Silent Hunter 3 GOLD!!
KRJ
It's the moment you've all been waiting for, for months a whole team
of people have been slaving away adding in new features requested by
the community, tweaking gameplay, creating amazing graphics, and now
it's all paid off:
hip hip
Mitch_A
Hooray! hip hip
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Nigel Stutt
"Mitch_A" <na...@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:taoVd.2080$C47...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Trinity
wrote:
>Hooray! hip hip
Hooray! hip hip
JP
"KRJ" <ke...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:6p3c21dshmrala0jm...@4ax.com...
Sure wish another good Pacific sub sim would come out. After all, the
u-boats accomplishments pale in comparison.
OldDog
Usually when a sequel comes out, I like to reinstall the originals, play
them, and then get the new release.
Now I might have Silent Service 2 laying around here some where. But heck!
I think I had Silent Service 1 back in the old days when I had an Atari 800
computer. I wonder if they're going to include the original in the new
release; just so we can see how cool and updated the new release is? ;)
rob
After the piece of shite that was SH2 I'm going to wait until I see a few
verdicts on this one. Everything I have read suggests that it will be a
fine game, but once bitten twice shy
> hip hip
elbow elbow
Trinity
>After the piece of shite that was SH2 I'm going to wait until I see a few
>verdicts on this one. Everything I have read suggests that it will be a
>fine game, but once bitten twice shy
Two totally different developers, nothing in common except the
publisher and title name.
L'acrobat
"JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VBrVd.168$74....@eagle.america.net...
>
> Sure wish another good Pacific sub sim would come out. After all, the
> u-boats accomplishments pale in comparison.
Really?, how do you come to that conclusion?
USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472 Brute
Force by john ellis).
U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john ellis) -
3,408,000 in one year alone.
Actually the u-boats accomplishments are far greater when you factor in the
massive disparity in both the quality and quantity of their ASW opposition.
The C'wealth were good at ASW from the start and got better, the USA (with
the notable exception of the utterly incompetent Admiral King) were also
excellent at ASW.
The allies put vast resources into ASW from the air, ASW radars, Escort
carriers, HF/DF, homing ASW torpedoes, Hedgehog, Squid, operational
research, etc etc.
Conversely the IJN treated ASW with contempt, they put few vessels into the
task full time, had virtually nobody assigned full time to operational
research, did little in the way of Airborne ASW and didn't even bother with
organising a proper convoy system till there were few ships left to sail
(revealing that there was, after all, someone more incompetent than Admiral
King!).
JP
"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:APuVd.181762$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can come
up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
And if the Japs disregarded asw compared to the Allies, again, so ?
That's the US sub fleets problem ?
US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A country
perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the English.
U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many, including
"historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
L'acrobat
>>
>>
>
> Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can come
> up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
Or to put it another way, you don't have a clue, mouthed off and got caught.
What say you find me a google search that says the US subs sank more than
7.5 million tons of Jap shipping in WW2?
>
> And if the Japs disregarded asw compared to the Allies, again, so ?
> That's the US sub fleets problem ?
Anyone who isn't a fool recognises that the scale and capability of the
opposition you face impacts on what your achievements are, the USN was
facing a country that had few resources and less interest in ASW, the
Kriegsmarine was facing the C'wealth and the USA, both of whom put vast
resources into ASW/Convoy protection and they still sank almost 2 x the
amount of shipping and they did it while the allies were regularly reading
their op orders.
>
> US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A country
> perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
> English.
>
> U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
>
And the U-boats didn't face utterly incompetent enemies, the USN sinking the
shipping of an enemy who is not making any credible effort to defend it is
NOT an achievement that makes "the u-boats accomplishments pale in
comparison", quite the opposite in fact.
USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472 Brute
Force by john ellis).
U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john ellis) -
3,408,000 in one year alone.
*those* are the facts.
> But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
> ("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many, including
> "historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
Are you determined to display your ignorance? why don't you look up what the
U-boat crew wore as uniforms? hardly 'neeto' you idiot, and I take it that
you didn't know that the USN also used wolfpack (........oooh, cool <rolls
eyes>), tactics and even wolfpacks called 'hellcats' (neeto!) against the
Japanese?
