Fascine Reprise

[Spook]

And has been related by BTS earlier, it will be less likely for moving troops to fire in CMBB & afterwards unless under the newly-planned "assault" order.

Combined with this is the present ability in CM to add the "hide" command at the end of any movement plot. So if what you want, Brian, is for your troops not to shoot at the end of their movement, by their hiding, then you have the means to do so (although not 100% guaranteed to work). The troops don't have to wait until the next turn for a hide order to be applied.

We'll thus have to wait & see in CMBB how well "moving fire" can be better controlled.

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

and personal attacks against me (fun fun fun!!!) left for the school yard or the Peng Thread

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, or your attack on me (and others) for misspelling, and your constructive opinions as "you are an idiot" etc.

I just had to say something here. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as so many of the posts in this thread, but this really just shows what a hipocrite (hey, misspelling (?) Slappy, one of your favorite reasons to attack somebody!) you are Slappy!

Maybe you should look to yourself before you critize others? I still belive in miracles....

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Yeah, or your attack on me (and others) for misspelling, and your constructive opinions as "you are an idiot" etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HEY! That's supposed to be spelled 'idjit'! Sheesh...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Yeah, or your attack on me (and others) for misspelling, and your constructive opinions as "you are an idiot" etc.

I just had to say something here. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as so many of the posts in this thread, but this really just shows what a hipocrite (hey, misspelling (?) Slappy, one of your favorite reasons to attack somebody!) you are Slappy!

Maybe you should look to yourself before you critize others? I still belive in miracles....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, I have never attacked you for mispelling (provide a link please if I have attacked anyone for misspelling), so I guess this is just troll trying to add confusion . And what happened to that 350 word "I quit" commentary you posted?

Idiotic Whiney Leaving the Forum Post

Anyway, there is no point in responding to you. Add something useful to the conversation or not. I will, however, leave you with a quote from Kwazydog about your behavior here:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer76, we sorry to see you leave the forum in this way. The topic you are mainly concerned with was indeed hotly debated, but I think that was to be expected. Everyone was entitled to their opinions though and I was glad it didnt turn into an all out flame war as I expected it too, especially considering some of the comments that were made. I find it unfortunate that you feel the need to leave because others did not share your opinions on certain matters, but that is your choice and I wish you the best. Maybe once youve had a rest from the forum it wouldnt hurt to take another look at the thread in question... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(By the way, you spelled believe wrong also )

(Ohh, sorry -- one more thing. In your "final" post you asked me how big I was in real life. I am 1.9 meters in my service boots and mass maybe 90 without street gear but in uniform, which is the last time those things got measured. Not sure why you wanted to know, but there it is. )

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

dang double post..

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Maybe you should look to yourself before you critize others? I still belive in miracles....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, looking at Slapdragon's topic thread link that he provided, Panzer, it seems that Clubfoot, in that previous thread, gave a rather scathing point-by-point critique on your own forum behavior.

Before you see fit to further get on Slap's case, would you be willing to rebut Clubfoot's points if they were quoted here?

Or do we all see fit to finally leave all of that lay? And again attempt logical discourse on CM-related issues, even if vaguely logical?

[Simon Fox]

Excuse me Panzer76 but kindly go and start your own Slapdragon bashing thread, this is my one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jacko:

dang double post..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You complete and utter idjit!

tabpup is of course correct. The sneak command seems to do this at the moment especially if terminated with a hide. Much to my chagrin on occasions. Can't wait for that "move to contact" command.

[Panzer76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Boy, I have never attacked you for mispelling (provide a link please if I have attacked anyone for misspelling), so I guess this is just troll trying to add confusion .

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Panzer76:

A bit parnoid, are we?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish I knew what being parnoid is, I might agree.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you make a point of my misspelling, even though it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, just so you can try to belittle me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

"and personal attacks against me (fun fun fun!!!) left for the school yard or the Peng Thread

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Idiotic Whiney Leaving the Forum Post

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But personal attacks on me is ok, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

conversation or not. I will, however, leave you with a quote from Kwazydog about your behavior here:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the relevance is?!...

He just states that the topic was "hotly debated".

As for me leaving, I just couldn't bring myself to shut up when Slappy where being such a hipocrite, just had to point it out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Before you see fit to further get on Slap's case, would you be willing to rebut Clubfoot's points if they were quoted here?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't agree with some of the points he makes. I was the first to begin swearing, well if saying "bull****" is swearing, then I did so, but I also apologized for it afterwards and refrained for doing so again.

