Poll: I can win as long as I have....

Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (Full Version)

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

Message

hingram -> Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (3/14/2002 1:40:10 AM)
In any given SP game, I can win as long as I have....

Bing -> Re: Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (3/14/2002 1:54:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hingram [B]In any given SP game, I can win as long as I have.... [/B][/QUOTE] ...the button to the Editor showing on the screen. Bing

lnp4668 -> (3/14/2002 3:34:29 AM)
[B][COLOR=red]Air Power[/COLOR] [/B], Muhaha :D

Mikimoto -> Re: Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (3/14/2002 3:47:36 AM)
Nuts!!! :D :D :D [QUOTE]Originally posted by hingram [B]In any given SP game, I can win as long as I have.... [/B][/QUOTE]

ZinZan -> (3/14/2002 4:19:25 AM)
Hmmm I like this poll thingy :) I also love the new forums

Antonius -> Re: Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (3/14/2002 5:45:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hingram [B]In any given SP game, I can win as long as I have.... [/B][/QUOTE] ... a decent battle plan, a fair share of luck and lots of coffee

NaKATPase -> (3/14/2002 7:31:04 AM)
I think the poll results reflect good combined arms tactics... The armour, the artillery, the beer... the sum is greater then the parts... :)

BamnBamn -> (3/15/2002 1:16:02 AM)
hee hee it's neck and neck and neck and neck!

hingram -> (3/15/2002 1:59:21 AM)
And it is OVER! No winner today folks.

M4Jess -> (3/15/2002 8:07:12 PM)
If I did not lose all the time :rolleyes: M4

Kanon Fodder -> Missing Option (3/16/2002 1:36:56 AM)
Where's the button for 5 to 1 odds ? :D

panda124c -> Re: Poll: I can win as long as I have.... (3/19/2002 1:35:32 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hingram [B]In any given SP game, I can win as long as I have.... [/B][/QUOTE] The ultimate power, or as some call it the power switch under my thumb. :D :D

Fallschirmjager -> (3/19/2002 1:47:00 AM)
I was going to say the enemies battle plan then I remmebered McClellan at Antietam......

Belisarius -> (3/19/2002 2:24:36 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]I was going to say the enemies battle plan then I remmebered McClellan at Antietam...... [/B][/QUOTE] Uh oh... a Civil War buff. :D Jager, you care to enlighten me about what McClellan did, or did not do at Antietam? I guess I can look it up, but it'd be nice to have a quick explanation... always eager to learn more :p

Fallschirmjager -> (3/19/2002 3:20:18 AM)
Uh..ohh you just had to ask.... Well I love an oppurtunity to shatter the myths about the Civil War and inject a little soutern pride. We will start with a little bio of McClellan. He was a military genius until he got on the battlefield. In his early 20's he was one of a select few to represent the US as an observer to the Crimean War. He wrote something like 10,000 pages of highly detailed material on the war for the War department. Anyways moving to the Civil War. He had already proved his incompotence in the Penninsular Campaign (ill sum that up at a latter date). His biggest flaw was his fear of failure and of sending men to their deaths. Even though he always enjoyed a large manpower advantage he always was overly cautious in his attacks. Now to Antietam. In September 1862 Lee was marching into southern Maryland. He sent Jackson to take Harpers Ferry with most of his force. That left Lee with around 18,000 men. One of Lee's runners in his cavlary (history remembers his name but I cant) was carrying Lee's battle plans wrapped around some cigars in the wrapper. He was cutting across a cornfield when by some ill stroke of fate he drops them. Now our friend McClellan knew Lee was around and was marching against him. McClellan had a fear of Lee (he had yet to win a battle against him). He also always thought the South outnumbered him (which was never the case). So he knows the Rebels are around Harpers Ferry and begins to march his army Between Lee and the forces at Harpers Ferry. He has some picket lines moving ahead of his main force and lo and behold one of them stumbles across the afore metioned cigar wrapper. He takes the package back to McClellan. Upon reading them he reads that his, and get this, 95,000 man force outnumbers Lee's tiny 18,000 men. Jackson and the other part of the Army are at Harpers ferry which is about a 2 day forced march from Antietam. He actually thought the plans were wrong and were meant to throw him off. He delays attacking and Lee can bring all his forces together for the attack. In the battle Lee lost about 1/4 of his force and was allowed to fall back to Virginia to regroup. The battle was a tactical Minor Union victory. If McClellan would of attacked the 18'000 he could of crushed the Army of Northern Virginia and the war may of ended. This ended McClellan's term and Lincoln quickly dismissed him in favor of Burnside (an even bigger idiot). McClellan ran in the 1864 but pulled out because he thought there were to many canidates....j/k little joke their He lost as Lincoln got re-elected.