But keep digging, you are doing a fine job.
JP
>
> "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LmvVd.181$74....@eagle.america.net...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can
come
> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
>
>
> Or to put it another way, you don't have a clue, mouthed off and got
caught.
<laughter>
My, aren't we a bit defensive.........interesting, wonder why.
Sure......if you want to say so. See below dumbass.
>
> What say you find me a google search that says the US subs sank more than
> 7.5 million tons of Jap shipping in WW2?
What say you do as I originally said, and you'll find different figures on
every link, some the complete opposite of yours. It's spelled g o o g l e.
That should help.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > And if the Japs disregarded asw compared to the Allies, again, so ?
> > That's the US sub fleets problem ?
>
> Anyone who isn't a fool recognises that the scale and capability of the
> opposition you face impacts on what your achievements are, the USN was
> facing a country that had few resources and less interest in ASW, the
> Kriegsmarine was facing the C'wealth and the USA, both of whom put vast
> resources into ASW/Convoy protection and they still sank almost 2 x the
> amount of shipping and they did it while the allies were regularly reading
> their op orders.
Um, no. Do try looking into the facts sometime. Hint: The majority of
u-boat tonnage was before an efficient/safe convoy system was put into
effect, the US was even officially in the war/shortly after. In other
words, most of the asw bells/whistles you are fixated on and seem to think
that the Germans fought for the entire war, were later, not while the
Germans were sinking boats right and left
Of course, you're also ignoring the facts that the Germans launched *many*
more boats, that operated in a smaller area, (1170 vs 288) and that the US
didn't have reliable torpedos until 1943. Hmmm, that means the US fleet
sunk whatever number you pull out of your hat with far less boats, in far
less time.
Sounds like a better service to me, numbers boy.
>
>
> >
> > US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A
country
> > perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
> > English.
> >
> > U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
> >
>
> And the U-boats didn't face utterly incompetent enemies, the USN sinking
the
> shipping of an enemy who is not making any credible effort to defend it is
> NOT an achievement that makes "the u-boats accomplishments pale in
> comparison", quite the opposite in fact.
>
> USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472 Brute
> Force by john ellis).
>
> U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john ellis) -
> 3,408,000 in one year alone.
>
> *those* are the facts.
Sigh. Still stuck on a single source. Oh well. To be expected of a
neophyte.
>
>
>
> > But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
> > ("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many,
including
> > "historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
>
> Are you determined to display your ignorance? why don't you look up what
the
> U-boat crew wore as uniforms? hardly 'neeto' you idiot, and I take it that
> you didn't know that the USN also used wolfpack (........oooh, cool <rolls
> eyes>), tactics and even wolfpacks called 'hellcats' (neeto!) against the
> Japanese?
>
> But keep digging, you are doing a fine job.
>
<laughter>
Whew, where to begin. Maybe "whoosh, right over the top" will do for now.
L'acrobat
>
> "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4xwVd.182024$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LmvVd.181$74....@eagle.america.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can
> come
>> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
>>
>>
>> Or to put it another way, you don't have a clue, mouthed off and got
> caught.
>
>
> <laughter>
>
> My, aren't we a bit defensive.........interesting, wonder why.
>
> Sure......if you want to say so. See below dumbass.
Nothing defensive, you made an arse of yourself and got caught - you can
always pick the idiots, they run and hide when figures get used.
>
>>
>> What say you find me a google search that says the US subs sank more than
>> 7.5 million tons of Jap shipping in WW2?
>
>
> What say you do as I originally said, and you'll find different figures
> on
> every link, some the complete opposite of yours. It's spelled g o o g l
> e.
> That should help.
Good. demonstrate it you cretin, all it takes is a cut and paste.
>
>> > And if the Japs disregarded asw compared to the Allies, again, so ?
>> > That's the US sub fleets problem ?
>>
>> Anyone who isn't a fool recognises that the scale and capability of the
>> opposition you face impacts on what your achievements are, the USN was
>> facing a country that had few resources and less interest in ASW, the
>> Kriegsmarine was facing the C'wealth and the USA, both of whom put vast
>> resources into ASW/Convoy protection and they still sank almost 2 x the
>> amount of shipping and they did it while the allies were regularly
>> reading
>> their op orders.
