90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

90th had several another river crossings incl. Marne, Moselle, which meant a mile of water due to flooding, and Saar. During the Ardennes battle the 90th was hurriedly withdhrawn from beachhead, trucked and sent north.
The unit seemed to do well after two commanders were relieved, so it seems that problems with slow advance in Normandy were considered to be rather commander's fault than division's as the whole.

By the way, by War's end Patton was to recommend 10% of his units for Presidental citation, he recommended 5th ID and 90th ID, but this was refused as it was over 10%, final recommendation was then a full regiment plus various minor units from 5TI and still the full 90ID.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Thanks for the AAR, I would hardly class this as breaking in combat. These guys were fighting an enemy well dug in in an easly defended position in amongst the cursed hedgerows.

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I'd compare it to 43rd Wessex (IIRC it was) during Arnhem campaign - the soldiers fought well but the div commander was too slow in getting them to place where they were needed the most (well, in Market-Garden it wasn't just problem of 43rd, but that's another story).

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hmm, possibly but the story reads as a one sided combat report. The repeated referring to 88's and little else is a bit of a give away as it probably being less than objective. What's also interesting is the complete lack of reference as to who they were exactly fighting. How strong was the enemy? If I check the available german forces and their dispositions they weren't exactly fighting the cream of the wehrmacht (not even thinking about SS or fallschirmjager!) nor were there very many of them. The americans had a lot more men, a lot more firepower, air supremacy, etc and still did poorly.

Re: 90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Which is the point exactly. The easy conclusion is to assume that that means the germans were 'strong'. The other side of the coin though is that it's just as easy to assume that the 90th was 'weak'.
The german 'strength' here lay in 1 simple fact, they made far better use of what the situation allowed for or dictated. Loosely translated, the 90th didn't and that's quite likely in large part due to (lack of) training.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Granted there was some problem there, and they didn't perform as would have been preferred. It is possible that these men were not trained to standard as other units were. Still given the AAR's report of casualties taken this unit still didn't break and run as claimed earlier in the other post. Also this does not prove that US training prior to D-Day did not make GI's better soldiers than their earlier brothers in arms, which campaigned into North Africa.

There also should be credit given to the German defence regardless whether they were elites. There were defending on territory well known to them and they made use of that terrain to their advantage.

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi
Firstly I never said they broke and ran. My point is that they performed badly due to poor training. An American makes just as good a soldier as a German what makes a difference is the training and leadership.

Its always good to read the article before commenting I submit some Quotes from the article mentioned by Baggypants.

"These natural advantages held by the enemy prevailed in other sectors as well as the 90th Division's. A partial solution to the combat problem was the persistent application of basic infantry principles and lessons- the axioms concerning fire and movement, control, bunching-and maximum initiative by individuals and small groups. This lesson was stressed in an operational memorandum issued on 19 June by 90th Division headquarters. It stated that the division's small gains and heavy losses were due in part to failure to apply training lessons properly and suggested stressing to the men the fundamentals of constant movement, of returning fire by some while others maneuver, and of following artillery closely. General Landrum also underscored these basic infantry tactics when he spoke to the battalion commanders of the 358th Infantry on 15 June. Some of his remarks were noted in the Regimental Journal:

Coming under hostile fire causes inertia to our troops ... [do not] believe they're afraid, but bewildered, and this can be broken by common sense, applying simple tactics of fire and movement which are applicable in any type of fighting ... it is doubtful whether any man is pinned down unless out in the open ... mustn't let ourselves be stopped by fire ... must get something moving right away ... part of the line may have to take it, but have to get fire on the hostile weapons, the machine guns ... it is seldom that any unit of any size is pinned down, so it should be possible always to maneuver some of your forces if there's any concealment at all, and there's plenty of it here ... PWs say they can tell the direction from which we are coming and how we're going, which indicates we've got to control our fire ... and they say also that we bunch up ... we should be able to control our men better in this terrain ... the danger of the 88 is that it multiplies in quantity as one man tells another about them, and finally our men think there are four times as many as there really are ... it is an effective weapon, but it can be beaten ... we have plenty of artillery to be used on call ...."

That right, TRAINING not applied.

