Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tournament Commentary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by P.V. Mann III
    ...Screw Adolphus.
    Just a touch ignorant of history isn't this PV? You've admitted in previous threads that your focus in on airborne operation in WWII even though that skews your view of non-para events. Here you are now claiming that people are voting for Adolphus "to look smart". I would suggest (again) that you expand your reading beyond the paras and beyond WWII and you may gain an understanding of just why someone "obscure" (to who? you?) actually is a better pick than a German commander in a war that lasted less than six years in Europe.

    Are you sure you chose Manstein before learning much more about his opponent?
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #62
      Obscure General Tournament

      Originally posted by The Purist View Post
      You've admitted in previous threads that your focus in on airborne operation in WWII even though that skews your view of non-para events. Here you are now claiming that people are voting for Adolphus "to look smart".
      Are you sure you chose Manstein before learning much more about his opponent?
      First, I stick to my notion that Modern Warfare is based on the experience of WWII, and to a lesser extent Vietnam. To me, that makes Warfare conducted before 1939 a distraction (I'm not smart enough to know a lot, and I have to know about other stuff, not just war). I've made efforts to (recent) to learn more about the American Civil War, World War I, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I just don't find them as intresting. Airborne maybe my specialty focus, but Modern Warfare is how I got there. Try not to under-estimate my knowledge just because I know what I like.

      I did no research into my choice of Manstien over Adolphus. I chose the General I thought would win in fight between the two of them. I chose a lot of pics that way. It's ignorant, but I don't think any research would've changed my votes.

      Take heart, your guy will win, and people all over the world will have to learn his name.
      "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

      BoRG

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by P.V. Mann III View Post
        First, I stick to my notion that Modern Warfare is based on the experience of WWII, and to a lesser extent Vietnam. To me, that makes Warfare conducted before 1939 a distraction (I'm not smart enough to know a lot, and I have to know about other stuff, not just war). I've made efforts to (recent) to learn more about the American Civil War, World War I, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I just don't find them as intresting. Airborne maybe my specialty focus, but Modern Warfare is how I got there. Try not to under-estimate my knowledge just because I know what I like.

        I did no research into my choice of Manstien over Adolphus. I chose the General I thought would win in fight between the two of them. I chose a lot of pics that way. It's ignorant, but I don't think any research would've changed my votes.

        Take heart, your guy will win, and people all over the world will have to learn his name.
        you like what you like, i used to study WWII, but the Napoleonic wars took hold and so that is what i study.
        Never Fear the Event

        Admiral Lord Nelson

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by P.V. Mann III
          First, I stick to my notion that Modern Warfare is based on the experience of WWII, and to a lesser extent Vietnam. To me, that makes Warfare conducted before 1939 a distraction (I'm not smart enough to know a lot, and I have to know about other stuff, not just war)...
          You would be in opposition to the overwhelming number of professional academics and the military academies around the world. WWII and the internal combustion engines use in war does not mark the beginning of modern warfare but there isn't space here to get into that. Suffice it to say that armies in Wellington's, Grant's or Foch's day were not moving all that much slower than Zhukov's or Eisenhower's.


          Originally posted by P.V. Mann III
          I've made efforts to (recent) to learn more about the American Civil War, World War I, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I just don't find them as intresting. Airborne maybe my specialty focus, but Modern Warfare is how I got there. Try not to under-estimate my knowledge just because I know what I like....
          I think you would find the study of warfare from at least the mid-18th century has a direct influence on war in the 20th. I do not believe I am under-estimating your knowledge on this issue, you admit to some knowledge of Manstein but none on Adolphus.

          Originally posted by P.V. Mann III
          I did no research into my choice of Manstien over Adolphus. I chose the General I thought would win in fight between the two of them. I chose a lot of pics that way. It's ignorant, but I don't think any research would've changed my votes.
          Without knowing something about Adolphus I am curious about how you can make this claim. Take a look at the last round and the players therein, Wellington, Sobieski, Adolphus,....and Manstein:

          One of these gents is not like the others,
          one of the gents just doesn't belong.

          Objectively, Manstein, for all of his talent, is not anywhere near the calibre of the other three. He is the final round simply because the majority of the members here have limited themeselves to the second world war and are generally ill-informed in other areas.
          The Purist

          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by The Purist View Post
            Without knowing something about Adolphus I am curious about how you can make this claim. Take a look at the last round and the players therein, Wellington, Sobieski, Adolphus,....and Manstein:
            Yeah, Manstien, proof of the sun setting on the heady days of linear warfare. My point, which I failed to establish, was the masters of the 20th Centrury have learned from "old-school" greats, and by now, intergrated the equipment to the form. It may be delusion, but I figure I'm taking a short-cut by learning from "now" to "then," instead of from "then" to now." I don't have the benifit of the Military Education some of the members enjoy, and I got a late start into my Military History enthuisiasm, thus I have alot of dead ground to make up for.

            Just try to take into account my short-comings before you openly blast on me as "ignorant." Ignorance is bliss, and I take pains to avoid that bliss, I'm just trying to catch up, and still contribute to the topic. My military knowledge, I hope, will eventually span all of Warfare, but for now, I have an education strategy that might make me look metally weak for the time being. Plus, I drink, and that makes it hard to act smart. Just ask any of my fans....

            "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

            BoRG

            Comment


            • #66
              I am not "blasting" you for being *Ignorant* as in - 2. adj informal. discourteous.

              Instead I was challenging (not "openly blasting") you to explain your stance which appears to me to be *Ignorant* of the facts -

              Ignorant - 1. adj lacking knowledge or awareness in general.

