Armor over run attacks.

[JasonC]

Sajer makes it up, LH thinks that peachy. I point it out, he objects. Ardem thinks a GD officer said he believes Sajer, when he said nothing of the kind. LH thinks that's peachy. I point it out and show the obvious alternate explanation of the GD officer's comments, LH objects. I have a parsimonious explanation of this phenomenon, but it isn't germain to this thread.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

...Its just bad form.

Hortlund, you Tool of Oppression and Class Warfare.

If you were a horse in a race, you wouldn't come out of the gate running, you'd come out biting, kicking, and attempting to maim all the other horses, eyes wildly rolling and foam already girdling your muzzle. You're not simply a competitive poster, you're posting with an 'enemy' list in one hand!

Frankly, if I adopted your style, and combined it with my native wit and intelligence, I could be the most Hated Man on the Planet without even breaking a sweat. So I may owe you one there, for the tip.

I think you have anger issues, lad. Perhaps we should simply go somewhere quiet and talk. Let things out. You could even put your head on my shoulder and cry, if you like. I won't tell.

Don't be offended, though, if I wear a Kevlar vest. Human bites are nasty, and tend to become infected.

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

If you were a horse in a race, you wouldn't come out of the gate running, you'd come out biting, kicking, and attempting to maim all the other horses, eyes wildly rolling and foam already girdling your muzzle.

Hey old boy, d'ya know what odds he's got and what race? I feel like having a bit of a flutter on the GG's....

[Battlefront.com]

Jason is in the business of disregarding eye-witness accounts in this thread.

What eyewitness accounts? Works of fiction are counting as eyewitness accounts now? Jason doesn't have to make up anything to discredit Sajer... the book is a work of fiction.

Also not sure why you aren't satisfied with all the other stuff discussed here that isn't fiction.

The Colonel... yes, the trench clearing was a source of much discussion at the time it happened. Some people think that burying people is somehow less humane than blowing them in half but not killing them. Very odd.

Steve

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jason is in the business of disregarding eye-witness accounts in this thread.

What eyewitness accounts?

Steve </font>

[Wisbech_lad]

Will lobsters be able to over-run horses?

[Ardem]

Sorry to take it off track but I think I deserve the right of reply

Well I think we could be both reading into what the GD officer thinks, new found respect means so many different things to different people.

Since if you read the why originally the GD was so anti Sajer in his first post, what was done to change his mind about the respect part, I am sorry unless the person participated in the GD I would denounce him even more if I was the GD officer. Only knowing he was a fighting soldier in the GD would I give the guy any respect.

Again we reading thing into it, but even innocent men have been hung, with more evidence against them, I just object to people who as soon as his name mention discredits him, as if he has absolute proof that it is. If anything steve, you should be coming down on Jason not the other guy, regardless of your own opinions on sajer.

Until the I hear from the account of sajer himself saying it was a fiction, then I don't think it right for people to discredit him when they have no more proof then other peoples stories.

Anyway I won't say anymore on it steve.

[ September 19, 2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Until the I hear from the account of sajer himself saying it was a fiction, then I don't think it right for people to discredit him when they have no more proof then other peoples stories.

Sorry, some of that was a bit hard to follow, but Sajer is hardly likely, after having passed off his riveting novel as an autobiography for decades, to come forward and admit he simply stitched the whole thing together out of broad cloth.

And the 'no more proof then other peoples stories' bit? Are you referring to the rather significant body of research that's been done by many people indicating that Guy Sajer's book is not the first-hand, autobiographical account it's always been passed off as?

Frankly, 'first-hand, autobiographical' accounts, while important and significant, aren't always very accurate. Even where they're real. The author could be mistaken, have remembered incorrectly, have gotten things totally wrong, or have lied, misrepresented, or made things up for personal, political, or other reasons.

And Sajer, as I understand it, doesn't have one single shred of documented evidence to show that he was what he claimed to be, or was where he claimed to be. He does, of course, have all sorts of reasons to show why that documentation no longer exists.

