T-72 Tank Sim to be published by Battlefront

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

Battlefront have signed on the Russian developers of this hardcore
modern tank sim.

Read about it here :

http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=1738

and here :

http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72/

The Russian language demo can be gotten here :

http://www.3dgamers.com/games/tankt72/downloads/

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Rotwang ne spem wrote:

> I will go on pilgrimage to Scherpenheuvel on my knees if somebody
converts
> that to WWII.

I think there's already a model for a T-34 in there so I think I'm
gonna hold you to this promise ...

[doa go volk oep af koume]

Routeplanner : Antwerp to Scherpenheuvel : 61.3 km

[for the uninitiated : "going to Scherpenheuvel on my knees" is
*always* used proverbially - usually be people who've never even been
there - and is not to be taken literally - oh, and I'm not going to
even bother trying to come up with an English equivalent - if you don't
speak Flemish, it's your loss]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Hi,
>
> Battlefront have signed on the Russian developers of this hardcore
> modern tank sim.
>
> Read about it here :
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=1738
>
> and here :
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72/
>
> The Russian language demo can be gotten here :
>
> http://www.3dgamers.com/games/tankt72/downloads/
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx



I will go on pilgrimage to Scherpenheuvel on my knees if somebody converts
that to WWII.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Hi,
>
> Battlefront have signed on the Russian developers of this hardcore
> modern tank sim.
>
> Read about it here :
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=1738
>
> and here :
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72/
>
> The Russian language demo can be gotten here :
>
> http://www.3dgamers.com/games/tankt72/downloads/
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx


Interesting.

As Russians are historical big friends of Serbs this is of no suprise to me.
But, it would be cool if player could choose Croatian or Bosnian side too.
Battlefront have made a disclaimer and that's OK they sell the game and if
it is quality title they will publish it.

But, it would be OK if some Ukrainian or Slovakian game devs (if Croatian
are not available) make a game called "Defeat of Elite 1st Guards Brigade in
Vukovar" or something like that. Because lot's of Serbian tanks have been
destroyed in Vukovar and Bosnia as well. Ok they captured Vukovar but they
sustained enormous losses and lost the war in the end. But, I don't want to
talk too much about this war because yes everybody commited crimes and it
was really dirty war.

There was one funny situation in Bosnia and this was told to me by some
Croat that fought in Bosnia (he was from northern Bosnia) - so there was
some fight and Serbs have gotten into trap and they destroyed some Serbian
tanks... And when night came both side came to pull out same tank with
tractors to repair it. Imagine comical situation and throwing a hand
grenades to get damaged tank.



Mario

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:55:32 +0100, "Bloodstar"
<george.washington@microsoft.com> wrote:


>Interesting situation that is - but I really respect American democracy and
>in this case Battlefront.com who will publish game that is about Russian
>volunteer in Serbian army. OK. Now, I also want to fight Russians in Grozny
>if that is possible? What, Chechen rebels are terrorists? Khm... And Russian
>opression of Caucaus is not a terror. khm... Well, I just don't know.

Sorry, I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one:

"The core of the game is an 18 mission campaign following the combat
experiences of a Russian tank volunteer unit fighting on the Serbian
side. View the Background section of the website for more detail.
Single missions as well as LAN and online multiplayer are available
also."

So... yeah, the single player campaign happens to be some Russians
fighting for the Serbs, but no matter what they say, the true core of
the game will be multiplayer.

As for a Chechen game... Talk to the developers. It might be tough to
make a good game out of an asymmetrical war like that.

Clay-

--
Standard Disclaimer:
My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

Clay Cahill 2004

"I would just like to say that after all these years of heavy drinking, bright lights and late
nights, I still don't need glasses. I drink right out of the bottle." - David Lee Roth

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <sslc11pdksojtcbhvlb493olnb0fskdfvq@4ax.com>,
clay.cahill@bunnypeople.com says...

> So... yeah, the single player campaign happens to be some Russians
> fighting for the Serbs, but no matter what they say, the true core of
> the game will be multiplayer.
>
> As for a Chechen game... Talk to the developers. It might be tough to
> make a good game out of an asymmetrical war like that.

I'd like to see a tank sim take on the 1950s-1960s. Lots of interesting
stuff there.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'

The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
mean, *we*?'

