White Dwarf #206, or the WD boys crash and burn
Phoenix Knight
CAD Irvine wrote:
<snip>
> As to the removal of the horse after WWI this is not strictly true as many
> iunits used the horse (even the GERMANS) for transport (No I agree the
> polish lancer charges of the panzers was not effective) However one should
> not forget the problems the wermach had with the Cossacks.
Don't know who the Cossacks were, but the key word is, used for
transport, horses were used for transport, not to fight in WWII(except
the Russians, Poles, one American Marine Reg, and probably some others
I'm forgeting) The horse was basicly removed from battle as of WWI, and
totally removed after WWII.
FYI the reason the Polish Lancers charges the panzers, was because in
WWII time, there were two types of tanks, real tanks and cars that were
visually modified to look like tanks, but had absolutely no combat value
(well maybe run over a few clowns) The Polish saw the massed formations
of German Panzers, and thought that no country could have that many
tanks, so they must be cars. BIIIIGGG mistake.
> this is not the historical news so I shall not say any more but check the
> hisorical records.
> I agree Cavalry NEVER defated a formed enemy that was of
> good moral. Check the Famous Victory of WATERLOO to see how INFANTRY could
> defeat Massed CAVALRY. The famous battles of the American Civil war also
> show this eg. Gettysburg. No cavalry never dominated a battle field.
> --
> Charles Irvine a wargamer who likes to play the GAME for FUN FUN !!
>
Huh, I always thought one of the key factors to Napolean's defeat at
Waterloo, was he split his forces before hand, one group was to chase
down and destroy the Prussians before they could re-group with the
British. The other, main, group attacked the British. It was raining
hard, so the horses had bad footing(wet ground, also the reason Venice
was founded, but that's a long and different story), so Napolean waited a
few hours to start the attack. His calvary over ran the artillary, but
failed to destroy, or disable it. When the Prussians timely arrival drove
the French from the artillary, it was used to paste Napolean's fleeing
troops.
Calvary was rarely used in the American Civil War because the Americans
invented gatling guns and more accurate rifle during the American Civil
War, and American generals understood that being a large target with
massed firearems pointed you direction was a bad idea. (interesting note,
maybe, the South Cav stayed on horseback during battles, but the North
Cav dismounted before the battle started, good thing too, dismounted and
dug in North Cav held the South off of the high ground at the first day
of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
riding a horse during Pickett's charge, and was one of the first to get
blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
a wall.
I hope I haven't bored anyone to death
The Phoenix Knight
Aspiring Wood Elf General
Phoenix Knight
CAD Irvine wrote:
<big snip of tanks>
> The best tank in WWII was the russian T34 both varients and this came as a
> major surprise to the germans at stalingrad.
>
> --
> Charles Irvine BA. O.U.
>
>
Big surprise, considering that the mainstream German infantry, anti-tank
weapon could only piece the T-34's armor at something like 100 yard and
at the perfect angle (ahh the value of sloped armor). The german's had
better anti-tank guns, but they didn't mass produce them because they
thought that the Soviets were too devastated to produce better (or any)
tanks.
The Phoenix Knight
Aspiring Wood Elf General
Historical Fact: The Germans fighting at Stalingrad failed to damage the
industrial section of the city. This allowed the Soviets to build all the
guns, bullets, and, to some extent, tanks that they needed to drive the
Germans off right at the city/front line/battle zone.
John M Atkinson
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight <phoeni...@geocities.com>
wrote:
%CAD Irvine wrote:
%<snip>
%> As to the removal of the horse after WWI this is not strictly true as many
%> iunits used the horse (even the GERMANS) for transport (No I agree the
%> polish lancer charges of the panzers was not effective) However one should
%> not forget the problems the wermach had with the Cossacks.
%
%Don't know who the Cossacks were, but the key word is, used for
Then don't natter on this subject. Some of the finest cavalry in Europe.
%transport, horses were used for transport, not to fight in WWII(except
%the Russians, Poles, one American Marine Reg, and probably some others
The Italians, the Germans, the Phillipine Scouts, the Japanese. . . Who's left
in the OB?? Hell, the US Army Mountain Division included a Cavalry Troop for
recon. All of which fought mounted at one time or the other.