But even supposing he was exactly what he says he was, where he said he was, and witnessed what he said he did, that wouldn't necessarily make what he tells us about it 100% true or accurate.

Doubts have been raised in plenty about the veracity of Sajer's claims. And reality argues that no observer is ever 100% accurate or right. And human history has shown us that many, many 'first hand accounts' are so much self-or-other-agenda serving drivel.

With all these factors against accepting his testimony as unvarnished truth, combined with his or others inability to provide confirmation from other sources, your insistence that his information be regarded as 'fact' seems to indicate a personal decision and agenda, rather than motivation by the historical record (even admitting that it is fragmented and full of holes as regards certain aspects of the German WWII experience).

Many recent books have shown us the willingness of authors to try and pass off 'very good, and often realistic' fictional accounts as 'history'. The Jordanian/Australian writer about the plight of women in Islam comes immediately to mind.

Nothing she wrote about was necessarily a lie. Except for the fact that it happened to her, and that she had first-hand experience of it. But, having told that lie, she can no longer be regarded as an objective or realistic source, whose every statement carried the weight of 'truth'.

I fear the same is true of Sajer.

[ozi_digger]

Geez Seanachai, you'd better have another drink, you're beginning to sound... lucid.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ardem:

Until the I hear from the account of sajer himself saying it was a fiction, then I don't think it right for people to discredit him when they have no more proof then other peoples stories.

Sorry, some of that was a bit hard to follow, but Sajer is hardly likely, after having passed off his riveting novel as an autobiography for decades, to come forward and admit he simply stitched the whole thing together out of broad cloth.

And the 'no more proof then other peoples stories' bit? Are you referring to the rather significant body of research that's been done by many people indicating that Guy Sajer's book is not the first-hand, autobiographical account it's always been passed off as?

Frankly, 'first-hand, autobiographical' accounts, while important and significant, aren't always very accurate. Even where they're real. The author could be mistaken, have remembered incorrectly, have gotten things totally wrong, or have lied, misrepresented, or made things up for personal, political, or other reasons.

And Sajer, as I understand it, doesn't have one single shred of documented evidence to show that he was what he claimed to be, or was where he claimed to be. He does, of course, have all sorts of reasons to show why that documentation no longer exists.

But even supposing he was exactly what he says he was, where he said he was, and witnessed what he said he did, that wouldn't necessarily make what he tells us about it 100% true or accurate.

Doubts have been raised in plenty about the veracity of Sajer's claims. And reality argues that no observer is ever 100% accurate or right. And human history has shown us that many, many 'first hand accounts' are so much self-or-other-agenda serving drivel.

With all these factors against accepting his testimony as unvarnished truth, combined with his or others inability to provide confirmation from other sources, your insistence that his information be regarded as 'fact' seems to indicate a personal decision and agenda, rather than motivation by the historical record (even admitting that it is fragmented and full of holes as regards certain aspects of the German WWII experience).

Many recent books have shown us the willingness of authors to try and pass off 'very good, and often realistic' fictional accounts as 'history'. The Jordanian/Australian writer about the plight of women in Islam comes immediately to mind.

Nothing she wrote about was necessarily a lie. Except for the fact that it happened to her, and that she had first-hand experience of it. But, having told that lie, she can no longer be regarded as an objective or realistic source, whose every statement carried the weight of 'truth'.

I fear the same is true of Sajer. </font>

[Barrold]

I suddenly feel very cold.

BFS5

[Battlefront.com]

Ardem,

Until the I hear from the account of sajer himself saying it was a fiction, then I don't think it right for people to discredit him when they have no more proof then other peoples stories.

Oddly enough the only "proof" we have that Sajer is who he says he is, and did the things he said he did, are his own "stories". Pretty easy to create a false account of something if all you have to do to satisfy critics is say "yes, that was me. I did that. I guess that's all the proof you need, so no more doubts". This is, of course, a very bad way to think when coming upon information (i.e. the assumption that it is real just because the author says so).