It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
blah.

If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
would never have taken place."
- Jay Nordlinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 18 Feb 2005 02:08:56 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Battlefront have signed on the Russian developers of this hardcore
>modern tank sim.

I don't think the sim itself will be "hardcore". What is
"hardcore" in this story is the developers - it appears they belong to
hardcore Russian ultra nationalists, that is, with somewhat skewed
perception of reality.

But I have no particular problem with that. If we accept that
their "background story" is truckload of fantasy bullshit, that they
don't know much about "Balkan wars" of the 90s, and that they think
T72 is superior to M1A1 Abrams (just read their, developers, website)
then they may actually produce solid action game. But I don't think it
belongs to this group.

Time will tell though, and I'll be wartching this one...

Oleg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <qmmc11pjbh5mbl6jlra0bl9dpck5u6cbvu@4ax.com>, oleg@bug.hr
says...

> But I have no particular problem with that. If we accept that
> their "background story" is truckload of fantasy bullshit, that they
> don't know much about "Balkan wars" of the 90s, and that they think
> T72 is superior to M1A1 Abrams (just read their, developers, website)
> then they may actually produce solid action game. But I don't think it
> belongs to this group.

Game-wise, though, the key is that the setting they're proposing
(inaccurate as it might be...) puts a potentially level playing field
under the various vehicles. In most cases, games pit Soviet equipment
against western or Israeli stuff, and it would be unsatisfying to
command a say, T-55 tank, if only for the fact that almost immediately
you'd come up against a Merkava, or a Challenger, or an M1 and be
toasted.

This looks interesting.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'

The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
mean, *we*?'

It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
blah.

If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
would never have taken place."
- Jay Nordlinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> But I have no particular problem with that. If we accept that
> their "background story" is truckload of fantasy bullshit
> don't know much about "Balkan wars" of the 90s,

The short story of the war in the website is quite "neutral" and to the
point. And the disclaimer is very clear.

> T72 is superior to M1A1 Abrams (just read their, developers, website)

And where did you read that?

> then they may actually produce solid action game. But I don't think
it
> belongs to this group.

The story is no more fantastic than many other tank simulators as there
were many volunteers in each side of the conflict. And about being it
from the Serbian side, I don't care about the usual stereotypes of who
is good and bad in a civil war,I will judge the game from its
qualities, and the game overview looks very interesting. It's a shame
the demo is in Russian...

A.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Sorry, I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one:
>
> "The core of the game is an 18 mission campaign following the combat
> experiences of a Russian tank volunteer unit fighting on the Serbian
> side. View the Background section of the website for more detail.
> Single missions as well as LAN and online multiplayer are available
> also."
>
> So... yeah, the single player campaign happens to be some Russians
> fighting for the Serbs, but no matter what they say, the true core of
> the game will be multiplayer.

OK. Yes, I know that. I just put more attention on singleplayer, story
driven part of the game. Of course that multplayer component is very
important and players can choose side and maybe you are right here. I don't
play lot's of multiplayer but I know that is very good in many games
(Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield to name but few)... I'll try the game -
in fact I don't have anything against this game.


> As for a Chechen game... Talk to the developers. It might be tough to
> make a good game out of an asymmetrical war like that.


Well, yes, that was half dry-joke. In fact that game would be "kill
everyone and come back alone" type of Rambo game... We will see how this
game will be modeled (this T-72), I know that Croats used some old Shermans
from WW2 in some fights, in first part of the war they were very inferior to
Serbs regarding armour, in 1995. maybe not so but don't know exact figures.
But in fact morale of Serbian forces was never very high, with mobilization
rate of 8% I think in Belgarde (others were hiding somewhere). In fact to be
fair historian as I am - this war was more or less shame on everyone in
the Balkans. I was against it and I didn't took any part in it. In fact in
my recent article that I wrote, I just wrote how history can be cruel, in
fact Serbs are getting "late" wisdom now, they are talking about
decentralization of Kosovo, democracy, and about cantonization of Kosovo and
that 20 years LATE. Great wisdom of Serbs. In fact whole Balkans should have
been cantonized 10 years ago. Everyone wanted democracy but on some other
account.


