Excalibur Squadron OOC Thread

[Len Hyet]

Chester

Why not after the Duke of Wellington?

Your brother is in the Marines right?
Ask him

[The Two Jerseys]

Thanks. We just adopted a English Bulldog. Haven't decided on a name.

Chester or Winston
Only two names one can put on an English Bulldog
If someone argues get your brother onboard with the Chester name by saying Chesty.

Yeah, you really can't go wrong naming a bulldog after a British or American military leader. Personally I'd go with Smedley over Chesty, just to be different.

The other acceptable choice would be something stereotypically bulldog-ish like Spike or Sluggo.

[The balkens]

Why not after the Duke of Wellington?

Your brother is in the Marines right?
Ask him

Why? He is away and I cant contact him.

[Len Hyet]

Your brother is in the Marines right?
Ask him

Why? He is away and I cant contact him.

Well
1) I do enjoy the name Chester
2) It epitomizes the Bulldog
3) Most decorated Marine ever, Lewis "Chesty" Puller

[Kouralia]

Muggy and humid. But fun. I got a lot of future ES planning done.
And I'm sorry to hear about your family's dog.

Thanks. We just adopted a English Bulldog. Haven't decided on a name.

Obvs Douglas after Douglas Haig.

*nods*

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Thanks. We just adopted a English Bulldog. Haven't decided on a name.

Obvs Douglas after Douglas Haig.

*nods*

If you want your dog to be named after the living proof that all you need to succeed in the British officer corps is a smashing mustache, being unfailingly obstinate and stubborn at all costs and regardless of the actual circumstances, and an ability to honestly say (and have other people believe) that massively costly and pointless offensives that moved you a few yards ahead were actually victories...then Douglas is a good name.

[The balkens]

Obvs Douglas after Douglas Haig.

*nods*

If you want your dog to be named after the living proof that all you need to succeed in the British officer corps is a smashing mustache, being unfailingly obstinate and stubborn at all costs and regardless of the actual circumstances, and an ability to honestly say (and have other people believe) that massively costly and pointless offensives that moved you a few yards ahead were actually victories...then Douglas is a good name.

Brilliant.

[Kouralia]

Obvs Douglas after Douglas Haig.

*nods*

If you want your dog to be named after the living proof that all you need to succeed in the British officer corps is a smashing mustache, being unfailingly obstinate and stubborn at all costs and regardless of the actual circumstances, and an ability to honestly say (and have other people believe) that massively costly and pointless offensives that moved you a few yards ahead were actually victories...then Douglas is a good name.

Really?

REALLY?

He was a pioneer of military reform (being the champion of pre-WWI Reforms, and actively supporting the use of tanks), actually majorly cared for his men, wasn't in any way responsible for The Battle of The Somme (Oh look... A Victory!), and defeated the Germans.

On top of this, the guy who was responsible for the Somme, was also responsible for the Battle of Amiens.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

If you want your dog to be named after the living proof that all you need to succeed in the British officer corps is a smashing mustache, being unfailingly obstinate and stubborn at all costs and regardless of the actual circumstances, and an ability to honestly say (and have other people believe) that massively costly and pointless offensives that moved you a few yards ahead were actually victories...then Douglas is a good name.

Brilliant.

You...you really don't have to respond to everything I say as brilliant, balk. I know it's not.

If you want your dog to be named after the living proof that all you need to succeed in the British officer corps is a smashing mustache, being unfailingly obstinate and stubborn at all costs and regardless of the actual circumstances, and an ability to honestly say (and have other people believe) that massively costly and pointless offensives that moved you a few yards ahead were actually victories...then Douglas is a good name.

Really?

REALLY?

That is correct, yes.

He was a pioneer of military reform (being the champion of pre-WWI Reforms,

You're correct in that he was involved in those reforms but let's just say they weren't all ace ideas. Let's go to the wiki for a few quotes:
"As an intimate of (Secretary for War) Haldane, Haig was able to ensure high priority for cavalry, less for artillery, contrary to the advice of Lord Roberts (now retired as Commander-in-Chief) whose views were no longer very welcome because his campaign for conscription had made life hard for Haldane. Haig’s records of his time supervising artillery exercises show little interest in technical matters (aim, range, accuracy etc.)."

