StieliAlpha

IIRC, “limbered” means it is not “deployed”. Currently in one of my games, I am „manually“ moving an AT, which has been „unhooked“ from it‘s transport in a save location and will have to “deploy”, when it is in place.

I must admit, such „weird“ substitutions put me off some otherwise interesting CMx1 scenarios. I remember some Spanish Civil War Scenarios, based on CMAK (?, hm, not quite sure actually). Anyway, though the overall result may have been about right, they simply did not look right.

Ah, thanks. Looks like I jumped to the end of the thread too soon. And, yep, after reading Elvis‘ post, I remember. Same procedure as with earlier patches.

How does it work with the new patches and ongoing PBEM games?

Whow. Great catch! Though, a little different from the Falkland War documentaries, which I‘ve seen till today. I found the historical part in the beginning interesting. I did not know or remember, how contested the Islands where in the past few hundred years. The rest, gosh, though it’s qitevfunny, it’s frightening. It seems quite recent and raises a certain fear of new and old nationalism. But probably Argentinians nationalists are not the most frightening nationalists right now.

I would not worry now. Just wait for the next FI module (and, more important, hope it appears “soon”) and follow the instructions. Most probably it will be an “all in one package, anyway.

Ok, my friend. I finally was desperate enough, finished some other stuff and had no books to read for days now, to buy the package of the first three Culture books. I’ll let you know how it comes out.

Interesting, indeed. I read through it only to the end of the war, but there would be loads to discuss. First of all, it is „difficult“ to throw, even people with advanced military back ground, into a wargame with it’s own rules Even if, as in this case, somebody takes care of the „accountant work“, aka “logistics“. Plus, “untrained” teams were forced to take strategic and operational decision probably far beyond their scope. Then, this is not a game or scenario of a game series to end within two days. Plus, much more... But, I admit: Board games can teach a lot very quickly. I remember my first session of “Civilization”. Being a wargamer „by trade”, I started a border war with my neighbour. And we still fought our Stone Age battles, when the other players advanced to Iron Age.

Never heard about it. But the Amazon ratings sound good. I am tempted to buy a package with the first three books. Is it as difficult to read as people say?

Brilliant 1960’s (or so) Science Fiction. Luckily quite “de-dusted” in the latest version. It’s a bit like Starship Troopers, but much more serious. You can get the Kindle version for fairly little money.

Gents, I just finished an updated (German) version of Haldenmann‘s „The forever war“. I read it first, say, 40 years ago and now again, in a sort of “Director’s Cut” Version. And the style has been adapted to sound a little more modern. I understand it‘s the same for the new English version I must say: Whow! I loved it then and I love it today. Especially the first exchange between aliens and mankind: “Why did you start this war? Who, we?”

Whow, I am afraid, I do not agree with you too often, here it is fully due!

And this is extremely true!

Another point to mention: RT is not the typical Eastern Front game, since it covers Operation Bagration only. Unfortunately, there is no early war module, no Kursk, no Stalingrad... And those probably won’t ‘t be there for a very long time.

Yep, I forgot to mention the very different strategic situation.

Well, the terrain is difficult, the weather at the time of the year is difficult, the weapons are more deadly than in the earlier games... So, yes, I guess there are some factors to make life difficult. But than, I hate Panzerschrecks hiding in the Bocage...

Hi Falaise Be a little careful refering to this book. I read only the first few pages and found it propagates a sort of disgusting „Dolchstoss-Legende“ (just like in WW1). Along the lines “Without German help, the Yanks would not have won in the Normandy.“ But then, the French never lost at Waterloo, did they? No, seriously, the Rommel citation may be true, but this „pamphlet“ is nothing to refer too.

Though I mostly agree with your post, I don’t agree too/understand the above comment. The requirement for “civil authority” to finance projects, does not explain the current tendency in Germany to mess up large projects, aka the Berlin Airport, the Stuttgart railway station or even the renovation of the Gorch Fock, etc. One reason may be the (perceived) need to deflate initial cost estimates in order to achieve public acceptance. On the other hand, to deliver projects with public approval within time, quality and (reasonably) within budget works in other places (Switzerland comes to my mind). Anyway, to come to a conclusion here, would be a whole new discussion. And certainly a “political” one.

There is a nice description of Black Buck 1 in the German Wikipedia (Though it is certainly not the most scientific source and Wicky’s link states, that many “known details” of BB1 are unclear or debatable). According to the Wikipedia article, 2 Vulcan and 11 tankers were necessary to bring one Vulcan to Port Stanley. Of those, 1 Vulcan and 2 tankers were “reserves”. A quite complicated re-fuelling pattern had to be developed, where e.g. the last tanker was met by outbound tankers to be refuelled on the return leg. That’s sounds like quite an exercise. Further acc to that article, the Vulcan carried 21 special bombs, designed to drill into the ground for a few meters before explosion. The idea was to create earth quake like ripples in order to damage the run way even with near hits. The article says, the Vulcan scored only one direct hit. Acc to Wicky’s article, it is being debated, if the Vulcan scored a hit at all. The main damage was done by a follow-up Harrier raid, which scored another three hits. In any case, the runway damage was sufficient to render it useless for Argentine jets. Though, acc to Wicky’s article again, it seems like the Argentine had given up the idea to station jets in Port Stanley before the bombing already. And, yep, it was a fairly “near run thing”. After the landing, the British Fleet was quite much confined in the narrow channel between the two Falkland Islands. Plus, the about 40 Sea Harriers had a pretty hard time against about 200 Argentine planes. Thus the loss of something like 5 major ships. Not to forget the landing ship Sir Galahad, which was hit while unloading Welsh Guards.

May be. You know, people can die without clearvadvise. Therefore this highlight from a general field manual: “At a water depth of 1.3m, the soldier independently starts with swimming movements.”

Yep, my favourite example from Bundeswehr field manuals for Armoured Reccon Troops read like: The “Panzeraufklärer“ makes contact with the enemy and fights them successfully.“ IIRC, after my service time the Bundeswehr tried to revise such non-sense.

I think the intended message was, that the Brits were going in for serious business. Backed up a few days later, with the sinking of the „General Belgrano“. Another „Falkland War“ speciality: The first (and to date last) major war ship sank after WW2.

Yep, that was one strange opening to a strange war. IIRC, they scored two hits on the runway, which were filled a day later already. But the message was quite clear.

Be careful with the design. Since water is incompressible, you will need a soft cushion between melon and armor plate. Say,, a layer of bananas.

Interesting, in a way. Quite true in many ways. But quite biased, too. What the author says is: We need a discussion, but the result must comply with my opinion.