Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7221
03-07-2011, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenstein View Post
1. Curved blade throws off piercing attacks. If you are going for a killing attack or against armor, you want a piecing or smashing weapon.
2. Prefer arming swords and sabers.
How could you forget the best weapon ever?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7222
03-07-2011, 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenstein View Post
1. Curved blade throws off piercing attacks. If you are going for a killing attack or against armor, you want a piecing or smashing weapon.
2. Prefer arming swords and sabers.
1. Unless you're part of the cavalry. There's a reason why the cavalry saber is curved.

2. Personally, I prefer a slew of these. (Trust me - the blast is much more impressive in real life.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7223
03-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Well if we are doing ranged combat, I go for artillery.

Artillery: The cause of 80% of battlefield casualties since WW1.

And cavalry sabers were just as often used for piercing attacks as they were for slashing. George S. Patton spent five paragraphs discussing cuts, while twenty discussing thrusts. He recommends using the thrust attack in the last section of the manual. The 1907 US Army manual on cavalry saber use.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7224
03-07-2011, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenstein View Post
Well if we are doing ranged combat, I go for artillery.

Artillery: The cause of 80% of battlefield casualties since WW1.

And cavalry sabers were just as often used for piercing attacks as they were for slashing. George S. Patton spent five paragraphs discussing cuts, while twenty discussing thrusts. He recommends using the thrust attack in the last section of the manual. The 1907 US Army manual on cavalry saber use.
Patton knew more about being in the army than most people combined. If they had let him run WW2, it would have been over in 1944, and then we'd been in Moscow by 1946. The Man would have won a gold medal in the 1912 Olympics in the Modern Pentathalon, except teh judges couldn't except that he shot 3 bullets through the same hole in the pistol event. Even the guy who was given teh Gold Medal thought that Patton shoul dhave been the winner
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7225
03-07-2011, 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTWinters
Patton knew more about being in the army than most people combined. If they had let him run WW2, it would have been over in 1944, and then we'd been in Moscow by 1946. The Man would have won a gold medal in the 1912 Olympics in the Modern Pentathalon, except teh judges couldn't except that he shot 3 bullets through the same hole in the pistol event. Even the guy who was given teh Gold Medal thought that Patton shoul dhave been the winner
He might have also offended the British to the point of obstinence if he'd been in charge. Patton was an aggressive general to be sure, but he was also a premadonna, and had little patience for diplomacy. Say what you will about Eisenhower, but he was probably the best man for dealing with the enormous task of coordinating the British and American armies in that war.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7226
03-07-2011, 11:40 AM
For me, Patton was one of the more interesting figures from the 20th century. He was like the U.S. Armies rabid dog they had to keep on a leash. I wish he'd made it to Germany, gotten his hands on Hitler and that there'd been cameras. Tarantino would probably have been hard pressed to out do that.

Something tells me military protocol would have taken a back seat for that moment.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7227
03-07-2011, 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corban_Lewis
For me, Patton was one of the more interesting figures from the 20th century. He was like the U.S. Armies rabid dog they had to keep on a leash. I wish he'd made it to Germany, gotten his hands on Hitler and that there'd been cameras. Tarantino would probably have been hard pressed to out do that.

Something tells me military protocol would have taken a back seat for that moment.
If Hitler had heard Patton was on his doorstep - he probably wouldn't have bothered with the cynide pill and gone straight for the pistol.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7228
03-07-2011, 12:37 PM
OK, so Eisenhower was teh better Politician general needed to keep the allied armies working together, but They should have just put all their logistics behind Patton, instead of listening to the machinations of the other primadonna General Montgomery (Sorry MG). I thought it was interesting though, that before Eisenhower was appointed Supreme Aliied Commander, that he never once held Command position in any unit he was ever assigned to. In fact at the outbreak of WW2 he was still a Colonel, while Patton was a Brigadier General. I think it would have been interesting to see what Patton would have done under MacArthur's command in the Pacific
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7229
03-07-2011, 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTWinters
OK, so Eisenhower was teh better Politician general needed to keep the allied armies working together, but They should have just put all their logistics behind Patton, instead of listening to the machinations of the other primadonna General Montgomery (Sorry MG). I thought it was interesting though, that before Eisenhower was appointed Supreme Aliied Commander, that he never once held Command position in any unit he was ever assigned to. In fact at the outbreak of WW2 he was still a Colonel, while Patton was a Brigadier General. I think it would have been interesting to see what Patton would have done under MacArthur's command in the Pacific
I suggest reading Jeff Shaara's World War II Trilogy, which makes a strong case for why Eisenhower never removed Montgomery (although, admittedly, it is fiction, though based on Shaara's own research). Basically, although many of Montgomery's own British compatriots thought he was an ass, and even Winston Churchill gave Eisenhower free reign to replaced British commanders as he saw fit (particularly Montgomery, whom Churchill apparently despised), Eisenhower felt he'd have a full on riot from the British public if he removed a commander who was as popular with them as Montgomery was.

Besides which, Ol' Monty did drive Rommel across the North African desert, although how much of that was Montgomery's tactical "brilliance" and how much of it was Rommel running out of supplies could be debated until you're blue in the face.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7230
03-07-2011, 01:25 PM
Pfft, personally, I prefer this for a big boom:

BOOM!
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 PM.