"He supervised publication of “Field Service Regulations”, which was later very useful in expanding the BEF in WW1, although it still stressed the importance of cavalry charging with sword and lance as well as fighting dismounted. At this time he was also completing a separate work, “Cavalry Studies” (on which topic Haig’s admiring biographer James Marshall-Cornwall later wrote that he was “not … among the prophets”[61]), and devoting much time to cavalry exercises."
Not exactly always a man of the times, then.
And also, I seem to recall that a major reason so many Brits and French died at the Somme was because of insufficient artillery bombardments, that apparently the Command assumed would both shatter the German barbed wire and collapse the bunkers and trenches...neither of which happened.

and actively supporting the use of tanks),

Talk about too little too late, frankly.
The man may have had a fondness for tanks, but on all the other avenues of military advancement (artillery, machine-guns...) he seemed a bit caught in the past to still be anticipating that cavalry saber charges were still going to be a thing. And that didn't help his men any when they had to charge into artillery bombardments that he hadn't sufficiently planned for.

actually majorly cared for his men,

That's like saying somebody who killed 600,000 pheasants in a shoot was very concerned about their welfare and health before he shot them.
It's nice, but it kinda comes to the same thing at the end of the day.

wasn't in any way responsible for The Battle of The Somme

Wait, what? He was the senor British officer involved on the whole European continent. I'm pretty sure he was pretty much running the British end of the plan.
From the wiki:
"In December 1915, General Sir Douglas Haig replaced General Sir John French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig favoured a British offensive in Flanders, close to BEF supply routes to drive the Germans from the Belgian coast and end the U-boat threat from Belgian waters.[1] Haig was not formally subordinate to Joffre but the British played a lesser role on the Western Front and complied with French strategy....British intentions evolved as the military situation changed after the Chantilly Conference. French losses at Verdun reduced the contribution available for the offensive on the Somme and increased the urgency for the commencement of operations on the Somme."

So as I interpret this, the Brits weren't the supreme commanders but they still had their own ideas and a great deal of independence, and strategy was a thing that wasn't dictated by either side, but that was agreed upon in concert. This also says that the idea for the Northern Offensive (the Somme) was Haig's original idea, and the French liked the idea (in order to draw off Germans from Verdun) and henceforth approved it.
So at best, you can say that the French were responsible for approving Haig's idea and letting him do it.

(Oh look... A Victory!),

...By what standard?
The Brits were gaining territory at a rate of literally, no exaggeration, one hundred thousand casualties a mile for three whole months. Was that turf that valuable? Were the German losses in the process (about 60% of Allied losses) worth that many British lives? By how much did it shorten the war? A year? A month? A week? If your goal is to literally kill the Germans regardless of any cost of your own, I guess it's a success, but you've can't just throw your men away like that on that scale. It may have ultimately strategically worked, but the plan was utter butchery. Those men who got slaughtered by the tens of thousands from emplaced positions that everyone knew were there - and that everyone knew hitting straight-on would be slaughter - deserved better than Haig's moronic plan.
If your men are nothing to you but numbers on a sheet of paper, the plan worked. If they're more than that, it was a catastrophe.

and defeated the Germans.

Just like how Zap Brannigan defeated the Killbot Race by throwing men at them to be mowed down until they reached their preset kill limit (that he didn't know about).
I have a hard time calling anything a victory when it costs you 50% more casualties than your enemy at the end of the day and you get six miles out of it in four months.
(Also, wait a second - you're saying firstly that Haig wasn't responsible for the Somme and blame the French for it, and then you turn around and defend Haig by saying it was a total victory. Which is it? Was it a French catastrophe, or Haig's victory? Can't have it both ways.)

On top of this, the guy who was responsible for the Somme, was also responsible for the Battle of Amiens.

So we're blaming Foch, I guess? You could at least do me the honor of naming your man.
Frankly, I'm not going to defend him (I have a hard time labelling any of the trench generals geniuses - funnily enough, of what I hear Petain of all people actually had it pretty well nailed down with the "prepared battlefield stuff", but don't quote me on that), but you seriously can't pin the Somme on the French. It was a British idea and plan through and through - specifically, Haig's idea - and from what I see, it may well have been the single blackest day in the history of the British Army.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:
The idea of an offensive at the Somme wasn't necessarily an idea doomed to failure.
The ultimate impact of Haig's offensive at the Somme was a German strategic loss.
However, I will not call it a British tactical or strategic victory.