Do a Google on Sajer and see what you turn up. Here is a top link:

http://members.shaw.ca/grossdeutschland/sajer.htm

This is a pretty comprehensive website showing both sides. If one is predisposed to believing Sajer to be 100% legit, then I am sure opinions will not be swayed by these articles. However, those of us who hold written works to higher standards of authenticity will come away with many doubts. I started off being predisposed to thinking the book legit, but once I learned there was reasonable doubt I reexamined my position and found it was based on one thing:

faith

Nothing more. Anybody who wishes to be taken seriously as a historical researcher must never, ever use faith as the primary means of authentication of anything. I likely didn't need a degree in history to know this, but the degree certainly didn't hurt.

And yes, autobiographies should always be treated with a degree of caution unless sufficient verification exists that the facts are reasonably correct. An autobiographical account, be it a soldier, politician, artist, or what have you, needs independent verification. Otherwise you would have to believe that Meatloaf invented modern rock and roll just because he said he did, Hitler's diaries were found in the 1990s, and most dictators who lived to write their memoirs were just misunderstood revolutionaries. And don't even get me started on the recent batch of phoney journalists...

Steve

[ September 19, 2005, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

but once I learned there was reasonable doubt I reexamined my position and found it was based on one thing:

faith

Nothing more. Anybody who wishes to be taken seriously as a historical researcher must never, ever use faith as the primary means of authentication of anything. I likely didn't need a degree in history to know this, but the degree certainly didn't hurt.

Steve

Your degree is obviously the result of duplicity and liberal bias. Haven't you ever heard of the theory of 'Intelligent Historical Design'?

And you call yourself a student of WWII? By my lack-of-a-patriarchal-God, man! 'Intelligent Historical Design' was an article of 'spiritual' belief of the very people who sent Sajer to the Easter Front!

Are we to so blithely dismiss the Social Science equivalent of the very thing that the American School System is being ordered to regard as a Revealed Truth?!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Sajer makes it up, LH thinks that peachy. I point it out, he objects. Ardem thinks a GD officer said he believes Sajer, when he said nothing of the kind. LH thinks that's peachy. I point it out and show the obvious alternate explanation of the GD officer's comments, LH objects. I have a parsimonious explanation of this phenomenon, but it isn't germain to this thread.

What I object to is you making **** up and then presenting it as the truth. I'll ask you again, do you do that alot, or are you having an exeptionally bad day in this thread? Because if you do, then maybe it is time to view all your other posts in the same light.

Like I said, usually it is very hard to spot such behavior, you just chose to do it in an exceptionally obvious way in this thread.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jason is in the business of disregarding eye-witness accounts in this thread.

What eyewitness accounts? Works of fiction are counting as eyewitness accounts now? Jason doesn't have to make up anything to discredit Sajer... the book is a work of fiction.

Also not sure why you aren't satisfied with all the other stuff discussed here that isn't fiction.

</font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

All eyewitness accounts that disagrees with Jasons own little pet theory. And no, works of fiction do not count as eyewitness accounts. And again, for the second time, I am not discussing Sajer, and his book, I am discussing Jasons MO; to make **** up and dress it as the truth.

Here, lad pats shoulder. Here's a soft place that will comfort you, and listen to you!

Screw 'Jason's MO'. You're abusing him for dismissing 'Eyewitness Accounts'. What are they? Cite them. Name them. Juggle them like pretty glass balls!

Are you claiming that he has, since Time Fecking Immemorial, dismissed 'Eyewitness Accounts'? Prove it. Post a link to a thread showing this 'reckless disregard' for 'eyewitness accounts'.

Or are you talking about his brutal and vile dismissal of 'eyewitness accounts' in this thread? Because the only eyewitness accounts I've read of here are Guy Sajer's.