%I'm forgeting) The horse was basicly removed from battle as of WWI, and
%totally removed after WWII.
%FYI the reason the Polish Lancers charges the panzers, was because in
%WWII time, there were two types of tanks, real tanks and cars that were
%visually modified to look like tanks, but had absolutely no combat value
%(well maybe run over a few clowns) The Polish saw the massed formations
%of German Panzers, and thought that no country could have that many
%tanks, so they must be cars. BIIIIGGG mistake.
Wrong. VisMods are and were training devices only.
%Calvary was rarely used in the American Civil War because the Americans
%invented gatling guns and more accurate rifle during the American Civil
%War, and American generals understood that being a large target with
%massed firearems pointed you direction was a bad idea. (interesting note,
%maybe, the South Cav stayed on horseback during battles, but the North
%Cav dismounted before the battle started, good thing too, dismounted and
%dug in North Cav held the South off of the high ground at the first day
%of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
True. BUT there were a number of mounted engagements between cavalry-for
instance, when Stuart finally showed up at the battle, a Union cavalry division
engaged him-in a mounted battle.
%I hope I haven't bored anyone to death
No-just demonstrated you know nothing about military history.
John M. Atkinson
jatk...@gmu.edu
Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk,
the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs--to
kill people and to destroy the works of man.
--General Thomas S. Power
Bob Yager
In article <333D78...@geocities.com>, Phoenix Knight
<phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
> CAD Irvine wrote:
<major snippage>
Gentlemen cavalry was present on every amjor battlefield from the
beginning and through WW2. It has held a tactical sway on all of them.
Of course, some more or less than others. Just a couple of points to
clear up the debate.
1. The USSR used Cossack Cavalry to good effect on the eastern front. It
cuased the SS to produce 2 Cav divisions in response.
2.Yes, in 1939, the Officer Cadets of the Polish Military Academy did
charge Nazi panzer MK 1s with lance and sword. Interestingly, they
actually knocked out 3 and had some lance penetrations of the tanks
armour. But, then Ethiopian warrior spears penetrated some of the Italian
tanks in 1936.
3. Evidently you have never heard of Brany Station, Malvern Hill, Nathan
Bedford Forrest or J.E.B. Stuart, when speaking of the Civil War and
cavalry.
4. Cavalry dominated the battlefield from Alexander's Companions in
Phillip of Macedonia's army til World War 1's advent of the machinegun.
5. Imperial Guard Attilians are a cool adaptation in the gothic world of 40K
OFF RANT.
--
Bob Yager, R'n'F
Tarl Ironwill, Ragnar's Wolf Guard
Drew M Losos
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, John M Atkinson wrote:
> %> iunits used the horse (even the GERMANS) for transport (No I agree the
> %> polish lancer charges of the panzers was not effective) However one should
I can't believe another person is harping on this subject. This must be
the greatest myth of WWII.
> %FYI the reason the Polish Lancers charges the panzers, was because in
> %WWII time, there were two types of tanks, real tanks and cars that were
> %visually modified to look like tanks, but had absolutely no combat value
> %(well maybe run over a few clowns) The Polish saw the massed formations
> %of German Panzers, and thought that no country could have that many
> %tanks, so they must be cars. BIIIIGGG mistake.
I'll thank you for giving the Polish army a little more credit than
that. Speaking as one whose grandfather was a member of the Polish First
Armoured in Poland, through Hungary and Turkey, into and through Rommel
in Egypt/Lybia, and up through Italy, including personal participation in
the battle of Monte Cassino, until the final whistle blow, I can tell you
that Polish soldiers are no more stupid than any others. AND he was a
tank commander. Clowns like yourself who believe the tripe about
charging Panzers make me, as you might possibly understand, highly
irritated.
The Polish army was outclassed by the Wehrmacht. No comparison in
equipment. Training was not lacking, but they trained well on horses,
which was no longer the order of the day. And in numbers were they also
beaten from the outset. The much-publicised incidents of lancers
charging tanks were EXTREMELY infrequent (may have happened once or twice
when an order got confused) and very small-scale. Get your goddamned
facts right before you go tearing into some highly honourable and
praiseworthy troops who fought ALONGSIDE YOUR OWN. You might just
succeed in pissing someone off.