"The 357th Infantry, on the right flank of the 359th, also encountered difficulties. On 14 June it prepared to attack Gourbesville again, its objective being the Gourbesville-Beauvais line. An air mission arranged for 1400 was canceled for lack of proper marking smoke, and an artillery preparation was substituted at 1800. Because of poor coordination, a number of shells fell on American troops and the attack became disorganized. The concentration was fired again at 1930 and the 3d Battalion entered the village at 2230. It was unable, however, to clean out enemy resistance that night, and Gourbesville remained in enemy hands."

Which way is up on this map?

"In the 90th Division one only one regiment was involved in the advance toward Urville on 16 June, the 357th Infantry having been temporarily withdrawn to a reserve position. The 358th Infantry prepared to jump off at 0800, but there were several delays, due primarily to the 1st Battalion's loss of direction. The attack did not get off until 1715, at which time Lieutenant Colonel Bealke's 3d Battalion led the advance into le Calais."

Oh Hell MY battalion is point?????

" in view of the previous slow progress of the 90th Division, General Collins asked General Bradley for a replacement and was given the 79th Division, which, however, was not to be employed until later. "

Yes their doing so well I want a replacement division.

Initially 90th didnt do a river crossing they actually crossed a river into bridgeheads already held. My origional reference mentions that when they couldnt get this right alarm bells began ringing.

as baggypants says
"Eisenhower (in the first 30 days of the landings) relieved several hundred officers til the Cobra breakout 'took his rearend off the fire'"
or perhaps these guys just wernt up to it? or more precisely poorly trained after all Eisenhower will only be removing these guys on recomendation and it certainly isnt good for morale to see your officers removed so I imagine it wouldnt be done unless there was a real problem.
Ive already posted this but ill include it here for completeness.
Heres what Captain Michael D. Doubler from leavenworth says about the standard of American training.
from
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
"
Despite successes in Tunisia and Sicily, the U.S. Army that assaulted the Normandy beaches was still far from being a well-oiled, coordinated fighting machine. Shortcomings in prebattle training and battlefield coordination during 1942 and 1943 prevented the U.S. Army from developing its full potential as an effective fighting force. One of the major problems discovered was the surprising lack of aggressiveness displayed by infantry units. Instead of employing techniques of fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy, infantry attacks often merely located and pinned down the enemy. Artillery fire was then called on to finish the infantry's job of destroying the defenders. Instead of relying on their organic weapons, infantrymen trusted in the big guns of the field artillery to deliver the coups de grace.16
Another problem compounded the infantry's reliance on artillery support. The purpose of the infantry division's mortars and assault guns was to support the attacks of the riflemen. Consequently, these weapons were usually employed close to the fighting front and became favorite targets for German artillery, tanks, and other heavy weapons. American mortar, antitank, and assault-gun crews often suffered heavy casualties. A tendency developed in which these weapons remained hidden and silent until the salvos of the supporting artillery landed on the defenders' positions. Artillery fires suppressed and neutralized the Germans, and only then would the infantry's organic heavy weapons join in the battle.17
Even more disturbing was the poor coordination that existed during tank-infantry attacks. Experience in combat painfully showed that stateside training lacked emphasis on the planning and execution of combined arms attacks. Infantry commanders habitually failed to exploit the mobility and firepower of the tanks attached to their units. Conversely, tankers operating with infantry were often reluctant to aggressively advance, taking the burden of the attack away from the riflemen.18
"
Training presented a problem because of these numbers.
In sept 1939 Hitler has 108 fully trained fully equipped divisions.
In june 1941 Stalin has 178 on the western front alone.
In Sept 1939 the American Army has 5 divisions thats 188500 men and 14400 officers.
So recruiting training and equipping all started too late. Lend lease added to the problem because equipment that should have been used for training was flowing overseas.

Which is why I say that I find the American experience 65 morale 75 a bit high compared to the German experience 70 morale 65

90th Division was facing the 91 german infantry division,
see
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/
The division was formed in Jan 44 apparently had very little ammunition for its gun batteries. It started out understrength at 7000-8000 men, lost about 5000 in the normandy fighting but managed to retained a lot if its heavy equipment it didnt "break" but was disbanded through lack of numbers.

