RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare

RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/27/2006 12:14:50 AM)
I know a young Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Like any good Marine, he doesn't question the reasons, he just does his duty. Thankfully, he came out of it unhurt. While we civilians may argue over the political manueverings, I admire and respect the fighting men and women. A good soldier is apolitical. As long as the orders are lawful, then he/she must obey them.

PimpYourAFV -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/27/2006 1:49:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Warrior quote: ORIGINAL: forgorin Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said... You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling. Warrior, to understand why our planet is doomed to self-destruction at our current population growth rate, have a look at the differences in populations of countries from WW1 era and now. The population has doubled since 1918 and this is the same for just about all the other countries in the world, some even more. Here is a factsheet to verify this... http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/japanc.htm Populations are expending geometrically. Einstein said compound interest is the most powerful force on earth. He should have added population growth with it. At this current rate, our planet may be destroyed within a century. Add to this environmental destruction which is only getting worse, ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect and there is little chance the world can survive all this stress. The answer to this is war. Hardcore war. World War 1 style war is optimal for this. 'What kind of intriguing new plan does the chump from Tokyo have for us now?' you may wonder. World War 1 was optimal in 2 ways. First, it enjoys the highest level of battlefield casualties while leaving civilian centres undisturbed and peaceful. People can still live their lives as they like and read the newspapers to enjoy the daily war reports. The army must enlist both male and female to be effective in this plan. The fantastic casualty rate on the battlefield would ensure our planet's survival. Second, the great war was environmentally friendly. Because the excellent trench warfare system is so stagnant, only a narrow strip of about 6 miles wide is ravaged by artillery and churned into a muddy mess. Such a tiny area of damage is admiral compared to WW2 when cities and countryside alike were both torn apart making life miserable for everyone. In addition, WW1 used only a tiny portion of the natural resources burned up in WW2, Vietnam, Iraq etc. All it needs is rifles, uniforms and artillery with a few canteens and shovels added in. Tank armies wasting millions of tons of metal and precious alloys are not needed.

KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/27/2006 2:21:20 AM)
Ok, TBT, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by identifying you with the Samurai mentality . THAT would be honorable and understandable. However, your current line of thought loses me. Get a grip, man.

264rifle -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/27/2006 2:30:33 AM)
Hopefully back to topic: Tanks (or their purpose) have sometimes been described as Providing Mobility and protection to the gun and crew that they carry. The are not magic nor do they perform miracles. They do provide a way to get a large caliber cannon into position to direct fire on the opponent without the crew or tow vehicle for a towed gun get wiped out by small arms fire or shell fragments. They provide for the rapid shift in firing positions for the guns mounted on them. Tanks are not a modern version of the armoured knight or heavy cavalry. Using them to "CHARGE" an enemy defensive position is to waste them. THey are to be used to break through a weak point in the line then use their movement to bring their guns to bear from an unexpected direction. There have always been exceptions to the basic tactics. Sometimes they worked, like Matilda's overrunning Italian 47mm guns. Sometimes they didn't, like any British tank unit trying to overrun dug in 88's. German Blitzkrieg was based on tank units NOT OVERRUNNING strong positions but bypassing them to hit unprepared rear areas (Artillery positions, supply dumps, headquarters, bivouac areas or rail supply points) that would make the strong points unable to hold out for very long. The answer to the 88's was not a bigger, heavier tank but better recon to find the 88's and then artillery or air strikes to supprese them or having found them have the Artillery shoot up an area of the line several miles away, have the tanks go through there and bypass the 88's, then shoot them up as the 88's try to retreat. On the scale of the game with the small maps many of these operations do not show up well. And in real life 88's that were deployed as anti-tank guns had a VERY limited AA capability.

Korpraali V -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/27/2006 9:27:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai The answer to this is war. Hardcore war. Same question: And you would be happy to die among the first ones?

KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/28/2006 2:34:19 AM)
Oh, man, I can't resist: All together now -- "BANZAI!" [sm=sterb032.gif] John Wayne voice: " Pilgrim, 'round here we don't go for no sushi -- I like my Japanese cooked well-done" (My apologies to both Tokyo Boy and Afrika Korps)

Einar Fridgeirs -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/28/2006 2:42:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 264rifle Hopefully back to topic: Tanks (or their purpose) have sometimes been described as Providing Mobility and protection to the gun and crew that they carry. The are not magic nor do they perform miracles. They do provide a way to get a large caliber cannon into position to direct fire on the opponent without the crew or tow vehicle for a towed gun get wiped out by small arms fire or shell fragments. They provide for the rapid shift in firing positions for the guns mounted on them. Tanks are not a modern version of the armoured knight or heavy cavalry. Using them to "CHARGE" an enemy defensive position is to waste them. THey are to be used to break through a weak point in the line then use their movement to bring their guns to bear from an unexpected direction. There have always been exceptions to the basic tactics. Sometimes they worked, like Matilda's overrunning Italian 47mm guns. Sometimes they didn't, like any British tank unit trying to overrun dug in 88's. German Blitzkrieg was based on tank units NOT OVERRUNNING strong positions but bypassing them to hit unprepared rear areas (Artillery positions, supply dumps, headquarters, bivouac areas or rail supply points) that would make the strong points unable to hold out for very long. The answer to the 88's was not a bigger, heavier tank but better recon to find the 88's and then artillery or air strikes to supprese them or having found them have the Artillery shoot up an area of the line several miles away, have the tanks go through there and bypass the 88's, then shoot them up as the 88's try to retreat. On the scale of the game with the small maps many of these operations do not show up well. And in real life 88's that were deployed as anti-tank guns had a VERY limited AA capability. Awesome. By far the most intelligent answer on this thread. If TokyoBoy wasn´t a gimmick poster, he´d do well to take this message to heart. As for me, my Shermans rock! But so does my armoured infantry, AT guns and arty....combined arms is the name of the game.

Afrika Korps -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/28/2006 2:44:13 AM)
Extra Crispy... [sm=sterb032.gif][sm=00000003.gif]

KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/28/2006 3:02:02 AM)
Yeah, I think Tokyo Boy IS engaging in some "eraborate reg-purring". We DO need to lighten up here once in awhile. As a matter of fact, I'm engaging in a little lightening-up right now. [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]

Wild Bill -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (3/1/2006 12:50:30 AM)
Well, I'm lit up! How about you? WB

forgorin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (3/1/2006 11:34:55 AM)
Yes I do think that "we" all need to light up[:-] lighten up! As for been the first, my daddy always said "Son, dont die for what you know to be true. Kill for what you know to be true."[sm=sterb032.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.3125