The plan (as devised and effectively supervised by Haig) was simply an artless piece of sheer men-as-numbers-on-a-map butchery, created by a man with little interest (with one exception that didn't come into play here at all until the very, very end) in the actual mechanics of the battlefield he was sending out soldiers to fight in - uninterested in the mechanics and efficacy of artillery on barbed wire or fortifications, still fixated on the idea of the frontal charge as a key piece of tactical doctrine in the machine-gun age, and ultimately believing that throwing away lives on the scale of hundreds of thousands more than your enemy was okay as long as the proportions kinda sorta worked out.

And his men ended up paying for it.

[Morrdh]

Say what you will about Haig during WW1, but after the war the scale of losses sunk in and he ended up becoming a major patron for the welfare of WW1 veterans.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Say what you will about Haig during WW1, but after the war the scale of losses sunk in and he ended up becoming a major patron for the welfare of WW1 veterans.

All I've got to say to that is that he damn well better have.
Anyway, I'll do my best to get an IC post up tonight. It seems history arguments flow more easily to my typey fingers than RP stuff.

[Goram]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:
The idea of an offensive at the Somme wasn't necessarily an idea doomed to failure.
The ultimate impact of Haig's offensive at the Somme was a German strategic loss.
However, I will not call it a British tactical or strategic victory.

The plan (as devised and effectively supervised by Haig) was simply an artless piece of sheer men-as-numbers-on-a-map butchery, created by a man with little interest (with one exception that didn't come into play here at all until the very, very end) in the actual mechanics of the battlefield he was sending out soldiers to fight in - uninterested in the mechanics and efficacy of artillery on barbed wire or fortifications, still fixated on the idea of the frontal charge as a key piece of tactical doctrine in the machine-gun age, and ultimately believing that throwing away lives on the scale of hundreds of thousands more than your enemy was okay as long as the proportions kinda sorta worked out.

And his men ended up paying for it.

I don't intend to say much on this topic, I haven't got the time or the knowledge, but I do want to say this.

You could say that about virtually any First World War high level commander. They were, almost all of them, influenced by the idea of the "Cult of the Offensive", which was a major school of military thinking at the time. It dictated that the strength of the offensive was so overwhelming that the defended, regardless of the advantages he might hold, could not resist it. It also stresses that conquest is simple and that a force cannot gain an advantage by presenting a purely defensive posture. In the minds of WWI officers, especially those of the old school, you had to attack before the enemy did, else he'd be able, eventually, to break through.

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that to be false. As we all know the state of affairs between 1914-1917 favoured a defensive approach, with large scale offensives only becoming viable towards the end of the war, as technology and tactics gradually improved to allow for effective offensive action.

I'm not trying to say Haig was right. I'm rather on the fence about that and can see both sides of the argument. What I am saying is that his battlefield tactics are explainable from British Army, and indeed other military, theory at the time.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:
The idea of an offensive at the Somme wasn't necessarily an idea doomed to failure.
The ultimate impact of Haig's offensive at the Somme was a German strategic loss.
However, I will not call it a British tactical or strategic victory.

The plan (as devised and effectively supervised by Haig) was simply an artless piece of sheer men-as-numbers-on-a-map butchery, created by a man with little interest (with one exception that didn't come into play here at all until the very, very end) in the actual mechanics of the battlefield he was sending out soldiers to fight in - uninterested in the mechanics and efficacy of artillery on barbed wire or fortifications, still fixated on the idea of the frontal charge as a key piece of tactical doctrine in the machine-gun age, and ultimately believing that throwing away lives on the scale of hundreds of thousands more than your enemy was okay as long as the proportions kinda sorta worked out.

And his men ended up paying for it.

I don't intend to say much on this topic, I haven't got the time or the knowledge, but I do want to say this.

You could say that about virtually any First World War high level commander. They were, almost all of them, influenced by the idea of the "Cult of the Offensive", which was a major school of military thinking at the time.

Which is why it's kind of hard for me (and, I sense, the World War history nerd collective as a whole) to get as involved in comparisons and loyalties and rivalries with the WW1 generals as they do with Monty and Patton and the like. They were all kind of the same, in the end. And they were all beholden, perhaps not by their own personal beliefs but by the prevailing warfighting beliefs at the time, to fight in a way that didn't work.