              Statements such as "Screw Adolphus" in such a discussion as this one are bound to draw a reaction and compounding the insult by accussing people of wanting to "appear smart" are only going draw sharper ripostes.

              Put the beer back in the fridge before approaching the keyboard.

              Cheers.
              Last edited by The Purist; 12 Aug 07, 21:48.
              The Purist

              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

              Comment


              • #67
                Ignorant is edumacatable... Stupid is fer life!

                The latter is an insult - very few of us here actually are...

                The former is not - we all are, in some form or fashion...

                Either case is a subjective matter of opinion in the end of it all!

                That don't mean none of us don't act in such fashion, nor do such things on occasion...

                I would be a prime example in both cases!

                Y'ARR!

                On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                ACG History Today

                BoRG

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Admiral
                  Ignorant is edumacatable... Stupid is fer life!...<snip>
                  Az allwayz, Addmural, yur elloqwence gifs paws too us awl.
                  The Purist

                  Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Drinking and Posting (PUII) is only a misdemeanor....

                    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                    I am not "blasting" you for being *Ignorant* as in - 2. adj informal. discourteous.

                    Instead I was challenging (not "openly blasting") you to explain your stance which appears to me to be *Ignorant* of the facts -

                    Ignorant - 1. adj lacking knowledge or awareness in general.

                    Statements such as "Screw Adolphus" in such a discussion as this one is bound to draw a reaction and compounding the insult by accussing people of wanting to "appear smart" is only going draw sharper ripostes.
                    Okay, "blast" was not the right word, but to assume my choice is out of ignorance, well..., I just thought that sucked. Sorry.

                    Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                    Put the beer back in the fridge before approaching the keyboard.

                    Cheers.
                    Cognac, actually, Remy Martin (V.S.O.P.). $45 a fifth, I can't usually afford the $150 dollar fifth....


                    "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

                    BoRG

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Agh, cognac, whickey, rum, 'tardrink', beer, gintonic....not a good idea to drink ALL of those during one night. Had hell of a headache. And a 60 euro taxi reciept...damn it.

                      Voted adolphus, because I know what he did. You can find some 'links' between the Thirty Years War and WW2. I think Adolphus had less, was facing more and accomplished more than Manstein did.
                      Wisdom is personal

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Just
                        cool it.

                        Rounds are almost over.

                        Adolphus
                        For despite the silly sayings about violence never settling anything, history IS changed on the battlefield: ask the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
                        -Jerry Pournelle-
                        Introduction to 'Hammer's Slammers'

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The Final Comments

                          You can see the brackets play out at this part of ACG, thanks to the Staff!!!

                          http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ercampaign.php

                          So, with the Polls closing, it looks like one of the earliest picks of this commentary has taken the win. In Round One Adolphus cam out strong, contending in the top three with The Duke of Wellington and Saladin. He smashed his was out of the out of the "Conquerors" Bracket, leaving the crumpled reputation of Sun Ping in his wake, and soundly beat Cyrus the Great. When he came head to head with Saladin he served a 2 to 1 defeat, almost like a feat of his shooting techniques, and as we've seen, Erich Von Manstien couldn't stop this Gustavus Adolphus. Hat's off to the victor, Gustavus Adolphus, now let's have a look at some of the other contestants....

                          _______________

                          Saladin vs Bolivar
                          102 - 25

                          > Crushed by Saladin, Bolivar was sent packing....
                          ________________

                          Cromwell vs Shaka Zulu
                          80 - 45

                          >Equal Opportunity failed Shaka, and the White Man has kept him down again.
                          _________________

                          Cyrus the Great vs Tokugawa Ieyasu
                          60 - 50

                          >This one was pretty close!
                          _________________

                          Giap vs Dayan
                          60 - 66

                          >The best battle of the whole Summer Offensive, hands down, flat out.
                          _________________

                          Pershing vs Moltke
                          58 - 61

                          >The tightest race in the Tournament, these guys should've had a "Wild Card" battle to let one of them back in!
                          _________________


                          Wellington vs Houston
                          105 - 20

                          > A proper "whuppin" given out by the Duke, to his rowdy American opponent....
                          _________________

                          Student vs Manstein
                          15 - 78

                          > Paratroopers versus Tanks. Who knew?
                          __________________

                          Puller vs Chuikov
                          51 - 45

                          > This poll had some hot debate, including some fiery Patriotism on the part of the "Chesty" Puller camp. In the end, Puller submitted to Manstien, but he ran strong until then....

                          __________________

                          And that will end my comments on the Summer Offensive. Thanks to everyone who helped me keep this thread rolling, and special thanks to the Staff of ACG for putting together and running this Tournament.

                          "That's..., the way it is...."



                          Last edited by Paul Mann III; 15 Aug 07, 17:20.
                          "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

                          BoRG

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            My one and only comment for these tournaments. Too many freaking Germanophiles around here!!! I honestly can't see how so many picked Napoleon as the best general evah (round 1) and then blow off the one guy who defeated the French EVERY TIME (Wellington). Oh well, my campaign score is going to stink. I had Shaka Zulu over Cromwell, Pershing over the paper pusher, Chuikov over Puller, etc. I don't think either of my finalists made it that far.
                            Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                            "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Richard S,

                              If all they read are Manstein, von Mellenthin and Guderian that is all they'll know. It's up to them to expand their knowledge beyond a single historical event. All we can do is point out their too narrow focus.

                              There isn't a single general from either side in WWII that should ever have gotten past round two or three. WWII is just not that ground breaking in comparison to wars of the past. It was bloody, yes, technology saw to that but in generalship there was little that was truly noteworthy.
                              Last edited by The Purist; 15 Aug 07, 22:24.
                              The Purist

                              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X