Best regards Chuck

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

From the AFEW QUESTIONS POST “””The 90th is a line American infantry division, this episode occurred shortly after D-Day. <font color="red"> Breaking in battle </font> like this is due to poor training especially it would seem of the officers. German Volksgrenadier divisions performed better than that.”””

I think are you missing the point of how the game handles different countries troops. Now unless I've totally missed how the game engine works. You cannot compare US to German troops based on the EXP &amp; MOR ratings alone.

The game gives attributes to different countries soldiers, which is one of the reasons you have different unit names e.g.: Waffen SS vs. Second line Troops etc. This why there is a Marines slot because Marines are handled different from Regular GI's or Japanese, these attributes are hidden and cannot be changed. In the game US troops in 42 have more green attributes than those in 44-45. The same applies to Soviet Troops their abilities are markedly different in 45 than at he start of Barbarossa.

So an EXP 70 &amp; MOR 65 US Rifle Section cannot be compared to a similar German or Japanese Unit no matter the year.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi PanzerBob
Actually I dont think there are any other atttributes for German and US OBs that confuse the exp/morale issue. You claim there are, can you tell me what they might be?
Regards Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Good day, Chuckforth

I guess my explanation is a little unclear.

Within the country codes and with unit codes there things written in to these that make them specifically what they are.

EG: a "Infgruppe SS" has many things that make it so, The Country Code makes it German, as does the unit code makes it a Waffen SS Rifle Squad. These codes impart German Waffen SS attributes to that unit, some of which may be date dependant.

If it was a Heer Infgruppe it would have a German code &amp; Rifle Squad code, making it a Heer Infgruppe, with none of the extra things that a SS Unit would have associated with it.

The Pz Gren code gives those troops better working with APC attributes as another example.

With the Japanese country code the attribute which causes them not to surrender is built in there.

With the Russians within their Country Code is a date dependent overall abilities attribute, which improves as the war marches on.

And a last example, but not least, is the US Regular Army troops. They have a similar code attribute to the Russians, which sees them become better as the war marches on.

Now I'm not privy to all the things written into the codes to make various countries troops behave historically, but, I do know from experience that I can see a difference in how Canadian troops behave and British troops do even.

If these codes were not there, the game play would be pretty flat knowing the Green US Troops can fight the same as Elite German troops.

If this doesn't explain it then maybe we can ask the MOD's to explain it more plainly.......or maybe this is all in my head in that case, maybe it's time to quit playing SP.

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hmm, I think you're reading to much into this. There are some nation specific abilites but as far as I know it's not nearly as elaborate as you think it is. It would be extremely hard to quantify and judge. Experience and morale are basically what drives the fighting abilities of a unit (besides their gear off course). So I don't know what to make of your remark that "If these codes were not there, the game play would be pretty flat knowing the Green US Troops can fight the same as Elite German troops" as GREEN troops (exp&lt;60) obviously don't fight the same as ELITE troops (exp&gt;80).

Country specific code elements are things like the japanese and marines 'no surrender' ability. Hmm, can't really think of another country specific ability I know off actually. Nor can I think of any special things associated with a german unit being SS as opposed to those from other branches, besides the above mentioned exp and morale scores.
Those scores do fluctuate between years illustrating overall developments.

There are bonus' to specific types of formations like the Ghurka's bonus to melee combat and (not completely sure though, I'd have to check) mech infantry getting a bonus to their armor skill score. But that's about it. If there's more it would be new to me...

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi PanzerBob,
So checking the leavenworth Article, Baggypants article and as an example, the performances of the American 90th and German 91st divisions. I would have thought American Morale (Rallying) should be lower than the Germans in 44. German Divisions were still performing well if not Miracles on all fronts throughout 44 and the vast majority had seen plenty of action and had excellent leadership. American Divisions in Pacific and Italy have no doubt by 1944 made up for there poor training through hard experience, but there is still the New American units that landed in NW europe and apparently underperformed. ie put simply I imagine their training wasnt hard enough to prepare them for what was to come. So considering all theatres I cant see that American Morale, ie Rallying, ie Leadership, should be higher than German in 44.

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

See my "Hardwired" Country Atributes Thread.
Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

It'd be interesting to see how would Germans cope with assaults of prepared Allied positions in the Bocage.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Set it up and play it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Meant IRL, not in SP http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Were there any larger attacks from German side against prepared fdefenses in the Bocage? IIRC Mortain was already in open country, no?