It dictated that the strength of the offensive was so overwhelming that the defended, regardless of the advantages he might hold, could not resist it. It also stresses that conquest is simple and that a force cannot gain an advantage by presenting a purely defensive posture. In the minds of WWI officers, especially those of the old school, you had to attack before the enemy did, else he'd be able, eventually, to break through.

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that to be false. As we all know the state of affairs between 1914-1917 favoured a defensive approach, with large scale offensives only becoming viable towards the end of the war, as technology and tactics gradually improved to allow for effective offensive action.

I'm not trying to say Haig was right. I'm rather on the fence about that and can see both sides of the argument. What I am saying is that his battlefield tactics are explainable from British Army, and indeed other military, theory at the time.

I know they're explainable - Haig was far from the only one to command like this. I'm not trying to make a case for some other general of his era that I think was better, because precious few of those names can come to mind at all.
But I think he's likely the easiest to point the finger at for this sort of thinking and the consequences of it.

[Goram]

Forgot to mention this the other day. Went to Duxford, for the September airshow, about a week ago. Look who I found.

Apparently he managed to kill a 109 with a bayonet after all.

[Kouralia]

You're correct in that he was involved in those reforms but let's just say they weren't all ace ideas. Let's go to the wiki for a few quotes:
"As an intimate of (Secretary for War) Haldane, Haig was able to ensure high priority for cavalry, less for artillery, contrary to the advice of Lord Roberts (now retired as Commander-in-Chief) whose views were no longer very welcome because his campaign for conscription had made life hard for Haldane. Haig’s records of his time supervising artillery exercises show little interest in technical matters (aim, range, accuracy etc.)."

"He supervised publication of “Field Service Regulations”, which was later very useful in expanding the BEF in WW1, although it still stressed the importance of cavalry charging with sword and lance as well as fighting dismounted. At this time he was also completing a separate work, “Cavalry Studies” (on which topic Haig’s admiring biographer James Marshall-Cornwall later wrote that he was “not … among the prophets”[61]), and devoting much time to cavalry exercises."
Not exactly always a man of the times, then.
And also, I seem to recall that a major reason so many Brits and French died at the Somme was because of insufficient artillery bombardments, that apparently the Command assumed would both shatter the German barbed wire and collapse the bunkers and trenches...neither of which happened.

Although too much shrapnel was used in the bombardment, Haig was not entirely to blame for this: as early as Jan 1915 Haig had been impressed by evidence of the effectiveness of High Explosive shells and had demanded as many of them as possible from van Donop (Head of Ordnance in the UK).

Also, I believe cavalry featured heavily in '18, and indeed had featured in WWII.

Talk about too little too late, frankly.
The man may have had a fondness for tanks, but on all the other avenues of military advancement (artillery, machine-guns...) he seemed a bit caught in the past to still be anticipating that cavalry saber charges were still going to be a thing. And that didn't help his men any when they had to charge into artillery bombardments that he hadn't sufficiently planned for.

Oh, they planned sufficiently for them. If they hadn't been using crappy fuses and they'd been using the shells Haig asked for, I imagine it would have been much more peachy.

That's like saying somebody who killed 600,000 pheasants in a shoot was very concerned about their welfare and health before he shot them.
It's nice, but it kinda comes to the same thing at the end of the day.

I was focusing more on the fact that he was basically made to stop visiting the wounded men because he was upset too much by their plight to perform adequately.

Wait, what? He was the senor British officer involved on the whole European continent. I'm pretty sure he was pretty much running the British end of the plan.
From the wiki:
"In December 1915, General Sir Douglas Haig replaced General Sir John French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig favoured a British offensive in Flanders, close to BEF supply routes to drive the Germans from the Belgian coast and end the U-boat threat from Belgian waters.[1] Haig was not formally subordinate to Joffre but the British played a lesser role on the Western Front and complied with French strategy....British intentions evolved as the military situation changed after the Chantilly Conference. French losses at Verdun reduced the contribution available for the offensive on the Somme and increased the urgency for the commencement of operations on the Somme."

So as I interpret this, the Brits weren't the supreme commanders but they still had their own ideas and a great deal of independence, and strategy was a thing that wasn't dictated by either side, but that was agreed upon in concert. This also says that the idea for the Northern Offensive (the Somme) was Haig's original idea, and the French liked the idea (in order to draw off Germans from Verdun) and henceforth approved it.
So at best, you can say that the French were responsible for approving Haig's idea and letting him do it.