Belisarius -> (3/19/2002 11:46:26 PM)
I bow humbly in respect.. Thankyou! Funny a historical character of McClellans magnitude has passed my eyes unseen...although the mistake of actually having the enemy's plans and yet not believing they are authentic has certainly been made by a fair number of commanders throughout history. To sum it up: [B]Who dares, wins![/B] :D :D :D

Fallschirmjager -> (3/20/2002 12:00:54 AM)
Your quite welcome.... One more thing when he marched on Richmond he believed the South oppossed him with 300,000 men which would of been around 17% of the white southern male population. That would of been near impossible to put in uniform by that stage of the war. He was told this but refused to believe his own census beruea. That puts his incompetence a little higher in my book.

Krec -> (3/20/2002 10:46:33 AM)
FLAME:D :D

Fallschirmjager -> (3/20/2002 11:02:52 AM)
what was that for?????

Krec -> (3/20/2002 12:31:27 PM)
i can win as long as i have FLAME MAN!! torch, toast, crispy flame man. i can win as long as i have FLAME. nuf said!!:D :D

Mojo -> (3/20/2002 12:40:50 PM)
LOL I thought you where flaming Fallschirmjager for something

Krec -> (3/20/2002 1:05:54 PM)
i was just responding to the topic . :)

troopie -> (3/20/2002 10:17:01 PM)
I can win as long as I have plenty of artillery ammunition of 105mm and above. troopie

Kaakao -> (3/21/2002 1:37:36 AM)
Just give me engineers, tanks don't like flame :D

Capt. Pixel -> (3/21/2002 4:44:19 AM)
Scouts and LRPs. As long as I can see what's going on around me, I've got a better chance of surviving. And sometimes that's all it takes to win. ;)

V-man -> (3/21/2002 5:58:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]Uh..ohh you just had to ask.... Well I love an oppurtunity to shatter the myths about the Civil War and inject a little soutern pride. [/B][/QUOTE] Telme, oh, PLEASE, tell me you are not a "Lee was a great general" nut...

Fallschirmjager -> (3/21/2002 10:23:59 AM)
Since your from Indiana Ill forgive your sins. Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a damn....oh wait..... History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done. Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank? Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent. LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up.

Saviola -> (3/21/2002 2:22:54 PM)
engineers...

V-man -> (3/22/2002 4:51:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]Since your from Indiana Ill forgive your sins. Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a ***....oh wait..... History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done. Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank? Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent. LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up. [/B][/QUOTE] OK - then Explain to me Pickett's Charge. Better yet, explain to me the 5th & 6th of July, 1863, when Lee, with his back to a RIVER, offerd battle against a vastly superior foe, instead of withdrawing back across that river to safety. Grant not a manuver-er? Hmmm... He seems to have turned Lee's flank, repeatedly, during teh battle for Richmond in 64. Wan't Sherman's march to the sea nothign but a series of flanking manuvers? The first books written after the war were written by Confederate officers that went intot he war convinced that God would not let them lose. They got a GRAPHIC demonstration on how wrong they were. They had to explain it. Those books did so, in such a manner that these men, many of whom would* duel to the death over an insult (somethign we wouldn't do today), were able to save face. They found a reason - it wasn't the hopelessness of hteir cause, God didn't abandon them, it's more a matter of Satan-made-manifest in a fighting general like Grant. Key-Rist! Lee could NOT even form a working, useful staff. his was nothing mroe than a place to sen favorite sons of the South to keep them from getting killed. Lee had one enduring, vastly professional trait. He cared for the lives of his men, he cared for his men deeply and didn't mind showing that concern. Grant was a more distant commander, but he cared not one bit less. The difference is that grant was painted a butcher (just like G.S.Patton, Jr. - and just as wrong). Feel free to cite one of the books you say are available. I'll cite one here and now - "Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Revisited" Sorry if I seem to be flaming you, but I'm a military history/US History student and I dislike revisionism without cause. Some revisionism is good, when new facts are uncovered. But teh facts of Lee's conduct on the battlefield show, despite the many legions that want Lee to be a great general, that he was promoted past his ability.