Mario

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Bloodstar" <george.washington@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cv72l4$ebr$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
> game will be modeled (this T-72), I know that Croats used some old
Shermans
> from WW2 in some fights, in first part of the war they were very inferior
to

Didn't see any Shermans in action but there were plenty of M36 Jacksons on
both sides together with M18 Hellcats and at lest one SU-100 was used by
Bosnian Serbs. T-34 together with T-55 was standard tank and 90mm on M36 is
more then enough to knock out T-34 although actually there was very little
armor combat and tanks and SPGs were mostly used to neutralize bunkers and
support infantry WW1 style. ;-)

> Serbs regarding armour, in 1995. maybe not so but don't know exact
figures.

War in Croatia is specific in the fact that Yugoslav People's Army (there
weren't just Serbs in it) had huge number of MBTs and APCs (not to mention
artillery) but lacked infantry so it had to relay on tank and mechanized
brigades to carry operations that would need lots of infantry since in
reality there was very little "good tank country" that wasn't ruined by
mines.

> But in fact morale of Serbian forces was never very high, with
mobilization
> rate of 8% I think in Belgarde (others were hiding somewhere). In fact to
be

Something like that in one case out of entire reserve brigade in Belgrade
only 9 officers and 6 soldiers showed up.


--
http://www.vojska.net/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
news:qmmc11pjbh5mbl6jlra0bl9dpck5u6cbvu@4ax.com...
> But I have no particular problem with that. If we accept that
> their "background story" is truckload of fantasy bullshit, that they
> don't know much about "Balkan wars" of the 90s, and that they think
> T72 is superior to M1A1 Abrams (just read their, developers, website)
> then they may actually produce solid action game. But I don't think it
> belongs to this group.

Just as long they don't put sewer system under Pristina or any other city it
will be fine. >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> And where did you read that?

http://t72.iddk.ru/en/history.html

Lot's of bullshit there, and you can have a good laugh - i didn't even read
everything, I will read all later.

BTW, I remember when around 1994. some Serbian professor, my friend but who
like to say some fantasy things said to me " you know Russian have send some
tanks to the Serbian in Krajina, they are fast, 200 km/hour, and they just
knock down trees in woods..." )

BTW, I don't have anything against this game but I think that will be a
history bullshit because Croatian and Bosnian side didn't had so many tanks
like Serbian so making a game of Russian volunteer who will now seat in his
game and shoot 100 Croatian or Bosnian tank is fantasy RPG like Ultima VII
was. And also I don't like games where you must choose stronger side for
solo play, side that actually had every weapon available and in much bigger
quantity. A lot more interesting gameplay is to play weaker side. That's not
romathic playing stronger side
In fact I don't like games that force you to choose one side in solo play as
I said, because there is a story and because game design is like that that
it will not show real war condition here because no player of those Russian
volunteer would like to see actual situation because that would be masochism
in case of Vukovar scenario where they lost 10000 soldiers (Vuk Draskovic
that said, their minister)

So this game will be totally ahistorical I think. I hope that they will
model tank battles in Vukovar so I can see if I can shoot 12 tanks my self
with bazooka at least in multiplayer.


Mario

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Bloodstar" <george.washington@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cv7dgv$pah$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
> BTW, I remember when around 1994. some Serbian professor, my friend but
who
> like to say some fantasy things said to me " you know Russian have send
some
> tanks to the Serbian in Krajina, they are fast, 200 km/hour, and they just
> knock down trees in woods..." )

US Croat told he have a brigade with 1000 M-84 in Vukovar! >))

> BTW, I don't have anything against this game but I think that will be a
> history bullshit because Croatian and Bosnian side didn't had so many
tanks
> like Serbian so making a game of Russian volunteer who will now seat in
his
> game and shoot 100 Croatian or Bosnian tank is fantasy RPG like Ultima VII

We had grand total of 287 tank in 1998! During 1991 some 240 T-55, T-55A,
M-84 were captured from YPA barracks so very few were lost during the war.
http://www.vojska.net/military/croatia/equipment/armor/default.asp

So tank vs. tank action in the game should be mininal.