And before you accuse me of 'shilling' for JasonC, you should be aware that the man doesn't like me at all. But I forgive him for that.

Goddamn it, Hortlund, you need to get a grip. Frankly, I know that you're not stupid. But you get a wasp up your arse, and you look stupid.

Don't just froth and gargle anger at people. Make a realistic fecking point!

Seriously, I worry about you and that throbbing vein in your forehead, lad.

[JasonC]

Hortlund is apparently what in philosophy is called a justificationist, I'm a fallibilist.

He wants certificates of authority stamped as to origin, then will plow confidentally along unsuspicious of the results. When investigating said certificates he can then indulge his predilections if he likes, and find tall tales of horror and valor among mass murderers with fashion sense more plausible (or entertaining) than doubts thereof.

Instead a fallibilist breezily makes the assumption that a theory is true and looks at all its likely consequences, not just those specially urged for that theory. He typically encounters half a dozen that stick out in comical ways and tosses that theory aside for another. He doesn't have to examine certificates of authority because he doesn't acknowledge any to start with (he knows there are none that "pass"). He'll entertain the most speculative guess, in "cat can look at a king" fashion. But he'll hack it about and mutilate it over the least collision with fact.

Thus, the idea that half-rights readily grind entrenched infantry to death is something I know is false because of the consequences such a hypothesis predicts. Consequences for typical tactics and the typical results of various kinds of military collisions, which we can clearly see (from an overwhelming mass of contrary reports, from people not even aware of the question) do not occur.

Hortlund looks about for an authority sufficient to establish the result. There isn't any. Falsehoods cannot be established by any train of authorities. Every such train collides with the mere facts somewhere, and goes down.

Is this invincibility a matter of ignoring evidence? No, it is considering it. In some different world, in which no reports of infantry close assault decimating unaccompanied armor ever appeared, in which tank-heavy ADs crushed all before them, in which no differential was noticed between tanks vs. infantry without entrenchements and tanks vs. infantry with them, authorities for the point would not be necessary. But this world is not that imaginary one.

Then we look for other explanations of the idea, having discounting the explanation "people talk about it because it is true and happens all the time". We form a theory to explain such reports - literary embellishment of figures of speech, attempts to convey the scariness of armor, etc. These predict that fictionalists, journalists, and dramatic entertainers will make much more of such a subject than sober military officers telling the bland narrative of particular battles. This theory predicts it will arise as a highlight in colorful gore occasionally. The alternate theory ("just obviously true") predicts every third page in an official history will read "the nth tank battalion then seized hill yyy, crushing the infantry there by driving over their holes".

Theories predict evidence, including everything the justificationist consults as an authority, treated not as an authority but just one more observable consequent of this theory or that being true. Almost every authority a justificationist wants to rely on fails such tests, because everybody makes mistakes. (That's why it is called "fallible-ism").

One can still collect all the scattered truths they have seen amidst their errors. Because each quietly and meekly "testifies" to his actual knowledge, even without being aware of it, by acting on it. You can even ignore everything they say in conscious analysis (let alone purple prose meant to manipulate an audience), if you like.

If they send infantry along with the tanks because the tanks fail without it, you know any statements about how tanks readily annihilate infantry without such help are false. If they say "overrun" when they mean interpenetration of large units, then you know "overrun" of a more literal kind is militarily irrelevant - else they'd have another term for it. They can talk up the spirit of the bayonet until they are blue in the face, but if they issue ammunition you know bullets and shells do all the work.

And you don't have to trust anybody to see such things. All you need to do is sincerely entertain as possible any allegation and trace its likely consequences, and compare the results to everything else you know.