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

It looks to me that this war has been very poorly planned for and incompetently executed. It is clear that we have been defeated on the battlefield and that the entire world, primarily Western Europe, is against us, disapproving of our beligerant and imperialistic actions in our unprovoked war against Mr. Hitler's Germany and their allies. Our few allies, in Eastern Europe, Great Britain, Australia, et al have lost faith in our ability to bring this war to a successful conclusion and I call upon the United States Senate and congress to bring official censure against Franklin (De Warmonger) Roosevelt, redeploy our troops from the European continent, and pay whatever reparations that Germany feels are called for.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Say what? Does not compute.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

You may now come to my office to wipe the tea off my screen.

Good one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I believe we have an attempt to inject modern day so called morality and politics into historic events, it sounds just as incongruous as it does in this age. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif IMHO

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Indeed, these sort of remarks, even if meant just for comic relief, seriously detract from a relevant debate. I've heard the argument of 'you should be grateful we went to europe to fight and shut up' ad nauseam. I have a very hard time taking anyone who uses it in a discussion serious.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Social commentary aside, there comes a time when a debate devolves into rivet counting Grognardism. Noah's comment reminded me of that and something more: Regardless of any differences between American and German training, and morale - We* Won.

Regardless of whether or not the 90th broke, of how many and what quality sights a given Sherman variant had and if the Japanese ever broke, factors far outside the scope of this game were responsible for the crushing defeat of the Axis powers. Russian man power, industrial capacity and technological superiority; England's ability to draw on a vast empire not just materially but philosopically (the Yanks fit in here too); the US' overwhelming industrial capacity; Canada's resources; Australia and New Zealand's strategic positioning; the occupied territories refusal to give up; none of these things can be depicted in the game yet all are part of why the Axis lost.

If all things were equal, it would matter if the 90th broke, but things never were equal. Too often the cry is "Realism, Realism" yet who is willing to to really put that into effect? How often do we hear calls to create OOBs with under strength infantry due to casualties? How often do people ask that the price of Tigers be doubled or tripled while the price of T-34's be halved to represent historical economic realties? So many Wittmans, so few Isaiah Washingtons, red ball truck driver from Detroit and fewer yet Hans Meyers, 14 year old Hitler Jugend huddling in the ruins of some nameless burnt out city waiting for the Russians with nothing more than a Panzer faust and a bloodstained secondhand feldgrau greatcoat to label them as soldier....

The frikin' Nazis lost and thank the gods for Germany that they did.

&lt;PatG turns, picks up his soapbox, and walks away into the smoke&gt;

*and no I am not a jingoistic American, I am a Canadian of British origin with a Maltese wife and an ex-stepfather from Arnhem and definately more German blood than American in my veins. We = "the good guys"

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Yes, Pat when the smoke clears, you've hit the nail on the head. Hear, Hear !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

That's what we call 'kicking in an open door' so sorry that I don't join the bandwagon celebrating the obvious.

The 'who-cares-because-what-happened-is-what-happened' attitude is hardly the appropriate one when putting oneself into the middle of a debate that is not just touching the surface of 'what happened' but tries to go into the reasons why something happened. Some people are actually interested in trying to figure out, through discourse, why the 90th failed in Normandy.

Off topic Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Please excuse my bootprints Narwan and others - I tend to get a little twitchy this time of year. This is an interesting thread please keep it up.

Off topic Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I was just agreeing with the quoted statement