So, Haig was responsible for making Henry Rawlinson change from Haig's plan of a major break-through strike which would push into the German rear-areas and hopefully return it to a war of movement, to a plan of 'bite-and-hold' attrition warfare? And also forgot to delegate responsibility of the battle to the battle's commander, Henry Rawlinson?

...By what standard?

I do believe Erich Ludendorff's. Don't quote me on this (esp. as I'm unable to find a source for this (read: too lazy) and am working on the testimony of people whose relevant knowledge I respect hugely), but I believe it is a victory by the following standards:

• The Germans plan hinged on well trained troops who were primarily prepared pre-war. They died. The British plan did not hinge on slightly-trained recruits who died.
• The Germans were trying to 'bleed France white' by making them do a Stalingrad @ Verdun and lose their best, most professional troops (to the level that... Joffre... I think bellowed that if the British didn't attack then 'there would be no more French Army'. This naturally failed, the evidence for it being that France was still stabbing Germans in '17.
• In the east it wasn't going too well. The Somme prevented the Germans from *mumble, mumble*Austria*Mumble, mumble*Brisulov*Mumble, mumble*something.

The Brits were gaining territory at a rate of literally, no exaggeration, one hundred thousand casualties a mile for three whole months. Was that turf that valuable? Were the German losses in the process (about 60% of Allied losses) worth that many British lives? By how much did it shorten the war? A year? A month? A week? If your goal is to literally kill the Germans regardless of any cost of your own, I guess it's a success, but you've can't just throw your men away like that on that scale. It may have ultimately strategically worked, but the plan was utter butchery. Those men who got slaughtered by the tens of thousands from emplaced positions that everyone knew were there - and that everyone knew hitting straight-on would be slaughter - deserved better than Haig's moronic plan.

Which one: the one that didn't happen, or the one that was Henry Rawlinson's plan? Which part of the plan: the one that saw regular/TA companies sustaining something like 2% casualties and taking whole objectives, or the one that saw less-well-trained companies being wiped out on the instances they walked?

If your men are nothing to you but numbers on a sheet of paper, the plan worked. If they're more than that, it was a catastrophe.

All war is a catastrophe.

Just like how Zap Brannigan defeated the Killbot Race by throwing men at them to be mowed down until they reached their preset kill limit (that he didn't know about).
I have a hard time calling anything a victory when it costs you 50% more casualties than your enemy at the end of the day and you get six miles out of it in four months.

The French Army is infinitely more important than 6 miles.

(Also, wait a second - you're saying firstly that Haig wasn't responsible for the Somme and blame the French for it, and then you turn around and defend Haig by saying it was a total victory. Which is it? Was it a French catastrophe, or Haig's victory? Can't have it both ways.)

Most people seem to believe that Haig was running the Somme. It was Rawlinson's catastrophe, but again he is proven to not be a mong-tard via the Battle of Amiens.

So we're blaming Foch, I guess? You could at least do me the honor of naming your man.
Frankly, I'm not going to defend him (I have a hard time labelling any of the trench generals geniuses - funnily enough, of what I hear Petain of all people actually had it pretty well nailed down with the "prepared battlefield stuff", but don't quote me on that), but you seriously can't pin the Somme on the French. It was a British idea and plan through and through - specifically, Haig's idea - and from what I see, it may well have been the single blackest day in the history of the British Army.

No, we're blaming Henry Rawlinson.

[The Two Jerseys]

Forgot to mention this the other day. Went to Duxford, for the September airshow, about a week ago. Look who I found.

(Image)

Apparently he managed to kill a 109 with a bayonet after all.

I want proof, show the bayonet holes!

[Goram]

Forgot to mention this the other day. Went to Duxford, for the September airshow, about a week ago. Look who I found.

(Image)

Apparently he managed to kill a 109 with a bayonet after all.

I want proof, show the bayonet holes!

Mate, the bloody engine cover is off, clearly severed by Symthe's mighty blade! What more proof do you need.

[The Two Jerseys]

I want proof, show the bayonet holes!

Mate, the bloody engine cover is off, clearly severed by Symthe's mighty blade! What more proof do you need.