>
>
> Um, no. Do try looking into the facts sometime. Hint: The majority of
> u-boat tonnage was before an efficient/safe convoy system was put into
> effect, the US was even officially in the war/shortly after. In other
> words, most of the asw bells/whistles you are fixated on and seem to think
> that the Germans fought for the entire war, were later, not while the
> Germans were sinking boats right and left
> Of course, you're also ignoring the facts that the Germans launched *many*
> more boats, that operated in a smaller area, (1170 vs 288) and that the
> US
> didn't have reliable torpedos until 1943. Hmmm, that means the US fleet
> sunk whatever number you pull out of your hat with far less boats, in far
> less time.
Safe/efficient defined how and by whom - the sinking rate went up when the
US joined the war, it only went down when they finally adopted the
safe/efficient Brit convoy methods.
Yet the escorts and the aircraft were there in increasing numbers from day
one, as was the operational research, Ultra decodes, HF/DF in Jan 41, ASW
Radars by 1940 (more and better ones later), shipborne radars, the Germans
had exactly the same torpedo reliability problems as the US and the Germans
faced a far larger force.
Try working with numbers rather than generalisations ("sunk whatever number
you pull out of your hat with far less boats") idiot.
In 1941 the IJN had only 30 convoy escort vessels, all unarmed, no new ones
were laid down until early 1943.
Eventually in March 1944 the Japanese introduced a proper coordinated convoy
system.
Hardly a credible opposition.
>
> Sounds like a better service to me, numbers boy.
Yes it does to an idiot that refuses to deal in numbers and refuses to
acknowledge the opposition as a factor.
The German U-boat service faced 2 heavyweights and stayed in the ring,
inflicting losses till the end.
The US sub service were a heavyweight against a lightweight and uninterested
Jap opposition, they won - but it is hardly an achievent that makes the
German effort pale into insignificance.
>> > US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A
> country
>> > perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
>> > English.
>> >
>> > U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
>> >
>>
>> And the U-boats didn't face utterly incompetent enemies, the USN sinking
> the
>> shipping of an enemy who is not making any credible effort to defend it
>> is
>> NOT an achievement that makes "the u-boats accomplishments pale in
>> comparison", quite the opposite in fact.
>>
>> USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472
>> Brute
>> Force by john ellis).
>>
>> U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john
>> ellis) -
>> 3,408,000 in one year alone.
>>
>> *those* are the facts.
>
>
> Sigh. Still stuck on a single source. Oh well. To be expected of a
> neophyte.
>
>
Find a source that refutes it, you've said its easy. do it.
Clearly you are just another idiot troll.
>>
>>
>>
>> > But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
>> > ("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many,
> including
>> > "historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
>>
>> Are you determined to display your ignorance? why don't you look up what
> the
>> U-boat crew wore as uniforms? hardly 'neeto' you idiot, and I take it
>> that
>> you didn't know that the USN also used wolfpack (........oooh, cool
>> <rolls
>> eyes>), tactics and even wolfpacks called 'hellcats' (neeto!) against the
>> Japanese?
>>
>> But keep digging, you are doing a fine job.
>>
>
>
> <laughter>
>
> Whew, where to begin. Maybe "whoosh, right over the top" will do for
> now.
Another childish attempt to avoid the fact that you have, yet again,
revealed the depth of your ignorance.
Remco Moedt
wrote:
'They' say it has the Starforce protection system, so it doesn't run
on a system with a CD/DVD writer :-(
Cheers!
Remco
Trinity
Moedt) wrote:
>'They' say it has the Starforce protection system, so it doesn't run
>on a system with a CD/DVD writer :-(
>
>
>Cheers!
>
>Remco
I don't like Starforce and if it has Starforce I won't buy it. But
this is the first I have heard it has Starforce. I have two games that
have Starforce though and they ran fine on my PC that had a CDRW.
I have a DVDRW now and haven't tried them since installing that drive.
I deleted the games once I found out they put hidden drivers on my
system just because I was pissed off at the concept of Starforce. I
used the Starforce cleaner file too. Screw Starforce and and the horse
that it rode in on, that goes double for Steam and it's babysitting
scheme. Imagine what it would be like if every game you bought used
the Steam concept. Fuck 'em, I just won't buy their games if they want
to play hardball.
Genie
>
> 'They' say it has the Starforce protection system, so it doesn't run
> on a system with a CD/DVD writer :-(
use starfuck
http://www.project-starfuck.tk/
works fine for me
--
Apemant:
Orwell je bio optimist.
EdS
Moedt) wrote:
Well that's going to be a problem for a lot of people if true.
>
>
>Cheers!
>
>Remco
Remco Moedt
JP
"Remco Moedt" <rmo...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.SPAM> wrote in message
news:4226daaf...@news.xs4all.nl...
Ugh, that's not good news.
>
JP
>
> "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nPxVd.191$74....@eagle.america.net...
> >
> > "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:4xwVd.182024$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>
> >> "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:LmvVd.181$74....@eagle.america.net...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you can
> > come
> >> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Or to put it another way, you don't have a clue, mouthed off and got
> > caught.
> >
> >
> > <laughter>
> >
> > My, aren't we a bit defensive.........interesting, wonder why.
> >
> > Sure......if you want to say so. See below dumbass.
>
>
> Nothing defensive, you made an arse of yourself and got caught - you can
> always pick the idiots, they run and hide when figures get used.
Explain *exactly* how I "got caught" dumbass.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> What say you find me a google search that says the US subs sank more
than
> >> 7.5 million tons of Jap shipping in WW2?
> >
> >
> > What say you do as I originally said, and you'll find different figures
> > on
> > every link, some the complete opposite of yours. It's spelled g o o g l
> > e.
> > That should help.
>
>
> Good. demonstrate it you cretin, all it takes is a cut and paste.
I'm waiting..........still.
By the Allies themselves. LOL. This is really to easy. You really are
showing your complete lack of knowledge on the subject, more and more with
every post you make.
>
> Yet the escorts and the aircraft were there in increasing numbers from day
> one, as was the operational research, Ultra decodes, HF/DF in Jan 41, ASW
> Radars by 1940 (more and better ones later), shipborne radars, the Germans
> had exactly the same torpedo reliability problems as the US and the
Germans
> faced a far larger force.
The Germans torp problems were solved in a fraction of the time it took
the US. Again, do the research.
>
> Try working with numbers rather than generalisations ("sunk whatever
number
> you pull out of your hat with far less boats") idiot.
Try working with facts, instead of numbers moron.
>
> In 1941 the IJN had only 30 convoy escort vessels, all unarmed, no new
ones
> were laid down until early 1943.
>
> Eventually in March 1944 the Japanese introduced a proper coordinated
convoy
> system.
>
> Hardly a credible opposition.
Hmmm.....sounds a lot like the Allies in the Atlantic until 1943. If you
knew the subject, you'd realize that.
>
> >
> > Sounds like a better service to me, numbers boy.
>
> Yes it does to an idiot that refuses to deal in numbers and refuses to
> acknowledge the opposition as a factor.
>
> The German U-boat service faced 2 heavyweights and stayed in the ring,
> inflicting losses till the end.
>
> The US sub service were a heavyweight against a lightweight and
uninterested
> Jap opposition, they won - but it is hardly an achievent that makes the
> German effort pale into insignificance.
LOL.......lets see, once again, for the numbers boy. 1170 German boats vs
288 US boats. US boats covered a vastly larger area, and got their results
in 1/3 (1943 on) of the time it took the Germans.
Who's the heavyweight there again ? I notice you ignore your hallowed
numbers philosophy when it's convenient btw.
p.s. the US wasn't a heavyweight in the Atlantic until summer 1943,
almost four years after the war started (that's 1939, since you probably
didn't know that) . You know, that research thing again ?
>
>
>
> >> > US fleet crippled and eventually destroyed Japanese shipping. A
> > country
> >> > perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
> >> > English.
> >> >
> >> > U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And the U-boats didn't face utterly incompetent enemies, the USN
sinking
> > the
> >> shipping of an enemy who is not making any credible effort to defend it
> >> is
> >> NOT an achievement that makes "the u-boats accomplishments pale in
> >> comparison", quite the opposite in fact.
> >>
> >> USN submarines sank a total of 4,889,000 tons of Jap shipping (p.472
> >> Brute
> >> Force by john ellis).
> >>
> >> U-boats sank 7,841,000 in the Atlantic (p.160 Brute Force by john
> >> ellis) -
> >> 3,408,000 in one year alone.
> >>
> >> *those* are the facts.
> >
> >
> > Sigh. Still stuck on a single source. Oh well. To be expected of a
> > neophyte.
> >
> >
>
> Find a source that refutes it, you've said its easy. do it.
I've already shown you how to do it. Twice. Take your pick. If you
don't want to, I couldn't care less. To be expected of someone with their
head in the sand.
>
> Clearly you are just another idiot troll.
Clearly you are just another idiot, period.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > But then, the US didn't have all those neeto uniforms, words
> >> > ("wolfpack"........oooh, cool <rolls eyes>), etc., that so many,
> > including
> >> > "historians" seem to focus on, eh ? <g>
> >>
> >> Are you determined to display your ignorance? why don't you look up
what
> > the
> >> U-boat crew wore as uniforms? hardly 'neeto' you idiot, and I take it
> >> that
> >> you didn't know that the USN also used wolfpack (........oooh, cool
> >> <rolls
> >> eyes>), tactics and even wolfpacks called 'hellcats' (neeto!) against
the
> >> Japanese?
> >>
> >> But keep digging, you are doing a fine job.
> >>
> >
> >
> > <laughter>
> >
> > Whew, where to begin. Maybe "whoosh, right over the top" will do for
> > now.
>
> Another childish attempt to avoid the fact that you have, yet again,
> revealed the depth of your ignorance.
Ah, more generalizations instead of facts (this latest post is nothing
but. to be expected though) I'd give you more, but since you've ignored
the ones I already have, why bother ?
Paul M
StarForce has already been cracked months ago.
Happy copying.
rob
"Trinity" <th...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:10mc215j9gg383dvj...@4ax.com...
I know, but the bad memorys are keeping me from getting too excited about
this one. The name was the reason I gave 2 a chance, but I'm going to need
more for 3.
Its a bit of a moot point anyway. Most software down here is released 2-4
weeks after the northern hemisphere so I can wait and see what people think
and still get a preorder discount.
James A. Cathcart
>
> "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:05AVd.182224$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:nPxVd.191$74....@eagle.america.net...
> > >
> > > "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4xwVd.182024$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >>
> > >> "JP" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:LmvVd.181$74....@eagle.america.net...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you
can
> > > come
> > >> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so ?
(snip childish "my dad can beat up your dad" crap)
Both of you just stop it...this argument is one of the most juvenile and
pathetic exchanges I've seen on usenet for awhile, and that's saying alot.
Both the US and German sub fleets exhibited great courage and skill...they
also had their share of mishaps and failures. Let's honor both by putting
this crap away and pray we never have to find out just how good either Navy
is in a future World War.
Nigel Stutt
very annoyed if I cant play Silent Hunter 3 becuase of stupid copy
protection. But its not likely is it - every new computer these days has a
CDRW drive on it as standard. Developers cant surely be that stupid can
they?
"Trinity" <th...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:rdrd21h1p9blqtup0...@4ax.com...
JP
"James A. Cathcart" <jct...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zPKdnTrS1vF...@comcast.com...
Ah, a self-appointed ng cop. How nice.
p.s. I'll let you honor the German sub fleets, no thanks.
>
>
Whoo
he beat you, you bonehead!
JP
"Whoo" <wh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:IKJVd.215$w....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> JP
>
> he beat you, you bonehead!
Hehe, if you say so dumbass.......... "whoever" you are <wink>.
Chuck
> I've already shown you how to do it. Twice. Take your pick. If
> you
> don't want to, I couldn't care less. To be expected of someone with
> their head in the sand.
>
>
Hate to butt in on a good flame war,but....
Expecting him to do your work for you is rather retarded and DOES SEEM to
suggest you probably don't know what you think you know.
Chuck
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Dave Erb
and runs just fine for me. YMMV
David
"Remco Moedt" <rmo...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.SPAM> wrote in message
news:4226daaf...@news.xs4all.nl...
JP
"Chuck" <Nony...@all.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960E9B37E88E...@216.196.97.131...
No you don't, or you wouldn't have. Yep, I use facts, he uses theories
and generalizations.........whom doesn't know what they're talking about
again ?
And just like him, you're missing my point; I'm not disagreeing with the
tonnage figures listed in his book, hence I have nothing to "prove." I said
you can find any figure you want, as almost any link has different figures.
Point is, the tonnage figures, no matter which ones you want to use, don't
tell the true facts.
But hey, whatever. Here's one page of over 7000 links, with plenty of
sites, with most every one having different figures. Use different search
criteria if you want thousands more, etc, etc., etc.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=allied
+tonnage+sunk
Need anymore hand-holding, let me know, eh ?
Sean Black
<nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Release date is the 18th March for the UK I believe.
>
And only £17.99 at Play.com
--
Sean Black
David CL Francis
<zPKdnTrS1vF...@comcast.com>, James A. Cathcart
<jct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Both the US and German sub fleets exhibited great courage and skill...they
>also had their share of mishaps and failures. Let's honor both by putting
>this crap away and pray we never have to find out just how good either Navy
>is in a future World War.
It is worth considering that the Germans lost more men in proportion to
their size than any other arm in WW2. I believe that 75 % of all U-Boats
crews lost their lives.
--
David CL Francis
Vincenzo Beretta
> perhaps even more dependant at the time on the sea lanes, than the
English.
>
> U- boats didn't. *Those* are the facts.
So you want a sim of a simpler operation? One where sinking half of the
tonnage was enough?
JP
"Vincenzo Beretta" <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vFWVd.3691$WC1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Seeing as about a third of the US subs were lost, wasn't so simple it
would seem.
But no, I'd just like to see some emphasis on the Pacific theater for a
change. Been years since SH 1 was released.
>
Connected
> But no, I'd just like to see some emphasis on the Pacific theater for a
>change. Been years since SH 1 was released.
Well, if SHIII sells welll maybe those are their plans. Not that I
have any inside info but it's possible.
JP
"Connected" <conn...@here.somewhere> wrote in message
news:vu4h21pdhsten6brq...@4ax.com...
Yep, could be.
Chuck
> And just like him, you're missing my point;
Dont get me wrong, I dont give a shit about the original debate, I was just
pointing out that you looked like you got your dick stuck in your zipper:
feel free to continue.
L'acrobat
"James A. Cathcart" <jct...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zPKdnTrS1vF...@comcast.com...
>> > >> > Hehe, if you want to throw numbers around, do a google, and you
> can
>> > > come
>> > >> > up with any tonnage numbers you want. In other words..........so
>> > >> > ?
>
> (snip childish "my dad can beat up your dad" crap)
>
> Both of you just stop it...this argument is one of the most juvenile and
> pathetic exchanges I've seen on usenet for awhile, and that's saying alot.
>
> Both the US and German sub fleets exhibited great courage and skill...they
> also had their share of mishaps and failures. Let's honor both by putting
> this crap away and pray we never have to find out just how good either
> Navy
> is in a future World War.
The difference, of course is that I didn't claim that the USNs sub forces
achievements made the U-boat arms achievents 'pale into insignificance' and
then prove utterly incapable of supporting any of my claims.
Thats why I kill filed the clown, he's simply a child or a troll, he hides
from the numbers because they display his ignorance.
JP
Then you won't see this I guess, eh dumbass ? Killfile people to avoid
getting shown to be even more wrong.......interesting.
So, you never have answered to the facts I posted, nor the questions I
specifically asked you. Especially the one about how *exactly* I got
caught, etc.
Hmm.........I think this line you used earlier seems particularly
appropriate in your case instead............."... you can
JP
Ok, since I asked 'ole L'acro and he never answered (surprised I'm not),
I'll ask you too; "How *exactly* did it look like I got my dick stuck in my
zipper" ?
After all, links were wanted, and they were provided, (let alone all the
other facts I posted that you and he both interestingly seem to want to
ignore. who's dick is in the zipper now, eh ?) since that was your first
whine.
So, answer the question.
Chuck
> After all, links were wanted, and they were provided, (let alone all the
> other facts I posted that you and he both interestingly seem to want to
> ignore. who's dick is in the zipper now, eh ?) since that was your first
> whine.
>
Couple'a posts later, dumbass. Are you really this dense??? Youre
ignoring the fact that several "disinterested" lurkers posted basically the
same thing. If you want to ignore good advice, feel free. I'm done.
JP
Hehe, several disinterested lurkers with no names........<wink>
So, show me this post you mention. All I see is the posts I've made
showing numbers that are static at any link on the subject. Unlike L'acros.
Since you made such a big deal about copy/pasting, should be no problem for
you, eh ?
James Calivar
Give it up, JP - you lost.
James Calivar
Well here'a lurker with a real name and a real address. You lost JP. The
remnants of your tiny penis are waiting at the door.
James Calivar
news:rdrd21h1p9blqtup0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:37:37 GMT, rmo...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.SPAM (Remco
> Moedt) wrote:
>
>
>>on a system with a CD/DVD writer :-(
>>
>>
>>Cheers!
>>
>>Remco
>
> this is the first I have heard it has Starforce. I have two games that
> have Starforce though and they ran fine on my PC that had a CDRW.
> I have a DVDRW now and haven't tried them since installing that drive.
> I deleted the games once I found out they put hidden drivers on my
> system just because I was pissed off at the concept of Starforce. I
> used the Starforce cleaner file too. Screw Starforce and and the horse
> that it rode in on, that goes double for Steam and it's babysitting
> scheme. Imagine what it would be like if every game you bought used
> the Steam concept. Fuck 'em, I just won't buy their games if they want
> to play hardball.
For once I agree with you. :-)
JP
"James Calivar" <amheis...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:rQvWd.3079$CW2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
And I "lost" how ? Or do you too choose to ignore the facts I posted ?
>
>
JP
Hehe, if you say so.
p.s. if I'm supposed to "give it up", how come its always others continuing
the thread ?
>
>
Whoo
Our ips prove we come from all over.
You're wrong, little man, so shut it!
JP
Hehe, if you say so moron. But I'd suggest you bone up on your IP
knowledge, since you're waaay behind the times obviously.
p.s. Since you continued the post, looks like you need to shut it, eh,
dumbass ?
Whoo
> "Whoo" <wh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:lYEWd.924$Lc3...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>JP wrote:
>>
>>>"Whoo" <wh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:IKJVd.215$w....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JP
>>>>
>>>>he beat you, you bonehead!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hehe, if you say so dumbass.......... "whoever" you are <wink>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>oh, look at the ips of all the posters who are telling you you're wrong.
>>Our ips prove we come from all over.
>>
>>You're wrong, little man, so shut it!
>
>
>
> Hehe, if you say so moron. But I'd suggest you bone up on your IP
> knowledge, since you're waaay behind the times obviously.
>
> p.s. Since you continued the post, looks like you need to shut it, eh,
> dumbass ?
>
>
>
>
So you still think everyone who is saying you are wrong is in fact just
one person. Sad, really sad!
JP
Hehe, show me *exactly* where I said that dumbass.
Whoo
so you accept that the above is not the case?
JP
Hehe, nice try moron. Answer my question first, and we'll go from there.
Whoo
just winking at me because you fancy me?
"the u-boats accomplishments pale in comparison.." <ROLS EYES> Get a
fucking clue you fucking moron!!
Whoo
you lost, you loser
JP
And you got a plural from that statement how ?
>
> "the u-boats accomplishments pale in comparison.." <ROLS EYES> Get a
> fucking clue you fucking moron!!
Hehe, you first.
JP
What did I lose ? Was there a competition ?
Do keep trying though.
Whoo
OldDog
"David CL Francis" <no.spa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W62aAvBt...@62.30.70.76...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 at 10:56:42 in message
> <zPKdnTrS1vF...@comcast.com>, James A. Cathcart
> <jct...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Both the US and German sub fleets exhibited great courage and
skill...they
> >also had their share of mishaps and failures. Let's honor both by putting
> >this crap away and pray we never have to find out just how good either
Navy
> >is in a future World War.
>
> their size than any other arm in WW2. I believe that 75 % of all U-Boats
> crews lost their lives.
> --
> David CL Francis
Have you read the book "Iron Coffins"? It's written by Herbert Werner, one
of the few U-boat commanders that survived the war. I highly recommend
this book.
JP
You say something ?
JP
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
news:vH2Yd.58536$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
Good book. Here's some others:
(Silent Running)
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/047119705X/qid=1110501249/sr=2-
(Clear the bridge)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891415734/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/
102-4390490-
>
JP
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
news:vH2Yd.58536$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> news:W62aAvBt...@62.30.70.76...
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 at 10:56:42 in message
> > <zPKdnTrS1vF...@comcast.com>, James A. Cathcart
> > <jct...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Both the US and German sub fleets exhibited great courage and
> skill...they
> > >also had their share of mishaps and failures. Let's honor both by
putting
> > >this crap away and pray we never have to find out just how good either
> Navy
> > >is in a future World War.
> >
> > It is worth considering that the Germans lost more men in proportion to
> > their size than any other arm in WW2. I believe that 75 % of all U-Boats
> > crews lost their lives.
> > --
> > David CL Francis
The same can be said (lost more men/proportion) of the US submariners,
from a force that comprised less thatn 2% of the fleet.
James Calivar
news:vH2Yd.58536$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
Just finished it a month ago - then my father stole it from me :-)
Great book. Tragic.
OldDog
I'll have to put these two on my reading list. Oh and here's another WWII
Sub book that I enjoyed: Pig Boats by - Roscoe Theodore. This book
covers most of the WWII American sub action in the Pacific. I should try
and find my paper back copy of it and read it again.
http://uboat.net/books/item/2244
So many books,
So little time
OldDog
From what I recall, although it's been several years since reading about it,
the German U-boats were doing some damage in the Atlantic in the early
years; and they weren't even prepared for the outbreak of war. Hitler had
told the Navy that they had several years to go and would be able to build
up their small fleet.
But instead, Hitler kicked off the war early and they only went to war with
about 40 subs. Imagine the damage they could have inflected if they had
the 400 subs promised to them (I think that's the number that Hitler
promised them for start of war).
Also, the ASW tactics of the Brits were a little so to get going. I think
it was Johnny Walker that finally convinced the Royal Navy to switch from a
passive force to an aggressive hunter of subs. And wouldn't you know it
that the US would be very slow in paying heed to any advice from the Brits
on ASW.
BTW here's an interesting web site that gives a month by month account of
U-boat action.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsUboats.htm
James Calivar
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
"Sharks and Little Fish" is another good one (from the German standpoint -
Sorry, JP)
James Calivar
Yep, had the Germans cranked up their production of subs a bit earlier, and
even doubled what they had, they may very well have been able to strangle
Britain right from the get-go.
JP
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
Yep, Pig Boats was another good one, forgot about that one, thanks.
>
>
JP
Hehe. Not having this title, I'll have to look into it.
>
>
JP
Could be, but the US wouldn't have let that happen. Witness what took
place before US entry into the war with just the small German fleet
mentioned.
>
OldDog
<snip> >
> > Yep, had the Germans cranked up their production of subs a bit earlier,
> and
> > even doubled what they had, they may very well have been able to
strangle
> > Britain right from the get-go.
>
>
>
> Could be, but the US wouldn't have let that happen. Witness what took
> place before US entry into the war with just the small German fleet
> mentioned.
>
I don't understand what you mean by this. What did the US do prior to
entry into the war? (Lend-Lease Act?)
JP
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
Yes, the LL act. Plus............escorting British convoys with US
destroyers (Rueben James sunk by u-boats before the US was even at war), US
transferring to the UK old US destroyers, US aircraft involved in recon,
etc.
>
>
L'acrobat
"OldDog" <Old...@city.pound> wrote in message
> I'll have to put these two on my reading list. Oh and here's another
> WWII
> Sub book that I enjoyed: Pig Boats by - Roscoe Theodore. This book
> covers most of the WWII American sub action in the Pacific. I should try
> and find my paper back copy of it and read it again.
>
> http://uboat.net/books/item/2244
>
U-333 by Peter Cremer
Is well worth reading if you are interested in U-boats