> Wrong. VisMods are and were training devices only.
And, my misguided friend, listen to John, as he's got some knowledge on
the subject. Then: get some yourself.
> %I hope I haven't bored anyone to death
>
> No-just demonstrated you know nothing about military history.
And irritated the hell outta me. Get a grip on yourself and consider
your actions before behaving like an amoeba.
________________________________________________________________________
"The British came and showed us what to do. The Americans came and told
us how great they were. Then the Canadians came, and so long as they
had a bottle on the hip, and a girl on the arm, they didn't give a damn
who ran the country." -- The Burgermeister of Nijmegen, 1945.
________________________________________________________________________
Drew Losos | "Here's a little present for you from me."
University of Toronto | -- King George VI, December 18, 1944,
Engineering Science 0T0 | on presenting the Victoria Cross to
GO NAVY! | Smokey Smith, Seaforth Highlanders
CarnageInc
And this has to do with Games Workshop or Warhammer how?
Chris Keimig
"Looking for my place in the Real World, maybe someday it will actually find me."
Games Workshop Fanatic and Paintball Extrodinaire
Jonas Whitespore
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight
<phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
>of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
>blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
>3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
>a wall.
Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
Pickets's charge and I'm certain *we* went downhill.
>I hope I haven't bored anyone to death
Not bored, but puzzled a bit.
'Pain and death are illusions of the weak mind. While his geneseed returns
to the Chapter, a Marine cannot die. Without death, pain loses its relevance.'
'He that may still fight, heal him
He that may fight no more, give him peace
He that is dead, take from him the Chapter's due'
- attributed to Master of the Apothecarion, Aslon Marr
John M Atkinson
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 00:13:27 GMT, edc...@super.zippo.com (Jonas Whitespore)
wrote:
%On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight
%<phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
%>of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
%>riding a horse during Pickett's charge, and was one of the first to get
%>blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
%>3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
%>a wall.
%
%Wasn't it
%DOWNhill?
No. It was uphill most of the way. There is a slight rise, where the charge
started, then it dips a bit. But for most of the way it was somewhat uphill.
Jonas Whitespore
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight
<phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
>of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
Wasn't it
DOWNhill???????????????????????????????<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------------------------------
Sean
Let's face it, both Phoenix and Bob have valid points, but there is more
to each argument that must be taken into account (and even more than
this I assume).
Firstly cavalry. This whole topic is open to wide interpretation. For
example the French at Waterloo. One reason the French cavalry was
outwitted (and hence beaten) at Waterloo was because the bulk of their
cavalry chose to charge over a hill and hit the untouched fighting
squares of the English. From all accounts the cavalry charged over the
hill and finally spotted the English infantry at 50 metres, but by then
it was all over. Sure the cavalry failed but only because they were
charging non-bombarded infantry set in square formations behind a hill.
this was superior generalship by Wellington undoubtedly. And superior
stupidity from marshal Ney (I hope I spelt that right).
Now, WW1, cavalry was used widely as tanks and other motorized transport
were not as common place (and a lot harder to re-fuel). So horses were
used particularly in the harsher climates, desert and snow. There still
were few cavalry charges due to the presence of artillery, machine guns
and entrenchments. Some cavalry charges were still successful though,
the mighty ANZAC Light Horse regiments are a brilliant example.
WW2, cavalry was a non-event except on the eastern front. Necessity on
both sides meant that cavalry regiments were still in use. Horses though
were used as transport, making these regiments fast to respond over
difficult terrain. The later the war got the more the germans relied on
the horse. A serious historical note: The Russians as we all know, had
trained dogs to be mine clearers, but they also trained horses as they
figured that if a horse charged into a minefield they would hit one, but
still have the momentum to carry them onto possibly a second mine and
hence get two for the price of one. Anyway, by the end of WW2 cavalry
were essentially only transport.
Finally in the American Civil War (oops, out of chronological order),
Cavalry started as trouble makers for both sides. Crossing enemy lines
and harassing little towns and rail lines etc. They became the primary
information gatherers and scouts as the years progressed. Very rarely
did they charge any concentration of infantry from the front - the
result would be another Polish charge on the Panzers! Again this was due
to the progression of artillery and musket/rifle.