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi BaggyPants

I am not suggesting rearranging one OOBs morale rating based on one hard luck outfit.
The levenworth article clearly details poor performance
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
on a much wider scale. 90th division just serves as an very good example of problems due to poor training that I think were probably to be found in many/most American divisions/regiments. ie because they all got the same training. And of course dont forget Kasserine, same problem.
Thats right aggressiveness is'nt everything, but when you have some substantial advantages such as air, supply, numbers etc you should perform OK but if you then fail through lack of agressiveness or you could say, lack of initiative then that must be from poor training.
Normally when a section hits an obstacle and its a single fire position the corporal will get some info, place the LMG in a spot to cover the target and leapfrog the sections rifle group and scout group over the objective, same deal but more complicated for the coy lieutenant taking out a section etc. Now this is the British and Australian approach, and in the first instance takes about 10-20 minutes up until going back over the objective seaching the body and putting in a radio report, If you prefer to use the American "fixing attack" this can be a lot slower depending on your artillery availability, which may be one reason they got stuck in the bocage. And the enemy has the opportunity to "bug out" while you bring in the ranging shots and of course you lose the advantage of surprise.
The practice in most armies is to limit the amount of artillery support available according to the size of the formation being supported, this means you have to be aggressive or you dont get anywhere. American doctrine of allowing much higher levels or artilery support at lower formation sizes encourages reliance on artilley, no doubt saving American lives, but is slower. Allowing the enemy time to adjust to your advance.
The Germans had a higher proportion of Officers to noncommissioned ranks killed than the Americans, After losing and replacing officers such German Divisions didnt drop to green status, I guess because the replacements were usually pulled up from within the divisions ranks?
Your war college essay, emphasises the difficulties of the bocage, and it is good defensive terrain, but dont forget the closer the cover the more men needed to cover it. It sounds like the Germans had built the Maginot line in there but actually very few units were well dug in, there was very little depth and there were big gaps between some units. The Americans should have found these gaps and pushed through for all they were worth, a similar "missed oportunity" happened at Anzio. German replacements and resupply of course arrived in dribs and drabs and had to be thrown into the line piecemeal after being shot up by air all the way in.
The 90th wasnt reorganised it just had its commanders replaced.
Best regards Chuck

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi Noah
Yes you are correct
Thats Democracy for you, dont forget there was a thriving Nazi party in America pre American entry into the war. Now Im not saying America shouldnt have entered the War on the side of the allies, removing Nazism was a really great idea, but a lot of Americans didnt see it that way at the time. Dont forget in the 1940 election Roosevelt had to pledge that he would keep America out of the War to get voted in. Roughly half the nation was opposed to even giving financial aid to Britan let alone Fighting. ie a lot of peole didnt want America to get involved and a lot of these people were later drafted. So the American trooper had a bit of a mixed feeling about dying for his country, well not really for his country. Europe wasnt really "his" war, his war was the Pacific war(Those dirty Japs).
Contrast this to the Germans
Goebels had got a whiff of the Morgenthau plan and used it to great effect. The Morgenthau plan included dismantling all of Germanies factories, cutting off all her Raw materials, No mineing of coal or Iron ore, current mines all to be flooded and the German people to subsist on crops and cattle breeding. Roosevelt was actually in favour of this plan for some time. So the German soldiers, those that believed Goebels anyway, was fighting for his country.
Hitler also had the carrot, if they could just hold out long enough wonder weapons would save Germany. Not to mention that the Germans are a proud people, they did after all stop the Romans at the Rhine while the rest of Western Europe the Near East and a lot of other places got conquered. And even before that German warriors got to go the Valhalla for dying bravely.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Just to repeat again, under later commanders the 90ID was good enough to be the only unit selected by G.S.Patton from 3ed army for a citation as whole. After all, even Kasserine disaster bears on many parts signature of the II corps commander, incl. bad tank use doctrine and bad coordination of troops and their performance went up after II corps was taken over by G.S.P. So I'd say that while 90ID received sub par training in the sense it didn't have so much time for invasion-specific training in Britain, most of its problems came from officers.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Great Stuff Guys

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

OK
Let me put it this way. You say German Officers were a better standard than American, So wouldnt this mean that the Germans should have a better in-game Morale value? Considering that in-game Morale value is really only the much more specific "rallying ability" which depends on the quality of the Leadership?
ie the mens confidence in their leaders.
Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

This is covered by the Rally rating, I believe and yes, I think rally rating shall be lower for US troops than for Germans.

EDITED for clarity.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi Marek
Glad you made that clear, when you say Rally rating do you mean the 3 Unit "Command" values the Player preferences or the Realism Preferences
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

The unit "leader ratings".