> was. And also I don't like games where you must choose stronger side for
> solo play, side that actually had every weapon available and in much
bigger
> quantity. A lot more interesting gameplay is to play weaker side. That's
not
> romathic playing stronger side

Who was weaker? We had over 200,000 troops vs. YPA and Serb TO below
100,000, of course they had entire air force, some 1000 tanks, several
hundred APCs and more artillery then Zukov and Konev at Berlin. ;-)

If they stick to reality game could be really challenging since you'll be
always lacking infantry protection and forced to fight in urban areas.

> So this game will be totally ahistorical I think.

Not necessarily, they are banning idiots from forum. ;-)
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=000014

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

>> T72 is superior to M1A1 Abrams (just read their, developers, website)
>
> And where did you read that?

http://t72.iddk.ru/en/history.html

It is a bit hard to follow, but I don't think the gist of the article is
that the T72 is better than the M1. I think it is more of an argument that
the T72 was not as bad as was reported by what the author perceives to be a
Western media conspiracy.

Best regards, Major H.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <BE3CBD8A.7D3F3%tacops@mac.com>, tacops@mac.com says...

> > And where did you read that?
>
> http://t72.iddk.ru/en/history.html
>
> It is a bit hard to follow, but I don't think the gist of the article is
> that the T72 is better than the M1. I think it is more of an argument that
> the T72 was not as bad as was reported by what the author perceives to be a
> Western media conspiracy.

The gist of the article is that *we can't believe our eyes*.

The lunatics who wrote the article appear to be laboring under the
insane delusion that, after kicking the snot out of Israeli Merkavas in
1982 and American M1s in 1991, the T-72 crewmen reacted to their
stunning victories by setting fire to their tanks and abandoning them.

Uh, yeah, *that's* how we got the idea that T-72s get turned into
smoking piles of twisted rust every time they come up against <insert
western tank here>.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'

The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
mean, *we*?'

It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
blah.

If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
would never have taken place."
- Jay Nordlinger

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c81806f24478d1498a1b2@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <BE3CBD8A.7D3F3%tacops@mac.com>, tacops@mac.com says...
>
> > > And where did you read that?
> >
> > http://t72.iddk.ru/en/history.html
> >
> > It is a bit hard to follow, but I don't think the gist of the article is
> > that the T72 is better than the M1. I think it is more of an argument
that
> > the T72 was not as bad as was reported by what the author perceives to
be a
> > Western media conspiracy.
>
> The gist of the article is that *we can't believe our eyes*.
>
> The lunatics who wrote the article appear to be laboring under the
> insane delusion that, after kicking the snot out of Israeli Merkavas in
> 1982 and American M1s in 1991, the T-72 crewmen reacted to their
> stunning victories by setting fire to their tanks and abandoning them.
>
> Uh, yeah, *that's* how we got the idea that T-72s get turned into
> smoking piles of twisted rust every time they come up against <insert
> western tank here>.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
> and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
> We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'
>
> The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
> mean, *we*?'
>
> It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
> allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
> amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
> we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
> blah.
>
> If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
> would never have taken place."
> - Jay Nordlinger



I don't agree with the article, but at the same time, the 72's exported
to the Med nations were not the same as the stock Soviet version iirc.
I.e., I think the Soviet version had thermal sights, the export version
didn't ? Major H ?

Let alone, I doubt that a Syrian or Iraqi 72 crew would match a Soviet
one, in the same tank.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns9602A0EBA9229mortimertherat@130.133.1.18>,
alsandorz@rogers.com says...

> > It is a bit hard to follow, but I don't think the gist of the
> > article is that the T72 is better than the M1. I think it is more
> > of an argument that the T72 was not as bad as was reported by what
> > the author perceives to be a Western media conspiracy.
>
> Which could well be the case.

On that Bizzarro would from the Superman comics where everything is
backwards, surely.

> How would it have looked if anyone in Washington during the Reagan
> administration has said: "Really, boss, those Soviets have a really
> bitching tank in the T-72, a LOT better than anything we have. If we
> let the public know, they will certainly agree we should buy this for
> our own armed forces."

<laughter>

Of course, this is *exactly* what they said. Or is it your contention
that folks at the Pentagon are wont to argue, "The <enemy weapon here>
is just junk, and we don't need to spend any money on new weapons to
counter it."

Yeah. Uh-huh.