[K.A. Miles]

Uh, yeah.... :confused:

You guys are too "deep" for me. I'm just a poor country boy, and where I come from, someone being run over by a big machine usually smashs the poor fella. Sure, that doesn't happen very often down here, but it sure makes the headlines when it does. Hum, life is interesting, aint it?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

in my opinion ramming should be modelled and not just for AT-guns and such, but for vehicles as well.

ramming vehicles certainly took place. at least as a situational must, dictated by an unexpected encounter and limited mobility options.

yes, it was historically uncommon, but many things that happen in CM are historically uncommon. some of them are because of the limitations of CM, some of them are because of the very nature of games and those who play them. what ever the cause, the player should not be punished because of the limitations set by the game itself. the key game objects should behave in a believable way, especially if the game is anything close to a historical simulation.

CMx1 already knows when a ramming takes place, when two vehicles collide. it's not rocket science to add in a check for the two vectors (velocity), multiply in the mass and add a general check for the level of armour.

what kind of possible results do i expect from a ramming? 1) nothing if speed etc are limited, 2) vehicles with limited armour to be put out of action, and most importantly 3) passengers (crew etc) put out of action (immobilization) in more serious collisions. results need not be rocket science, it's enough that the results are believable.

the real problem, of course, is the TacAI. in my opinion TacAI wouldn't need to understand any of it. its normal reaction to enemy tanks and vehicles would be enough.

though, if you can't solve the most annoying column movement flaw of CMx1 in CMx2, it would get even more annoying when friendly collisions cause ramming damage as well. :\

[undead reindeer cavalry]

yah, it would be nice to see the unfortunate fellows be maimed, who i can see with my very own eyes are unable to jump away and are run over by a quite heavy tracked vehicle. 1:1 representation takes a huge chunk away from the old abstraction "explanation". would guess it to make the player a bit disillusioned.

though, who knows, as it seems i am the only one who finds it very annoying in CMx1 that everyone appears to use magic bullets that go right thru friendly units. after all, one has a lot higher chances of somehow not being maimed when being run over by a tank, than not becoming filled with blood leaks when two platoons of infantry, three HMGs and two IGs blaze thru your squad.

[JasonC]

KAM - people want to be able to take every AFV they get in every scenario, and drive right through an enemy infantry squad, and have the result be direct losses to said squad. If it were added, more people would be squashed on CM battlefields, per battalion and per fight, than were actually lost to all causes in a typical WW II battalion-day.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

JasonC, CM is already unhistorical what comes to effects caused by guns etc. why should ramming & over-run effects be so different?

[Philippe]

During the liberation of Paris in August 1944 a Sherman tank named Douaumont commanded by Marcel Bizien rammed a Panther next to the Obelisk in the Place de la Concorde. You couldn't pick a more conspicuous place for a tank battle.

Apparently the Douaumont had stumbled suddenly on the German and had fired an HE round to no effect, then followed that up by a smoke round at 30 yards instead of an AP round. As the Panther's gun turned slowly towards the Sherman, the only thing Bizien could think of was ramming, which caused the German crew to abandon the Panther. Apparently the German tank had already been damaged and immobilized by a French tank destroyer, and this was the last straw. Bizien met the commander of the German tank later on when he passed a column of POW's.

This incident is described in Is Paris Burning ? by Collins and LaPierre, and was clearly very unusual. I doubt that the Sherman did much that day after the ramming incident.

[K.A. Miles]

Well said, Undead Reindeer!

Jason- Yes, I have no doubt that players would use the whole ramming/smashing/crushing element to their advantage. What of it? Along with the ramming/smashing/crushing, I would like to see realistic "unfortunate" risks/consequences to go with such dangerous tactics. Sure, you want to send that tank crashing into a building to root out that mortar crew? Go ahead! *SMASH* "OK, we're stuck, what now commander?" Just give me the option, that's all I'm saying! Penalize me with whatever terrible risks and tribulations you can conjure up, but give me the option! I'm tired of my AFVs being ghost-like gun platforms. I wanna smash something!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Wicky]

Can we have tanks fall off cliffs on top of enemy tanks, can we extract sunshine from cucumbers...

Where do you draw a line on the feasibility of BFC implementing the more exotic battlefield possibilities?