I think what Phoenix is trying to say is that as soon as infantry began
having reliable fire-arms, cavalry charge days were numbered, and he's
right, with a few exceptions of course.
OK I've gone on too long.
Cheers,
Sean.
Steve Rice
>>of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
>>riding a horse during Pickett's charge, and was one of the first to get
>>blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
>>3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
>>a wall.
>Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
>formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
>military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
>Pickets's charge and I'm certain *we* went downhill.
No, Pickett's charge was indeed up an incline. It was across a large field
and then up a small hill. I'm quite sure of this because I have been to
Gettysburg many times (I live in Pennsylvania).
Another interesting fact about Pickett's charge is that they did indeed break
through the Union line, but where beaten back very quickly.
Steve
Bruce G Strang
In article <333d93c...@news.gmu.edu>,
John M Atkinson <jatk...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight <phoeni...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
[massive snippage]
>
>No-just demonstrated you know nothing about military history.
>
was trying to make, admittedly inexpertly and with some examples that
don't hold up to careful scrutiny, was that as artillery and infantry
firepower increased the battlefield usefulness of cavalry decreased
rapidly. On the Western Front in the First World War, for example, it was
very expensive and not very useful. In places such as the Middle East, it
had greater utility because troop density was so low.
The general thrust of the previous poster's argument is correct, even
though some of the examples weren't. Although most countries used some
form of cavalry, its use in cavalry charges was very rare during World
War Two. Most often, troops called cavalry fought more along the lines of
draggons, wisely dismounting before the metal flew in earnest, which was
the point of this thread way back when.
As for your statement that he knew nothing of military history, it is
patently false and pretty offensive as well.
>
>John M. Atkinson
>jatk...@gmu.edu
>Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk,
>the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs--to
>kill people and to destroy the works of man.
> --General Thomas S. Power
Cheers,
GBS
P.S. Your sig. quote isn't very close to the truth either.
Sacha Gerrish
One word: Mongols
Sacha
John M Atkinson
On 31 Mar 1997 13:24:00 -0500, bst...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Bruce G Strang)
wrote:
%>Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk,
%>the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs--to
%>kill people and to destroy the works of man.
%P.S. Your sig. quote isn't very close to the truth either.
What, do tell, do you think the Armed Forces are for?
John M Atkinson
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:42:14 +0000, Sacha Gerrish <sger...@jeffco.k12.co.us>
wrote:
%One word: Mongols
One Word. Gunpowder.
Steve Rice
>%One word: Mongols
>One Word. Gunpowder.
Two words: Nuclear Weapon :)
Steve (who admits that he has no idea what this thread was about)
Meridian
John M Atkinson wrote:
>
> On 31 Mar 1997 13:24:00 -0500, bst...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Bruce G Strang)
> wrote:
>
> %>the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs--to
> %>kill people and to destroy the works of man.
>
> %P.S. Your sig. quote isn't very close to the truth either.
>
> What, do tell, do you think the Armed Forces are for?
>
Well, shit, if that's what a military is for, I don't think I'm getting
my tax dollar's worth from the US military. I demand they invade
someone, RIGHT NOW!
The Mikado
Two words: Internal Combustion.
--
The Mikado (who admits he only has a glimmer of what the thread means
but thought he would throw in a world changing phrase of his own)
Leader of Nihon
Home of the Night Tigers Space Marines
Pissed off former leader of Squats who now has gotten
the short end of the stick in two different game systems
Now starting an Ork army " 'cuz we'z evrywer!"
"Every Samurai must be ready to die at any time,
but only under the proper circumstances."
Jpattern
Drew M Losos <lo...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>> %> units used the horse (even the GERMANS) for transport (No I agree
the
>> %> polish lancer charges of the panzers was not effective)
>
> I can't believe another person is harping on this subject. This must be
> the greatest myth of WWII.
Thank you, Drew. Sometimes I think I'm the only other person in the
Western Hemisphere who knows that this is a myth. :)
Even on September 1, 1939, when the Germans invaded Poland, the Polish
Lancers were lancers in name only. The lances were used for parades and
other ceremonies; the rest of the time the lancers were armed with rifles.