My "Tampa" post was ofcourse a very "hot" topic, bringing to the surface lots of nationalistic feelings. And I guess I could have choosen my wording a bit more carefully.

And as a consquence of that I became hugly unpopular with quite a few Aussies, and some others as well. But this has nothing to do with the subject, (as most of the posts on this thread ) and I'm sorry that I made even more OT.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Well, I don't agree with some of the points he makes. I was the first to begin swearing, well if saying "bull****" is swearing, then I did so, but I also apologized for it afterwards and refrained for doing so again.

My "Tampa" post was ofcourse a very "hot" topic, bringing to the surface lots of nationalistic feelings. And I guess I could have choosen my wording a bit more carefully.

And as a consquence of that I became hugly unpopular with quite a few Aussies, and some others as well. But this has nothing to do with the subject, (as most of the posts on this thread ) and I'm sorry that I made even more OT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not feed the Troll gentleman. Besides, anyone who thinks my comment on Parnoid was a serious attack does indeed have problems that wont be solved on this board. Better to let him troll and leave him be.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Slapdragon - agreed. If there is anything left worth discussing, let's start a new thread.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Well, I don't agree with some of the points he makes. I was the first to begin swearing, well if saying "bull****" is swearing, then I did so, but I also apologized for it afterwards and refrained for doing so again.

My "Tampa" post was ofcourse a very "hot" topic, bringing to the surface lots of nationalistic feelings. And I guess I could have choosen my wording a bit more carefully.

And as a consquence of that I became hugly unpopular with quite a few Aussies, and some others as well. But this has nothing to do with the subject, (as most of the posts on this thread ) and I'm sorry that I made even more OT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, now children..........

Take two asprin and come back in the morning when BOTH of you have had time to think and to hone your skills in gamesmanship.

Anyway, I cannot see this argument (more like two cats stuck in a forty-four (imperial) gallon drum spitting and scratching at each other) going anywhere (but then where have many of them gone anyway ?)

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I remember the old SOP discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I question that as, IIRC, I was the first to make that suggestion...three years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and it was not a bad idea...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Thank you.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then more accurately, the old SOP that existed 2 years ago when I first joined (pre huge server crash). I remember because it was the first time I called Germanboy a wanker.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

If I've given them hide orders, I expect them not to fire, even if I move them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A move order cancels a hide order. Period.

You might try, as has already been suggested, using sneak. Alternatively, a unit running will not fire so far as I have seen.

Michael

[edited to remove redundancy; still trying to set a good example ]

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Mulga Bill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

My proposal is that being in a a practice ambush in training is great, I did that when I was 17 in the FNG. The little targets pop, you all shot on command, ande then walk home. But what if those little targets had popped to the rear, or what if three guys in the end think they hear the PL fire, or whatever.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I would suggest that your "FNG" (Florida National Guard?) did not train you particularly well, Mr.Slapdragon 'cause you obviously failed to make the necessarily leap from a training experience to a learning experience.

No one is suggesting that soldiers are perfect and that they will always perform as they are ordered. Rather the point being made is that training does count for something. When you are trained to conduct an ambush in a particular manner, more often than not, your men will do as their training has instructed them and perform their ambush in that particular manner.

As a veteran of many years experience, I'd also suggest that there is a world of difference between how part-time soldiers and in particular American part-time soldiers going by my experience of them train and how full-time soldiers train.

I don't doubt that you'll take that as a "nationalistic slur" or something like that - in reality it is an analysis based upon my experience. Are you going to call that experience into doubt, Mr.Slapdragon?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for military service needed to be a historian, the famous historian Barbara Tuchman said, "I know of few who served in the trenches of World War One, or at the Battle of Agincourt, so I guess we can no longer write about it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is suggesting that either. What we are calling into question is YOU telling people who do have a hell of a lot more experience of how the military works, how it works. You seem to think that unless evidence is presented to you in a book or has been written down, or corroberated from multiple sources which you can access, it does not count for anything.