Re: 90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

That is, as you state yourself, an opinion and not a fact. You are also more or less correct that the game with the current values reflects this. Which is exactly the whole point of this thread. The current US values are under scrutiny because the resulting 'abilities' in the game of US troops are not conform 'reality' according to some.
It's also not very smart to accuse the other side of the debate of 'admiring the germans'. This has little to do with it. We're talking about the US troops here, not the germans. I for one find it very odd you would find that the US would be more aggressive than the british in '44. All I have seen and heard when it comes to small unit performances (which is what this game deals with) suggests the opposite to me. So it would be helpful if you could teel us WHY you think the US was more aggressive (small units wise) than for example the UK and why you think they were on the same level (again small units wise) as the germans? I find both claims highly questionable.

And to get back to an earlier point, training; you say that the quality of officers had more to do with it than training. But isn't the quality of the officers vital for the training a unit receives, not so much the quantity but the quality of it?

Re: 90th Division remarks *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi Boggypants
You seem a little confused here perhaps in a similar way to how you dont understand squad tactics.
You mean to say
"Morale value in SP seems to encompass so much LESS" According to help the only thing encompassed by the game Morale rating so far is Rallying ability. I would be pretty sure that Rallying value and Morale value is the same thing
Perhaps the designers could clear this up?
ALso this has nothing to do with campaigns its about what the Morale value really is.
Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi Baggypants
There is no evidence that US forces "break contact easily but recover quickly". So stop worrying about any "proper effects"
This is meaningless statement
The British squad was every bit as aggressive in 44 as it was in 40. this has nothing to do with operational considerations. Something you may have missed, being aggressive reduces casualties.
And of course on an operational level I guess your going to tell me operation Market Garden wasnt aggressive.


[/quote]
Theirs no need to break it down into defensive and offensive Morale(Rallying) affects Both.
You continue to ignore the Levenworth article
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
, Kasserine, Anzio etc the shortfalls are clearly not restricted to the 90th.
When on a joint training Exercise with the Americans in Hawaii we had many interestig experiences one that is particularily relevent is this.
When we arrived we noticed that the Americans were in the habit of shooting off a few rounds in the morning. This was great fun until it was noticed that somebody was shooting real bullets through the pup tents, though this was a great lark it was decided some action should be taken so the General was called in. We formed up the General got driven up jumped out of his jeep gave a long speech about how great a job we were all doing and took off. If discipline isnt enforced during Peacetime it wont be there when the war starts. Oh yes and we did a lot of section attacks using Laser Equipment, can you guess what methods we used? can you guess who cleaned up the Yanks?
Guess what, you make me sick.
Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I can't imagine what I have done to make you sick, Chuck, other than making longer posts than you. But what makes you ill is your business.
I can clearly see that your vast "training" experiences (even thought your Hawaii story seems strangely incoherant) outweights my 10 years in the Infantry with actual combat deployment. I shall leave you content in your wannabe kingdom, confident in your beliefs that war is book rehearsed tactics and the long winded application of percentages and probability. I hope one day you may experience more than just 'laser tag' and you may find like I did that while the MILES combat simulation system is an excellent training tool, it does not teach the full lessons of real combat.
FYI, when visiting units train at US bases, the 'guest' always win. The British, French, German, South Korean, Honduran units I had the honor of training with in my past were just as pleasant to the varied units I have served with. Come to think of it, you always hear "training stories" where people go somewhere and "kick butt", but how many times have you heard the reverse? Strange how so many units go places and always win without meeting the 'losers'.
But nevermind, I won't be concerned with your views anymore.
Ta-Ta and good luck to this forum.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Baggypants, don't judge the whole forum because of one poster..., I mean you don't make me sick http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif - I think it has been a pretty interesting discussion...

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi BaggyPants
My you have a short memory. What makes me sick is your comment that my description of an "aggressive" squad attack "Made you puke" because it was staff college book learning or something, I would have a clearer description for you if you hadn't convieniently removed the offending post. Seems your not very good at swallowing your own medicine are you?
You have Brought some very pertinent and relevant information to the Forum thanks for that, I guess you are showing your American Break contact quickly character? lets hope you can recover quickly.
Chuck.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I'll second that motion, Wulfir.

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

BaggyPants, Chucky has a real talent for pissing people off and you're not the first person to give up on this forum becasue of him. We suggested some time ago that he be ignored. Most people who get into "discussions" like this with him end up as fed up as you so trust me, you're not alone.

Don