(Licensed Mausers, the same ones used by the Germans.)
For the record, Polish cavalry NEVER charged tanks. Not even once, not
even in the mistaken belief that the tanks were "something else". As
someone else posted, the Polish cavalry at the outset of WWII (and almost
all horse cavalry of the time) almost always fought dismounted, even
against infantry.
I've read many accounts of the invasion of Poland, some in the original
German and Polish (with a LOT of help from dictionaries :) ). Admittedly,
accounts get garbled in translation (especially in MY translation:) ) and
in the "fog of war", as well as post-battle propaganda, but as far as I
know, the closest the Polish cavalry came to charging German armor was
this: A Polish cavalry unit charged a German infantry unit in a clearing,
and routed it. Suddenly a German armored car unit (NOT tanks, although
German armored cars were pretty formidable in their own right) burst into
the open from the other side of the clearing and cut down some of the
lancers. Most of the lancers retreated intact, but the Germans held the
field. When newsreel photographers were shown the aftermath of the battle,
the Germans described how the "pitiful" Poles launched a stupid and
suicidal cavalry attack on the German armored cars. Pure propaganda, but
effective in showing how futile it was to resist the German armored might.
And even though the little Polish one-man tankettes may seem laughable,
they actually did pretty well against German tanks. The problem was there
just weren't nearly enough of them to make a difference, especially once
the Germans controlled the skies. But many Polish tankers escaped to
France and England and continued to fight with honor and success
throughout WWII.
Lest anyone think I'm a right-wing American zealot, let me say that I've
never served in the military, I don't support everything the US military
has done in the last few decades, and I find much about the entire
world-wide military-industrial complex reprehensible, brutal, and
short-sighted. But I will always respect as a group the professional
soldiers of whatever nationality for their dedication, honor, and
sacrifice. Individual soldiers may be bastards, regimes may be corrupt,
leadership may be weak, startegic and tactical plans may be poorly thought
out, but I can't fault a honest man or woman putting his or her life on
the line for his or her country.
End of lesson.
Jeff Moore
Meridian
Jonas Whitespore wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight
> <phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >riding a horse during Pickett's charge, and was one of the first to get
> >blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
> >3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
> >a wall.
>
> Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
> formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
> military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
> Pickets's charge and I'm certain *we* went downhill.
Well, I've BEEN to Gettysburg, and if memory serves, Pickett charged
down into a valley, and then back up the other side a bit. But it's been
awhile.
Jonas Whitespore
On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 11:32:09 -0600, Meridian <ki...@execpc.com> wrote
about Re: White Dwarf #206, or the WD boys crash and burn, in a
message known as <334146...@execpc.com> witnessed by all
participants of the usenet forum(s) rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
I want to thank everyone who responded to this (extremely) off topic
thread. After re-reading the original post, and all the responses, I
have finally reconciled my memory of events with the historical
record.
From what I gather, the charge *started* out downhill but then went on
for a good way uphill. Apparently, our re-enactment didn't include
the entire three quarters mile. Not surprisingly, as the ground was
very wet from the past three days of rain and several students fell
face first into the mud at the bottom of the hill.
Jonas Whitespore
On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 11:32:09 -0600, Meridian <ki...@execpc.com> wrote
about Re: White Dwarf #206, or the WD boys crash and burn, in a
message known as <334146...@execpc.com> witnessed by all
participants of the usenet forum(s) rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
>Jonas Whitespore wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:17:49 -0800, Phoenix Knight
>> <phoeni...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> >of Gettysburg) An interesting thing about Gettysburg, one Colonel was
>> >riding a horse during Pickett's charge, and was one of the first to get
>> >blown away. And Pickett's charge was basically a Napoleanic charge over
>> >3/4 miles of open ground and up a hill to the Union troops hiding behind
>> >a wall.
>>
>> Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
>> formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
>> military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
>> Pickets's charge and I'm certain *we* went downhill.
>
>Well, I've BEEN to Gettysburg, and if memory serves, Pickett charged
>down into a valley, and then back up the other side a bit. But it's been
>awhile.