As an historian, I'd suggest that you've failed the first lesson of what history is, with that sort of attitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My question to those who want this is how many years of combat service did they get in WW2, and in what theaters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the lesson you should be learning Mr.Slapdragon is that you shouldn't be trying to teach those who have already done it, how it should be done.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

You'd be surprised. How many years combat or even military experience do you have? Lets see you lay your cards on the table first, shall we? I am to coin a phrase, "calling your bluff".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When BTS banned your accounts, they likely did not inted you to keep showing up Mr. "Beazly." They banned them for what I assume they felt are a good reason. It is not my place to second guess their banning of you, or the lack of credibility you have attained here in a very short time. As Micheal and Andreas pointed out, there are some real dolts in the military, along with some very high quality people. Being in the military for a long time does not make one a dolt or a quality human being. It merely makes them part of the military.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

When BTS banned your accounts, they likely did not inted you to keep showing up Mr. "Beazly." They banned them for what I assume they felt are a good reason. It is not my place to second guess their banning of you, or the lack of credibility you have attained here in a very short time. As Micheal and Andreas pointed out, there are some real dolts in the military, along with some very high quality people. Being in the military for a long time does not make one a dolt or a quality human being. It merely makes them part of the military.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this you erecting another strawman, slappy? You appear to have taken it to a completely new height, if thats the case 'cause I cannot find the quote you supply any where in Bill's message.

They may be "part of the military", Slappy, but its obvious it also provides them with something - experience in a military environment of that environment.

Yet you continiously denigrate, belittle and ignore their experience for some reason.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Tread Head]

N.G. = nasty girls :eek:

That is at least what we called them. Crazy bunch, those week-end warriors. Seen to many of them doing training while I was active. They wanted me when I got out, No Thanks. I would of rather joined the Boy Scouts!

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Is this you erecting another strawman, slappy? You appear to have taken it to a completely new height, if thats the case 'cause I cannot find the quote you supply any where in Bill's message.

They may be "part of the military", Slappy, but its obvious it also provides them with something - experience in a military environment of that environment.

Yet you continiously denigrate, belittle and ignore their experience for some reason.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trolls to the left of me, Trolls to the right! Well this thread is dead. Zed is dead babe, Zed is dead.

Brian, the banned and returned Beazley did something called edit his post ex-posto facto. That means after the fact in Australian. However -- there is no need for us to fight. We might as well hug, admit there is not conflct in the world, that history is an illusion, and that Australian can play soccer.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Trolls to the left of me, Trolls to the right! Well this thread is dead. Zed is dead babe, Zed is dead.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it? Who made you a doctor, Slappy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Brian, the banned and returned Beazley did something called edit his post ex-posto facto. That means after the fact in Australian.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If true, then why not react to the final form he desired the post to be rather than the initial one?

Appears to me, between what you claim he wrote and what he edited it to read, he adopted much less inflammatory language.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

However -- there is no need for us to fight. We might as well hug, admit there is not conflct in the world, that history is an illusion, and that Australian can play soccer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, it would take a remarkably cold day in a very hot place before that could or would happen.

[Slapdragon]

Reminds me of a story. There was this gentleman who was a pot scrubber in the Army. Best darn pot scrubber in the military, and not bad at scrubbing latrines either. Good at his job, cheerful, obediant, and generally an all round nice chap.

He comes to this board and writes, "Tiger Tanks can fly". When questioned about it, his proof is, "I know, because I have been in the military for 20 years."

Generally, when someone falls back to saying, "I know because I have x number of years of experience" it is because they have no proof or back up for their assumptions -- otherwise they would have presented it instead. Usually, when someone attacks another persons experience, it is because they cannot refute the other person's arguments.

I would put forward it is better to be someone who is willing to listen to 500 people and read 500 books and do 50 tests of data than someone who is always forced to say, "in my personal experience" because that is all they have. That does not make them invalid, it is just that you have 500 data points on one hand, and one on the other.

This is a basic lesson in historical methods that learned on day one, divorce personal experience and listen to the data.

Now when I was making jokes about the pick on Slapdragon thing, I should have taken it seriously and pointed out that what I stand for is a method of discussing simulation and historical subjects based on proven qualitative and quantitative methods. Against this is an array of people who basically take a much less scientific approach.

Dealing with new age medicine, ghosts, the lock ness monster, and the like, you will always find people who have read a book like "Chariots of the Gods", or "Under Loch Ness" and now know, without further testing or proof, and without critical attempts at judging the book, that their is a Loch Ness Monster, Aliens helped build the Pyramids, Vitamin O increases sexual potency, and 14 people shot at President Kennedy in a world spanning plot to over throw the current world order.

No amount of evidence will fix this. Then you add some spurious accountings of experience, "I know there are ghosts because my Grandma saw one", or "I shoot and know the book repository shot was impossible," or "I have been a cop for 20 years and know there is a world order that flies black helicopters around and anal probes citizens" since it is not based on any evidence that can be tested.

It gets worse when you talk about simulation (war gaming) since you need to abstract historical events and code them into a game that simulates those events. Here you need to gather evidence of a dozen different types, weigh its good and bad, and then apply it to a sim that makes a good attempt to model a little part of the real world.

