Profile of MajorBloodnok

........... god do i wish 'scripts didn't think it was the friggin hammer toss or something before chucking 'em...

That's what enables you to make the 'molo fake'

Epic necro

If you're looking for teammates, try this

http://www.coh2.org/topic/27841/looking-for-mates-to-play-with-thread

If not, then I will explain that the Mentor system has fallen into disuse, bcs

• there are many streamers who will explain the game as they progress in a match
  
• some steamers like Siberian, or Romeo, select replays and comment upon them in Twitch
  
• some of our streamers will occasionally play against one of their subscribers, and give feedback
  
• our youtube casters often select matches and comment upon what may have gone awry
  
• you can pick up several useful guidelines from members, if you post in the relevant Army section, a replay of a loss where you do not understand where you went wrong - or a narrow loss, where you seek advice as to improvement
  
• some clans have 'improvement systems', where mentoring is encouraged e.g. the Bears

For all these reasons, I regret that a formal mentoring system is currently low on the list of priorities

the replay section isn't for exposing players you don't like.

+1

And frankly, there is not much to dislike about El Dad, that we don't already know.

Based on the chat, I am not watching this vid.

.......................


As far as classical, operational military history is concerned, the discipline unsurprisingly took an utter nosedive post war; in fact, to say it was not en vogue would be to understate the matter considerably. Topics [Edit] such as these not only received little to no funding, but were also considered politically sensitive - as in: outright tainted - and considered a career dead end - they still are, to a point. Making a heartfelt interest in military matters known would be a very unwise move to say the least if you wanted to ever receive tenure.

Whilst I understand what you say, I doubt if the position was very different in UK until the early 90s (but I do not work in academia). The UK military had their military historians at Sandhurst - I was always of the impression (probably wrongly) that they were slightly frowned upon by the UK academic history establishment.' (One of our university tutors on British Empire history was ex-Sandhurst history staff - he seemed to have bridged the gap). The late John Keegan might be a better example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan

A very far cry ie. from US (or in fact, anglo in general) university culture, where military history chairs are par from the course even in provincial unis. In consequence, the overwhelming majority of scholarship and expertise concerning "German" 20th century military issues came out of the Anglo world, and this is still where some of the leading authorities reside. (Zuber, Citino, etc etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_War_Studies,_King%27s_College_London

This was, iirc, the lead UK Uni department for War Studies at that time, but (assuming Wiki to be accurate on this occasion), you can see an undergraduate department was not set up there until the early '90s

That being said, even throughout the 60s/70s/80s where the tendencies I described were at their zenith, their still always was at least a trickle of quality germanophone scholarship, however, this tended to come from outside the academic "establishment", was published in very limited numbers, was rarely if ever translated, and therefore received very little international - or domestic - exposure. The Zeitgeist, if you will, clearly frowned on the matter

.

From my limited recollection, Fritz Fischer was an historian who commanded international respect - but that was for WW1. A brief google suggests that both Zuber and Citino are comparatively 'modern'.

Nowadays the situation has actually greatly improved, to the point where "German" scholarship has pulled considerably ahead in some respects, the PoW question being a case in point, but this still is very insular and has a very limited audience; as evidenced by the fact that you will not find ie. a German Stephen Ambrose/Hastings/Glantz etc. whose reach not only greatly transcends academia, but whose publications are actually more geared towards the broader public.

Which pulls me in another direction and off-topic,but how far can Hastings/Ambrose /Beevor be regarded as mainstream academic historians? Or, the late Richard Holmes http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/01/richard-holmes-obituary. Or Prof Caddick-Adams, who made the Ardennes video? He stated that his study was the first fresh review for 20 years

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/about/people-and-resources/academic-profiles/cds-ac-profile/dr-peter-ap-caddick-adams.html

And yet, there is this publication, apparently highly lauded, only 10 years old.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Bulge-Ardennes-Offensive-1944-1945/dp/0306813912

And this may be a convenient point to draw a line in the sand, before personal duels start in real earnest.

You can PM each other, in order to play a game for the ultimate play-off