John M Atkinson
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:51:46 GMT, srr...@psu.edu (Steve Rice) wrote:
%In article <3340856a...@news.gmu.edu> jatk...@gmu.edu (John M Atkinson)
writes:
%
%>%One word: Mongols
%
%>One Word. Gunpowder.
%
%Two words: Nuclear Weapon :)
Two words and a prefix:Anti-matter Warheads.
Can this thread die? :)
John M. Atkinson
jatk...@gmu.edu
Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk,
the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs--to
kill people and to destroy the works of man.
--General Thomas S. Power
John M Atkinson
On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 11:33:29 -0600, Meridian <ki...@execpc.com> wrote:
%Well, shit, if that's what a military is for, I don't think I'm getting
%my tax dollar's worth from the US military. I demand they invade
%someone, RIGHT NOW!
Talk to the fools at Foggy Bottom. They're the ones who start wars.
Will Untereker
Wow Jeff! I was really impressed by that. While I like to think that I
have a good smattering of Military History crammed in my cranium, I know
I've nowhere near that deep a knowledge of any battle! Feel free to post
that sort of thing whenever, I don't care that it doesn't relate at all to
GW (it's nice to digress sometimes). But if others have a prob w/ this,
I'd be flattered if you just e-mailed me what you would post. Jolly good
show!
Will
--
Will Untereker
Phoenix Knight
Jonas Whitespore wrote:
<Snip my history lesson/rant>
>
> Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
> formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
> military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
Maybe it was downhill, but I went on a tour of Gettysburg, and from were
the Union boys where positioned, they were looking *down* at the field.
So maybe it started down, then went back up.
Jonas Whitespore
On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:07:18 GMT, jatk...@gmu.edu (John M Atkinson)
wrote about Re: White Dwarf #206, or the WD boys crash and burn, in a
participants of the usenet forum(s) rec.games.miniatures.warhammer:
>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:51:46 GMT, srr...@psu.edu (Steve Rice) wrote:
>
>%In article <3340856a...@news.gmu.edu> jatk...@gmu.edu (John M Atkinson)
>writes:
>%
>%>%One word: Mongols
>%
>%>One Word. Gunpowder.
>%
>%Two words: Nuclear Weapon :)
>
>Two words and a prefix:Anti-matter Warheads.
>
>Can this thread die? :)
In a way, yes.
One word: Killfile.
.
'Pain and death are illusions of the weak mind. While his geneseed returns
to the Chapter, a Marine cannot die. Without death, pain loses its relevance.'
'He that may still fight, heal him
He that may fight no more, give him peace
He that is dead, take from him the Chapter's due'
- attributed to Master of the Apothecarion, Aslon Marr
to validate my email address use the following formula: 2+2=x, those incapable of adding need not reply.
Mr. Thomas N. Boyd
Jonas Whitespore wrote on Tue, 01 Apr 1997 22:35:40 GMT:
>
>Well, I've BEEN to Gettysburg, and if memory serves, Pickett charged
>down into a valley, and then back up the other side a bit. But it's
>been awhile.
Actually, Pickett charged right up to Hancock, and challenged him,
thereby removing him from the combat. This left just Armistead's unit
to take on the defender's at the angle, but the stone wall was a
defended obstacle, and the Rebs needed 6's to hit...
Angulion
Jonas Whitespore wrote:
<Snip my history lesson/rant>
>
> Hate to nitpick and all but... and I could be wrong, after all my only
> formal education in the matter consists of a single year of HS
> military history. But our class went on a field trip and reenacted
> Pickets's charge and I'm certain *we* went downhill.<Snip>
And then someone else wrote:
<Maybe it was downhill, but I went on a tour of Gettysburg, and from were
<the Union boys where positioned, they were looking *down* at the field.
<So maybe it started down, then went back up.
Hopefully to end this,
I went to Gettysburg College and spent much of my 4 years there running,
biking and hiking around the battlefield (I did some schoolwork too.....)
Pickett's Charge was most definitely uphill most of the way. It's not a
monster slope or anything, but it is uphill, especially at the important
part (the last 1/2 mile or so towards what were the Union lines.)