You mean the spinner? Please, that could have been Hans forgetting to tighten a bolt. Following this accusation, Hans was shot at dawn for his mechanical oversight.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

In response to Kour, because I don't feel like doing my usual routine of carving up a massive post:
First, i didn't know you were pinning it on Rawlinson. My bad. I'm certainly not going to go to his defense if that's actually the case - I barely know anything about him or the relations between those Generals during the war. I'm a WW2 man, after all.
Maybe all the Haig hatred is (partially) misplaced, and maybe I'm letting my overall disgust with the utter futility of the entire war as a whole all center on him (all war may be a catastrophe, but you've got to admit that WW1 just about takes the cake for pointlessness).
I saw the Ludendorff verdict, and I looked at the strategic results. Like I said, based on that, I'll say the Germans lost, but I can't say that the Brits won with any real belief in it.
In short, let's just say I generally don't find much to defend at all about WW1 generals due to the horrific and almost uniquely pointless nature of the war. It doesn't hold my interest like many other such wars do, and I'll admit I'm not the most learned about the land campaigns (the naval stuff though, I think I'm pretty good with).
In shorter short, I'm willing to let the debate lie.

Especially in light of this, which I just discovered:

Chateau de Miramont
January 7th, 1941

Konrad peeped it, his thugged-out anger n' frustration writ big-ass all over his wild lil' face, as tha ragged, emaciated, bobbin, baldheaded wretch whoz ass used ta be Konradz nemesis was dragged outta his cell once again, sbustin hoarsely n' blindly strugglin every last muthafuckin inch of tha way.

He'd failed. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! Despite all of tha effort he'd put in, all tha lyrics of tha doctors, n' all tha favors he'd called in, all of it had effectively been fo' naught. Page hadn't fucked up under tha strain, either cuz of sheer physical abuse or ta tha attempts ta subvert his beliefs n' his will indirectly. Da thangs up in dis biatch from tha rest of Excalibur had been less than satisfyin as well. But he'd always known dat they was secondary objectives - from what tha fuck Konrad could tell bout how tha fuck Excalibur, they shifted all up in they rosta at a funky-ass blindin pace, never goin tha fuck into combat wit tha same rosta fo' too long, either cuz of attrizzle or transfers. Page was tha constant, tha one thread dat could pull tha whole edifice of Excaliburz operations - n' what tha fuck they knew - straight-up apart.

He'd had such grand plans fo' Page fo' realz. Aside from tha wealth of shiznit Konrad knew dat schmoooove muthafucka had locked up inside his dome bout tha SOE, they workings, n' no diggity all sortz of dirty lil secrets n' inflammatory details bout all Excaliburz operations, he'd hoped Page would peep tha light of they freshly smoked up Reich, n' realize dat shiznit was up in his dopest interests ta not only give dem what tha fuck they wanted ta know yo, but ta straight-up collaborate wit they vision fo' Europe n' fo' tha ghetto. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! But all tha logic n' reasonin Konrad had, backed by da most thugged-out fucked up instruments dat playa had eva invented ta soften Page up, not a god damn thang had chizzled. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! Da playa had remained resolute.

http://www.gizoogle.net/index.php

I...I...
...how dare you?
...HOW DARE YOU?!

[Tiltjuice]

And Gizoogle has now hit all 3 pillars of P2TM. It started with Elfen High. Then it was brought to us in Personification Life. Now you Excaliburs have a taste of it.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

And Gizoogle has now hit all 3 pillars of P2TM. It started with Elfen High. Then it was brought to us in Personification Life. Now you Excaliburs have a taste of it.

ONE OF MY BEST ONE-SHOTS - GUTTED AND DEFACED BY THIS PROFANE...THING!
I CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK UPON IT!

*starts blubbering uncontrollably with rage*
(also, we're a pillar now? YAY!)

[Tiltjuice]

And Gizoogle has now hit all 3 pillars of P2TM. It started with Elfen High. Then it was brought to us in Personification Life. Now you Excaliburs have a taste of it.

ONE OF MY BEST ONE-SHOTS - GUTTED AND DEFACED BY THIS PROFANE...THING!
I CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK UPON IT!

*starts blubbering uncontrollably with rage*
(also, we're a pillar now? YAY!)

There there, have a penguin. And also...

They have pillars too. *nods*

Pillars for everyone! Pillar pillar pillar autumn pillage!

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Also, in case it wasn't clear, you guys can go ahead and clear the upper floor. Seriously, I was angling to give you guys some Krauts to kill in the upstairs. Go for it. I can't even post until they're gone.

[The balkens]

What? just toss a grenade up there and clear it out?