Fallschirmjager -> (3/22/2002 7:02:40 AM)
Ill not turn this into a Civil War forum but will adress your points. Pickets charge and the entire battle of Gettysburg is simple to explain away in the fact that everyone thing the Army of Northern Virginia had done up to that point had been a success. Lee had tried both flanks and failed. The Union had weakened its center and Lee felt he could succed if taking it. Its funny how Pickets charge seems to be the only flaw critics of Lee can bring up. I could write volumes on the mistakes of Union generals. The South was much like the Germans. They had tasted victory everywhere they had been met on the field of battle so they thought nothing could stand in there way. History is indeed written by the winners and after the war the Radical Republicans controlled all most all the media so of course the Union was put into a favorible light. Autobiographies are one of the worst pieces of historical writting you can read. What do you expect them to say? I was wrong? No man is going to say that. Soldiers scoff at history written by historians, but if you want the truth of the overall campaign its best to find a book written by someone with an objective point of view on the matter. Lee did have staff problems at Gettysburg ill admit. But the Union did not have to start from nothing when it built its army. The South of course had to do so. After Chancerlorsville where Jackson was lost (another of histories greatest men) Lee had lost a Corps commander (Lee only had two Corps, armies at that time were of course smaller). He created a third right before the battle. Along with a string of divisional commanders, 2/3 of his army was under new command. So of course this led to problems. Now for Grant. Ill admit Grant was above the usual crowd of his half dozen successors. The reason for his greatness was the simple fact that he had the balls to use the Norths greatest advantage. Manpower. He threw men into combat reguardless of the losses until he achived the victory. No man before this had the fortitude to use this. As far as the fact that he did outflank Lee before Richmond also has its reasons. When you are outnumbered 2:1 trying to defend a set point in the 1860's of course you are going to be outflnaked. Grant knew Lee was not going to attack so he had a free range of movement in the area around Richmond. Also the Southern men were exhausted. The area of Richmond and all of Northern Virginia was devastated by 3 years of war. It was winter so the crops were exhausted and their was no way for the men to live off the land. The North was untouched and grants force has ample food to live off of. Also for the books Ill simply state the best that are avaliable on Lee. The epic called "R. E. Lee" by Douglas Southall Freeman this excellent 4 volume set is about as good as you can get on Lee and the campaigns of The Army of Northern Virginia. It won the 1935 Pulitzer Prize. If you are interested dong read the abridged version. I have the 4 volume set and that is the only "true" version in my eyes. The 4 volume is out of print so it would be difficult to track down. To make you fell better I will state some decent Union Generals. George Thomas. The best in my opinion Hanncock Excellent corps commander Sheridan Norths best cavlary product Theirs a few more but they have slipped my mind at the moment As far as Sherman I have no respect for him. He could not decisivily destroy the Army of the Tennesee so he took to destroying the land of the Southern people when it was not needed. The reason he was allowed to progress to Atlanta was because that Bungling moron John Bell Hood was placed in charge. J. E. Johnston was falling back quite well against Shermans advance. But Davis wanted him to attack promptly. Johnston said no. Hood had always felt he should attack so davis gave him the reigns. He promptly attacked badly outnumbered and lost two decisive battles. The South was much like the Germans. Germany went into two world wars badly outnumbered, outgunned out produced. Yet they managed to almost win both. The South had the same disavantages. Yet they too almost pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. Both these cases have dozens of whats ifs that make them so intriguing. They are simply remarkable and I admire both of them. I apoligize that I may of slammed Grant a little too harshly. its nice to find a soul as well read as you. I know Im not going to change your mind, but I make these posts so that the other forum goers can read them and hopefully become interested in the facts(then they too can come in and argue with us). Especially our European friends. To Europeans. My current reading deals with the Franco Prussian war of 1870. What are the best books on this topic? I know the basics. France got invaded (seems to happen every 10 years) Sorry had to get one French joke in :D Good Lord this is long.....and I didnt want to turn this into a Civil War forum.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125