In reality, the impetus is for military men of every stripe (and from
every country) to be extremely respectful of the capabilities of enemy
weapons. And in Washington, you can't chisel a nickel out of Congress
unless you spend every waking moment asserting that enemy weapons
systems are all Ten Feet Tall.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'

The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
mean, *we*?'

It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
blah.

If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
would never have taken place."
- Jay Nordlinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 19 Feb 2005 04:51:02 -0800, acca170@yahoo.com wrote:

>> But I have no particular problem with that. If we accept that
>> their "background story" is truckload of fantasy bullshit
>> don't know much about "Balkan wars" of the 90s,
>
>The short story of the war in the website is quite "neutral" and to the
>point. And the disclaimer is very clear.

Short story is taken from third party site (not developers') and
is quite neutral as you say.

But then again it has nothing to do with how war is/will be
depicted in the game itself, and scenarios described on devs site
(judging from "background" and "overview" sections on the site).

O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:59:39 +0100, "Ivan Bajlo"
<ivan.bajlo@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

>> game and shoot 100 Croatian or Bosnian tank is fantasy RPG like Ultima VII
>
>We had grand total of 287 tank in 1998! During 1991 some 240 T-55, T-55A,
>M-84 were captured from YPA barracks so very few were lost during the war.
>http://www.vojska.net/military/croatia/equipment/armor/default.asp
>
>So tank vs. tank action in the game should be mininal.

Yes, but this game is NOT realistic depiction of Balkan combat
in the 90s.

Bajlo you'd be happy to hear Croats will have Leopard Is in
their inventory in this game ;o)

O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns9602B8572DBEEmortimertherat@130.133.1.18>,
alsandorz@rogers.com says...

> Obviously the US military knew the Soviet had respectable equipment
> otherwise they would have been tempted to prepare invasions in 1945,
> 195x, 196x, 197x, 198x... They didn't, or if they did, they didn't
> carry them out, which indicates to me they were very much aware that
> any attempts to go head to head with the Soviets would result in
> unacceptable losses.

It occurs to me that if we reverse "Soviet" and "US" in this paragraph,
we reach an equivalently stupid point of view.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"I was reading an op-ed piece by Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post,
and he began by quoting Jon Stewart, the comedian, who said, 'We did it!
We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, "Goodbye!"'

The words 'We did it!' brought me up short. I thought, 'What do you
mean, *we*?'

It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his
allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective
amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, 'We,
we, we.' We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah,
blah.

If it had been up to Jon Stewart and his ilk, that election in Iraq
would never have taken place."
- Jay Nordlinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Didn't see any Shermans in action but there were plenty of M36 Jacksons on
> both sides together with M18 Hellcats and at lest one SU-100 was used by
> Bosnian Serbs. T-34 together with T-55 was standard tank and 90mm on M36
is
> more then enough to knock out T-34 although actually there was very little
> armor combat and tanks and SPGs were mostly used to neutralize bunkers and
> support infantry WW1 style. ;-)

Well, one of my cousin who fough in 100 and something zagrebacka brigada, he
is near you (Malesnica) and he told me that they had Shermans on Banija but
maybe he don't know the difference, I don't know so...

> War in Croatia is specific in the fact that Yugoslav People's Army (there
> weren't just Serbs in it) had huge number of MBTs and APCs (not to mention
> artillery) but lacked infantry so it had to relay on tank and mechanized
> brigades to carry operations that would need lots of infantry since in
> reality there was very little "good tank country" that wasn't ruined by
> mines.

OK, can't argue that )

> Something like that in one case out of entire reserve brigade in Belgrade
> only 9 officers and 6 soldiers showed up.


