of negativity bias, all discussion will become paranoid, defensive, and aggressive. 
 
I know you guys have a history I don't fully understand, but both parties are valid, even if one side is sometimes incorrect. I'm not asking you to stop fact checking or become apathetic. Just try to pretend that other people on the forums are actually people. 
 
Source

What
what
....
what are you talking about?
 
Not sure if I had a stroke while reading this.