As we can see in this thread and others, discussion of this is very difficult. The reasons why are numerous:

Nationalism: My Tiger was Killed, Germans made perfect tanks....

Flame Baiting: The Germans all sucked and so do you.

Inability to handle critique of proposals: I have the right to say what I want to say and you cannot comment on it.

Childish or dishonorable behavior: Multiple accounts, getting around BTS edicts with new accounts etc.

All of which stand in the way of an adult conversation.

[Spook]

Checking out of this thread (tipping the bellhop along the way), I will add a point that stands to be iterated.

CM posters here with military experience, or also experience as a war veteran, can certainly be of value here in relating their views. Most of us here, and BTS, do know this. Where the military poster has his greatest value, however, is if he/she is experienced with the military subject on hand. By example of "combat engineering," Warren (The Capt) has had sufficient past experience to help in discussions for that subject.

The viewpoint of the combat veteran is also always of value, providing a unique perspective that postwar noncombat historians can never capture by themselves. But any one soldier's combat story likely needs to be taken in measure; not in isolation, but correlated by other stories of similar combat situations, as per Slap's point.

By example, a 6-lbr antitank gunner could relate a factual story, "I took out a Panther with a frontal shot, at 2000 meters, and using only one round!" Taking the story in isolation, however, might give the impression that this was a common occurence.

So again, the input of many military posters here can be of great value, and I think enhances the overall knowledge base of the CM forum. But also again, some military issues require extensive correlation and cross-referencing to come to some resolution.

Other posters, and BTS, have also stated this often in the past. This all is offered merely for review.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Checking out of this thread (tipping the bellhop along the way), I will add a point that stands to be iterated.

CM posters here with military experience, or also experience as a war veteran, can certainly be of value here in relating their views. Most of us here, and BTS, do know this. Where the military poster has his greatest value, however, is if he/she is experienced with the military subject on hand. By example of "combat engineering," Warren (The Capt) has had sufficient past experience to help in discussions for that subject.

The viewpoint of the combat veteran is also always of value, providing a unique perspective that postwar noncombat historians can never capture by themselves. But any one soldier's combat story likely needs to be taken in measure; not in isolation, but correlated by other stories of similar combat situations, as per Slap's point.

By example, a 6-lbr antitank gunner could relate a factual story, "I took out a Panther with a frontal shot, at 2000 meters, and using only one round!" Taking the story in isolation, however, might give the impression that this was a common occurence.

So again, the input of many military posters here can be of great value, and I think enhances the overall knowledge base of the CM forum. But also again, some military issues require extensive correlation and cross-referencing to come to some resolution.

Other posters, and BTS, have also stated this often in the past. This all is offered merely for review.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post Spook. I too will follow you and Mike out and leave the field to the flames.

[Brian]

At the same time, Slappy, I have had personal experience of where you have denigrated my military experience.

To whit - your claims about what I had said WRT the SMLE and the Bren as against what I had actually said.

Furthermore, I pointed out the ridiculous nature of your claims to try and reclassify the Bren as an automatic rifle, yet you persisted with them both.

I can only speak for myself but I have never attempted to stand on, "I have been in the military x years" - I have always utilised my experience to illustrate points which I feel were important. You, on the otherhand have turned around, to myself and other Commonwealth military posters, and claimed that our experience was incorrect, merely because we could not produce evidence to back what we claimed.

It appears for you, personal experience amounts to nothing.

A perfect example was the matter of the tripod mounted Bren. You didn't shut up until I posted some excellent pictures of their use, as late as 1950, in the tripod mounted role. To you, this was a mere "abberation" rather than proof that Brens were used on tripods, that use was widespread and that it might well mean that the standard, accepted piece of taxonomy of which you were so defensive, might need reassesement.

In the case of Kim Beazely, he made the point that he had seen a particular training film which demonstrated something being done in a particular way. You then proceeded to try and heap scorn upon his experience - he might have seen that film but according to you, that film could not have been accurate - despite it having been produced by the users of that particular piece of equipment, and was intended to instruct their own troops on how to use the equipment, merely because you had no documentry evidence to show that was how it was used.

I'm sorry, Slappy, I believe you've lived in an ivory tower for far too long and as Bill suggested, lost sight of what history is and how its made.

Its also no wonder that people get pissed off at you, being told continually that what they know and have experienced is wrong.

[Michael Dorosh]

No one has proven Bren tripods were common - certainly not with a couple of photos. Please.