Michael Dorosh Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: http://www.45thdivision.org/combatload.htm This site is a member of the Boy Scout RingI found that part interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 18, 2005 Author Share Posted March 18, 2005 Canadian Boy Scout Leaders Homepage Well, heres a website for you then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Hey, isn't posting false links a bannable offense? If I click on a link purporting to be the Boy Scouts and it's something that most of us consider offensive, that seems to be against the rules, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 Is that in the Patriot Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 It's official. He's an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer: http://www.girlguides.ca/default.asp (Canadian WWII Command Post example) This website shows how to construct a WWII Canadian Company Command Post (Northern Europe). Since Dorosh has authored many of these, it may be also his webpage. **** you. I think maybe you've finally revealed your true understanding of this subject. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer: http://www.girlguides.ca/default.asp (Canadian WWII Command Post example) This website shows how to construct a WWII Canadian Company Command Post (Northern Europe). Since Dorosh has authored many of these, it may be also his webpage. **** you. I think maybe you've finally revealed your true understanding of this subject. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melb_will Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Hi Mum Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by RMC: It's official. He's an ass. Well, yeah. He's Lewis, back because nowhere else will tolerate his peculiar mix of objectionability and purported knowledge. He's returned more times that raw broccoli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 Well, yeah. He's Lewis, back because nowhere else will tolerate his peculiar mix of objectionability and purported knowledge. He's returned more times that raw broccoli. These remarks, besides being poorly written, make me wonder; Am I really using 'purported' knowledge? Have I not stated a case and then proceded to develop that case with actual data? Have I not shown just how lacking so called 'peacetime/modern' army 'knowledge' can be? Am I not developing a discussion towards the future of the game (and not wanting it skewed because of lack of actual knowledge or worse, CW jealosy)? I am not sure how 'objectionability' plays into anything here. You are a miserable lot (many of you). I will say that. Certainly, some feel free to use abusive language and then cry foul later. And could someone please let me know what the count is on how many people I am suppose to be? Could I also not be Dalem at the same time also? I might actually be someone calling for my own banishment, secretly playing you in an email game, and laughing at your obsessions with posters! Meanwhile, I am wealthy, and enjoy a stress free life. There are more than a few people that know more about many subjects than many of you. Thats some free advice. Understand it and you will be able to tolerate many things that go on around you better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: Have I not stated a case and then proceded to develop that case with actual data? No, you haven't. You've posted dribs and drabs of information, made tons of suppositions and continually failed to tie it all together with a coherent thesis. Have I not shown just how lacking so called 'peacetime/modern' army 'knowledge' can be? No, you haven't. Am I not developing a discussion towards the future of the game (and not wanting it skewed because of lack of actual knowledge or worse, CW jealosy)?No, you aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 I could post even more tons of 'dribs'n'drabs' but any reasonable reader at this point gets the idea. Please feel free to not include yourself as a reasonable reader. The point of the thread was the US Infantry company getting modeled in 1:1. The need for CW polluters to be a vocal minority is demonstrated once again. I suppose until the new Command&Control(&Communications) modeling gets discussed, there is no further point in this besides making another place that CW graffitti gets a venue to vent its frustrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: And could someone please let me know what the count is on how many people I am suppose to be? Could I also not be Dalem at the same time also?At first I thought you were Lewis, but Lewis was mainly nutty, and he could string a series of thoughts together into a decent argument every once in a while. You remind me more of Fred, a sullen chap who was inordinately proud of his low member number of 76 and would spare no opportunity to inform you of that. Fred would often make insane claims as to his own knowledge and experience, and drive topics into the ground with his droning Chinese water torture threads. Much as yourself. I apologize to Steve G. for even responding to you with this, but you did ask, and I'm weak. And no, you can't be me because I have a sense of humor and you do not. I couldn't project an alter ego as drab and lifeless as you portray here if my life depended on it. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Ah! There was a long time I didn't enter this Forum. What a refreshing experience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: WWII US Divisions were on the whole quite support heavy in terms of personnel. So if people think that there are too many support guys in US TO&E, they're right It was something US military planners neer quite got under control during the war. IIRC late war TO&E had the US units 3:1 (three support men for one fighting man), Commonwealth at about 2:1, and Germans pretty close to 1:1 (in theory, in reality they probably were less than 1:1). The late war German TO&E was actually pretty damned close to 1:1, but few units were fully reorganized or raised using the '45 formations. It was also a reflection of the German's defensive posture and limited means (mechanization was quite low, for example). Steve Steve - interesting, but what exactly is a 'fighting man'? The Germans had various strength categories (Gefechtsstaerke and Grabenstaerke are probably the two most relevant here), and I am not sure you can compare those easily to US or Soviet, or whatever other countries' figures and concepts. I would be surprised about a 1:1 ratio (unless you talk 1945 doomsday formations). In 1944 you regularly see infantry divisions with very low numbers of 'fighting men', yet still strong in total numbers (the normal ratio seems to have been 1:3 before Bagration, going from memory, depending on how you count). That was a real problem for the Germans. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 I'm locking this up mostly because whatever point there was to it ended about 5 pages back. Wartgamer, you really should refrain from posting unless you have a point. There is a fine line between posting something productive and spamming the Forum. The latter is agaisnt Forum rules. If you HAVE a point, by all means post and support whatever that point is with evidence IF someone disagrees with you. But this Forum really is not here for people that know how to use Google and UBB's URL linking codes. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts