Off Topic Funny

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:38 pm

So I see there's game DLC called "Two Worlds II - Pirates of the Flying Fortress"

My brain immediately interpreted that as "World War II - Pirates of the B-17 Flying Fortress".
In other words, probably a flight sim game centered on combat between Luftwaffe 'pirates' and B-17s.

Talk about misleading. lol

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:14 am

lol
I don't know why but I'm always associating the Two Worlds II, with Tolkien's LotR second book Two Towers, at the point of referring it as the Two Towers game.

Xerkis · Post by **Xerkis** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:16 am

Well, I'm still thinking it's World War II - Pirates of the B-17 Flying Fortress.

You going to let me know what it is or should I just Google it myself?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:22 am

See for yourself. lol

I think those game designers specifically picked the name they did for their game to create false associations with their game (This is extremely rampant, or was, in the Sc2 Custom Scene). Tricky, dirty, publicity maneuver!

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:28 am

Don't mention Sc2, because for me that's Star Control II and not StarCraft II.

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:36 am

LOL, that is awesome! I can totally see myself reading it that way too. A fictional World War II with swashbuckling Luftwaffe pirates that would engage in daring raids on B-17s making bombing runs over Germany would make an awesome game I must admit.

Xerkis · Post by **Xerkis** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:48 am

monkspider wrote:LOL, that is awesome! I can totally see myself reading it that way too. A fictional World War II with swashbuckling Luftwaffe pirates that would engage in daring raids on B-17s making bombing runs over Germany would make an awesome game I must admit.

Isn't that sort of what Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow kind of was????

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:34 am

Xerkis wrote: Isn't that sort of what Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow kind of was????

Jesus! That movie was quite hidden in my (not so long) memories, and probably wouldn't come up again until my death.
Thanks for remembering it.

Xerkis · Post by **Xerkis** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:50 am

VPaulus wrote:
Xerkis wrote: Isn't that sort of what Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow kind of was????

Jesus! That movie was quite hidden in my (not so long) memories, and probably wouldn't come up again until my death.
Thanks for remembering it.

Glad to be a help. It’s what I do – bring up distant obscure thoughts in to every day conversations.

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:47 pm

Nice article. I especially like the concluding comment*! It reminds us why we're playing Panzer Corps and not Armor Corps, Armour Corps or танк (?) Corps...

*) at least it is the last one right now. Quoting it in case something changes over there:

Anonymous wrote: The Sherman was a joke of a tank and any war historian, like myself, that is worth their salt agrees. The Pershing was another disaster of a tank, under powered and with poor armoring. Many people credit the T34 which I feel is credit undeserved. They were little more than guns on wheels; mass produced throw away tanks.

Truth be told, the USA didn't produce a SINGLE true tank until the M60. Why do I say this you ask? Simple. Durability and reliability. World War 2 era USA tanks were rolling deathtraps equipped with main guns that rarely even DENTED German armor.

The Panther, Tiger, King Tiger and I'm going to include the Jadgpanther and Jadgtiger as well, embodied something no tank or tank killer has ever done since. This something is a defining trait of what a tank is supposed to be and do.

Create fear.

The mention of Panther tanks in the area was almost immediately responded to by all Allied forces with an attempt to get numerical and positional advantage over them. Fear.

The presence of a Tiger tank usually resulted in pulling ALL armor out of the area and attempting to set up AT gun and infantry equipped with Bazookas, Recoilless Rifles and explosives with the intent of destroying the tank sneakily or at least crippling the tank. Fear once again.

Finally the King Tiger. The Germans almost NEVER used this in any kind of offensive way, due to its slow speed and the problems with the transmission. However, they were extremely fond of just parking one of these in a key village, or at a key bridge crossing with a small infantry detachment because they saw that the Allied response to spotting a King Tiger was almost always the same. AVOID THE AREA. Fear yet again.

A tank should embody certain concepts, none of which is "how fast can we make more" or "its very cheap to make". To be a tank it must embody these concepts -

1. Be able to destroy opposing armor
2. Protect its crew
3. Be a mobile or stationary threat
4. Create fear amongst the enemy

American tanks in WW2 fail at 1, 2, and 4.
Russian tanks in WW2 fail at 2, 3 and 4
British tanks in WW2 fail at 2 and 4.
Italian tanks in WW2 fail at 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Japanese tanks in WW2 fail at 2, 3, and 4.
German tanks succeed in all 4 areas.

Tanks have evolved from somewhat mobile gun and infantry forts into spearheading assaults. A tank being "disposable" because its "cheap" or "easy to mass produce" is not what makes a for a spearhead.

Shermans and T34s created a numerical advantage. Panthers and Tigers created genuine fear in the enemy with only their presence.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu
August 31, 2011 7:24 PM

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:53 pm

I have a suspicion that the author of that is not really a historian, otherwise he might have come to the conclusion that the 2 nations that "mass produced bad tanks" won the war....

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:29 pm

Numbers will always win in the end.
I do agree that the T-34 is overrated compared to its German counterparts since it seems the limitless numbers rather than its abilities was what made it so good. However even the Russians found the American tanks more rugged and easy to service compared to their own designs. I was always impressed that the Sherman had its transmission up front, it could be removed and replaced with a new or different one, send the tank off to shoot stuff up and repair that transmission to go into another vehicle. The Panther was a nightmare to service, even lubing the road wheels took days as each individual road wheel had to be removed since they overlapped.
Lets face it the US, Russian and German designs had their good points and bad points with the Germans being generally superior in capabilities in the end. Japan was restricted in tank design by limited manufacturing abilities and having to ship everything in cargo ships so the tanks had to fit in the ships hold. Restricted their turret size and the guns they could carry, victims of circumstances.