They had lot's of low lifes and bunch of weekend chetnicks and nobodys. In
fact Russians are "half crazy" - and if they making game based on their dogs
of war, so be it ))) I am all for that, I also want to see Che Guevarra in
Angola, and South America ) To drive those Ford vans with built-in machine
guns in Africa )
Maybe game would be cool after all so we can play those savage people from
The Balkans )
Erh, just joking, no offense to anybody )


Mario

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> US Croat told he have a brigade with 1000 M-84 in Vukovar! >))

Well, I have another story: I've heard a story from one guy who fought as
volunteer in Croatian army (Croat from Montenegro) and he told me that he
have some devices with him and he in fact intercepted some signals from
Awacs (spelling?) when he was around Udbina in some bushes (ambush or
something, he was good soldier BTW) and he knew about air attack of NATO on
Serbian Udbina airfield 5 hours before it happened. So he alarmed Croatian
high command around 23 PM and next morning NATO actually did attacked Udbina
aifield. Well, I don't know if that is really possible so I will put this
story in half-fantasy )

> We had grand total of 287 tank in 1998! During 1991 some 240 T-55, T-55A,
> M-84 were captured from YPA barracks so very few were lost during the war.
> http://www.vojska.net/military/croatia/equipment/armor/default.asp
>
> So tank vs. tank action in the game should be mininal.

All right, all credit to you for nice work on this.

> Who was weaker? We had over 200,000 troops vs. YPA and Serb TO below
> 100,000, of course they had entire air force, some 1000 tanks, several
> hundred APCs and more artillery then Zukov and Konev at Berlin. >;-)

Yes, I was refering to weapons of war not on manpower. )
Even, China had huge manpower in XIX century but that didn't helped them
because every nation could put few regiments and march to Peking for rape
and pillaging of treasures and then enforced them paying war tributes.
Emperor would just escape and hide somewhere in China, land was so big so
they didn't followed him haha ))))

> If they stick to reality game could be really challenging since you'll be
> always lacking infantry protection and forced to fight in urban areas.

We will see... They got my attention.

> > So this game will be totally ahistorical I think.
>
> Not necessarily, they are banning idiots from forum. ;-)
>
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?>ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=0000
14

This is very good to see ) To hell with them...


Mario

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:34:03 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't agree with the article, but at the same time, the 72's exported
>to the Med nations were not the same as the stock Soviet version iirc.
>I.e., I think the Soviet version had thermal sights, the export version
>didn't ? Major H ?

...and now, back to the game!

T-72 exported to <insert nation here> were inferior to Russian
ones, and game would want us to believe there was some phantom
"Russian volunteer company" (never heard of them) fighting in the
Balkans, on the side of their "orthodox Serb brothers", against "Croat
catholics" (how stupid) in Russian army T-72s? Just how did they
transport their T-72s to Yugoslavia would make a story on its own,
even if we manage to cast aside rest of the drivel.

But I really want to drive a "catholic Leopard Is" game would
have you believe Germans sold to Croats. (Yes they did, but no more
than a handful, perhaps not enough to equip an armored company - Bajlo
if you know more, please post).

See what I am talking about? This may be a good game after all,
but as far as the setup, and "background story" goes, it's laughable
fantasy of Russian, no make that Soviet developers, living in their
skewed reality with "orthodox brothers" and "catholic Croats",
unbeatable T-72s, remains of Soviet military power and whatnot...

O.

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
news:3emf11hvpedfb6f5g9pcm4okfbu43jillf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:34:03 -0600, "JP" <jp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't agree with the article, but at the same time, the 72's
exported
> >to the Med nations were not the same as the stock Soviet version iirc.
> >I.e., I think the Soviet version had thermal sights, the export version
> >didn't ? Major H ?
>
> ...and now, back to the game!
>
> T-72 exported to <insert nation here> were inferior to Russian
> ones, and game would want us to believe there was some phantom
> "Russian volunteer company" (never heard of them) fighting in the
> Balkans, on the side of their "orthodox Serb brothers", against "Croat
> catholics" (how stupid) in Russian army T-72s? Just how did they
> transport their T-72s to Yugoslavia would make a story on its own,
> even if we manage to cast aside rest of the drivel.
>
> But I really want to drive a "catholic Leopard Is" game would
> have you believe Germans sold to Croats. (Yes they did, but no more
> than a handful, perhaps not enough to equip an armored company - Bajlo
> if you know more, please post).
>
> See what I am talking about? This may be a good game after all,
> but as far as the setup, and "background story" goes, it's laughable
> fantasy of Russian, no make that Soviet developers, living in their
> skewed reality with "orthodox brothers" and "catholic Croats",
> unbeatable T-72s, remains of Soviet military power and whatnot...
>
> O.



Yep. Besides, if you're one of the "Russian volunteers", why not grab
some T-90's instead ? <g>







>